Primary Agricultural Coop Credit Society Limited, Ellanthakunta V. Office of The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1, Karimnagar and The Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax - Telangana and A.P., Hyderabad and The Central Board of Direct Taxes, Represented by its Chairman and The National Faceless Assessment Center, Income Tax Department, New Delhi and The Union of India, Represented by its Secretary to the Government, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance

WP/5629/2024

AI Insights

The case involves the Primary Agricultural Coop Credit Society Limited, represented by its Secretary, challenging an income tax assessment order for the assessment year 2018-19. The petitioner argued that the order was arbitrary, illegal, and violated principles of natural justice, among other legal provisions. The assessment was completed under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, but the petitioner contended that the procedures mandated by the amended provisions of the Act, effective from April 1, 2021, were not followed. The court referenced a previous judgment where similar jurisdictional issues were addressed, leading to the quashing of the assessment orders.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 672771 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 04-03-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Ashish Agarwal
• Laws Referred To: Constitution of India, Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: SUNDARI PISUPATI
• Assessee Lawyers: THANNERU KUMAR
• Keywords: Faceless assessment; Income tax assessment; Jurisdiction; Natural Justice; Writ of Mandamus
• Section: 147; 148; 14; 148A; 1448; 265; 226; 19(1)(q)

Judgement Text

"[ 337e ] HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION NO: 5629 OF 2024 Between: Primary Agricultural Coop Credit Society Limited., Ellanthakunta, represented by its Secietary of the Society Chitti Ravinder Reddy, S/o: Vittal Reddy, aged aboul 47 years, Primary Agricultural Coop Credit Society Limited , 2-25114, Ellanthakuhta, Karimnagar, Karimnagar 505402, Telangana, lndia PAN. AABAPS12 l F Assessment Year. 2018-1 9 ...PETITIONER AND 1 Office of The Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax, Circle 1 , Karimnagar Telangana State. The Principal Chief Commissioner of lncome Tax -Telangana and A.P., Hyderabad, lT Towers, AC Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad - 500 028, Telangana. The Central Board of Direct Taxes, Represented by its Chairman, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of lndia, Secretariat Buildings, New Delhi - 1 10 001 . The National Faceless Assessment Center, lncome Tax Department, New Delhi. The Union of lndia, Represented by its Secretary to the Government, Department of Revenue, N/inistry of Finance, New Delhi - 1 10 001 . .:.RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the order passed by the lncome Tax Authorities (National Faceless E-Assessment Centre completed the assessment UIS 147 r/w Section 144-8 of the lncome Tax Act, 1961 vide DIN and Notice , 4 q No.dated 3O-O1-2024 in ITBAJAST/Si14712023-2411060279365(1) for the assessment year 2018-19 determining the total income of Rs. 13,24,63,143/-as arbitrary, illegal, bad in law, without jurisdiction, void-ab-initio. violative of the principles of natural .lustice apart from being violative of Articles I a, 1 9(1 Xg) and 265 of the Constitution of lndia and Sec '148A of the lncome Tax Act, 1961, and consequently set aside the same in the interests of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI THANNERU CHAITANYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: SUNDARI R PISUPATI (Sr SC for lncome Tax Dept) The Court made the following: ORDER I THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.5629 OF 2024 ORDER:1per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.SAM KOSHY) Heard Mr.T.Chaitanya Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.Sundari R. Pisupati, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department for respondents. Perused the material available on record. 2. The instant Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for the following relief: \"to issue on oppropriote writ order or direction more pdrticulorly one in the noture of Writ ol Mondomus declaring the order possed by the lncome Tox Authorities Notionol Foceless E-Assessment Centre completed the ossessment U/s 147 r/w Section 1448 of the lncome Tox Act 1961 vide DIN ond Notice No.doted 30.01.2024 in ITBA/AS|/S/147/2023 24/1060279365(1) for the ossessment yeor 2018- 19 determining the totol income of Rs.13,24,63,14i/ -os drbitrory, illegal, bod in low, without jurisdiction, void ob initio, violotive oI the principles of noturol justice oport from being violotive of Articles 14, 19(1)(q) ond 265 of the Constitution of lndio ond Sec 148A of the lncome Tox Act 1967 ond consequently set oside the some in the interests of justice\". 2 PSI(,J & JVTR,J W.P.No.5629 of 2O24 3. One of the contentions that the petitioner has raised in the present Writ Petition is that under the amended provision s of the Act which came into effect from Ol .04.2021 , the respondents, while proceeding under Section i48 ol the Act, were required to issue notice under Section 14BA and provide an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. As per the amended provision of law, the proceedings to be drawn are also in a faceless manner. 4. Whereas, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, in the instalt case, reopening has been initiated by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. In support of his contention, he relied upon the recent judgment rendered by this very Bench in WP.No.259O3 of 2022 &, batch, dated 14.O9 .2023 wherein this Court disoosed of the batch of writ petitions to the limited extent. 5. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Department does not dispute that the said objection was decided in the aforesaid bal ch of Writ Petitions. However, he further contended that apart from the aforesaid objection, there have been other various i F 3 PSK,J & NTR,.I w.P.No.s529 of 2024 objections also which the petitioner has raised in the writ petition. 6. So far as this contention of the learned counsel for the respondent-Department is concerned, this Bench, while disposing of said batch of writ petitions, had taken note of the same at paragraph Nos.37 & 38 which are reproduced herein under: \"37. The preliminary objection roised by tte petitioner is sustained and all these turit petitions stands alloued on this uery jurisdictional issue. Since the impugned notices ond orders ore getting quashed on the point of juisdiction, u)e are not inclined to proceed further and decide the other issues roised by the petitioner which stands reserued to be raised and contended in an ap p ro p riate p roce eding s. \" \"38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the case of Ashish Agarutal, supra, ds a one-time meosure exercising the pouters under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, permitted the Reuenue to proceed under tLrc substituted prouisions, ond this Court allowing tlrc petitions only on the procedural Jlau, the ight confened on the Reuenue Luould remoin reserued to proceed further if theg so u.tant from the stage of the order of the Supreme Court in tle case of Ashish Agaruta| supra.\" 7. In view of the same, we a-re inclined to allow the present writ petition also on simiiar terms. Accordingly, the present Writ Petition stands allowed on the objection of the a:: 4 PSI(,J & ]V?R,J W.P.No.5629 of 2024 petitioner that the proceedings have not been drarvn in accordance u,ith the amended provision but under the un-alnended provision which is otherwise not sustainable. 8. As has been held by this Bench in the aforesaid batch matters, the rights of the parties u,ould stand reserved as is envisaged at paragraph Nos.37 & 38 ol the said order passed in the batch of writ petitions. No order as to costs. Consequently, misceilaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ,TRUE COPY// SD/.K.SREERAMA MURTHY ASSISTANT REGIS-TRAR V SECTION OFFICER To, TJ KKS 1. Office of The Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax, Circle l,Karimnagar Telangana State. 2. The Principal Chief Commissioner of lncome Tax -Telangana and A.P., Hyderabad, lT Towers, AC Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad - 500 028, Telangana. 3. The Chairman, The Central Board of Direct Taxes, Department of Revenue, tVinistry of Finance, Government of lndia, Secretariat Buildings, New Delhi - 110 001. 4. The National Faceless Assessment Center, lncome Tax Department, New Delhi. 5. The Secretary to the Government, The Union of lndia, Department of Revenue, Ivlinistry of Finance, New Delhi - 110 001. 6. One CC to Sri Thanneru Chaitanya Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] 7. One CC to Sri Sundari R Pisupati (Sr SC for lncome Tax Dept) [OPUC] B. Two CD Copies v j HIGH COURT DATED:0410312024 ORDER WP.No.5629 of 2024 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS. -, r HE I4: 3 0 t'tAY 2024 : ( , l.i.. . !..,_;.i:ir. l lri -- "