Primary Agriculture Co-operative Society Limited Nancherla V. Office of the Income Tax Officer, WARR-2, Karimnagar, Telangana State 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, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi

WP/5358/2024

AI Insights

The case involves the Primary Agriculture Co-operative Society Limited Nancherla, which filed a writ petition against the Income Tax Department and other respondents challenging the orders passed for the assessment year 2019-20. The petitioner argued that the reassessment and subsequent notices were issued under the unamended provisions of the Income Tax Act, which was contrary to the legal requirements that came into effect on April 1, 2021. The court referenced a previous judgment in a similar batch of writ petitions, where it was held that the jurisdictional issues raised were valid, leading to the quashing of the notices and orders.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 795235 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 29-02-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Ashish Agarwal
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961, Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: SUNDARI PISUPATI; GADI KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: THANNERU KUMAR
• Keywords: Assessment Year 2019-20; Faceless assessment; Income Tax; Natural Justice; Writ of Mandamus
• Section: 147; 148; 148A; 226; 144(8)

Judgement Text

"[ 337e ] HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P,SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION NO: 5358 OF 2024 Between: PRIMARY AGRICULTURE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIIV1ITED NANCHERLA, represented by its Secretary of the Society Routhu Madhukar S/o. Routhu lVlallaiah aged about 48 years, PRIIVARY AGRICULTURE CO- OP, NANCHERLA POST and VILL PEGADAPALLY MDL KARIN/NAGAR DIST 505532, Telangana PAN. AABAP7426[V| Assessment Year. 2019-20 ...PETITIONER AND 1 OFFICE OF THE INCOIVIE TAX OFFICER, WARR-2, KARIIVNAGAR, Telangana State. 2. The Principal Chief Commissroner of lncome Tax, Telangana and A.P, Hyderabad, lT Towers, AC Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad - 500 028, Telangana. 3. The Central Board of Direct Taxes, Represented by its Chairman, Department of Revenue, I ,4inistry of Finance, Government of lndia, Secretariat Buildings, New Delhi - 110 001. 4. The National Faceless Assessment Center, lncome Tax Department, New Delhi. 5. The Union Of lndia, Represented By lts Secretary, to The Government, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance New Delhi ...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 pa(icularly one in the nature of Writ of l zlandamus, declaring the impugned order for A.Y. 2019-20 passed u/147 r/w Section 144-8 of the lncome Tax Act, 1961 vide DIN and Notice No.dated O8-O2-2O24 in ITBA lASTlsl14712023-2411060646066(.1 ) for the i j i ; i I I assessment year 2019-20 determining the totar income of Rs. 7,32,6g,S7gl_and the consequentiar notice u/s 148 Dt. 23-03-2023 in ,rBA/AST /5/148 112022- 23/1o51153010 (1)issued by the JAO(1st respondenr) insread \", iOOiarO respondent), as void, illegal, and contrary to the provisions of lncome_tax Act and contrary to the principles of Natural Justice. Counsel for the petitioner: SRI THANNERU CHAITANYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 4: M/s. SUNDARI R.plSUpATl, Sr SC for lncome Tax Dept Counsel for the Respondent No.s: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUTY SOLICITOR OCr,rCNiEr- OF INDIA The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.5358 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. Pasupati, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department for respondents. Perused the material available on record. 2. The instalt Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner under Articl e 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief; \"...to issue an appropriate writ, order or directron more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned order for A.Y. 2Ol9-2O passed under Section 147 read. with Section 144-8 of the Income Tax Act 1961 vide DIN and Notice, dated o8lo2/2o24 in ITBA IAST/SIl47 I 2023-24 /1060646066(1) for the assessment year 2Ol9-2O determining the total income of Rs.7,32,68,578/ - and the consequential notice under Section 148, d.ated 2310312023 in ITBA/AST/ S/t48 ll2022-2311O5t is301O(1) issued by theJAO (1\"t respondent) instead of FAO (3'd respondent) as void, illegal and contrary to the provisions of Income tax Act and contrary to the Principles of Natural Justice.. .\" // f e in One of the contentions that the petitioner has raised the present Writ Petition is that under the amended 2 PSICJ da IV1IR,J W.P.No.5358 of 2024 provisions of the Act which came into effect from Ol.O4.2O2l, the respondents, while proceeding under Section 148 of the Act, were required to issue notice under Section 148A and provide arr 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 instant case, reopening has been initiated by the Jurisdictional Assessing Ofhcer. 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 disposed 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 batch of Writ Petitions. However, he further contended that apart from the aforesaid objection, there have been other various objections a,lso which the petitioner has raised in the rvrit petition. 3 t PSK,J & NTR,J IV.P.,lYo.5358 of 2024 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 objectton raised by the petitioner is sustained and all these wit petttions stands allouted on this uery juisdictional issue. Since the impugned notices and orders are getting quashed on the point of jurisdiction, u.te are not inclined to proceed further and decide the other issues ralse d by the petitioner tuhich stands reserued to be raised and contended in an approprtate proceeding s.' \"38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in tLLe case of Ashish Agarutal, supra, as a one-time measure exercising the potuers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, permitted the Reuenue to proceed under the substituted prouisions, and thi.s Court allowing the petitions only on the procedural flau, tLe ight confened on the Reuenue tuould remain reserued to proceed further tf theg so Laant from the stage of tlle order of the Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Agaru.tal, supra.\" 7. In view of the same, we are inclined to allow the present writ petition also on similar terms. Accordingly, the present Writ Petition stands allowed on the objection of the petitioner that the proceedings have not been drawn in 4 PSK,J & NTR,J IV.P.JVo.5358 oJ 2O24 accordance with the arnended provision but under the un-amended provision which is otherwise not sustainable. B. As has been held by this Bench in the aforesajd batch matters, the right of the parties would stand reserved as is envisaged at paragraph Nos.37 & 3g of the said order passed in the batch of writ petitions. No order as to costs. 9. Consequently, miscellaleous petitions pending, if any shall stand closed. SD/- P. PADMANABHA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER 1. OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARR-2, KARIIMNAGAR, Telangana State. 2. The Principal Chief Commissioner of lncome Tax, Telangana and A-P, Hyderabad, lT Towers, AC Guards, ltrlasab Tank, Hyderabad - 500 028, Telangana. 3. The Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of lndia, Secretariat Buildings, New Delhi - 110 001. 4. The National Faceless Assessment Center, lncome Tax Department, New Delh i. 5. The Secretary, to The Government, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi, Union Of lndia, 6. One CC to SRI THANNERU CHAITANYA KUIVAR, Advocate [OPUC] 7. One CC to [r4/s. SUNDARI R.PISUPATI, Sr SC for lncome Tax Dept [OPUC] B. One CC to SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERIAL OF lND|A, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OPUC] 9- Two CD Copies To, BSR KKS Luv HIGH COURT DATED: 2910212024 ORDER WP.No.5358 of 2024 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS ($rr-tv,..,., \"tt, -./ / , / $' "