Quasim Imran Hussain Syed V. Union of India

WP/3285/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Quasim Imran Hussain Syed, the petitioner, challenging multiple notices and orders issued by various income tax authorities under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner argued that these actions were taken under the un-amended provisions of the Act, which do not comply with the requirements for faceless assessments and proper notice as mandated by the amendments effective from April 1, 2021. The court referenced a similar batch of writ petitions (WP.No.25903 of 2022 & batch) where it had previously ruled on the jurisdictional issues raised by the petitioner. The court's decision in this case aligns with its earlier judgment, allowing the writ petition on the grounds of procedural non-compliance with the amended Act.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 685169 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 08-02-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Ashish Agarwal
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: CADL KUMAR; SUNDARI R PISUPATI; J V PRASAD
• Assessee Lawyers: V ANEESH
• Keywords: Faceless assessment; Income Tax; Jurisdictional issue; Procedural Flaw; Writ of Mandamus
• Section: 147; 148; 142(1); 143(2); 148A(b); 148A(d)

Judgement Text

"[ 337e ] HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY,THE EIGHTH 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: 3285 OF m24 Between: Quasim lmran Hussain Syed, S/o Shri Syed Aktar Hussain, aged about 36 years,Occ. Business No 19-4-2781N20/1, NEwab Saheb Kunta, Charminar, Falaknuma S.O. Charminar, Hyderabad-500053 ...'ET'T'ONER AND 'l . Union of lndia, Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi Represented by its Secretary 2. Principal Chief Commissioner, of lncome Tax, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad - 500004 3. Office of lncome Tax Officer, lncome Tax Department, Ward 8(1), Signature Towers, Sy. No. 6(P) of Kondapur, Sy, 37(P) ofKothaguda, Opp. Botanical Gardens, Serlingampally (M), R.R. District, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500084 4. Office of lncome Tax Officer, lncome Tax Department, Ward 9(1 ), l.T. Towers, A.C. Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500004 5. National Faceless Assessment Centre, lncome Tax Department, Room No.401 , 2nd Floor, E-Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, Delhi-1 10003 ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of lhe 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, direction more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the Notice dated 03.03.2023 issued by Respondent No.-4 under Section 148A(b) of the lncome Tax Act, 1961 (Act), Notice dated 17.03.2023 issued by Respondent No.3 under Section 148A(b) of the Act, Order dated 30.03.2023 passed by Respondent No.3 under Section 148A(d) of the Act, Notice dated 31 .O3.2O23 issued by the Respondent No. 3 under Section 148 of the Act, Notice dated 06.07.2023 issued by the Respondent No. 5 under Section 143(2) Rlw Section 147 of the Act, Notice dated 03.08.2023 issued by the Respondent No. 5 under Section 142(1) of the Act, Notice daied 29.11.2023 issued by lhe Respondent No. 5 under Section 1a2() of the Act and all the consequential proceedings as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the lncome Tax Act, 1961. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the operation of the Notice dated 03.03.2023 issued by Respondent No. 4 under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (\"Act\"), Notice dated 17.O3.2023 iSsued by Respondent No. 3 under Section 148A(b) of the Act, Order dated 30.03.2023 passed by Respondent No.3 under Section 148A(d) of the Act, Notice dated 31 .03.2023 issued by the Respondent No. 3 under Section '148 of the Act, Notice dated 06.O7.2023 issued by the Respondent No. 5 under Section 143(2) Rlw Section 147 ot the Act, Notice dated 03.08.2023 issued by the Respondent No. 5 under Section 142(1) of lhe Act, Notice dated 29.11.2023 issued by the Respondent No. 5 under Section 142(1) ot the Actand all the consequential proceedings pending the consideration of this Writ Petition by this Hon'ble Court, in the interests of justice and equity. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. V. ANEESH Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI cADl PRAVEEN KUMAR Dy. SOLICITOR GEN. OF INDIA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2to3: M/s. SUNDARI R PISUPATI (Sr SC for lncome Tax Dept) Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4to5: SRI J.V. PRASAD, SC FOR INCOME TAX The Court made the following: ORDER /' THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE TIONOURABLE SRI WSTICE N.TUXARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.3285 oF 2o24 ORDER: Qter Hon'ble Si Justice P.SA.Ifi KOSHY) The instant Writ Petition has been tiled by the petitioner under Articl e 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for the following reliel \"...to issue a Writ of Mandamus or ang otLer appropiate Writ Order or Direction declaing the Notice doted 03.O3.2O23 issued bg the respondent No.4 under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 fAd'), Notice dated 17.03.2023 issued bg respondent No.3 under Section 148A(b) of tte Act, Order dated 30.03.2023 passed bg respondent No.3 under Section 148A(d) of the Act, Notice dated 31.03.2023 i.ssued bg respondent No.3 under Section 148 of tte Act, Notice dated 06.O7.2O23 issrrcd bg the respondent No.S under Section 143(2) R/w Section 147 of the Act, Notice dated O3.O8.2O23 issued by the respondent NO.S under Section H2(1) of tle Act, Notie dated 29.11.2023 issued bg the respondent No.S under Section H2(1) of the Act atud all the consequential proceedings as illegal, arbitrary and antrary to the proui.sions of the Income Tax Act, 1961\". 2. One of the contentions that the petitioner has raised in the present Writ Petition is that under the amended provisions of the Act which czune into effect from OL.O4.2O2|, the respondents, while proceeding under Section ta€- gltle Act, were required to issue notice under /L 2 PST,J & MTR,J W.P.No.S285 of 2024 Section l48A and provide an opportunit5r of hearing to the assessee. As per the amended provision of law, the proceedings to be draum are also in a faceless manner. 3. Whereas, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, in the instart 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 disposed of the batch of writ petitions to the limited extent. 4. 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 also which the petitioner has raised in the writ petition. 5. 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 3 ) PSK,J66 lIr&J w.P.No.3285 o;f 2O24 the same at paragraph Nos.37 & 38 which are reproduced herein under: \"37. TLE preliminary objection raised bg the petitioner is sustained ond. all these tuit petition s stonds allou.pd on this uery jurisdictional issue. Since tLrc impugned notices and orders are getting quo.shed on tLe point of juri.sdiction, u)e are not inclined to proeed furttter and decide tle oth.er i.ssues raised bg the petitioner uhich stands resented to be raised and antended in an appropriate p roeeding s. \" \"38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in th.e case of Ashish Aganoal, stpra, as a one-time measure exercising the pouers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, permitted tle Reuenue to proceed under the substituted prouisions, and thi.s Court ollotuing tle petitions onlg on tle procedural fiaw, tle ight anfened on the Reuenue toould remain reserued to proceed furtler if tleg so want from tle stoge of tLLe order of the Supreme Court in tlte case of Ashish Agarwal, supra.\" 6. In view of the szune, 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 accordance w'ith the amended provision but under the un-amended provision which is otherwise not sustainable. 7. As has been held by this Bench in the aforesaid batch matters, the rights of the parties would stand reserved as is 4 To, SECTION OFFICER 1. The SecretaT.l]n,.o! of tndia., Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi 2. The. Principat Chief Commissioner,. of-lncome Tax, nayat