Rajendar Reddy Chitla V. Income Tax OfficerWard-1

WP/7362/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Rajendar Reddy Chitla, the petitioner, challenging the assessment order issued by the Income Tax Officer under the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2016-17. The petitioner argued that the reassessment was initiated by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of the Faceless Assessment Unit, and that the procedures followed were contrary to the amended provisions of the Act which came into effect on 01.04.2021. The respondents included the Income Tax Officer, the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, and the National Faceless Assessment Centre. The court's decision referenced a previous judgment involving similar issues, highlighting the procedural requirements that were not met in this case.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 694178 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 21-03-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Ashish Agarwal
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: J V PRASAD
• Assessee Lawyers: MANMOHAN DUNDU
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Faceless assessment; Income Tax; Natural Justice; Writ of Mandamus
• Section: 147; 148; 149; 151; 148A; 226

Judgement Text

"[ 337e ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION NO: 7362 OF 2024 Between: Rajendar Reddy Chitla, S/o Janardhan Reddy, Aged about 62 Years, Occ. Business, 12-1-500/RS/803/905, Sahabhavana Township,Rajiv Swagruha, Anand Nagar,Bandlaguda, tuledchal IValkajgiri, Telangana - 500068 ...PETITIONER AND 1 lncome Tax OfficerWard-1 , Warangal, D.No. 1-8-610, 3rd Floor, Mayuri Complex, Opp. TSNPDCL Bhawan, Nakkalagutta, Hanamkonda, Warangpl, Telangana, 506001 The Principal Chief Commissioner Of lncome Tax Ap And Ts, 1Oth Floor, C- Block, l.T. Towers, 10-2-3, A.C. Guards, Hyderabad-500004. 3. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, The Assessment Unit, lncome Tax Department, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, tVinistry of Finance, Room No. 4O1 ,2nd Floor, E-Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, Delhi-1 '10003. .,.RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of India 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 Assessment Order dt.22lO2l2024passed by the 3rdrespondent u/s 147 r.w.s'l448 of the lncome-tax Act for A.Y. 2016-17 vide DIN No. ITBA/AST|S|14712023- 2411061371277(1), consequent to the order passed u/s 148A(d) dt.28lo3l2o23 vide DIN No. ITBA/AST/F/148A12022-2311051500515(1) and notice u/s 148 dt.29lO3l2O23 vide DIN No.ITBA/AST/S/143 112022- 2311051615709(1), issued by the JA0(1st 2 respondent) instead of FAO(3rd respondent), that too contrary to provisions of section 149of the Act,as void, illegal, and contrary to the provisions of lncome-tax Act and contrary to the Principles of Natural Justice. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section '1 5'l CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to stay all further proceedings pursuant to the Assessment Order dt.22.O2.2}24passed by the 3rdrespondent u/s '147 r.w.sl 448 of the lncome-tax Act for A.Y. 2016-17 vide DIN No. ITBA/ASTlsl147l2.023-24h061371277(1)'and may pass such other orde(s) as the Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the interests of substantial iustice, as otheruvise the Petitioner would be put to irreparable loss and severe injury. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI MANMOHAN DUNDU Counsel for the Respondents: SRI J.V.PRASAD (SC FOR INCOME TAX) The Gourt made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTTCE P.SAM KOSTTY AND THE HONOURABLT SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI wRIT PETITION NO.7362 OF 2024 ORDER: (per Hon'ble Si Justice P.SAM KOSHY) Heard Mr.Malmohan Dundu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.J.V.Prasad, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department for respondents' Perused the material available on record. 2. The instant Writ Petition has been frled by the petitioner under Articl e 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for the following relief: \"to issue on oppropriote writ order or direction more porticularly one in the noture oJ Writ ol Mondomus decloring the Assessment Order dt' 22.02.2024 possed by the 3rdrespondent u/s 747 r.w.s' 7448 ol the tncome tox Act for A.Y.2076-77 vide DtN No. ITBA/AST/S/747/2023- 24/1061371277(1-) consequent to the order possed u/s 148A(d) dt' 28.03.202j vide DtN No. BA/AST/F/148A/202223/1051s00515(1) ond notice u/s 148 dt.29.03.2o23 vide DtN N}.ITBA/AST/5/148-1/2022- 23/1057615709(7) issued by the 1A0(7't respondent) insteod of FA1(j'd respondent) that too controry to provisions of section 149 of the Act os void illegol and controry to the provisions oJ lncome tox Act ond controry to the Principles of Noturdl Justice-..\" 3. One of the contentions that the petitioner has raised in the present Writ Petition is that under the amended 2 provisions of the Act which catne into effect from 01.O4.2O21, the respondents, while proceeding under Section 148 of 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 instant 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. 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 also which the petitioner has raised in the writ petition. 3 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 raised by th'e petitioner is sustained and aII these urit petitions stands allou-ted on this uery juisdictional issue. Since the impugned notices and orders ore getting quashed on the point of jurisdiction, we are not inclined to proceed further and decid.e the other issues raised bg the petitioner uhich stonds reserued to be raised and contended in an appropiate p r o ceeding s. \" \"38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court hod, in tLe cose of Ashish Agarutal, supra, as a one-time meosure exercising the powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, permitted the Reuenue to proceed under the substituted proui-sions, and this Court allouing the petitions onlg on the pr-ocedural Jlaw, the right conferred on the Reuenue utould remain reserued to proceed further if theg so utant from the stage of the order of the Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Agarwo| supraJ ( I 7. In view of the s€une, 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 with the amended provision but under the un-amended provision which is otherwise not sustainable' ,.. :,r ' lal 4 8. As has been held by this Bench in the aforesaid batch matters, the rights of the parties would stand reserved as is envisaged at paragraph Nos.37 & 38 of the said order passed in the batch of writ petitions. No order as to costs. Consequently, miscelianeous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. I I SD/-N.CHANDRA SEKHAR RAO ASSISTANT REPISTRAR I SEGTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, s 1 . The lncome Tax Officer, Ward-1 , Warangal,. D No l -8-61 0' 3rd Floor' Mayuri ' d;;i;,\"opp. rsr'rpo'clEn,*un, Ni[t