RAKSHIT PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED, V. The Income tax officer ward 3(1),

WP/22232/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Rakshit Pharmaceuticals Limited, represented by its director, Palem Srinivas, challenging the validity of notices issued under Section 148A(d) and Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2019-20. The petitioner argued that the notices were issued without adhering to the modified assessment procedure established by the Finance Act, 2021. The respondents included the Income Tax Officer, the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax for Telangana and A.P., and the National Faceless Assessment Center. The court referenced a common order from a batch of writ petitions (W.P.No.25903 of 2022) decided on 14.09.2023, which had similar issues and ruled against the procedural lapses in issuing reassessment notices.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 762811 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 19-08-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Ashish Agarwal
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961, Finance Act, 2021, Article 226 of the Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: J V PRASAD; B MUKHERJEE
• Assessee Lawyers: THANNERU KUMAR
• Keywords: Faceless assessment; Impugned notice; Natural Justice; Reassessment procedure; Writ of Mandamus
• Section: 148; 148A(d)

Judgement Text

"i J [ 3411 ] HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 22232 OF 2024 Between: Rakshit Pharmaceuticals Limited, Rep. by its director Palem Srinivas, S/o. Koteswara Rao Palem, Aged about 48 years, Occupation. Business, RJo. 4251311 Rakshit House, Sr Nagar Sr Nagar Hyderabad 500038, Telangana, lndia. Assessment Year. 2O19-2O ...PETITIONER AND 1. The lncome tax officer ward 3('l ), Signature Towers, Kondapur, Sherlingampally, Ranga Reddy District Hyderabad 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 National Faceless Assessment Center, lncome Tax Department, 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 particularly one in the nature of Writ of lVlandamus, declaring the impugned notice dated. 06.04.2023 for A.Y. 2O1S-2O passed u/s 148A(d) of the Act vide DIN No. ITBA/ AST/F/148A/2023-2411051920635( 1 )and the consequential notice u/s 148 dated 06-04-2023 DIN and Notice No. ITSA/AST/S/148 112023-2411051S21659(1), issued by the JAO( 1 't respondent) instead of FAO(3d 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 and 2: SRI J. V. PRASAD (Sr. SC FOR INCOME TAx) Counsel forthe Respondent No.3: SRI B. MUKHERJEE, REPRESENTING FOR SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INIDA The Court made the following: ORDER TIIE HOTYOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAI'L AITD THE HOI{OURABLE SRI .IUSTICE A]UAVARAPU RAJESIIUIAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.22232 0F 20.24 ORDER: (per Hon'ble Justice Sujou paut) Heard Sri Thanneru Chaital5,2 Kumar, leiirneci counsel for the pe[itioner, Sri J.V.prasad, Iearncd Scnior Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department appearing lor respondent Nos.l and 2 and Sri B, Mukherjce, lezrrned counsel representing Sri Gadi Pra,reen Kum.rr, iearned Deputy Solicitor Genera.l of India, for respondenr No.3. 2. The ground taken by the learned counsel ior the pctitioner(s) is that in furtherance of Finance Act, 202 1. r.e assessment process stood modifiecl bul the respondents have not Laken care of it and therefore notice issuecl under Scctir:n I 48 ol the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot s,lstair.r juclicial scrutiny. Since notice is bad in iar.v, the conscquential ordcrs rrrc also bad in law. 3. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for thc partics agreed that curtains on this issue are trnallt, clrau.n bv this Court in a batch of urit petitions, W.p.Irlo.259O3 af 2A22 and other connected matters, decicie