Rashmi Candam V. Office of The Income Tax Officer Ward 9(1)

WP/11830/2024

AI Insights

The case involves multiple writ petitions filed by various petitioners against the orders issued by the Income Tax Department following assessments under the National Faceless E-Assessment scheme. The petitioners challenged the assessments for being arbitrary, illegal, and violative of natural justice, among other grounds. The main legal contention revolved around the procedural adherence to the modified re-assessment process as per the Finance Act, 2021. The court referenced a previous decision in W.P.No.25903 of 2022, which had set a precedent on similar grounds, leading to the allowance of these writ petitions.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 690994 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 30-04-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Ashish Agarwal vs. Union of India
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961, Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: B REDDY; GADI KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: THARNERU KUMAR
• Keywords: Faceless assessment; Income tax assessment; Jurisdictional challenge; Natural Justice; Writ of Mandamus
• Section: 147; 148A; 265; 144(b); 226

Judgement Text

"il [ 3403 ] HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYFOUR - PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL - AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI - WRIT PETITION Nos.1 1830 11835 11846 11847 11855 11871 11890 11913 11915 11927 AND 11939 0F 2024 WRIT PETITION No.1183O OF 2024 Between: Rashmi Gandam, W/o G. Ravi, aged about 39 years, Occupation Business, Rl/o H. No. 4-12-2411 Plot No 35, Hayaynagar, Arunodayanagar, Vanastalipuram, Rangareddy 500070, Telangana, lndia PAN: BPPPG4333D Assessment Year.2016- 17 ...PETITIONER AND '1. Office of The lncome Tax Officer Ward 9(1), Hyderabad, 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 Central Board of Direct Taxes, Represented by its Chairman, 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 Delhi. 5. The Union of lndia, Represented by its Secretary to the Govemment, Department of Revenue, tVlinistry of Finance, New Delhi - 110 001 . ...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 - AND 7 the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order, or Direction, declaring the order passed by the lncome Tax Authorities (National Faceless E-Assessment centre completed the assessment u/s 147 rlw Section 144-9 of the lncome Tax Act, '1961 vide DIN and Notice No. dated 2910212024, ITBA/AST/S/14712023-2411061740260(1) for the assessment year 2O16- l Tdetermining the total income of Rs. 62,08,433/- as arbitrary, illegal, bad in law, without jurisdiction, void-ab-initio, violative of the principles of natural justice apart from being violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(9) and 265 of the constitution of lndia AND Sec. 14BA of the lncome Tax Act, 1961, end consequently set aside the same in the interests of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI THANNERU CHAITANYA KUMAR Counsel forthe Respondent Nos. 1 & 2: Ms. B. SAPNA REDDY, REPRESENTING SRI J. V. PRASAD, S.C. FOR INCOME TAX Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 to 5: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF TNDIA WRIT PETITION NO: 11835 0F 2024.\" Between: Panta Reddy Mary Vindhya Rani, S/o. panta Reddy Joseph Reddy, Aoed about 56 years,. Occupation: Business, Ryo. '12-5-84185 A Vij-ayapuii Colony, Soith Lalaquda Tamaka Tamaka, Secunderabad 500017, felang-ana, lndia pAirl: BWVPRTd4OC Assessment Year: 201 5-1 6 ...PETITIONER --- 1. Office of The lncome Tax Officer, Ward-15(1), Hyderabad, Telangana State. 2. The Principal Cfrief Commissioner of lncome Tax -Telangana and A.p, Hyderabad, lT Towers, AC Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderabid - 500 O2g, Telangana. 3. The Central Board of Direct Taxes, Represented by its Chairman, Department of Rerrenue, _Minis^try of Finance, Government ot lhOia, Secretariat Eiuildings, New Delhi - 1'10 001 . 4. The National Faceless Assessment Center, lncome Tax Department, New Delhi. 5. The Union of India, Represented by its Secretary to the Government, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finbnce, New Delhi - 110 OOi. ...RESPONDENTS -. v -) 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-Assessrnent Centre completed the assessment UtS '147 r/w Section 144-8 of the lncome Tax Act, 1961 vide DIN and Notice No. dated 13-03-2024 ITBAiAST lst147t2o23-2411062b19743(1) for the assessment year 2O15-16 determining the total income of Rs. 88,06,350/- as arbitrary, illegal, bad in law, without jurisdiction, void-ab-initio, violative of the principles of natural justice apart from being violative of Articles 1a, 19(1Xg) 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 Respondent Nos. 1 & 2: Ms. B. SAPNA REDDY'- REPRESENTING SRI J. V. PRASAD, S.C. FOR INCOME TAX,- Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 to 5: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR' - DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA WRIT PETITION NO: 11846 OF 2024 Between: MOHAMMED AKRAM, S/o SHAIK KHADER HUSSAIN, Aged about 50 years, Occuoation Business, Rl/o H.No.'l -8- 11511117 Kareem Compound, PG Road Ramdopalpet, Hyderabad 5OO0O3, Telangana, lndia PAN: AKHPM0241J Assessment Year: 201 5-1 6 ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. Office of The lncome Tax Officer Ward 4(1), Hyderabad/, Telangana State. 2. The Principal Chief Commissioner of lncome Tax Telangane 9!q l:i' Hyderabad, tT Towers, AC Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad 5O0 028' Telangana. 3. The Central Board of Direct Taxes, Represented by its Chairman, Department of Revenue Ministry of Finance, Govemment of lndia, Secretariat BuiHings' New Delhi - 110 001 . 4 4 The National Faceless Assessment Center' lncome Tax Department' New Delhi WRIT PETITION NO: 11 847 0F 2024 .--' 5. The Dep Union of lndia, Represented by its Secretary to the Government' ,;;;;i oin\"uenr., t',tinistry of Finbnce, New Delhi - 110 001 ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constltution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith' the High Court may be pleasedtoissueanappropriatewrit'orderordirectionmoreparticularlyoneinthe natureofWritofMandamusoranyotherappropriateWrit,order,orDirection, declaring the order passed by the lncome Tax Authorities (National Faceless E- Assessment Centre completed the assessment U/S ,147 rlw Section 144-B of the lncome Tax Act, '1961 vide DIN and Notice No dated 17 -03-2024 ITBA/AST/S/147t2o23.24t1062795294(1)fortheassessmentyear20l5-16 determining the total income of Rs. 73,47,650/-as arbitrary, illegal, bad in law' without jurisdiction, void-ab-initio, violative of the principles of natural justice apart from being violative of Articles 1 a, 19(1 )(g) 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 forthe Respondent Nos. 1 & 2: Ms' B' SAPNA REDDY' REPRESENTING SRI J. V. PRASAD, S'C. FOR INCOME TAX Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 to 5: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR' DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA GORTGE SRISAILAM, S/o. GORIGE SATHAIAH, aged about 53years,-occupation. d,i.i\"\".\",-ny..-Ju.Jir\"tf\"VlfftUeacnat Road, Mdl 6utubullapur^R. R. Dist-5o0055' i;ilg;;;, lnaia pRN' BKYPSB323R Assessment Year 2018-19 Between: AND ...PETITIONER 5 1. Office of The lncome Tax Officer Wald 2 (1), Hyderabad, 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 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 . 4. The National Faceless Assessment Center' lncome Tax Department, New Delhi. 5. The Union of lndia, Represeflted by its Secretary to the Govemment, Department of Revenue, Minislry of Finance, New Delhi - 110 001 . ...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 or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order, or Direction, declaring the order passed by the lncome Tax Authorities (National Faceless E- Assessment Centre completed the assessment U/S 147 dw Section 144-B of the lncome Tax Act, 1961 vide DIN and Notice No. dated 07 -03-2024 ITBA/AST/S/14712023-2411062186256(1) for the assessment yea( 2O18- l9determining the total income of Rs. 63,26,6221-as atbi|:rary, illegal, bad in law, without jurisdiction, void-ab-initio, violative of the principles of natural justice apart from being violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) 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 Respondent Nos. 1 & 2: Ms. B. SAPNA REDDY, --' REPRESENTING SRI J. V. PRASAD, S.C. FOR INCOME TAX Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 to 5: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, .- DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA 6 WRIT PETITION NO: 11 85s OF 2024 Between: RAMA DEVI MEDAGAM, S/o.Vittat ReQdy Shepaily, aged about 51 years, Occupation: Business Rl/o -H No. 6-14-128, Nambeviayadal Nizamabad SO'SOOZ, Telangana, lndia. PAN: BZNPM3139H Assessment year: 2016-11 ...PETITIONER AND 1. Office of The lncome Tax Officer Ward 1, Nizambad, Telangana State. 2. The Principal Clrief Commissioner of lncome Tax, Telangana and A.p, Hyderabad, lT Towers, AC Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderab\"ad - SOO Oig, Telangana. 3. The central Board of Direct raxes, Represented by its chairman, Deoartment of Revenue, Minisrry of Finance, Gov6rnment or rhoia. secreGriai Eiuidi;s\", New Delhi - '1 10 001. 4. The National Faceless Assessment Center, lncome Tax Department, New Delhi. 5. The Union of lndia, Represented_ by its Secretary to the Govemment, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finince, New Delhi _ j 1O 00i. ,..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 uls 147 read with section 144B of the lncome-tax Act Date of order o1lo2l2o24, DIN lrBA/AST/sl 1 47 12023-2411 060366930(1 ) for the Assessment y ear 2o1 6-1 l determining the total income of Rs. 21,00,000/- as arbitrary, illegal, bad in law, without jurisdiction, void-ab-initio, violative of the principles of natural justice apart from being violative of Articles 1a, $()(g) and 265 of the constitution of lndia and Sec. 148A of the lncome Tax Act, 'r96'r, and consequently set aside the same in the interests of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI THANNERU CHAITANYA KUMAR _/ Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2: Ms. J. SUNITHA, JUNIOR STANDING COUNSEL REPRESENTING Ms. SUNDART R ptSUpATt, SENTOR S.C. FOR TNCOME TAX 7 Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 to 5: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA WRIT PETITION NO: 11871 oF 2024 Between: Primary Aglculture Co-Operative Society Limited, Rep. by its Secretary, Gaddi Thirupathi, S/o.Gaddi Mallaiah, Aged about 32 years, Ryo. H.No.1- 42 Appinnapeta Vill, Peddapally Mdl Karimnagar 505174, Telangana, lndia PAN: AABAPB1OBC Assessment Year: 2O19-2O ...PETITIONER -- AND 1 . Office of the lncome tax officer ward 2, Karimnagar, Telangana State. 2. The Principal Chief Commissioner of lncome Tax - Telangana and A.P, Hyderabad, lT Towers, AC Guards, IVlasab Tank, Hyderabad- 500 028, Telangana. 3. The National Faceless Assessment Center, lncome Tax Department, New Delhi. 4. The Central Board of Direct Taxes, Represented by its Chairman, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of lndia, Secretariat Buildings, New Delhi - 110 001. 5. The Union of lndia, Represented by its Secretary to the Govemment, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi - 'l 10 001 . ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 ol 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 read with section 1448 of the lncome{ax Act Date of 09/03/2024, DIN ITBA/AST/S/14712023-24t10622925a4(fior the Assessment Year 2O1g-2O determining the total income of Rs. 80,03,330/- as arbitrary, illegal, bad in law, without jurisdiction, void-ab-initb, violative of the prirrciples of natural justice apart from being violative of Articies 14, t9(1Xg) and 265 of the Constitution of lndia and Sec. lzl8A of the lncorne Tax Act, 1961 and consequently set aside the same in the interests of justice. E Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI THANNERU CHAITANYA KUMAR Gounsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2: Ms. J. SUNITHA, /- JUNIOR STANDING COUNSEL REPRESENTING Ms. SUNDARI R PISUPATI, SENIOR S.C. FOR INCOME TAX Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.3 to 5: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, /- DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA WRIT PETITION NO: 11890 OF 2024 Between: ...PETITIONER ANO Madhava Reddy Ganapathi, S/o. Narayana Reddy, Aged About 66 Years, Occupation. Business, R/O. Plot No.7 Hmt Sathavahana Nagar Colony, Kukatpally Kukatpally Hyderabad 500072, Telangana, lndia PAN: AGGPG4965J Assessment Year: 2018-19 1. Office of The lncome Tax Officer Ward15(1), Hyderabad, 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 Central Board of Direct Taxes, Represented by its Chairman, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Govemment of lndia, Secretariat Buildings, New Delhi - 1 10 001 . 4. The National Faceless Assessment Center, lncome Tax Department, New Delhi. 5- The Union of lndia, Represented by its Secretary to the Govemment, Department of Revenue, Ministry 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 particulady one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order, or Direction, declaring the order passed by the lncome Tax Authorities (National Faceless E- Assessment Centre completed the assessment UIS 147 r/w Section 144-B of the lncome Tax Act, 1961 vide DIN and Notice No. dated O2tO3t2O24 ITBA/AST/S/14712023-2411061894657(1) for the assessmenr year 2O1B-19 I determining the total income of Rs. 1,11,80,109/- as arbitrary, illegal, bad in law, without jurisdiction, void-ab-initio, violative of the principles of natural justice apart from being violative of Articles 1a, 19(1Xg) and 265 of the Constitution of lndia and Sec. '148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequently set aside the same in the interests of justice, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI THANNERU CHAITANYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2: Ms. B. SAPNA REDDY' REPRESENTING SRI J. V. PRASAD, S.C. FOR INCOME TAX Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 to 5: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUry SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDTA WRIT PETITION NO: 11913 OF 2024 --''- Between: SJP MOTORS, Rep by its Partner, Jangam Jeevan, S/o.Gladstone--J?!S1T' Aged about 40 years, Oicuiation: Business, Date of Formation: 21.09.2013' F/o. 5 26 Ground Fl6or Laxmidevipalli V, Main Road Kothagudem Mandal, Khammam 5O71O1' Telangana, lndia. PAN: ACKFS9537Q Assessment Year: 2015-16 ...PETITIONER AND 1 . Office of The lncome Tax Officer, Ward 'l , Kothagudem, Telangana State 2. The Principal Chief Commissioner of lncome Tax Telangana and Hyderabad, lT Towers, AC Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad 500 Telangana 3. The Central Board of Direct Taxes, Represented by its Chairman, 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 Delhi. 5. The Union of lndia, Represented by its Secretary to the Government, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi - 1'10 001 ...RESPONDENTS A.P, o28, 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 li- rl l0 nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order, or Direction, declaring the order passed by the lncome tax authorities (National Faceless E- Assessment centre) completed the assessment u/s 147 read with section 1448 of the lncome{ax Act Date of Order 13t03t2o24, DtN |TBA/AST/9I147t2023- 2411062563921(1) for the Assessment Year 2015-16 determining the total income of Rs. 4,85,4301 as arbitrary, illegal, bad in law, without jurisdiction, void-ab-initio, violative of the principles of naturaljustice apart from being violative of Articles 14, t9(t)(g) and 265 of the Constitution of lndia and Sec. j48A of the lncomeTaxAct, 1961, and consequently set aside the same in the interests of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI THANNERU CHAITANYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2: Ms. B. SAPNA REDDY, .-- REPRESENTING SRI J. V. PRASAD, S.C. FOR INCOME TAX Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 to 5: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, ._ DEPUTY SOLICTTOR GENERAL OF INDIA WRIT PETITION NO: 11915 OF 2024 Between: Sampath Kumar Thirukovela, S/o.Venkataiah, Aged about 62 years, Occupation: p^u9iqes1 .No. 1-2-51t10, Shasthri Nagar Niniat Near Ravt'SCnooL-nti66-aO 504'1 06,Telangana, lndia. PAN : ABApT0866G Assessmen t y eac 201 6_1 7 . ...PETITIONER AND 1. Office of The lncome Tax Officer, Ward 1, Nirmal, Telangana State. 2. The Principa.l Ctrief Commissioner of lncome Tax - Telangana a Hyderabad, lT Towers, AC Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderabid - 5 Telangana. The Central Board of Direct Taxes, Represented by its Chairman, Department of Revenue,.Minis-try of Finance, Government of lhdia, secretariat riritoings, New Delhi - 'l 10 001. The National Faceless Assessment Center, lncome Tax Department, New Delhi. I!:^YligL o.f^lndia, Represented by its Secretary to the Government, uepartment of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi - i 10 OO1 . ...RESPONDENTS nd A.P, 00 028, 3 4 5 II 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 lt/andamus declaring the order passed by the 3rd (National Faceless E-Assessment Centre) completed the assessment U/S 147 read with section 1448 of the lncome{ax Act Date of Order 16-03-2024, DIN ITBA/AST/S/147t2O23-24t1O62772O40(1) for the Assessment Year 2016-17 determining the total income of Rs. 29,85,000/- as arbitrary, illegal, bad in law, without jurisdiction, void-ab-initio, violative of the principles of natural justice apart from being violative of Articles 14, 19(1 Xg) and 265 of the Constitution of lndia and Sec. 14BA 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 forthe Respondent Nos. 1 & 2: Ms. J. SUNITHA, JUNIOR STANDING COUNSEL REPRESENTING Ms. SUNDARI R PISUPATI, SENIOR S.C. FOR INCOME TAX Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 to 5: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, --- DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA WRIT PETITION NO: 11927 OF 2024 <- Between: Datta Annarao Deshaftiwar, S/o. Annarao Deshaftiwa, Aged about 52 years, Occupation: Business, Rl/o. Flat No 301 Uma Enclave, Ashoknagar Kakatiy_anqgar, Ramihanarapuram, Medak 500032, Telangana, lndia. PAN: ALLPD4214D Assessment Year: 2018-1 9 ...PETITIONER AND 1. Office of the Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax Circlel2(1), Hyderabad Telangana State. 2. The Principal Chief Commissioner of lncome Tax - Telangana qlg &?, 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, Ministry of Finance, Government of lndia, Secretariat Buildings, New Delhi - 1 10 001 . -7 l2 4. The National Faceless Assessment Center, lncome Tax Department, New. Delhi. 5. The Union of lndia, Represented by its Secretary to the Government, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi - 110 001 . ...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 ttilandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order, or Direction, declaring the order passed by the lncome Tax Authorities (National Faceless E- Assessment centre) completed the assessmenluls 147 read with section 144B of the lncome-tax Act Date of Order 26-02-2024, DIN |TBA/ASTlsl14tt2123- 2411061491965(1)for the Assessment Year 2018-19 determining the total income of Rs. 49,05,1 1 0/- as arbitrary, itlegal, bad in law, without jurisdiction, void-ab- initio, violative of the principles of natural justice apart from being violative of Articles 14, 1 9(1 )(g) and 265 of the Constitution of lndia and Sec. 1484 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 forthe Respondent Nos. 1 & 2: Ms. B. SAPNA REDDY, REPRESENTING SRI J. V. PRASAD, S.C. FOR INCOME TAX Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 to 5: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA WRIT PETITION NO: 1 1939 0F 2024 Between: Ferozpasha Shaik, S/o. Gousepasha Shaik, Aged about 36 years, Occupation. Business, Fl/o. H No 18-5-9218 Maruthi Nagar, Godavarikhini Ramagdndam, Karimnagar 505209, Telangana, lndia pAN: DDVpS7997p Assessment yeir:2O18_ '19 ...PETITIONER AND '1 . Office of The lncome Tax Officer, Ward 2, Karimnagar, Telangana State I I ! I i ! i l : r3 2. lhe Principal Chief Commissioner of lncome Tax, Telangana and A.p, Hyderabad, lT Towers, AC Guards, t /asab Tank, Hyderabiad _ 5OO 028; Telangana. 3. The Central Board of Direct Taxes, Represented by its Chairman, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Governrnent of lhdia, secretariat duildings, New Delhi - 110 001. 4. The National Faceless Assessment Center, Income Tax Department, New Delhi. 5. The Union of lndia, Represented by its Secretary to the Government, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finbnce, New Delhi - 110 OO1. ,..RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewlth, 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 ot the lncome Tax Act, 1g61 vide DIN and Notice No. dated 1 3-1 2-2023 |rBA/AST lsl 1 47 12023- 241 1 o5B7 3s767 (1 ) for the assessment year 2018-19 determining the total income of Rs. 97,51,063/-as arbitrary, illegal, bad in law, without jurisdiction, void-ab-initio, violative of the principles of natural justice apart from being violative of Artictes 1a, 19(1Xg) 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 Respondent Nos. 1 & 2: Ms. J. SUNITHA, JUNIOR STANDING COUNSEL REPRESENTING Ms. SUNDARI R PISUPATI, SENTOR S.C. FOR INCOME TAx Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 to 5: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER .---- I THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUI{ARAMJI WRIT PETITION NOs. 1183O 11835 tLa46 tL847 11855 11871 1189() 11913 I 1915 11927AND LL9390F2024 COMMON ORDER: (per Hon'ble Justice Sujog Paul) Sri Tharneru Chaitanya Kumar, learned counsel appears for the petitioner(s), Ms. B. Sapna Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri J.V. Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-Income Tax Department in W.P.No.1l83O, 11835, tI846, tt847, 11890, 11913 & 11927 of 2024 and Ms. J. Sunitha, learned Junior Standing Counsel representing Ms.Sundari R.Pisupati, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents-lncome Tax Department in W.P.Nos. 1 1855, ILSZ l, 11915 and 11939 of2024. 2 Regard being had to the similarity of the question involved, on the joint request of the parties, the matters are artalogously heard and decided by this common order. 3. It is common ground taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner(s) that in furtherance of Financ e Act, 2O2l , re- assessment process stood modified but the respondents have not taken care of it and therefore notices issued under Section 14g of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot sustain judicial scrutiny. Since notices are bad in law, ,'n. .orr\".Orential orders ar.'-\"o bad in l4w. 4. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the parties agreed that curtains on this issue are finally drawn by this Court in a batch of writ petitions, W.p.No.25903 of 2022 and other connected matters, decided by common order dated 14.O9.2023. The parties agreed that this matter may be disposed of in terms of the Common Order dated 14.09 -2023. 5 This Court in the said order dated 14.09.2023 in W.P.No.25903 of 2022, held as under: \"35. ln view of the aforesaid discussions, it is by now very clear that the procedure to be followed by the respondent-Department upon treating the notices issued for teassessment being undel Section l/t84, the subsequent proceedings was mandatorily required to be undertaken under the substituted provisions as laid down under the Finance Act, 2021, ln the absence of which, we are constrained to hold that the procedure adopted by the respondent-Department is in contravention to the statute i.e. the Finance Acl, 2O2,1, at the first instance. Secondly, it is also in direct contravention to th€ directives issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Agarwal, supra. 36. For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned notices issued and the proceedings drawn by the respondent-Department is neither tenable, nor sustainable. The notices so issued and the procedure adopted being per se illegal, deserves to be and are accordingly set asaderquashed. As a consequence, all the impugned orders getting quashed, the consequential orde6 passed by the respondent Oepa.tment pursuant to the notices issued under Section 117 and 18 would also get quashed and it is ordered accordingly. The reason rve are quashing the consequential otder is on the principles that when the initiation of the proceedings itself was procedurally wrong, the subsequent orders also gets nullffied automatically. -r- 3 37. The preliminary objection raised by the petitioner is sustained and all these writ petitions stands allowed on this very jurisdictional issue. Since the impugned notices and orders are getting quashed on the point of iurisdiction, we are not inclined to proceed further and decide the other issues raised by the petitioner which stands reserved to be raised and contended in an appropriate proceedings. 38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the case of Ashish Agan /al, supra, as a one-time measure exercising the powerc under Article 142 of the Constitution of lndia, permitted the Revenue to proceed under the substituted provisions, and this Court allotying the petitions only on the procedural flaw, the right conferred on the Revenue would remain reserved to proceed further if they so want from the stage of the order of the Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Agarwal, supra. 39. No order as to costs.\" 6. In view of the consensus arrived, the impugned Show Cause notices and consequential orders passed in this batch of writ petitions are set aside. Liberty is reserved to both the parties to take respective stand and to proceed in accordance with law as per paragraph No.38 of the order dated 14.09.2023 in W.P.No.25903 of 2022. 7 The writ petitions are allowed. No costs. Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed. SD/-A.V.S.P ASSISTANT REGI RASAD StrSI-AR To, //TRUE COPY// b, SECTION OFFICER A.P, o28, 1. The lncome Tax'Officer Ward 9(1), Hyderabad, Telangana State. 2. The Principal Chief Cornmissioner of lncome Tax Telangana Hyderabad, lT,lTowers, AC Guanls, Masab Tank, Hyderabad Telangana. and 500 3. The Chairman, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Central Board of Direct Taxes, Government of lndia, Secretariat Buildings, New Delhi - 1 10 001. I 4. The National Faceless Assessment Cerrter, lncome Tax Department, New Delhi. 5. The Secretary to the Government, Department of Revenue, Union of lndia, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi - 110 001 . 1 6. The lncome Tax'Officer, Ward-15(1), Hyderabad, Telangana State 7. The lncome Tax Officer Ward 4('1), Hyderabad/, Telangana State' 8. The lncome Tax Officer Wa rd 2 (1 ' Hyderabad, Telangana State' 9. The lncome Tax Officer Ward 1' Nizambad, Telangana State 10. The lncome tax officer ward 2, Karimnagar, Telangana State' 11.The lncome Tax'Officer, Ward 1' Kothagudem, Telangana State i '12. The lncome Ta( Officer, Ward 1 , Nirmal, Telangana State 1 3. The Assistant i Commissioner of lncome Tax Circlel2(1 ), Hyderabad Telangana State 14.One CC to SRI THANNERU CHAITANYA KUIVIAR' Advocate [OPUC] I '1 5.One CC to SRI i. V. pRnsRo, S.C. for lncome Tax [OPUC] l6.oneCCtoSRlGAD|PRAVEENKUMAR,DeputySolicitorGeneraloflndia loPUCl i i: 17.One CC to Ms. SUNDARI R PISUPATI, Senior S'C for lncome Tax [OPUC] 18.Two CD CoPies MP GJP s i, ii t, I i HIGH COURT DATED:3010412024 1r.e i iAf5' rJ t, i':il 2$2[ o l o o ,--o COMMON ORDER W.P.Nos.1 1830, 1 1835, 11846, 11847 , 1 1855, 11871, 11890, 11913, 11915, 11927 AND 11939 0F 2024 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS co4;'ts "