Renuka Orsu V. Income Tax Officer Ward 11 (1)

WP/20664/2024

AI Insights

The case involves multiple writ petitions filed by Renuka Orsu against the Income Tax Department, challenging the validity of reassessment notices and subsequent orders issued for various assessment years. The petitions argued that the notices were issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of the Faceless Assessment Officer (FAO), as required by the amended provisions of the Finance Act, 2021. The petitioners contended that this procedural error rendered the notices and all consequential orders void and illegal. The court referred to a previous judgment in W.P.No.25903 of 2022, which had addressed similar issues, and decided the current petitions in accordance with that precedent.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 690684 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 02-08-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: W.P.No.25903 of 2022, Ashish Agarwal case
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: J SUNITHA
• Assessee Lawyers: DUNDU MANMOHAN
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Faceless assessment; Income Tax; Natural Justice; Writ of Mandamus
• Section: 147; 148; 144; 148A; 226

Judgement Text

"HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT WRIT PETITION No's: 20664 20728 AND 207640F 2024 W.P. No: 20664 OF 2024 Between: Renuka Orsu, Wio ONarsimha, Aged about 45 years, Occupation. Business, Plot No.23-5-2, Aditya Nagar, Pragathinagar Road, Near Srinivasa Steel Traders, Kukatpally, Hyderabad - 500072. ...PETITIONER AND 'l . incoin3 Tax Officer $/ard '1 1 (1), Hyderabad, Sigiraiura Tor,':rs Si' i!c.51P) of konCapur-. Sy.No.37(P) of Kothaguda, OPP Bctaricaj Gardens, Serlingampally, Ranga Reddy, Hyderabad, Tela nga na-500064. 2. 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. The Assessment Unit, lncome Tax Department. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, Ministry of Finance, Room No. 4O1 ,Znd Floor, E- Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, Delhi-1 10003. ...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 rssue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of I 4andamus, declaring the Assessment Order dt.12.O2.2024passed by the 3rdrespondent uls 147 r.w.s 14411448 of the lncome-tax Act for A.Y. 2015.16 vide DIN No. ITBA/ASTlsl14712023-2411060781188(1), consequent to the order passed u/s 14BA(d) dt.02.04.2022 vide DIN No. ITBA/ASTlFl148Al2O22- 2311042450786(1) and the notice u/s 148 d1.O3.O4.2O22 vide DIN No.ITBA/AST/ 1148-112022-2311042455557(1), issued by the JAO (1't respondent) instead of FAO(3rd respondent), as void, illegal, and contrary to the provisions of lncome-tax Act and contrary to the Principles of Natural Justice FRIDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO : r lection 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in rport of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay pursuant to the Assessment Order dt.12.02.2024passed ,,-cnt u/s 147 t.w.s 14411448 of the lncome-tax Act for A.y. 201S- ro vide DlN No ITBA/AST/SI147 12023-2411060781 188(1) Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. DUNDU SASHANK MANMOHAN Counsel for the Respondents: M/s. J. SUNITHA (JUNIOR SC FOR TNCOME TAX DEPT) W.P. NO: 20728 OF 2024 Between: AND 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 a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the notice u/s .148 dt. .19.03.2023 vide DIN No. lrBA/AST/s/148_112022- 23l10s0959872('1 ) issued by the JA0(1st respondent) instead of FAo(3rd respondent) for A.y. 2o1g-20, as void, illegal, and contrary to the provisions of lncome-tax Act and contrary to the principles of Natural Justice 2 3 RenukaOrsu, Wio ONarsimha, Aged about 45 years, Occupation. Business, Plot No.23-5-2. Aditya Nagar, pragathinagar hoad, trteal Sfnlvasa Sieei lrad.rs. K'rk: rp.rllT H7C:rab:1 50AA72. ...PETITIONER lncome Tax OfficerWard 1 1(1). Hyderabad, Siqnature Towers. Sv.No.6lp) of Kondapur,Sy No3Z(pr of Kothaguda, 6pp. Botaniiai ' Cuil\"ni ?erlingarnpally, Ranga Reddy, Hyderabad, Telangana_500084. The Principal Commissioner oi. lncome f ax 1 2, Hyderabad, Signature Towers, Opp. Botanical Gardens, Kondapur, Hyderabad-S00084. The Assessment Unit, lncome Tai Deiartment, National Faceless Assessment.Centre, Delhi, Ministry of Finance, Room No. 4O1, 2nd F6o;,-E_ Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium. -Delhi-1 10003. ...RESPONDENTS 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 preased to stay all further proceedings pursuant to the notice u/s 148 dt. .1g.03. 2023 vide DIN No. lrBA/AST/si 148-1t2022-23t1o50959872(1) issued by the JAo(1 st respondent) instead of FA0(3rd respondent) for A.y. 2O1g_2O Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. DUNDU SASHANK MANMOHAN Counsel for the Respondents: M/s. J. SUNITHA (JUNIOR SC FOR INCOME TAX DEPT) W.P.No: 20764 OF 2024 Betwee n: AND Petition under Articre 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 a writ, order or direction, more particurarry one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, decraring the Assessment order dt. 21 .o2.2o24 passed by the 3'd respondent u/s 147 r.w.s 144t1448 of ttre lncome-tax Act for A.y. 2016-11 vide DIN No. |rBA/AST tst14rt2o23-24li 061251056(i ), consequent to the order passed u/s 148 dt. 23.o3.2023 vide DIN No. lrBA/AST/s/148_1r2o22- 2311 051 208381( 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 Princ,ples of Natural Justice 2 3 RenukaOrsu, Vy'/o ONarsimha, Aged about 45 years, Occupation- Business. PIot No.23 S-2, Aditya Nagar, Fragathinagar'Roid, Neai Srintvasa Steei TraCers,'Kukatpatty, Hyderabid - 500672. .,,PETITIONER lncome Tax Off icer, Wardll(1). Hyderabad, Slqnature Towers. Sv No 6rpt nf Kondapur.Sy No_:Zf pt _ of K5thaguda. \"Opp. - eoir\"iirj ' Er;J\";: 5enr19ampariy Rang_a Reddy, Hyderabad, Telangana_5000g4. rne Hrrncrpar unret uommissioner of lncome Tax Ap and rs. 1oth Floo,, c_ Block, I T. Towers, 10-2-3, A.C. Guards, HyOerania-SOOOO+. lh\" Assessment U_ni! lncome Tax ' Department, National Faceless A:sj,ssTen!,Centre. Delhi, Ministry_of. Finance, Room No. 4O1 , 2nd rtoor, E_ Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, Delhi_1 10003. ...RESPONDENTS 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 all further proceedings pursuant to the Assessment order dt. 21lozt2o24 passed by the 3rdrespondent u/s 141 r.w.s 144t1448 of the lncome-tax Act for A.Y. 2016-17 vide DIN No. |TBA/AST/ Stj47t2o23-24l1061251056(1 ) Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. DUNDU SASHANK MANMOHAN Counsel for the Respondents: M/s. J. SUNITHA (JUN|OR SC FOR TNCOME TAX DEPT) The Court made the following: cOMMON ORDER I THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO WRIT PETITION NOS.2O664 20728 AND 20764 0F 20.24 COMMON ORDER (per Hon'bLe SP,J) Sri Dundu Sashank Manmohal, learned counsel appears for the petitioners and Ms. J. Sunitha, learned Junior Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department. appears for the respondents. 2. Regard being had to the similarity of the question involved, on the joint request of the parties, the matters are analogously 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 Finance Act, 2021, re- assessment process stood modified but the respondents have not taken care of it and therefore notices issued under Section l4B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 calnot sustain judicial scrutiny Since notices are bad in law, the consequential orders are also bad in law. 4. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the parties agreed that curtains on this issue are linally drarvn by this Court in a batch of writ petitions, W.P.No.259O3 of 2O22 and other connected matters, decided by common order dated -7 /, /,' 2 14 .O9 .2023. The parties agreed that this matter may be disposed of in terms of the Common Order dated 14.O9.20'23. 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 reassessment being under Section 148A, the subsequent proceedings was mandatorily required to be undertaken under the substituted provisions as laid down under the Finance Act, 2021. In 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 Act,202,1, at the first instance. Secondly, it is also in direct contravention to the directives issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Agarwal, supra. 36. For all the aioresaid reasons, the impugned notices issued and the proceedings drawn by the respondent-Oepartment is neither tenable, nor sustainable. The notices so issued and the procedure adopted being per se illegal, deserves to be and are accordingly set aside/quashed- As a consequence, all the impugned orders getting quashed, the consequential orders passed by the respondent Department pursuant to the notices issued under Section .t47 and i48 would also get quashed and it is ordered accordingly. The reason we are quashing the consequential order is on the principles that when the initiation of the proceedings itself was procedurally wrong, the subsequent orders also gets nullified automatically. 37. The preliminary objection raised by the petitioner is sustained and all these writ petitions stands allowed on this very iurisdictional issue. Since the impugned notaces and orders are gefting quashed on the point of jurisdiction, 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 proceedinqs. 38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the case of Ashish Agarwal, supra, as a one-time measure exercising the powers under Anic|e '142 of the Constitution of lndia, permitted the Revenue to proceed under the substituted provisions, and this Court allowing the petitions only on the procedural flaw, the right conferred on the -Rev-enue would remain reserved to proceed further if they so want 3 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 impugrred Show Cause notices and consequential orders passed in this batch ol 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.3B of the order dated 14.09.2A23 in W.P.No.259O3 of 2022. SD/- K, VENKAIAH ASSISTANT REGISTRAR /iTRUE COPY// ,/ SECTIONbFFICER To,1. lncome Tax Officer Ward 11 (1), Hyderabad, Signature Towers, Sy.No.6(p) of kondapur, Sy.No.37(P) of Kothaguda, OPP. Botanical- Gardehs, Serlingampally, Ranga Reddy, Hyderabad, Telangana-500084. 2. The Principal Chief Commrssioner of lncome Tai, AP and TS, 1Oth Floor, C- Block, l.T. Towers, 10-2-3, A.C. Guards, Hyderabad-500004. 3. The Assessment Unit, lncome Tax Department, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhr, h,4inistry of Frnance, Room No. 401 ,2nd Floor, E- Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, Delhi-1 10003. 4. lncome Tax OfficerWard '1 1(1), Hyderabad, Signature Towers, Sy.No.6(P) of Kondapur,Sy.No.3T(P) of Kothaguda, OPP. Botanical ' Gardrjns, Serlingarnpally, Ranga Reddy, Hyderabad, Telangana-500084. 5. The Principal Commissioner of lncome Tax - 2, Hyderabad, Signature Towers, Opp. Botanical Gardens, Kondapur, Hyderabad-500084. 4. One CC to SRl. DUNDU SASHANK IVIANN/OHAN, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to tr,4/s. J. SUNITHA (JUNIOR SC FOR TNCOME TAX DEPARTT,4ENT) IOPUCI 6. Two CD Copies Blu i': lD / 7. The Writ Petitions are allor,.'ed. No costs. Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall also stald ciosed. DATED:0210812024 f:. 'i ('l .l o 17 |,IT 20?4 4, ,'/ ,/ / COMMON ORDER t WP.No's.20664, 20728 AND 20764 of 2024 ALLOWING ALL THE WRITPETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS HIGH COURT @, ,' \"1 \"1 b+- "