Sandhya Rani Anumasa V. Income Tax Officer

WP/21774/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Sandhya Rani Anumasa, the petitioner, challenging the assessment order passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Warangal, and other respondents, under various sections of the Income-tax Act for the assessment year 2015-16. The petitioner argued that the reassessment notice and subsequent orders were issued without adhering to the procedural safeguards introduced by the Finance Act, 2021, and were thus void, illegal, and contrary to the principles of natural justice. The court referenced a common order in a batch of writ petitions (W.P.No.25903 of 2022) dated 14.09.2023, which had addressed similar procedural issues.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 765679 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 09-08-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Ashish Agarwal
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, Finance Act, 2021, Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: BOKARO REDDY
• Assessee Lawyers: DUNDU MANMOHAN
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Limitation; Natural Justice; Reassessment Process; Writ of Mandamus
• Section: 147; 148; 144; 148A; 144A; 226

Judgement Text

"[ 3408 ] HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO WRIT PETITION NO:21774 oF 2024 Between: Sandhya Rani Anumasa, W/o Sambaiah, Aged about 64 years, Occ; Housewife, H.No. 3-14-333/1 , Durga Colony, KUC Road, Hanamkonda, Warangal -506001. .....PETITIONER AND income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Warangal, D.No. 1-8-610, 3rd Floor. lv{ayuri Complex, Opp. TSNPDCL Bhawan, Nakkalagutta, Hanamkonda, Waiangal- 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, The Assessment Unit, lncome Tax Department, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, Ministry of Finance, Room No. 4O1 ,2nd Floor, E- Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, Delhi-'l 10003. '2 3 .....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 a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the Assessment Order dt. OS.O1 .2}24passed by the 3rdrespondent uls 147 rw.s144l 1448 of the lncome-tax Act for A.y. 2015-16 vide DIN No, ITBA/AST/S/14712023-2411059411818(1),which is passed as a consequence of the order passed u/s 148A(d) dt.24.O4.2O22 vide DIN No. ITBA/AST/F/'I48A12022-2311042833316(1) and the notice u/s 148 dt.25.04.2022vide DIN issued No.ITBA/AST/S/148-1 12O22-23t104283a539(t), by the JAO(1st respondent) rnstead of FAO(3rd respondent), as void, illegal, and contrary to the provisions of lncome-tax Act and contrary to the Principles of Natural Justice, apart from being barred by limitation. l.A.NO:1 OF 2024 Petition Under Section 15'1 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, 05.0.1 .2024 passed by the 3rdrespondent u/s 147 r.w_s 1441144A of the lncome-tax Act for A.y. 201 5- 16 vide DIN No ITBAiAST/S114712O23-Z4t1OSg4118i8 (1). Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI DUNDU MANMOHAN Counsel for the Respondents : Ms. BOKARO SAPNA REDDy (Jr. SC FOR INCOME TAX) The Court made the following ORDER I THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO WRIT PETITION No.21774 0F 2024 ORDER: (per Hon'ble Justice Sujog Paul) Heard Sri Dundu Manmohan, learned counsel for the pctitioner(s) and Ms. B. Sapna Reddy, learned Junior Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department, for the respondents. 2. The ground taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner(s) is that in furtheralce of Finance Act, 202 1, re- assessmcnt process stood modified but the respondents have not taken care of it and therefore notice issued under Section 148 of the lncome Tax Act, 1961 cannot sustain judicial scrutiny. Since notice is bad in law, the consequential orders are also bad in law. 3. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the parties agreed that curtains on this issue are hnally drawn by this Court in a batch of writ petitions, W.P.No.259O3 ot 2022 and other connected matters, decided by common order datcd 14.09.2O23. The parties agreed that this matter may be disposed of in terms of the Common Order dated 74.O9.2023. I t 2 4. This Court rn thr: szrid order dated 14 .O9 .2023 in W.P.No.259O3 of 2022, hcld as under \"35. ln view of the aforesaid discussions, it is by 'tow very clear that the procedure to be folloecd by the respondeat- I)epartmetrt upon treatiEg the rotices lssued for reassessment being uoder Sectiotr 148A, the subsequelt proceedings was maadatorily required to lrc undcrtakeD u[der the substituted provisiotrs as laid down uDder thc Finaace Act,2O2l. Ilr tle absence of which, we ate const.ained to hold that the proc€dure adopted by the respordeDt-Depart6eat is is contrevention to the statute i.e. the Finance Act, 2O21, at the {lrst instance. Secondly, it is also in diiect cuttrave[tioa to the directives issued by the Hon'bte SupreEe Court ia the c&se of Ashish Agarwal, strpra. 36. For aU the eforesaid r€asons, thc irupug[ed Bouces issued and the proceedings drasn by the respondent-Depa.ttaeEt is neitier tenable, nor sustainable. The trotices so is,sued and the p.ocedure adopted beint per sc illegal, deserees to be and are accorditrgly set aside/quashed- As a coosequelce, all the iEpug[ed orders getting quashed, the coDsequeltial orders passed by the respondeat Depa{ment pursualt to the ootices issued under Sectioa 147 aod 14E would also get quashed aDd it is ordered accordiqgy. The rcason se a.e quashing the consequedtial order is otr the priociples that whea the initiatior of the proccedings itself was procedurally wrotrg, the subsequent orders also gets nullilied autornatically. 37- The preliminary cbjectioc raised by the petitioner is sustained aad all thesc ttrrit petitions staads altosed on this very jurisdictional issue. Sincc the impug[ed notices ald orders are gettiag quashed on the poiut ofjurisdictioa, we are not incliaed to proceed further and decide the other issues raised by the petitiooer which sta[ds rescrved to be (aised aqd coatended in an appropriate proceedings. 3E. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the cese of Ashish Agarwal, suprar as a orae-time Eeasure exercising the powers under Article 142 of the Consutuuon of India, permitted the Rcve ue to proceed under the substituted provisions, and this Coun auowitrg the petltlons orly on tbe procedural tlaw, the right confcrred otr the Revenue woulal t I I remain reserved to proceed further if they so wa[t froB the stage of the order of the Supreme Court in the case of Ashish AtarFal, supra. 39. No order as to costs.\" 5. In view of the consensus arrived, the impugned Show Cause notice and consequential orders passed in this writ petition are set aside. Liberty is reserved to both the parties to take rcspective stand and to proceed in accordance with Iaw as per paragraph No.38 of the order dated 14'O9'2O23 in W.P.No.25903 of 2022. 6. ]'he Writ Petition is allou'ed. No costs' Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/.V.KAVITHA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR v. SECTION OFFICER To ,| 2 The lncome Tax Officer, Ward 1, Wqrglga!, D.No. 1-8-610, 3rd Floor, tVlayuri !^onql9x, Opp TSNPDCL Bhawan, Nak-katagutta, Hanam(onda, Wr;r;g;t 506001 The Principal Chief Commissioner of lncome Tax Ap and TS, 1Oth Floor, C- 8lock. lT. Towers, 10-2-3, A.C, Guards, Hyderabad_500004. The Assessment Unit. lncome Tax Department, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, L4inistry of Finance, Room No. 401, 2nd Floor, E- Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, Delhi-1 10003. One CC to SRI DUNDU IVANIVOHAN, Advocate tOpUCl One CC to ivts BOKARO SAPNA REDDY (Jr. SCiOR |NCOI |E TAX ) Al voca r? [OPUCI T v,,l CD Coci.\" s 3 4 o SA KKS Pt'tQ. HIGH COURT DATED:09108t2024 ORDER WP.No.2't774 of 2OZ4 ALLOWING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. I tllt sial e ? 1 c[T 2o2l ;iiO l)t 6 1; >* qtt'u ' I -.:--.=/ I "