Saritha Kotqlgvelly, W/o. K. Naresh V. Union of India, Ministry of Finance and Income Tax Officer, Ward 141 and The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax and The National Faceless Assessment Centre, Income Tax Department

WP/14753/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Saritha Kotqlgvelly, who challenged the income tax assessment orders issued by the Income Tax Department for the assessment year 2015-16. The petitioner argued that the reassessment process followed by the respondents was not in accordance with the modified procedures set out by the Finance Act, 2021, and thus, the notices and subsequent orders were invalid. The court referenced a common order in a batch of writ petitions (W.P.No.25903 of 2022) dated 14.09.2023, which had similar issues and found in favor of the petitioners, setting aside the impugned notices and orders.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 816858 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 13-06-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Ashish Agarwal vs. Union of India
• Laws Referred To: Constitution of India, Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: B MUKHERJEE; VIJAY PUNNA
• Assessee Lawyers: M AMARNATH
• Keywords: Finance Act 2021; Income tax assessment; Jurisdiction; Natural Justice; Writ of Mandamus
• Section: 147; 148; 148A; 265; 144(8); 19(1)(g); 22o

Judgement Text

"[ 3411 ] HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO WRIT PETITION NOi 14753 OF 2024 Between: AND Saritha KoTqlgvelly, W/o. K. Naresh, Aged about 43 years, Occ. Household, Rlo. 1O-147, Bharath Nagar, Gajwel, Siddipet District, Telangan, ...r.r,r,o*=* 1 . Union of lndia, Ministry of Finance Rep by its Secretary, 1668, North Block, New Delhi 1 '10 001 2. lncome Tax Officer, Ward 141 lncome Tax Towers Masab Tank Hyderabad Telangana 3. The Principal Commissioner Of lncome Tax, lncome Tax Towers li/asab Tank Hyderabad Telangana 4. The National Faceless Assessment Centre, lncome Tax Department Ministry of Finance Govt of lndia New Delhi Petition under Anicte 22o of the Constitution of tndia Or\"ri,ffT:ii.tT;: circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a or any other appropriate Writ, Order, or Direction, Writ of Mandamus declaring lhe order passed by the Income Tax Authorities (National Faceless E-Assessment centre completed the assessment U/S 147 r/w section 144-8 of the lncome Tax Act, 1961 vide DIN & Notice No. dated 24_01_2024 ITBtuAST/S/14712023-2411060069553(1) for the assessment year 2O1S-16 determining the total income of Rs_ 15,01,000/-as arbitrary, illegal, bad in law, without jurisdiction, void-ab-initio, violative of the principles of natural justice apart from being isolative 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 Order dated 31-03-2022 uls 148A(d) and Notice issued by the Respondent No 2 under Section 148 of the lncome Tax Act 1961 dated 01-04-2022 calling for the return of income of the Petitioner for AY 2015-'16 and any consequent proceedings as lacking in jurisdiction Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M. AMARNATH Counsel for Respondent No. 1: SRI B. MUKHERJEE, COUNSEL FOR SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR DEPUTY SOLICITOR GEN. OF INDIA Counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 to 5: SRI VIJHAY K. PUNNA, SENIOR SC FOR INCOME TAX The Court made the following: ORDER / THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AITD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO WRIT PETITIO N No. 1 4753 0F 2024 ORDER: (per tlon'ble,lusttrx, Strjoy puui) ' Heard Sri M. Amarnath, learned counsel for the petitioner(s), Sri B. Mukherjee, learned counsel representing Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar, iearnecl Deputy Solicitor General of India for the respondent(s) Central Government and Sri Vr.yhay' K Punna, learneci Senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department appears tbr the respondent(s)_lncome Tax Department. 2. The ground taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner(s) is that i. furth.rance of Financ e Act, 2O2I, re_ assessment process stooci mocliiicd but the respondents have not taken care of it and tl-rererore notice issued under Section 148 of the Incomc Ta,x Act, 196 I cannot sustain judicial scrutiny. Since notice is bad in laq,, the consequential orders are also bad in larv 3. During the course ol hearing, learned counsel for the parties agreed that curtains on this issue are hnall-v drarvn by this Court in a barch crI uuI peririons, W.p.No.25903 of 2022 I I and other connected matters. dccicled b]' common order dated I 4.O9.'2023. The parties :rgrccd that this matter may be disposed of in terms oi the Cornmon ( )rrier dated 14.o9.2023 4. This Court in the saicl orcier ciated l4-O9.2023 in W.P.No.25903 ol 2022, held as uncier \"35, In view of the aforesaid discussions, it is by now very clear that the Procedure to be followed by the respondent' DepaitIlrent upon treating the notices issued for leassessment being undet Section 148A, the subsequent proceedings was mandatorily requiied to be undertakcn under the substituted provisions as laid down under the Finance Act,2O2l. In the absence of which, we are constrained to hold that the procedure adopted by the resPondent-Department is in contrevention to the statute i.e- the Finance Act, 2O21, at the ,irst instaace, Secondly, it is also in di.ect contravention to the directives is6ued by the Hon'ble SuPremc 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 aside/quashed. As a consequence, all the impugned orders getting quashed, the consequential orders passed by the respondent Department putsuant to the notices issued under Section 147 and 148 $outd also Eet quashed afld it is ordered accordingly. The teason we are quashing the consequential order is on the principles that when the initiation of the ptoceedings itself was procedu.ally wrong, the subsequent orders also Sets [ullified automatically. 3?. The preliminary objection raised by the petitioner is sustained and alt these writ Petitions stands allowed on this very jurisdictional issue. Since the impugned notices and ordets are gettiug quashed on the point ofjurisdiction' we are not inclined to proceed further anrl decide the othel issues raised by the petitioner which stands reserved to be raised and contended in an appropriate proceedings- 38. Since the Hon'ble Supre re court had' in the case of Ashish Agarwat' suPra' as a one-time measure exercising the ;\";\": ;\"\"., Articre 142 ::\"i: :::::':::\"i:.:\".'\"\"; permitted the Revenue :\".;;;;;\"; r:.itions onry on the provisions' and this ti'lt- 1'\"rr\"-.0 on the Revenue sould procedural flaw' the tt*\"t ,t'r.ao.;-,, th.y \"o o'*\"t from the remain rese.vcd to proceed furtner rr :\". I * ^\"-\" .tf Ashish stage of the order of the supreme Court in.the case of Ashi Agarwal, suPra' 39. No otdet as to costs'\" 5. In vieu' of lhe consensrts arrived, the imPugned Show allowed. No costs' Interlocutory SDI.A.V.S. P Cause notrce petition are set aside ' to take resPective sta law as Per ParagraPh W.P.No.259O3 of 2022 To, ancl consequen[ial orders passed in this writ Lilicrt' is reserved to both the partles nd ancl to proceed in accordance with No.38 ot the ord'er dated 14'09'2023 to' 6. The writ Petltlol-t iS applications, if anY pen