Sd Nageshwarra Rao Palli, S/o. Sri Palli Narasimha Rao, Aged years., Occ. - Retired Employee V. Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Income Tax Department, Ministry of Finance and The Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, New Bus Stand, Veerabhadra Nagar, Sangareddy

WP/7972/2024

AI Insights

The case involves a writ petition filed by Sd Nageshwarra Rao Palli against the Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre, and the Income Tax Officer, challenging the orders issued under sections 147, 144, and 148 of the Income Tax Act for the assessment years 2018-19 and 2019-20. The petitioner argued that the orders were arbitrary, illegal, and violated the provisions of the Act and CBDT circulars. The court examined whether the respondents followed the correct procedural requirements under the amended Act, which mandates faceless assessments and proper notice under section 148A. The court's decision was influenced by a similar batch of writ petitions it had previously disposed of, which addressed jurisdictional issues under the amended provisions.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 814626 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 27-03-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Ashish Agarwal vs. Revenue
• Laws Referred To: Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Section 147, 144, 1448, 148A, 149, 151A of the Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: VIJHAY K PUNNA
• Assessee Lawyers: A V RAGHURAM
• Keywords: Amended Provisions; Faceless assessment; Income Tax; Jurisdictional issue; Writ of Mandamus
• Section: 147; 144; 149; 148A; 1448; 151A; 226

Judgement Text

"HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYOERAAAD (Speciat Originat Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION NO:7972 OF 2024 I s37s ] about 64 Sai Balaji Between: Sd Nageshwarra Rao Palli, S/o. Sri palli Narasimha Rao, Aged years., Occ. - Retired. Employee, plot No..t 130, Flat No.10i, Residency, Matrusri Nagar, Miyapur, Hyderabad - SO0O49. AND ...PETITIONER 1. Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre, lncome Tax Department, Ministry of Finance, Room No. 4O1 , 2nd nobl, E-_nirp,' Jawahadal Nehru Siadium, Deth'i - 1 i O 003 - 2. The lncome Tax Officer, Ward - 1, New Bus Stand, Veerabhadra Nagar, Sangareddy - 502001. Petition under Articte 226 of the Consritution of tndia ,rrrf\"?i.tJi5iH circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to pass an order or direction, especialry one in the nature of wRlr oF MANDAMUS holding that the order passed by 1st Respondent u/s. 147 t.w.s. 144 r.w-s 1448 of the Act, dt.19to3t2024 wirh DtN No.IrBA/AST/S1147t2023_ 2411062889386(1)for the Ay.201g-.rg, as arbilrary, ifiegar, bad in raw, void ab initio, apart from being violative of provisions of section 14gA and section 149 of the Act and also contrary to tre circurar issued by CBDT and provisions of section 151A of the Act, and consequentry set aside the order passed by 1st Respondent u/s. '147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s 1448 of the Act, dt.19to3t2O24 with DtN No.|rBA/AST/S 114712023-24t1062889386(1) for the Ay.2018-19 and ail consequential proceedings pursuant thereto IANO:1OF 2024 Petition under section 1 51 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, including any recovery, pursuant to the order passed by the 1st Respondent u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s 1448 of the Act, dr.1gro3r2024 with DIN No. ITBA/AST I S I 1 47 t2023-24 t 1 062889386( 1 ) for the Ay. 20 1 B_ 1 9, Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI A. V. RAGHU RAM Counsel for Respondents: SRI VIJHAY K. PUNNA, SENIOR SC FOR INCOME TAX The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSI{Y AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUI(ARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.7972 0F 2024 ORI)ER:(per Ho n'bte Si Justice P.SA}I KOSHY) The instant Writ Petition has been liled by the petitioner under Articl e 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for the following relief: \"...1o pass an order or direction especiallu one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS holdinq that the order passed bu lSt Respondent u/s 147 r u s 744 r u s 1448 of tte Act dt 19/03/2024 tttith DIN No ITBA/AST/ S/ 147/2023'24/ 10628893861 for the Au 20 181 g as arbitrant illeqal bad in lana uoid ab initio apart from beinq uiolatiue of prouisions of section 148A and iection 149 of the Act and also contraru to the ciranlar i.ssued bu CBDT and prouisions of section 151A of tle Act and consequently set aside the order passed bu lSt Respondent u/ s 147 r w s 144 r u s 1448 of the Act dt 19/ 03/2024 uith DIN No: ffBA/AST/S/ 147/202324/ 10628893861 for tLe Au 201819 and oll con-sequential proceedings pursuant thereto ond poss...\" 2 Heard Mr. A. V. Raghu Ram, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Vijhay K Punna, Iearned Senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax for respondents and Perused the record. 2 3. One of the contentions that the petitioner has raised in the present Writ petition is that under the amended provisions of the Act which carne into effect from Ol.O4.2O2l, the respondents, while proceeding under Section l4g of the Act, were required to issue notice under Section l48A and provide an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. As per the amended provision of law, the proceedings to be drawn are a_lso in a faceless manner. 4 . Whereas, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, in the instant case, reopening has been initiated by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. In support of his contention, he relied upon the recent judgment rendered by this very Bench in Wp.No.259O3 of 2022 & batch, dated 14.O9.2023 wherein this Court disposed of the batch of writ petitions to the limited extent. 5. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Department does not dispute that the said objection was decided in the aforesaid batch of Writ Petitions. However, he further contended that apart from the aforesaid objection, there have been other various 3 objections also which the petitioner has raised in the writ petition. 6. So far as this contention of the learned counsel for the respondent-Department is concerned, this Bench, while disposing of said batch of writ petitions, had taken note of the same at paragraph Nos.37 & 38 which are reproduced herein under: \"37. The preliminary objection raised bg the petitioner is sustained and alt these turit petitions stands allowed on this very jurbdictional issue. Sine the impugned noties and orders are getting quashed on tle point of jurbdictiora u)e are not inclined to proceed further and d.ecide tlw other issues raised bg the petitioner which stands reserued to be raised and antended in an appropriate proceeding s. \" 38. Since the Hon'ble Suprerne Court had, in the case of Ashish Agaruta supra, as a one-time measure exercising the pouers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, pennitted the Reuenue to proceed under tle sttbstituted prouisiorts, ond this Court allouing the petitions onlg on tlw procedural Jlau, tte right anfened on tle Reuenue uould remain reserued to proeed further if tley so utant from the stage of tte order of the *tpreme Court in the cose of Ashish Agarual, supro.\" 7. In view of the s€une, we are inclined to allow the present writ petition also on similar terms. Accordingly, the present Writ Petition stands allowed on the objection of the 4 petitioner that the proceedings have not been drawn in accordance with the amended provision but under the un-amended provision which is otherwise not sustainable. 8. As has been held by this Bench in the aJoresard batch matters, the rights of the parties would stand reserved as is envisaged at paragraph Nos.37 & 3g of the said order passed in the batch of writ petitions. No order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions shall stand closed. pending, if any, //TRUE COPYII ASSISSfl-#??B.,Iffi.RL v To, SECTTON OFFICER ifff ffi eirffiiyjffi ts3,f i:q;\"lr;3?:Hr',?#i?rinl\"\",. iffi,;i.^.ffi ]36roff:. ward - 1, we*-e\"; Stand, Veerabhadra Nasar, ffi Eg 3jt0#sll'H,TXT, tf:sr I: Jp\"\".y;l ra x ( o p U c ) 1 2 3. 4. 5. MBC KKS HIGH COURT DATED: 2710312024 ORDER WP.No.7972 of 2024 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS o l-,tw' t'..' //.o' i5 1t .i ... 4.- ,<| 1$ o > i/ .t , t: D ) F il\"ae rI'- p.1 "