SGM Collections, Represented by Molugu Srinivas V. Union of India, Ministry of Finance and Income Tax Office Ward '10 (1)', Hyderabad and The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I and The National Faceless Assessment Centre, Income Tax Department

WP/7894/2024

AI Insights

The case involves SGM Collections, represented by Molugu Srinivas, challenging the legality of the income tax notices and orders issued for the assessment year 2018-19. The petitioner argued that the notices and orders were issued under the un-amended provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which do not comply with the requirements for faceless proceedings and the opportunity of hearing as mandated by the amended provisions effective from 01.04.2021. The respondents included various authorities from the Ministry of Finance and the Income Tax Department. The court referenced a previous judgment in a similar batch of writ petitions, which had sustained the jurisdictional objection raised by the petitioner.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 822182 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 27-03-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Ashish Agrawal
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961, Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: B MUKERJEE; VIJHAY PUNNA
• Assessee Lawyers: POLKAMPALLY KUMAR RAO
• Keywords: Faceless assessment; Income Tax; Jurisdiction; Writ of Mandamus
• Section: 148; 148A(d); 226

Judgement Text

"[ 337e ] HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF IVARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUST]CE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.7894 OF 2024 Between: SGM Collections, Represented by lMolugu Srinivas, Aged 52 years, Occ. partner in SGM Collections Havinq Office at. D. Nb. 7-1-478 M;'ruthiveedhi, Opp. To E_seva Secundrabad, 5000003 \" ...PETITIONER AND 1. Union of India, Ministry of Finance Rep. by its Secretary, 166-8 North Block, New Delhi - 'l 10 00'l . 2. lncome Tax Office! Ward '10 ('1 ), Hyderabad, l.T Tower, Ac Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad, Telangana, 500004 3. The Principal Commissioner of lncome Tax-|, lT Towers, Ground Floor, A.C_ Guards Hyderabad, 500004 4. The National Faceless. Assessment centre, lncome Tax Department lVlinistry of Finance Govt. of lndia, New Delhi. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 ot rhe constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to lssue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly, one, in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the order passed by the Respondent No.2 in passing the Order daled 20.O4.2O22 uls. 148A(d) and Notice issued by the Respondent No.2 under Section '148 of the lncome Tax Act, 1g61 also dated 20.04.2022 as illegal, arbitrary, bad in law void abinitio, and being violative of the provisions of lncome Tax Act 1961 and Articles 14,19 and 265 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently; Set aside the Order dated 2O.O4.2O22 uls. 148A(d) and the Notice issued by the Respondent No.2 u/s 148 of the lncorne Tax Act, 1961 dated 2O.04.2022 calling.for the return of income of ther Petitioner for AY. 2018-19 and consequent proceedings as lacking in jurisdiction. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI POLKAMPALLY PAVAN KUMAR RAO Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.1 & 4: SRt B. MUKERJEE, REPRESENTING SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3: Mr. VIJHAY K. PUNNA, SENIOR STANDING COUNSEL FOR INCOME TAX The Court made the following: ORDER ( THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUI{ARAMJI IVRIT PETITION No.7894 OF 2024 ORDER:/per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.SAM KOSHII) The instant Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner under Articl e 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for the following relief: \"...to Issue a Wit Order or Direction more partianlarlg one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaing the order passed by the Respondent No.2 in passing the Order dated 20.04.2022 u/ s 148A(d) and Notice issued by the Respondent No 2 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act 1961 also dated 20.04.2O22 as illegal arbitrary bad in lau uoid ab initio and being uiolatiue of the prouisions of Income Tax Act 1961 and Articles 14 19 and 265 of the Constitution of India and consequentlA Set aside the Order dated 2O.O4.2O22 u/ s 148A(d) and the Notice issued bg the Respondent No.2 u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act 1961 dated 20.04.2022 calling for the rehtrn of income of the Petttioner for AY 2018-19 and consequent proceedings as lacking in juri.sdiction and/ or pass...\" 2. Heard Mr. Polkampally Pavan Kumar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. B. Mukerjee, learned counsel representing Mr. Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, for respondent No.1, Mr. Vijhay 2 re . J/T K Punna, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax for respondent Nos.2 to 4 and Perused the record. 3. One of the contentions that the petitioner has raised ln the present Writ Petition is that under th e amended provisions of the Act which came into effect from Ol.O4.2O2L, the respondents, while proceecling under Section 148 of the Act, were required to issue notice under Section 148,4, and provide an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. As per the amended provision oi 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, reopenin6l 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 14.09.2023 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 thar! the said objection was decided in the aforesaid batch of Writ 3 Petitions. However, he further contended that apart from the aforesaid objection, there have been other various 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 sustaiied and. all these uit petitions stands alloued on this uery iurisd.ictional issue' Since the impugned notices ani irders are getting quashed on the point of iuritdi.tion, we are not inclined to proceed furtler and 'decide the other issues raised bg the petitioner uhich stands resertted to be raised and contended in an appropriate Proce e ding s. \" \"38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the case of Ashish Aganttol, supra' os o one-time measure ixercising the powers under Article 142 of the Constituiion of India, permitted the Reuenue to proceed under tlrc substituted prouisions, and this Court ilto*ing the petitions orly on the procedural flau' the ,igi .i\"f.nia on the Reienue utould remain reserued ti pro\"\"ia Turther if theg so uont from the stog-e .of the oier of the Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Agorutal, suPra.\" I -iY-:gwffi 4 4 7 . In view of the sarne, we are inclined to allou' the present writ petition also on similar terms. Accor<1ingl1', the present Writ Petition stands allowed on the objection of the petitioner that the proceedings have not been drau'n 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 aforesaid batch matters, the rights of the parties would stand reserved as is envisaged at paragraph Nos.37 & 38 of the s;aid order passed in the batch of writ petitions. No order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pendin51, if any, sha, stand closed sD/'P PADM1$1\"*E6'EFRR; //TRUE COPY'/ /l // sEcrrKorrrcen To, The Secretary, Union of lndia' Ministry of Finance' 166-Ei North Block' New '*i, - -*i i* \"?i;:?l' -Y'3li i\"o' I lb'5.Jl \"'a bad' I r T owe r' Ac G u a rd s' H\",:rli:fi1,-:oojl:;'.'dssr ; '\"come rax-r' rr rowers' Ground Froor' A c IiF,HtT8Jf \"$ifi 3, l1i:i'iB:ill'\"\" \"u\"' I nco me r ax De partment M ini stry One CC to SRI POLKAMPALLY PAVAN KUMAR RAO' Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR' Deputy Solicitor General of lndia ';:J:: to Mr' VIJHAY K PuNNA' senior standing counsel ror lncome rax 1 , 3. 4 t 6 7 lilP GJP toPUCl 8. Two CD CoPies l4{ HIGH COURT DATED:2710312024 ORDER WP.No,7894 of 2024 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS o*dna s,u rl "