Shalini Kalkonda V. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I and Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(1)

WP/19155/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Shalini Kalkonda, the petitioner, challenging the order issued by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(1), Hyderabad, under Section 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which reopened her income assessment for the assessment year 2016-17. The petitioner argued that the order was arbitrary, illegal, and violated the principles of natural justice. The court found that the authorities had not properly considered the documents and contentions provided by the petitioner, leading to the decision to set aside the impugned order and remit the case for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 796740 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 13-12-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961, Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: J V PRASAD
• Assessee Lawyers: POLKAMPALLY KUMAR
• Keywords: Financial transactions; Financial transactions; Jurisdiction; Natural Justice; Reopening of assessment; Writ of Certiorari
• Section: 148; 149(1)(b); 148-A

Judgement Text

"[ 337e I HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI wRtT PETTTION NO.19155 0F 2023 Between: Shalini Kalkonda, PAN.DELPK5006N, Flat No.304, Keerthi Apartments, Tilak Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana- 500 044. ...PETITIONER AND '1 . The Principal Commissioner of lncome Tax-I, lncome Tax Towers, Masab Tank, Hyderabad, Telangana- 500 004. 2. lncome Tax Officer, Ward 4(1), lncome Tax Towers, Masab Tank, Hyderabad, Telangana- 500 004. ...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 Certiorari, declaring the action of the respondent No.2 in passing the order daled. 29.03.2023 Under Clause (d) of Section 148-A lncome Tax Act, 1961 for reopening the assessment of the Petitioner for AY 2016-1 7 as arbitrary, illegal and violative of principles of natural justice and to quash the notice issued by the respondent No.2 U/S 148 of the lncome Tax Act, 1961 dated. 29.03.2023 calling for the return of income of the petitioner for AY 2016-1 7 and consequent proceedings as racking in jurisdiction in terms of Section i 49(1) (b) of the rncome Tax Act, 1961 lA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 direct the Respondent No. 2 herein, to stay the reassessment proceedings in the case of the Petitioner for Ay. 2016_17 , in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRt pOLKAMPALLY PAVAN KUMAR FOR SRI P. SOMA SHEKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: SRI J. V. PRASAD, S.C. FOR INCOME TAX The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.19155 of 2023 ORDER:(per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.SAM KOSHY) Heard Mr.Polkampally Pavan Kumar, leamed counsel for the petitioner and Mr.J.V.Prasad, leamed Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent. Perused the material available on record. 2. The present is a writ petition where the challenge is to the issuance of the order under clause (d) Section 148A of the Income Tax Act 1961. 3. It would be relevant to take note of the finding on the basis of which the authority had passed the said order. The relevant portion is that which is reflected in paragraph Nos.5 and 6 of the impugned order i.e., annexure P-2 which read as under: 5. The reply and the documents furnished are carefully examined. The assessee submitted that she was an NRI during the FY 2015-16, however no proof was filed in support of the same. Assessee also claimed that she purchased property jointly with her ex-husband. But she did not furnish the sale deed or loan approval certificate from bank evidencing her claim. Further her bank account statement showing 2 the payments was also not submitted. In absence of the required evidence, the claim of the assessee cannot be accepted. 6. The assessee did notfile ITR even though she is involved in certain financial transactions I is ted above. Therefore, informat ion ava ila b le with the Department suggests that income chargeable to tax represented in the form of asset which is likely lo amount to Rs.50 lakhs or more has escaped assessment within the meaning of Seciton I 47. As the assessee .failed to satisfactory explain the transactions, the case of considered FIT for reopering the assessmentfor the AY 2016-17. 4. The petitioner is in support of his contention have filed along with the writ petition a copy of sale deed which would clearly indicate that the so called flat which has been purchased has been purchased jointly in the name of the petitioner and her ex-husband. Further, there is also sufficient indication with the documentary proof to show that there has been payments made only of an amount of Rs.30,54,191/-, during the assessment year 2016-17. Further there is also clear indication that for the purchase of the said flat, there was a house loan obtained from HDFC bank to the tune of Rs.85,00,000/-. Further, there is also sufficient indication to show that the financial statement of the husband was also 3 produced before the respondents to substantiate the contention that the petitioner raised in reply to show cause notice that was earlier issued' None of these contentions and documents seems to have been properly appreciated by the respondents while passing the impugned order under clause (d) of Section 148A of the Act, nor is there any discussion in this regard by the authority concerned except to the finding which is reproduced in the preceding paragraphs that which is reflected in paragraph Nos.5 and 6 of the impugned order. 5. Giving said facts and circumstances of the case, particularly taking note of the documents which stands enclosed along with the show cause notice and also which are accompanying with present writ petition, we are of the considered opinion that that findings as is reflected in paragraph Nos.5 and 6 of the impugned order does not seem to be proper, legal and justified in the teeth of the documents which are there abeady available in the present writ petition and which according to the petitioner were also made available to the assessing officer at the first instance itself. The impugned order annexure P-2 accordingly stands set aside/quashed and the matter stands remitted back for a fresh consideration and a fresh order to be passed strictly after perusing the documents and the contentions that the petitioner has raised in their response to the shorv cause. , t a' -. ',i 4 6. The Writ Petition stands allowed. No costs 5. Two CD CoPies 7. As a sequel, miscellaneous apptications pending if any in this writ petition, shall stand closed. sD/' MoH D' 3rtltHi'-#Lfli'st //TRUE COPY/I o/ sECTloN'Orrlcen to''r. ,n\" Principal Commissioner *I:RT\" Tax-l' lncome Tax Towers' Masab ' il\"k, iivo6*u'0, Telangana- 500 004' 2. The lncome Tax Officer' -ry?ld 4(1)' lncome Tax Towers' Masab Tank' ' Hfi\";;6;A,relangana- 5oo oo4' 3. One CC to SRI P' SOMA SHEKAR REDDY' Advocate IOPUCI 4. One CC to SRI J V' PRASAD' S C' for INCOME TAX IOPUCI MP GJP b HIGH COURT DATED:1311212023 HE STA 16: 1 ( c o O B JAN 2024 z a .L * t ORDER WP.No.19155 of 2023 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ,o 14 (Dcof -l r)F "