Shiv Kumar Shukla, V. Income Tax Officer

WP/7169/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Shiv Kumar Shukla, the petitioner, challenging the notices issued by the Income Tax Department under the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 2017-18 and 2018-19. The petitioner argued that the notices were issued arbitrarily and violated the principles of natural justice, as well as various articles of the Constitution of India and sections of the Income Tax Act. The court examined whether the notices were issued in compliance with the amended provisions of the Act, which came into effect on April 1, 2021, requiring a faceless procedure and an opportunity for the assessee to be heard. The court referenced a previous judgment involving similar issues, where it was held that the notices were issued without proper jurisdiction under the amended law.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 767571 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 20-03-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: WP.No.25903 of 2022 & batch, dated 14.09.2023
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961, Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: VIJAY PUNNA
• Assessee Lawyers: HIMANGINI SANGHI
• Keywords: Income Tax; Natural Justice; Principles of natural justice; Void ab initio; Writ of Mandamus
• Section: 148; 148A; 226

Judgement Text

"[ 337e ] HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION NO:7169 OF 2024 Between: AND 1. shiv Kumar shukla, S/o: Late sri Laxmikant shukra, Aqed about 60 vears O^cc Professionat, R/o at 8-3-1078 p. No. 57, S,.irvJgii\"Coroi; Hyd\"r:;;il !99913 Currentty Residins at 884 Sea tstand tn, r\"\"rt\"i Ciii, C;iii;;r];\"- 94404 ...PETITIONER lncome Tax Officer, Ward 6(1), lncome Tax Department, Hyderabad 2- Assessmenl Unit, lncome IqI qepartment, National e-Assessment Center New Delhi, Room No 4O1 ,2\"d Floor, E_Ramp.lawifrartai weh, Si;;i;';;' New Delhi 1 10 003 ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Articre 226 of the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or Direction declaring a the order passed by the '1't Respondent 11-01-2024 in DrN and Notice No. |rBA/ASTtFl17l2o23-24h0sg634g26(1) has issued notice under clause (a) of section r4BA of the rncome Tax Act, 1961 for the A.y. 2017-1g and Notice under Section 148(b) of the lncome Tax DIN and Notice No. |rBA/AST/F/148A(scNy2023-24t10607s7og3(1) dated 1oro2t2o24 as arbitrary illegal bad in law void-ab-initio viorative of the principres of naturar justice apart from being violative of Articles 14,1 99 and 265 of the constitution of lndia and sec 14BA of the lncome Tax Act 1g61 and consequenfly set aside the same in the interests of justice and to pass in the interest of iustice. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 pleased please direct the respondents to stay all further proceedings, including any recovery, pursuant to the notice issued by the 1't Respondent, '1 't Respondent 11-01-2024 in DIN and Notice No. ITBA/AST/F/1 712023-2411059634926(1) has issued notice under clause (a) of Seclion '148A of the lncome Tax Act, 1961 for the A.Y. 2017-18 and Notice under Section 148(b) of the lncome Tax DIN & Notice No. ITBA/AST/F/148A(SCN)/2023-2411060757093(1) dated 10-02-2024, pending disposal of the Main Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: MS. HIMANGINI SANGHI Counsel for the Respondents: SRI VIJHAY K PUNNA (SENIOR SC FOR ITD) The Court made the following: ORDER / THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSI{Y AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TI'KARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.7169 OF 2024 ORDER:[per Hon'ble Si Justice P.SAM KOSHY) Heard Ms.Himangini Sanghi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vrjay K. Punna, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Depa-rtment for the respondents. Perused the material on record. 2. The instant Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner under Articl e 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief; '...to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction declaring a the order passed by the 1't Respondent I | .Ol .2024 in DIN and Notice No. ITBA/ASTi F/ 17 /2023- 24 11059634926(1) has issued notice under clause (a) of Section l48A of the lncome Tax Act, 1961 for the A.Y. 2Ol7-18 and Notice under Section 148(b) of the Income Tax DIN and Notice No.ITBA/AST lF /1484 (SCN) / 2023-2 4 / ro6or 57 o93( 1) dated rO / 02 I 2024 as arbitrary, illegal, bad in Iaw, void ab initio, violative of the principles of natrrral justice apart from being violative of Articles 14, f9g and 265 of the Constitution of India and Section 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and consequently set aside the same in the interests of justice and to pass in the interest of justice and pass...\" 2 PSI(,J& MTR,J W.P.No.7769 o|t 2024 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 came into eflect from Ol.O4.2O2l, the respondents, while proceeding under Section 148 of the Act, were required to issue notice under Section 1484, and provide an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. As per the amended provision of law, the proceedings to be drawn are also 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 14.09.2023 wherein this Court disposed of the batch of writ petitions to the limited extent. 5. On the other hand, learned Stalding Counsel for the respondent-Department does not dispute that the said objection was decided in the aforesaid batch of Writ Petitions. Hou,ever, he further contended that apart from the a-foresaid objection, there have ttreT other various 3 ( t PSI(,J & 'V:rR,J W.P.No.7769 of 2024 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 a-re reproduced herein under: \"37. The preliminary objection raised bg fue petitioner is sustained and all these urit petitions stands allowed on this uery jurtsdictional issue. Since the impugned notices and orders are getting quashed on the point of juisdiction, we are not inclined to proceed further and decide the other issues raised bg the petitioner u.thich stands reserued to be raised and contended in an app ropriate p r o ce e ding s. \" \"38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the case of Asfu'sh Agarual, supra, as a one-time measure exercising the pouters under Article 1a2 of *te Constitution of India, permitted the Reuenue to proceed under the substituted prouisions, and this Court allou.ting the petitions orulg on the procedural flaut, tle right conferred on the Reuenue u.tould remain reserued to proceed further if theg so uant from the stage of the order of the Suprerrye Court in the case of Ashish Aganaal, supra.\" 7. In view of the sarne, we are inclined to allow the present writ petition also on similar terms. Accordingly, the ', 4 PSIT,J& MTR,J W.P.No.7769 of 2024 present Writ Petition stands allowed on the objection of the petitioner that the proceedings have not been drawn in accordance with the amended provision but r.rnder the un-amended provision which is otherwise not sustainable. 8. As has been held by this Bench in the aforesaid batch matters, the right of the parties would stand reserved as is envisaged at paragraph Nos.37 & 38 of the said order passed in the batch of writ petitions. No order as to costs 9. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, il any shall stand closed. SD/. C. PRAVEEN KUM ASSISTANT REGIST R //TRUE COPY' SECTION OFF ER To, 1 2 lncome Tax Officer, Ward 6( l), lncome Tax Department' Hyderabad- Assessment Unit, lncome Tii Department, National e-Assessment Center Ne* Oef ni, Room No 4o1 ,2nd Fl