Siripuram Rama Krishna V. The Income Tax Officer, WARD 14(1) and The Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, AP and TS and The Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

WP/3790/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Siripuram Rama Krishna, the petitioner, challenging the orders and notices issued by the Income Tax Department for the assessment year 2015-16. The petitioner argued that the reopening of the assessment was initiated by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of the Faceless Assessment Officer, as required under the amended provisions of the Income Tax Act effective from April 1, 2021. The court referenced a previous judgment where similar objections were sustained, leading to the quashing of the notices and orders on jurisdictional grounds. The court's decision emphasized adherence to the procedural requirements set out in the amended Act, which mandates faceless assessments and proper issuance of notices.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 675065 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 14-02-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Ashish Agarwal
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: J V PRASAD
• Assessee Lawyers: THANNERU KUMAR
• Keywords: Faceless assessment; Income Tax; Jurisdictional issue; Natural Justice; Writ of Mandamus
• Section: 147; 148; 144; 148A; 226

Judgement Text

"[ 337e ] HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P,SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION NO: 3790 OF 2024 Between: Siripuram Rama Krishna, S/o, Siripuram Venkataiah, aged 44 years, Occ ; Business, R/o.H.No.9-l-3411517|a, Bapu Nagar, Golconda S.0, GotConda, HYDERABAD, 50000B, Telangana, INDIA PAN. CVJPS4726F Assessment Year. 2015-16. .....PETITIONER AND 1. The lncome Tax Officer, WARD 14(1), l.T Towers, A.C. Guards Masab Tank, HYDERABAD, Telangana, 500001. 2. The Principal Chief Commissioner of lncome Tax, AP and TS, 1Oth Floor, C-Block, l.T. Towers, 10-2-3, A.C. Guards, Hyderabad-500004. 3. The Assessment Unit, lncome Tax Department, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, Ministry of Finance, Room No. 401,2nd Floor, E- Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, Delhi-1 '10003. .....RESPONOENTS 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 an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the impugned order for A.Y. 2015- '16passed uls 147 r.w.s 144 read with section 1448 ol the lncome-tax Act vide ITBA/AST/S/14712023-2411059718314(1) dated 15-01-2O24and the consequential notice u/s '148 dated 1B-O4-2O22 vide DIN No. ITBA/ASTlsl148- 112022- 2311042754954(1)issued by the JA0(1St respondent) instead of FA0(3rd respondent), as void, illegal, and contrary to the provisions of lncome-tax Act and contrary to the principles of natural justice. |.A.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 to stay all further proceedings pursuant to the notice u/s 148 dt. 18-04-2022 vide DIN No. ITBA/AST/S/1 48112022-2311042754954(1) issued by the '1st Respondent (JAO) for A.Y 2015-16 instead of 3'd respondent (FAO), and may pass such other order(s) as the Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the interests of substantial justice, as otherwise the Petitioner would be put to irreparable loss and severe injury. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI THANNERU CHAITANYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents : SRI J.V.PRASAD (SC FOR INCOME TAX) The Court made the following ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTTCE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUI(ARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.379O oF 2024 ORDER:(per Ho n'ble Si 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 reliel \"to issue an appropiate tuit order or direction more particulortg one in- thi noture of Wit of Mandamus declaing 'the impugied ord.er for A Y 2o1516passed u/s 747 r w s 144 reoi uith section 1448 of the Income tox Act uide ITBA/ AST/ S/ 147/ 202324/ 10597183141 dt I 5o12o24and the consequential notice u/s 148 dt 18042022 uide DIN No I BA/ ASTT S/ 1481/ 2022 23/ 10427549541issued bs the JA}1S1 respond-ent instead of FAO3rd' respond'ent as uoid iltegat and-contrary to the proui-sio-ns of .Income tox Act ond .oit ory to the Pinciptes of Natural Justice\" ' 2. 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 148 of the Act, were required to issue notice under Section 148A and provide an opportunity of hearing to the 2 PSI(,J & MTR,J W.P.No.379O of 2024 assessee. As per the amended provision of law, the proceedings to be drawn are also in a faceless manner. 3. 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.25903 of 2022 & batch, dated 14.O9.2023 wherein this Court disposed of the batch of writ petitions to the limited extent. 4. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Department does not dispute that Lhe 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 objections also which the petitioner has raised in the writ petition. 5. So far as this contention of the learned counsel for the respondent-Department is concerned, this Bench, while disposing of said batch of '\"vrit petitions, had taken note of 3 PSK,J & NTR,J W.P.No.379O oJ 2O24 the same at paragraph Nos.37 & 38 which are reproduced herein under: \"37. The preliminary objection raised bg the petitioner is sustained and all these writ petitions stands alloued on this uery juisdictional issue. Since the impugned notices and orders are getting quashed on the point of jurisdiction, u)e are not inclined to proceed further and decide the otLer issues raised bg the petitioner uhich strznds reserued to be raised and contended in an ap prop iate pro ceeding s. \" \"38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in tLrc case of Ashish Agarutal, supra, as a one-time measure exercising the pouters under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, permitted tlrc Reuenue to proceed under the substituted prouisions, and this Court allowing the petitions only on the procedural ftaw, the right confened on the Reuenue utould remain reserued to proceed further if they so u.tont from the stage of the order of the Supreme Court in tLte case of Ashish Aga ru.tal, supra.\" 6. In view of the same, 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 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. 7. As has been held by this Bench in the aforesaid batch matters, the rights of the parties would stand reserved as is PSK,J& NTR,J W.P,No.379O of 2O24 envisaged at paragraph Nos'37 & 38 of the said order 4 passed in the batch of writ petitions ConsequentlY, miscellaneous shall stand closed' //TRUE COPY// No order as to costs petitions pending, if anY' SD/. MOHD. SANAULLAH ANS RI ASSISTANT REGIST SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2. 3. 4 q o SA GJP g : Two CD CoPies I I i I 1 t HIGH COURT DATED:1410212024 ORDER WP.No.3790 of 2024 ALLOWING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. 1 gE S T416 t, t: 1i 0 2 APn 2024 O5spr.tcH * G('* ,(_ .?- w "