Sita Mahalakshmi Nallamilli, V. Income Tax Officer Ward 8(1)

WP/6952/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Sita Mahalakshmi Nallamilli, the petitioner, challenging the assessment order passed by the Income Tax Department for the assessment year 2015-16. The petitioner argued that the reassessment was initiated improperly under the old provisions of the Income Tax Act, despite amendments that required a different procedure and a faceless assessment approach. The court referenced a previous batch of writ petitions where similar jurisdictional issues were addressed, leading to the quashing of the notices and orders on jurisdictional grounds. The court's decision in this case followed the precedent set in the earlier batch, allowing the writ petition and quashing the assessment order.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 694142 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 19-03-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Ashish Agartal case
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: SUNDARI PISUPATI
• Assessee Lawyers: DUNDU MANMOHAN
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Faceless assessment; Income Tax; Natural Justice; Writ of Mandamus
• Section: 147; 148; 144; 149; 148A; 1448; 226

Judgement Text

"[ 337s ] HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY ,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF TVARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI Between: Sita Mahalakshmi Nallamilli, W/o N.Rama Reddy,age 59 years Occ house wife Flat No. C-424, C Block, 4th Floor, Sri Datta Sai Apartments, H. No. 1 -7 -1 07 41 1 1961 Musheerabad Telangana- 500020 ...PETITIONER AND '1 . lncome Tax Officer Ward 8(1), Signature Towers, Sy.No.6(P) of Kondapur, Sy.No.37(P) of Kothaguda, OPP. Botanical Gardens, Serlingampally, Ranga Reddy, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500084. 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. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, The Assessment Unit, lncome Tax Department, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, Irilinistry of Finance, Room No. 401 , 2nd Floor, E-Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, Delhi-1 10003. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitutron 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 drrection more particularly one in the nature of Writ of N/landamus, declaring the Assessment Order dt. 06.03.2024passed by the 3rdrespondent uls 147 r.w.s14411448 of the lncome- tax Act for A.Y. 2015-16 vide DIN No. ITBA lA3T15114712023-2411062084217 (1),which is passed as a consequence of the order passed u/s 14BA(d) dt.O6.O4.2O22 vide DIN No. ITBA/ASTIF I 1 48A12022-231 1 042560284(1 ) and the notice u/s 148 dt.O6.04.2022 vide DIN No.ITBA/AST/S/148 112022- 231104257 5307(.1 ), issued by the JAO(lst respondent) instead of FAO(3rd respondent), that too contrary to provisions of section 149of the Act, as void, WRIT PETITION NO: 6952 OF 2024 illegal, and contrary to the provisions of lncome-tax Act and contrary to the Prrnciples of Natural J ustice 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 to stay all further proceedings pursuant to the Assessment Order dt. 06.03.2024passed by the 3rdrespondent uls 147 t.w.sl4411448 of the lncome- tax Act for A.Y. 2015-16 vide DIN No ITBA/AST lsl147 12023- 24t 1062084217 (1) Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. DUNDU MANMOHAN Counsel for the Respondents: M/s. SUNDARI R. PISUPATI SENIOR 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.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.6952 OF 2024 ORDER (per Hon'ble Sn.lustice P.SAM KOSHY) 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 partianlorly one in the nature of Wfi of Mandamus declaring the Assessmenf Order dated 06.03.2024 passed bA the 3'd respondent u/ s. 147 r.ut.s 144/ 1448 of the Income Tox Act, fo, A.Y.2O15-16 uide DIN No. ITBA/ AS't/ S/ 1 4 7 / 2 02 3 -2 4 / 1 0 62 O 8 42 1 7 ( 1 ), which is passed as d consequence of the order possed u/s 148A(d) dt.06.04.2o22 uide DIN No.ITBA/AS'I/ F/ 148A/2022-23/ 1042560284(1) and the notice u/ s 148 dt.O6.04.2O22 uide DIN No.ITBA/ AST/ S/ 148_1/ 2022-23/ 1042575307(1) issued bg the JAO(lst respondent) instead of FAO(3d respondent), thot too contrary to prouisions of section 149 of the Act, as uoid, illegal and contrary to the prouisions of Income Tax Act and contrary to the principles of natural justice and pass. ..\" 2. Heard Mr. Dundu Manmohan, learned counsel for the petitioner arrd Mrs. Sundari R. Pisupati, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax, for respondents Perused the record. Yet:.i,rir 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 rvhich came into effect from Ol.O4.2O2I, 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 assessee. As per the amended provision of law, the proceedings to be drawn are also in a faceless marr.ner. 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.25903 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 hald, learned Stalding Counsel for the respondent-Department does not dispute that the said objection was decided in the aJoresaid batch of Writ Petitions. However, he further contended that apart from the aforesaid objection, there have been other various I ; I I I i i I j ! . l{1rrrr 7 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 by the petitioner is sustoined and all these uit petitions stands allouted on this uery juisdictional issue. Since the impugned notices and orders ore getting quoshed on the point of jurisdiction, u)e are not inclined to proceed further and decide tLLe other issues raised by the petitioner u-thich stands reseled to be raised and contended in an app ropriate p ro ce e ding s. \" \"38. Since th-e Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the case of Ashish Agarttal, supro, as a one-time measure exercising the pou.ters under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, permitted the Reuenue to proceed under the substituted prouisions, and this Court allou.ing the petitions only on the procedurat Jtau-,, the right conferred on the Reuenue utould remain resetaed to proceed furtter if they so uant from the stage of the order of the Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Agantal, supra.\" 7. 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 --- ...r,'rl I 4 petitioner that the proceedings have not been drawn in accordarrce with the amended provision but under the un-amended provision which is otherwise not sustainable B. 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 said order passed in the batch of writ petitions. No order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, sha-ll stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/.C.PRAVEEN KUMAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTIO OFFICER To, 1. The lncome Tax Officer Ward B(1), Signature Towers, Sy.No 6(P) of Kondapur, Sy.No.37(P) of Kothaguda, OPP. Botanical Gardens, Serlinjampaily, Ranga'Reddy, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500084' z ine piincibat 'Cniet iommissioner Of lncome Tax Ap And Ts, 1Oth Floor, C- Block, l.T. Towers, 10-2-3, A.C. Guards, Hyderabad-500004. :. ifre National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, The Assessment Unit, - lncome Tax Department, National Faceless Aslessment Centre, Delhi, Ministry of Finahce, Room No. 4O1 ,2nd Floor, E-Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, Delhi-'1 1 0003. 4. One CC to SRl. DUNDU IMANI/OHAN' Advocate [OPUCI 5. Two CD Copies BIV KKS C! HIGH COURT DATED:1910312024 ,','t1r- i ,:/ ,.t I .., |: a-).i ,. .,r JlJl 'Li ORDER WP.No.6952 of 2024 ALLOWING THE WRITPETITION WITHOUT COSTS : ( "