Smt. Bharathi Somala V. Union of India

WP/16486/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Smt. Bharathi Somala challenging an assessment order issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyderabad, under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2016-17. The petitioner argued that the reassessment was initiated without following the procedural requirements set out in the amended Section 148A of the Act, which came into effect on April 1, 2021. The respondents did not dispute the procedural flaws but contended that other objections raised by the petitioner were not addressed. The court, referencing a similar batch of writ petitions decided on September 14, 2023, found in favor of the petitioner on the grounds of jurisdictional error and procedural non-compliance.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 686003 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 03-01-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Ashish Aganval
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961, Article 226 of the Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: GADI KUMAR; J V PRASAD
• Assessee Lawyers: KAILASH P S S
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Faceless assessment; Income Tax; Jurisdictional issue; Writ of Certiorari
• Section: 148; 148A(d); 148A

Judgement Text

"Between: Smt. Bharathi Somala, W/o D. Prathap Reddy, Housewife, Plot No. 945, KPHB Colony, Hyderabad, [ 337e ] Aged about 36 years, Occ Telangana-500072. HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION NO.16486 0F 2023 AND 1. 2. ...PETITIONER Union of lndia, Rep. by its Finance Secretary, New Delhi. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Mayur Bhawan, Connaught Lane, Barakhamba, New Delhi, Delhi-1 10001 Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax, Circle-S(1), Room No -224 ' l.T.Towers. A.C.Guards, Hyderabad-500004. 3 ...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 in the nature of writ of certiorari to call for the records of assessment order dated 13.o5.2023 with DIN ITABiAST/S/147t2023- 2411052810216(1) issued by the 2nd respondent under section 147 for assessment year 2016-17 , and quash the same as the same is illegal and contrary to the provisions of the lncome Tax Act, 1961. IANO:2OF2 023 Petition under Section 15i cpc praying that in the circumstarices stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to stay all further proceedings including recovery and penalty proceedings pursuant to the impugned assessment order dated 1 3.05.2023 with DIN lrAB/AST/S/1 4 7 r 2023-241 1 os211 021 6(1 ) issued by the 2nd respondent. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI KATLASH NATH p. S. S. Counsel forthe Respondent Nos. 1 & 2: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI J.V. PRASAD, SENIOR STANDING COUNSEL FOR INCOME TAX REPRESENTING MS. B. SAPNA REDDY, JUNIOR STANDING COUNSEL rONIrtC6NirE rEX The Court made the following: ORDER o THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUI{ARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.16486 oF 2o23 ORDER:lper Ho n'ble Si Justice P.SAM KOSHY) Heard Mr. Kailash Nath P.S.S., learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. B. Sapna Reddy, learned junior Standing Counsel for Income Tax appearing for the respondents. Perused the entire record. 2. The instant Writ Petition has been frled challenging the Assessment Order passed by respondent No.2 under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as \"the Act\") dated 13.O5-2O23 for the Assessment Year 2016-17 . 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 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 assessee. As per the amended provision rcf law, the / z proceedings to be drawn are also in a faceless manner. Whereas, it has been contended by the petitioner that in the instant case, reopening has been initiated by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. In respect of the said objection that the petitioner had raised, he relied upon the recent batch of writ petitions decided by this very Bench on 14.09.2023 vide W.P.No.259O3 of 2O22 and batch to the limited extent. 4. Learned counsel for the Department would not dispute of having decided the said objection in the aforesaid batch matters. However, learned counsel submits that apart from the aforesaid objection, there have been other various objections also which the petitioner has raised in t1le 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 writ petitions, had taken note of the same at paragraph Nos.37 & 38 which are reproduced herein under: i I I -7 3 o \"37. The preliminary objection roised by tLLe Wtitioner is sustained and all these uLrit petilions slands allouted on this uery juisdictional issue. Since the impugned notices and orders are getting qtasled on tlrc point of juisdiction, u)e are not inclined to proceed further and decide the otl.Ler issues raised bg the petitioner uhich stands reserued to be raised and contended in an ap pro p iate proce e ding s. \" \"38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in th.e case of Ashish Aganaal, supra, os a one-time measure exercising the powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, permitted the Reuenue to proceed under the substituted prouisions, and this Court allowing the petitions only on the procedural flaut, tLLe ight confened on the Reuenue toould remain reserued to proceed further if tLeg so u.tant from the stage of the order of tle Supreme Court in tlrc case of Ashish Aganaal, 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 pro.vision but under the un-amended provision which is otherwise not sustainable. 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 said batch of writ petitions. No order as to 4 To, MP GJP .Y costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/.V.KAVITHA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER 1. The Finance Secretary, Union of lndia' New Delhi' 2. The National Faceless Assessment centre, Mayur Bhawan, connaught Lane, Barakhamba, New Delhi, Delhi-1 10001 3. The Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax, Circle- 5(1), Room No.224 ' - LT.Towers. A.C.Guards, Hyderabad-500004' 4. One CC to SRI KAILASH NATH P. S. S. Advocate [OPUC] 5.oneCCtoSRIGADIPRAVEENKUMAR'DeputySolicitorGeneraloflndia loPUcI 6.oneCCtoMs.B.SAPNAREDDY,JuniorStandingCounselforlncomeTax IoPUCI 7. Two CD Copies t: HIGH COURT DATED:0310112024 ,/'. . 'rl1' - r I { .r,A: ' 7l..c,r '' <:..:' !_t /' i' l, -) l3 1E FEB 2024 ,. '. n i'li 1) rr ER * e Soo- a WP.No.16486 ot 2023 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS a1--l "