Sri Anand Kumar Setty V. Union of India and Income Tax Department

WP/11156/2024

AI Insights

The case involves a writ petition filed by Sri Anand Kumar Setty against the Union of India and others, challenging the notices issued under Section 148A(b) and Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner argued that despite having filed a return, a notice was issued on 25.03.2024, and another on 30.03.2024, demanding a reply within an insufficient timeframe. The court considered the submissions and directed the respondent to review the matter, emphasizing the need to adhere to the statutory process and principles of natural justice.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 802567 (HC-ANDHRA_PRADESH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 09-05-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961, Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: B TAPASWI; VIJHAY PUNNA
• Assessee Lawyers: CHALASANI KUMAR
• Keywords: Assessment year 2020-21; Income Tax; Notice under section 148; Violation of Principles of Natural Justice; Writ of Mandamus
• Section: 148; 148-A

Judgement Text

"APHC010222512024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY ,THE NINTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE WRIT PETITION NO: 11156/2024 Between: Sri Anand Kumar Setty, The Union Of India and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. CHALASANI AJAY KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. The Court made the following: Heard Ms. B. Tapaswi Ajay Kumar and Sri Vijhay K Punna, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department for the respondent 2. Notice has been accepted by Counsel for Union of India for the respondent No.1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY ,THE NINTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 11156/2024 ...PETITIONER AND The Union Of India and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: CHALASANI AJAY KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): Court made the following: B. Tapaswi, learned counsel, representing Sri Chalasani Vijhay K Punna, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department for the respondent Nos.2 and 3. Notice has been accepted by learned Central Government for the respondent No.1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3395] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT(S) , learned counsel, representing Sri Chalasani Vijhay K Punna, learned Senior Standing Counsel for learned Central Government 3. With the consent of the parties counsels, this writ petition is being disposed of finally at this stage. 4. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for the following relief:- “For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is hereby prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue Writ, order or direction particularly, particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents in issuing a notice under section-148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 25.03.2024 and continuation Letter dated 30.03.2024 on the very same day an order was issued under clause (d) of section 148-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without following the due process of law as per the provision contemplated in act which is illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice and also under Articles 14, 16, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to set aside the notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act on 25.03.2024 and order issued under clause (d) of section 148-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 30.03.2024 for the assessment of the tax for the Assessment year 2020-21 for and not to proceed for any further action except in accordance with law and pass such order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 5. The challenge is to the notice under Section 148A(b) as also the order/notice under Section 148A(d) dated 25.03.2024 and 30.03.2024, respectively. The grievance as raised in the writ petition is that the petitioner had already filed the return, but inspite thereof the notice dated 25.03.2024 was issued under clause (b) and again another notice was issued on 30.03.2024, mentioning that by notice dated 25.03.2024, the petitioner was granted time upto 28.03.2024 to submit the reply. 6. It is submitted that the period granted by the said notice of three (03) days was less than the statutory period. Inspite thereof, the petitioner filed the reply on 30.03.2024, but without taking into consideration the said reply the order has been passed and another notice has been issued on 30.03.2024. 7. Considering the aforesaid submissions as also going through the record, we are of the view that it would be appropriate to issue direction to the respondent No.3 to look into this aspect of the matter and if the submissions as advanced before this Court are found to be correct that there was no occasion to issue a notice as the petitioner has already filed the returns or/and the petitioner has already submitted the reply on 30.03.2024 and without considering the same another notice/order under Section 148A(d) was passed, appropriate orders would be passed within a period of one (01) week from the date the presentation of copy of this order along with fresh application. 8. The writ petition is disposed of. 9. No order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed. __________________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI, J _______________________________________________________ VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO,J Date: 09.05.2024 SCS "