Sri Aurobindo Vedre V. Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Income Tax Department, Ministry of Finance and The Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(1)

WP/7499/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Sri Aurobindo Vedre, the petitioner, challenging the orders issued by the Income Tax Department under sections 147 r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2015-16. The petitioner argued that the orders were arbitrary, illegal, and violated the provisions of sections 148A and 149 of the Act, along with the circular issued by the CBDT and section 151A of the Act. The respondents, including the Assessment Unit and the Income Tax Officer, defended the validity of their actions. The court's decision was influenced by the need to adhere to the amended provisions of the Act, which were not followed in this case.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 808570 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 22-03-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: W.P.No.25903 of 2022 & batch, dated 14.09.2023
• Laws Referred To: Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Section 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act, Section 148A and Section 149 of the Act, Section 151A of the Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: VIJAY K PUNNA
• Assessee Lawyers: A V RAGHURAM
• Keywords: Amended Provisions; Faceless assessment; Income Tax; Jurisdiction; Writ of Mandamus
• Section: 147; 149; 144B; 148A; 151A; 226

Judgement Text

"[ 337e ] HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF IVARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION NO: 7499 OF 2024 Between: Sri Aurobindo Vedre, S/o. Sri Jithender Nath Reddy Vedre, aged about 64 years, Occupation Business, 3-6-13111 , Flat No.'101, Srinivasa Towers, Street N,' Himayatnagar, Hyderabad - 500029 AND ...PETTT|ONER 1. Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre, lncome Tax Department, A/inistry of Finance, Room No. 4O1 ,2nd Floor, E-Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, Delhi 1 10 003. 2- The lncome Tax Officer, Ward 4(1), l.T. Towers, A.C. Guards, Masabtank, Hyderabad-500004 ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Arlicle 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to pass an order or direction, especially one in the nature of WRIT OF IUANDAIVUS holding that the order passed by 1st Respondent uls. 147 r-w.s 1 44B of the Act, dt.27lO2l2O24 with DIN No ITBA/AST/5114712023 - 2411061616304(1) for the Ay.20'15 - 16, as arbitrary, illegal, bad in law, void-ab-initio, apart from being violative of provisions of section 148A AND section '149 of the Act and also contrary to the circular issued by CBDT and provisions of section 151A of the Act, and consequently set aside the order passed by 1St Respondent u/s. 147 r.w.s 1448 of the Act, dt.27lO2l2O24 with DIN No ITBA/AST/S/14712023' 2471061616304(1) for the Ay-2015 - 16 and all consequential proceedings pursuant thereto. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 1 51 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, inctuding any recovery, pursuant to the order passed by the 1st Respondent uls. 147 r.w.s 1448 of the Act, dt.27lo2l2o24 with DIN No: ITBA/AST/S I 1 47 12023-241 1061 6 1 6304( 1 ) for the Ay.201 5 - 6. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI A.V.RAGHU RAM Counsel for the Respondents: SRI VIJHAY K PUNNA, SENIOR SC FOR ITD The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAIVI KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI WSTICE N.TUI{ARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.7499 OF 2o24 ORDER:[per Hon'ble Si Justice P.SAM KOSHY) Heard Sri A.V. Raghu Ram, Iearned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vgay K. Punna, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department for the respondents. Perused the material on record. 2. The instant Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seekkrg the following relief; '...to pass an order or direction especially one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS holding that the order passed by lst Respondent u/s. 147 r.w.s l44B of the Act, dt.27 /o2 12024 with DIN No. ITBA/AST/S I t47 I 2o23-24 | 1o616L63o4( 1) for the A.Y. 2015-16, as arbitrary, itlegal, bad in law, void ab initio, apart from being violative of provisions of Section 148A & section 149 of the Act and a,lso contrary to the circular issued by CBDT and provisions of section l5 1A of the Act, ald consequently set aside the order passed by 1st Respondent u/ s. 147 r.w.s l44B of the Act, dt.27 /02 /2024 with DIN No.ITBA/AST lsl L47 I 2o123-241LO616163O4(rl for the A.Y. 2015-16 and all consequential proceedings pursuant thereto and pass...\" 2 PSI(,J 66 fffR,J W.P.No.7499 of 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 carne into effect from OI.O4.2O2l, the respondents, while proceeding under Section 148 of the Act, were required to issue notice under Section 148A ald provide arr opportunity of hearing to the assessee. As per the amended provision of lar.r,, the proceedings to be drawn are also in a laceless 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 L4.O9.2023 wherein this Court disposed of the batch of writ petitions to the iimited extent. 5. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Department does not dispute that the said objection was decided in the aforesaid batch of Writ Petitions. However, he further contended that apart from tire aforesaicl objection, there have be& -Lthe. various 1 PSI(,J & I TTR,J W.P.No.7499 of 2O24 objections also which the petitioner has raised in the writ petition. 6. So far as this contention of the leamed counsel for the respondent-Department is concerned' this Bench' while d.isposing 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.'tu oetitioner ii sustained and all these turit petilions \"tond., allowed on this uery juisdictional issue' Sin\"e tto impugned- notices and- orders are getting \"iif*a on- ttL point of juisdiction' tue are not i\"\"ti\"\"a to proceld furtler and decide the other ;.;;\" raiied bg ile petitioner which- s.tands ,i.ru.a to be raised' and contended in an ap proPriate Pro ce e ding s' \" \"38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had' in th-e \"Lr\" o7 Ashish Agarutat, supra' as a 9ru9-lime *\"\"\"\"i. exercising tht powe'i under Article 142 of 'ti. ii\"stitudon oi maii, permitted the Reuenue to \")o\".La \"\"aer thl substiiuted prouisions' and this 'i.\"i \"tt itig tle petitiont onig on the procedural ft;;,\" ;;; ;g:t t \"oi1\"o\"a on the Reuenue rttoutd 'remain reserued to proceed further if ttrcg so tuant irom tle staqe of tie order o7 the Supreme Court in 'tlo \"ot\" of Ashish Agarutal, supra'\" 7 - In view of the sarne, we are inclined to allow the present writ petition also on similar terms AccordinglY, the 4 PSK,J &, NTR,J W.P.No.7499 of 2O24 present Writ Petition stands allowed on the objection of the 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 herd by this Bench in the aforesaid batch matters, the right of the parties would sta,d reserved as is envisaged at paragraph Nos.37 & 3g of the said order passed in the batch of writ petitions. No order as to costs. 9. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if aly shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/- N. RAJ GOPAL ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTIO OFFICER 'l i To 1 A il:'.',ji\"il H'flLiY :? ?11 i:ce I e-s s A s se s s me n r c e n tre, r n co m e ra x Jawaharra r Ne h ru^Siadi u m tsj,\"ri T?BT.!o. 4 0 1 . 2 n d rroo r, E -nr'rnp'.^ ryilE\"lto'#:rtfl6orricer' ward a(1), t.r-. rowers, A.c. Guards, Masabtank, pff Eg ii:ii0iY,-ffiiH,,ffiffi ttfi i6F 6?.,\"? rD ro puc] 2 3 4 5 PSK. CJP I HIGH COURT DATED:2210312024 ORDER WP.No.7499 of 2024 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS. 1r' r,, 6*qt* 6w "