Sri Naveen Kumar lt/udhalkar, S/o. Sri Manohar Rao [Vludhalkar V. Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Income Tax Department, Ministry of Finance and The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Hyderabad

WP/734/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Sri Naveen Kumar, the petitioner, challenging an assessment order passed by the Income Tax Department for the assessment year 2015-16. The petitioner argued that the order was passed under the unamended provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which is not sustainable post the amendment effective from April 1, 2021. The amended provisions require that the proceedings be conducted in a faceless manner and that a notice under Section 1484 be issued, providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The court referenced a previous batch of writ petitions decided on similar grounds, where it was held that the proceedings must comply with the amended provisions.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 799596 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 10-01-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Ashish Agarwal vs. Revenue, Eminent Against vs. Revenue
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: SUNDARI PISUPATI
• Assessee Lawyers: A V RAGHURAM
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Faceless assessment; Jurisdictional issue; Procedural Flaw; Writ of Mandamus
• Section: 147; 148; 143(3); 149; 144B; 148A; 151A

Judgement Text

"[ 337e I HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH 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: 734 OF 2024 Between: Sri Naveen Kumar lt/udhalkar, S/o. Sri Manohar Rao [Vludhalkar, aged about 45 years,49-41'l-516, Bapu Nagar, Chintal, Hyderabad - 500055. .....PETITIONER AND 1. Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre, lncome Tax Department, Ivlinistry of Finance, Room No. 4O1 ,2nd Floor, E-Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, Delhi - 110 003. 2. The lncome Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Hyderabad, Signature Towers, Botanical Gardens, Kondapur, Hyderabad. .....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 pass an order or direction, especially one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS holding that the order passed by 'l \"t Respondent u/s.1 43(3) r.w.s 147 r.w.s. 1448 of the Act, dated O2-O1-.2O24 with OIN No .ITBA/AST/S/1 4712023-2411059283350(1) for the Ay.201 5-'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 1 5 l A of the Act, and consequently set aside the same. |.A.NO:1 OF 2024 Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated an the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings, including any recovery, pursuant to the order passed by the 1St Respondent u/s.143(3) r.w.s 147 r.w.s. 1448 of the Act, d1.02-O1 .2024 with Dl N No. ITBA/ASTiS I 1 47 I 2023-241 1059283350( 1 ) for the Ay.201 5-'1 6. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI A.V.RAGHU RAM Counsel for the Respondents : Ms. SUNDARI R.PiSUPATI (Sr SC for lncome Tax Dept) The Court made the following ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.734 oF 2024 ORDER:/per Hon'bte Si Justice P.SAM KOSHfl) Heard Mr. A.V. Raghu Ram, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Sundari R. pisupati, learned Standing Counsel for Income Tax appearing for the respondents. Perused the entire record. 2. The instant Writ petition has been filed challenging the Assessment Order passed by respondent No.l under Section 143 (3) read with Sections 147 and. I44B of the Income Tax Act, 196 I (hereinafter referred to as \"the Act\") dated O1.O2.2024 for the Assessment year 20lS_16. 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 1484, and provide an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. As per the amended provision of law, the 2 proceedings to be drawn are also in a faceless ma_nner. 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.O9.2023 vide W.p.No.25903 of 2022 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 aforesajd 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 writ petitions, had taken note of the same at paragraph Nos.37 & 3g which are reproduced herein under: 3 '.37 The. preliminary objection raised bg the petitioner rs susfarned and all tLese writ petitions stand.Z allowed on this uery juri.sdictional issie. Since the impugned_ :?:r:? ::d orders are g.etting quoshed on the point ot Junsdrctrcn, u)e are not inclined to proceed furtiter and decide tlrc ofher issues raised_ bg ine petitioier-utnfcn stands reserued to be raised ind clntend_ed. in an app ropriate pro cc e ding s. \" '38. Since the Hon,ble Supreme Court had, in the case of As.hish Agaruta supra, as a one_time meesure Terdsng the pou.ters under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, permitted the Reuenue io pio\".a under the substituted prouisions, and thi{ court allotaing the petitions onlg on the procedural ftaut, the ight confened on the Reuenue uiuld. remain reserued t,o yyocee.a.{urther if theg so want from the stage of the o.rd_er oJ the Supreme Courl in the case oJ e\"ni\"n Aganaal, supra.\" 6. In view of the sarne, we are inclined to a-llow 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-arnended 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 & 3g of the sajd order passed in the said batch of writ petitions. No order as to 4 To SA GJP costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ASSS?I',11ittT\"ffit //rRUE coPY/' 67 SECTION OFFICER 1. The Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre, lncome Tax Depa(ment, Ministry of Finance, Room No. 401 , 2nd Floor, E-Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, Delhi - 110 003. 2. The lncome Tax Officer, Ward 2(1). Hyderabad, Signature Towers, Botanical Gardens, Kondapur, Hyderabad. 3. The lnmme Tax Officer, Ward - 2(1), Signature Towers, Opp. Botanical Gardens, Kondapur, Hyderabad - 500084. 4. The lncome Tax Officer, Ward - 2(1), Signature Towers, Opp. Botanical Gardens, Kondapur, Hyderabad - 500084. 5. One CC to Sri A.V.Raghu Ram, Advocate IOPUCI 6. One CC to Ms. Sundari R Pisupati (Sr SC for lncome Tax Dept) tOpUCl 7. Two CD Copies 2t- HIGH COURT DATED:1010112024 ORDER WP.No.734 of 2024 ALLOWING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. l)o STAT F Op 2t1[ 1[t?t :- rt ., , :f .;: .i ',' ,i + ->+ "