Sri Praveen Kumar Pabbathi V. Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Income Tax Department, Ministry of Finance and The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Kothagudem and The Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Kothagudem and The Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Kothagudem

WP/6330/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Sri Praveen Kumar Pabbathi, the petitioner, challenging the orders passed by the Income Tax Department under sections 147, 144, and 144B of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2015-16. The petitioner argued that the reopening of the assessment was not in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act, which require a notice under section 148A and an opportunity of hearing to the assessee in a faceless manner. The respondents did not dispute the procedural flaws but contended that there were other objections raised by the petitioner. The court, referencing a previous judgment in a similar batch of writ petitions, quashed the impugned orders based on the jurisdictional issue alone, without delving into other objections.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 690395 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 11-03-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Ashish Agarwal
• Laws Referred To: Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Section 147 of the Act, Section 144 of the Act, Section 144B of the Act, Section 148A of the Act, Section 149 of the Act, Section 151A of the Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: A KRISHNA
• Assessee Lawyers: A V RAM
• Keywords: Faceless assessment; Income Tax; Jurisdictional issue; Procedural Flaw; Writ of Mandamus
• Section: 147; 144; 149; 144B; 148A; 151A

Judgement Text

"[ 337s ] HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY ,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION NO: 6330 OF 2024 Between: Sri Praveen Kumar Pabbathi, S/o. Late Sri Radhakrishna Murthy, aged about 47 yeats, Occ. Business , 19-1-123, Sastry Road, New Paloncha, Khammam - 507115. ...PETITIONER AND 1. Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre, lncome Tax Department, Ministry of Finance, Room No. 4O1 , 2nd Floor, E-Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, Delhi -1 10 003. 2. The lncome Tax Officer, Ward 1, Kothagudem, 6-12-38, Ganesh Temple Main Road, Kothagudem 3. The lncome Tax Officer, Ward - 1, 6-12-38, Ganesh Temple Main Road, Kothagudem - 5071 01 . 4. The lncome Tax Officer, Ward - 1 , 6-12-38, Ganesh Temple Main Road, Kothagudem - 507101. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed ther6with, 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 lst Respondent u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s 1448 of the Act, dt.28.02.2124 with DIN No.ITBtuAST/5114712O23- 2411061689287(1) fot the Ay.2015-16, 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 GBDT and provisions of section 151A of the Act, and consequently set aside the order passed by 1st Respondent uts. 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act, d1.28.O2.2024 with DIN No.lTBA/AST/S,t14712023-24t1061689287(1) for the Ay.2015-16 and all consequential proceedings pursuant thereto lA NO: 1 OF 2024 L Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to stay all further proceedings, incruding any recovery, pursuant to the order passed by the 1't Respondent urs. 147 t.w-s. 144 r.w.s 1448 of the Act, d.2g.02.2024 with Dt N No. I TBA/AST/ S t 1 47 I 2023_24 I 1 06 1 68}28Z (1 ) for the Ay.2O 1 S_ 1 6 Counsel for the petitioner: SRI A. V. RAGHU RAM COUNSEI fOr thE RESPONdENTS: SRt A. RADHA KRISHNA (Sr SC FOr IT DEPT) 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.633O OF 2o24 ORDER:per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.SAM KOSHY) Heard Mr.A.V.Raghu Ram, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.A.Radha Krishna, learned Senior Starding Counsel for respondents. Perused the materia-l available on record. 2. The instant Writ Petition has been frled by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for the following relief: \"to poss on order or direction especiolly one in the noture ol WRIT OF MANDAMUS holding thot the order possed by-7st Respondent u/s 747 r w s 744 r w s 7448 of the Act dt 28 02 2024 with DIN No IT84/A5T/5/147/202324/10616892877 lor the Ay 2075-16 os arbitrory illegal bod in low void ob initio oport from being violotive of provisions of section 748A ond section 149 of the Act and also controry to the circulor issued by CBDT otf provisions ol section 751A of the Act oN consequently set oside the order possed by 7st Respondent u/s 747 r w s 744 r w s 1448 of the Act dt 28 02 2024 with DIN No |T84/45T/5/147/202324/10616892877 for the Ay 201516 ond oll conseq ue ntidl proce ed i n gs pu rsuo n t the reto \". 3. One of the contentions that the petitioner has rajsed in the present Writ Petition is that under the amended 2 1 PS.Ir,J& JVTR,J W,P.No.633O of 2024 proyisions of the Act which came 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 of law, the proceedings to be drawn are also in a faceless martner. 4. Whereas, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, in the instant case, reopening has been initiated by the Jurisdictional Assessing Offrcer. In support of his contention, he relied upon the recent judgment rendered by this very Bench in WP.No.259O3 of 2022 &, batch, dated 14.09.2023 wherein this Court disposed of the batch of writ petitions to the limited 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 the aforesaid objection, there have been other various objections also which the petitioner has raised in the writ petition. -7 PS.K,J & NTR,J W,P.No.6330 ot'2024 6. So far as this contention of the learned counsel for the respondent-Depa-rtment 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 sustained and all these writ petitions stands allouted on this uery juisdictional issue. Since the impugned noties and orders are getting quashed on the point of jurisdiction, u)e are not inclined to proceed furlher and decide the other issues raised by the petitioner which stands reserued to be raised and contended in an appropriate proceeding s. \" \"38. Since tle Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the case of Ashi.s,h Agarual, supra, as a one-time measure exercising the pouters under Article 142 of th.e Constittttion of India, permitted the Reuenue to proceed under the substituted prouisions, and this Court allowing the petitions onlg on the proedural flaw, the right conferred on the Reuenue uould remain reserued to proeed. fufther if theg so taant from tlte stage of the order of the Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Aganual, supra.' 7. In view of the sarne, 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 n^u\" ,3, been drawn in accordance with the amended provision but under the un-amended provision which is otherwise not sustainable. 3 I I I I 4 PSI(,J & MTR,J W.P.No.6330 of 2024 8. 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, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY' SD/. C. PRAVEEN KUMAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR /\" I) LT7'2 SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Assessment Unit, Nationar Faceress Assessment centre, rncome Tax peOa.rtmgl!.rvlinistry of Finance, Room N-o. +Ot, 2nO ffoor, E,.Ri;;,- '-^ Jawahadal Nehru Stadium, Delhi -1 i0 003. 2. The lncome Tax Officer, Ward 1, Kothagudem ,6_12_38, Ganesh Temple Main Road. Kothaoudem 3. lhe lncome Tax Officer, Ward - 1, 6-12-38, Ganesh Temple Main Road, Kothagudem - 507101 . 4. The Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, 6-12-38, Ganesh Temple Main Road, Kothagudem - 507101. 5. One CC to SRl. A. V. RAGHU RAM, Advocate tOpUCl 6. One CC to SRt. A. RADHA KRTSHNA ,(sr sC rbi rioEery tOpUCl 7. Two CD Copies BM KKS k HIGH COURT DATED:1 110312024 ORDER WP.No.6330 of 2024 ALLOWING THE WRITPETITION WTTHOUT COSTS o t 2 3 APB 2024 .o 1HE S74 .SPAt ClrEo ( (. ( + -) o t) aF u c { r%,, (, "