Sri Rajarajeswara Modern Rice Mill V. Office of The Income Tax Officer

WP/7854/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Sri Rajaraleswara Modern Rice Mill, represented by its partner Kankaiah Muchakurthi, who filed a writ petition against the Income Tax Authorities for an assessment order dated 26.02.2024 for the assessment year 2015-16. The petitioner challenged the order on grounds of it being arbitrary, illegal, and violative of natural justice and constitutional provisions. The main legal contention was that the reassessment was initiated under the un-amended provisions of the Income Tax Act, whereas the amended provisions, effective from 01.04.2021, required a notice under Section 148A and a faceless procedure. The court referenced a previous judgment in a similar batch of writ petitions (WP.No.25903 of 2022 & batch) where it was held that such proceedings must comply with the amended provisions.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 753024 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 27-03-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Ashish Agarwal
• Laws Referred To: Constitution of India, Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: SUNDARI PISUPATI; B MUKHERJEE
• Assessee Lawyers: THANNERU KUMAR
• Keywords: Faceless assessment; Income tax assessment; Jurisdiction; Natural Justice; Writ of Mandamus
• Section: 147; 144B; 148A; 265; 226; 19(1)(g)

Judgement Text

"I [ 337s ] HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. SAM KOSHY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION NO: 7854 OF 2024 Between: Sri Rajaraleswara Modern Rice tt/ill, rep. by its Partner Kankaiah Muchakurthi, S/o Rajariallu, Occupation Business, Aged 64 H.No. 21-2-165, Markadeya Colony, Godavarikhani, District Karimnagar 505209, Telangana, 'l$Ei,.,or=* AND 1. Office of The lncome Tax Officer, Ward-2 Karimnagar Telangana State 2. The Principal Chief Commissioner of lncome Tax Telangana a@ AP, Hyderabad, lT Towers, AC Guards, lvlasab Tank, Hyderabad 500 028, Telangana 3. The C-entral Board of Direct Taxes, Represented by its Chairman, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of lndia, Secretariat Buildings, New Delhi - 1'10 001 4. The National Faceless Assessment Center, lncome Tax Department, New Delhi 5. The Union of lndia, Represenled by its Secretary to the Government, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi - , rO 99#rroroa*r, 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 pleaspd to issue an appropriate writ. order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the order passed by the lncome Tax Authorities (National Facetess E-Assessment centre completed the assessment UtS 147 r/w Section 144-8 of the lncome Tax Act, 1961 vide DIN and Notice No. dated 26102t2o24 in ITBA/ASrlst147l2O23-24/1061496856(1) for the assessment year 2015-16 determining the total income of Rs' 99'67'310/- as arbitrary, illegal, bad in law, without iurisdiction, vord-ab-inilio, violative of the principles of natural justice apart from being violative of Articles 14' 19(1)(g) and 265 of the i : ! I I i i I I I I I I I Constitution of lndia and Sec. 148A of the lncome Tax Act, 1 961 , and consequently set aside the same in the interests of justice Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI THANNERU CHAITANYA KUMAR Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4: SMT. SUNDARI R PISUPATI (Sr SC FoR INCOME TAx) Counsel for Respondent No. 5: SRI B. MUKHERJEE, COUNSEL FOR SRt GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL The Court made the following: ORDER E t i : I I I I I I I I I I t i I I I I I THT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSITY THEiHON,BLE SRI WSTICE N.TUI(ARAMJI WRIT ON No.78 s4 0F 2024 ORDER: (per FIo n'ble Si Justice P.SAM KOSH [) The instant Writ Petition has been frled by the petitioner under Articl e 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for the following relief: AND \"...to issue an oppropiate tuit order or direction more partiatlarlg one in the nature of Wit of Mandamus 'd.eclainq the order passed ba the Income Tax Authoities National Faceless E-Assessment Ce-ntre completed the assessment tl/S 147 r/u Section l44B of t:he Income Tax Act 1961 uide DIN and Notice No dated 26.02.2024 in ITBA/ AST/ S/ 147/ 2023- 24/ 10614968561 for fhe assessment Ltear 201516 d.e,termining the total income of Rs 99,67,31O/ - as arbitrary illeqal bad in lau u-tithout iuisdictiort uoid-ab- initio violatiue of tle principles of natural iustice apart from beina uiolatiue of Articles 14 19(1)(q) and 265 of the Constitution of Indio and Sec 148A of the In'come Tax Act 1961 and consequenthl set aside the same in *e interests of justice and pass. '\" 2. Heard Mr. Thanneru Chaitanya Kumar, learned counsel for the Petitioner; Ms' Sundari R' Pisupathi' learned Senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax for respondent Nos.l to 4 and Mr' B' Mukerjee' learned l 2 counsel representing Mr. Gadi praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, for respondent No.S and Perused the record. l i I t; I I I li ; ;, ii ; i I I I I I I 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 O1.O4.2O21, 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 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 14.09.2023 wherein this Court disposed ot 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 3 I objection was decided in the aforesaid batch of Writ Petitions. However, he further contended that apart from the aforesaid objection, th... tt'\"*'. been other various objections also which the petitioner has raised in the writ petition. 6. 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: 37. TfE preliminary objection raised bg the petitioner is sustairted and atl these uit petitions stands alloued on thb very junsdictional issue. Since the impugned notices and orders are getting qtasled on the point of jurisdiction\" we are not inclined to proceed further and -decide the oth.er tlssues raised bg the petitioner uhich stands reserued to be raised ond contended in an appropiate proeeding s. \" I I \"38. Sine the Hon'bte Supreme Court had, in tLrc cose of Ashish Agarutal, s pra., as a one-time measure exercising tle potaers under Article 142 of the Constituiion of India, permitted the Reuenue to proceed under the substidtted prouisions, and this Court allowing the petitions only on th.e procedural Jlaw, the ight conferred on the Reuenue uould remain reserued to proeed furtlar if theg so want Jrom the stage of the ortler of the Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Aganaa| supra.\" 4 7 . In view of the szune, we are inclined to allow the present writ petition also on similar terms. Accordingly, the present Writ Petition stands allou/ed on the objection of the petitioner that the proceedings have not been drawn in accordance with the amended provision but under the un-amended provision which is otherwise not sustainable. 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, 1 4 5 6 7 i I I i I i I i I I : shall stand closed SD/- MOHD. SANAULLAH ANS/RI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION FICER //TRUE COPY// To, 3 9 MBC GJP The Office of The lncome Tax Officer, Ward-2 Karimnagar Telangana State The Principal Chief Commissioner of lncome Tax Telangana and A.P, Hyderabad, lT Towers, AC Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad 500 028, Telangana The Central Board of Direct Taxes, Represented by its Chairman, Department of Revenue. Ministry of Finance, Government of lndia, Secretariat Buildings, New Delhi - 1 .10 001 The National Faceless Assessment Center, lncome Tax Department, New Delhi The Secretary to the Government, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance. New Delhi - 1 10 001 One CC to Sri Thanneru Chaitanya Kumar Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Smt. Sundari R Pisupati (Sr SC for lncome Tax D-ept) Advocate loPUCl One CC to Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar, Deputy Solicitor General of lndia [OpUC] Two CD Copres &x HIGH COURT DATED: 2710312024 ,'? .. cr-. l: :l: ,, .- ' .j o,. /, '. l-i i, _i l,o 01 tlU:i 7l)24 ':t\"fr\"' a ORDER WP.No.7854 of 2024 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS "