Sri Ram Mohan Rao Pasumarlhi V. Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Department, Ministry of Finance and The Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Rajeev Gunt

WP/4411/2024

AI Insights

The case involves a writ petition filed by Sri Ram Mohan Rao Pasumarlhi against the Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Department, Ministry of Finance, and the Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Rajeev Gunt. The petitioner challenged the order passed for the Assessment Year 2018-19, claiming it was arbitrary, illegal, and void ab initio. The main legal contention was that the respondents failed to follow the amended provisions of the Income Tax Act, which came into effect on 01/04/2021, requiring faceless proceedings and proper notice under Section 148A. The court referenced a previous judgment in WP.No.25903 of 2022 & batch, which had similar jurisdictional issues.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 814719 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 20-02-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Ashish Agarwal case
• Laws Referred To: Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Section 147 r.w.s. 144 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: J V PRASAD
• Assessee Lawyers: A V RAGHURAM
• Keywords: Faceless assessment; Income Tax; Jurisdictional issue; Procedural Flaw; Writ of Mandamus
• Section: 147; 144; 149; 144B; 148A; 151A; 226

Judgement Text

"I HIGH COURT fOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION NOi 4411 OF 2024 [ 337e 1 about 48 years,. Rajakaveedhi, ...PETITIONER Centre, lncome Tax 2nd Floor, E-Ramp, Between: AND Sri Ram Mohan Rao Pasumarlhi, S/o, Sri Jagammad.ia, aged 2-.1-17211-25 _^9ri- _Nagasai Ganesh TraErng Company, Khammam - 507003. 1. Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Department, Ministry of Finance, Room No. 401, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, Dethi - 110 003. 2. The lncome Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Rajeev Gunt, Kinnerasani Theatre, Khammam - 507001. Rajiv Chowk, Near ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of rhe constitution of rndia 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 1st Respondent u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 r-w-s 1448 ot the Act, dt.13to2t2o24 wirh DtN No- |rBA/ASTtst147t2o23- 2411060834123(1) for the Ay.2018-19, as arbirrary, iilegat, bad in taw, void ab initio, apart from being violative of provisions of section 14gA and section 149 of the Act and also contrary to the circular issued by CBDT and provisions of section 151A of the Act, and consequen y set aside the same lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 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, including any recovery, pursuant to the order passed by the Respondent u/s.147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s 1448 of the Act, d1.131O212024 wilh Dl N No-ITBA/A SI I S I 1 47 I 2023-241 1 0608341 23( 1 ) for the Ay. 20 1 8-1 9 Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. A. V. RAGHU RAM Counsel for the Respondents: SRI J. V. PRASAD (SC FOR INCOME TAX) The Court made the foltowing: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSITY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TI'KARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.44 lt oF 20.24 OR.flE, R:@er Hon'ble Sri Justice P.SAM KOSIHE) The instant Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner under ArLicl e 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for the following relief: '...to pass an order or direction especially one in the natr.rre of writ of mandamus holding that the order passed by the 1\"t Respondent under Section 147 read with Section 144 read with section l44B of the Act, dated 13 I 02 /2024 with DtN No.ITBA/AST lsl 147 12023-24 / 1o6o834123(Ll for the A.Y. 2018-19 as arbitrary, illegal, bad in law, void ab initio, apart from being violative of provisions of Section l48A and Section 149 of the tg, Td also contrary to the circular issued by CBDT and provisions of section l5lA of the Acr and consequently set aside the same and pass...\" 2. One of the contentions that the petitioner has raised in the present Writ Petition is thar under the amended provisions 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 l48A and pro'/-ide an opportunity of hearing to the 2 PSr(,J & lvrn,., W.P,No.4471 oJ 2024 assessee. As per the amended provision of law, the proceedings to be drawn are also in a faceless manner. 3. 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.O9.2023 wherein this Court disposed of the batch of u'rit petitions to the limited extent. 4. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent- Department does not dispute that the said objection r,r,as decided in the aforesaid batch of Writ Petitions. Hou'ever, 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. 5. So far as this contention of the learned counsel for the respondent-Department is concerned, this Bench, u'hile dispsing of said batch of writ petitions, had taken note of 3 PSK,J & ArrR,J W.P.No.4477 of 2O24 the same at paragraph Nos.37 & 38 which are reproduced herein under: \"37. The preliminary objection rai'sed by tle petitioner is szstained and all these wit Petitions stands alloued on this uery jurisdictional issue. Sine the impugned notices and orders are getting quashed on the point of jurisdiction, u)e are not inclined to proeed further and decide tle other issues raised by tlrc petitioner uhich stands reserued to be raised and antended in an a p prop iate proeeding s. \" '38. Since tte Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the case of Ashish Agarwal, supra, a-s a one-time meosure exercbing the pouers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, permitted the Reuenue to proceed under the substituted prouisions, and this Court altotuing the petitions only on the procedural flaut, the ight conferred on the Reuenue would remain reserued to proceed further if theg so utant from the stage of the order of tle Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Aganutal, supra.' 6. In view of the same, 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 have not been draw'n in accordance with the amended provision but under the un-arnended provision which is otherwise not sustainable. 7 . As has been held by this Bench in the aforesaid batch matters, the rights of the Parties would stald reserved as is 4 PSI(,J & MTR,.I W.P.No.44 7 7 oJ 2O24 envisaged at paragraph Nos.37 & 38 of the said order passed in the batch of writ petitions. No order as to costs' 8. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/. K.SREERAMA ASSISTANT R SECTION MURTHY GISTRAR FFICER to',, I n \" Asse s s m e n t U n r' ; iE i\",X1'\": 4\"\"1ff '-t:i3i: Tfi ltrffJl?- Hff.[: -* Deoartment, Ministry H'I$;iiailil;hru s(adium' Delhi- 110 003; .-. 2. The tncome ra* ofliiErl Waii - r , n-a-t99Y Gunt' Raiiv Chowk' Near ' Ki;-#;;;\"i Theatre' Khammam - 5o7oo1 e'd#tc il sct l.y,m€iBtyA';:ltatfgYil0 toPUCl 4. One CC to SRI J v 5. Two CD CoPies BM GJP L tp I I HIGH COURT DATED:2010212024 ORDER WP.No.4411 of 2024 ALLOWING THE WRITPETITION WITHOUT COSTS -a= 1t - R * .:.._, . ,..,r . ( c o 0 6 APB 2024 : (, * FATCUEQ Ot--,NV "