Sri Suresh Tota V. Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Department, Ministry of Finance and The Income Tax Officer, Ward -1

WP/3426/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Sri Suresh Tota, the petitioner, challenging an order passed by the Income Tax Department under sections 147 and 144B of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2016-17. The petitioner argued that the order was arbitrary, illegal, and violated several provisions of the Act, including sections 148A, 149, and 151A, as well as a circular issued by the CBDT. The main contention was that the reopening of the assessment was initiated by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer without following the faceless procedure mandated by the amended provisions of the Act, which came into effect on April 1, 2021. The court referenced a previous judgment where similar objections were upheld, leading to the quashing of the notices and orders on jurisdictional grounds.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 808733 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 09-02-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Ashish Agarwal
• Laws Referred To: Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Section 147 r.w.s 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: J V PRASAD
• Assessee Lawyers: A V RAGHURAM
• Keywords: Faceless assessment; Income Tax; Jurisdictional issue; Procedural Flaw; Writ of Mandamus
• Section: 147; 149; 144B; 148A; 151A; 226

Judgement Text

"ird [ 3379 ] HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WR|T PETITION No. 3426 OF 2024 Between: Sri Suresh Tota, S/o. Sri Saraiah, aged about 47 yearc, 17-108-1, Beeranna Kunta, Karimabad, Warangal - 506002. ...PETITIONER AND 1. Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Department, Ministry of Finance, Room No. 401, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, Delhi - 1 '10 003. Centre. lncome Tax 2nd Floor, E-Ramp, 2. The lncome Tax Officer, Ward -1, D.No.1-8-610, 3'd Floor, Mayuri Complex, Opp. TSNPDCL Bhawan, Nakkalagutta, Hanamkonda, Warangal - 506001. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 ol lhe 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, especrally one In the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS holding that the order passed by 1st Respondent u/s. 147 r.w.s 1448 of the Act, dt.251o112024 with DIN No.ITBA/AST/S114712023- 2411060099640( 1 ) for the Ay.2O16-17, 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 same. IANO:1OF2 o24 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 proceedrngs, including any recovery, pursuant to the order passed by the lst Respondent uls. 147 r,w.s 1448 of the Act, dt.25lo1t2o24 with DIN No.ITBAJAST/St 1 47 t2o23-24lt 060099640(1 ) for the Ay.2O16_17 Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI A. V. RAGHU RAM Counsel for the Respondents: SRt J. V. PRASAD, S.C. FOR INCOME TAX The Court made the following: ORDER I I i I I I I THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSEY THE HONOURABLE SRT J(ISTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.3426 OF 2o24 ORDER (per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.SAM KOSHY) The instant Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for the follorving relief: \"to issue on oppropriote writ order or direction especially one in the noture ol wRlf OF MANDAMUS holding thot the order possed by lst Respondent u/s 147 r w s 1448 of the Act dt 25/01/2024 utith DIN No trBA/AST/S/147/2023 24/10600995401 Ior the Ay 2016-17 os orbitrory illegol bod in low votd ob nitio oport Jrom being violotive of provisions of section 148A ond seclion 149 of the Act ond olso contrdry to the circulor issued by CBDT ond provisions of section 151A of the Act ond consequently set oside the some\", 2. 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 .O4.2O21, the respondents, while proceeding under Section 148 of the Act, were required to issue notice under Scction 148,{ and provide an opportunity of hearing to the AND I I I t I I 1 I I I i ! i i 2 PSK,J & IV?R,J W.P.No.3426 oI 2024 assessee. As per the amended provision of lar,r,, 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.25903 of 2022_ & batch, dated 14.O9.2023 wherein this Court disposed of the batch of writ petitions to the limited extent. 4. On the other haad, 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 thar apart lrom the aforesajd objection, there have been other various objections also which the petitioner has raiscd in the r.vrit petition. 5. So far as this contention of the learned counse.l for the respondent-Department is concerned, this []ench, while disposing of said batch of writ petitions, had taken note of 3 PSI{,J 62, NTR,J W.P.No.3426 of 2024 the same at paragraph Nos.37 & 38 which are reproduced herein under: \"37. Tlrc preliminary objection raised bg the petitioner is sustoined and all th.ese wit petitions standi allotted on this uery jurisdictional issue. Since the impugned notices and orders are getting quashed on the point of juisdiction, we ore not inclined to proceed further and decid.e th.e other issues raised by the petitioner uthich stands reserued to be raised and contended_ in an appropiate proceeding s. \" \"38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had. in the case of Ashish Aganaal, supra, as a one-time meosure exercising tle powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, permitted the Reuenue to proceed under the substituted prouisions, and_ this Court allor.uing the petitions onlg on tLe procedural ftaw, the right confered on the Reuenue utould remain reseruerl to proceed further if tlteg so raant from the stage of the order of tlrc Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Agaruta| 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 drawn in accordance with the arnended provision but under the un-amended 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 stand reserved as is 4 PSK,J &,.rYrR,J I W.P.No.3426 o;f 2O24 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 ciosed. SD/. C. PRAV ASSISTANT EEN KUM GIS //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER One CC to SRI A. V RAGHU RAIvl, Advocate [OPUCI One CC to SRI J. V. PRASAD, S C for INCO[ '1E TAX [OPUC] The Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessmenl Centre' lncome Tax Deoartment, Ministry \"t ij;;;;\",1i;;; N; 4o1 2\"' Floor' E-Ramp' J\"iiniiut Nehru Stidium, Delhi - 1 10 003 The lncome Tax Officer. Ward -1 D'No' 1'B-6'10 3'd Ftoor' It'4avuri Complex' opi,l i\"s rti noil Bh;;;\"' Nlir..lr'6'tii ui namr