Sri Thirupathi Rao Saineni V. Income Tax Officer, Ward -15(1)

WP/25978/2022

AI Insights

The case involves Sri Thirupathi Rao Saineni, the petitioner, challenging the assessment order and notice issued by the Income Tax Officer under section 148A(d) and section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, respectively. The petitioner argued that the proceedings were initiated under the unamended provisions of the Act, which is not sustainable as the amended provisions require a faceless approach and proper notice under section 148A. The court referenced a similar batch of writ petitions decided on 14.09.2023, where it was held that the proceedings must comply with the amended provisions. The court allowed the writ petition, quashing the impugned notices and orders on the grounds of jurisdictional non-compliance with the amended law.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 819421 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 06-11-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Ashish Agarwal
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961, Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, Section 151 CPC
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: B SWAPNA REDDY
• Assessee Lawyers: A V RAGHURAM
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Faceless Proceedings; Jurisdictional Assessing Officer; Natural Justice; Writ of Mandamus
• Section: 148; 151; 148A(d)

Judgement Text

"[ 337e ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION NO: 25978 OF 2022 Between: Sri Thirupathi Rao Saineni, S/o. Sri S. Yeshwant Rao, 1-4-1741G4, Shirisha Apartment, Layola College Road, Old Alwal, Secunderabad - 50001 1, Telangana ...PETITIONER AND lncome Tax Officer, Ward -15(1), l.T. Towers, A.C. Gurads, Masabtank, Hyderabad -500004. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 ot 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 respondent u/s.148A(d) of the Act, dt.22.O4.2022 with DIN:|TBAlASTlFl148A12022-2311042821063(1) and the notice dated 22.04.2022 issued under section 148 of the Act with DIN:ITBfuAST/S/148 112022-2311042821451(1) for the assessment year 2015-16, as being illegal and passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice without application of mind and consequently set aside the same. lA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section 15'l CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the notice issued by the respondent u/s.148 of the Act, dt.22.O4.2022 for the assessment yeat 2015-16 with DINATBA/AST/S/148 1 12022-2311042821 451(1) and all consequential proceedings thereto. lA NO: 1 OF 2023 PetitionUnderSectionl5lCPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to plirit tn\" F\"titioner to raiie the above Additional Affidavit legal contention in the writ petition in the interest of justice' Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI A.V. RAGHU RAM CounselfortheRespondent:Ms.B.SWAPNAREDDY(Jr.scFoRlNcoMETAx) The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI W.P. No. 2597a of 2o22 ORDER (per Hon'ble Si Justtce P.SAM KOSHY) Heard Mr. A.V. Raghu Ram, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. B. Sapna Reddy, learned Junior Standing Counsel for Income Tax appearing for the respondents. Perused the entire record. 2. The instant petition has been hled challenging the Assessment Order passed by respondent No. 1 under section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 196I (hereinafter referred to as \"the Act\") dated 22.04.2022 for the Assessment Year 2015- 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 came into effect from 01.04.2021, 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. Whereas, it has been contended by the petitioner that in the instant case, reopening has been initiated by the Juridictional 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 14.09 .2023 vide W.P.No.259O3 of 2022 and batch to the limited extent. - * Etffi ':; ,/ ) 4. Learned counsel for the Department would not dispute of having decided the said objection in the aforesaid batch matters' However, Iearned counsel submits that apart from the afore said 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 concerned, this Bench, while disposing of 1S Department W.P.No.25903 of 2022 and batch had taken note of the same tn paragraph Nos.37 & 38 which is reproduced herein under: \"37. Tint'. preliminary objection raised by the petitioner rs sustaine(l and all these writ petitions stands allowed on this very jurisdictional issue. Since the impugned notices and orders ane \"getting quashed on the point ofjurisdiction, we are not inclined to f,.o..\"\"a ' further and decide the other issues raised by the petitioner which stands reserved to be raised and contended in an appropriate Proceedings.\" 38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the case of Ashish Agarwal, supra, as a one-time measure exercising the powers uider Article 142 of the Constitution of India, Permitte'l the Revenue to proceed under the substituted provisions, and this Court allowing the petitions only on the procedural flaw, the right conferred on the Revenue would remain resewed to proceed further if they so want from the stage of the order of the Supremc Court in the case oI Ashish Agarwal, supra' 6. In view of the same, we are inclined to allow the present writ petition also on similar terms. Accordingiy, 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 unamended provision which is otherwise not sustainable' AshasbeenheldbythisBenchintheaforesaidbatchmatters,the t- 7 l: 3 I right of the respondents would stand reserved as is envisaged in paragraph Nos.37 & 38 of the said batch. No order as to costs. . 7. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed sD/'P'c-rlru+fffHsl31g11 / /ffRUE COPY// sECmoFFICER '\" ; Hi,=\",gi;iiidl:.* ffi #;**:: X il\"' BN GJP w- HIGH COURT DATED:0611112023 ORDER WP.No.25978 of 2022 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ( ,t6e STATC * OES I,A1C q v f o 21 N'0''l 'i[?3 () t \",trb r 6 D "