Sridhar Kagne V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-|, Warangal and National Faceless Assessment Centre and Union Bank of India, Shankarpalli Branch

WP/31986/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Sridhar Kagne, the petitioner, challenging the orders and notices issued by the Income Tax Department under Sections 148A(d) and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, respectively. These were related to the Assessment Year 2016-17. The petitioner argued that the procedures followed were not in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act, which require notices to be issued and proceedings to be conducted in a faceless manner. The court referenced a similar case, W.P.No.30153 of 2023, where it had allowed a writ petition on the same jurisdictional issue, leading to the decision to allow the current petition without further costs.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 797061 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 20-11-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: W.P.No.30153 of 2023, W.P.No.25903 of 2022
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: J V PRASAD; GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: KAILASH NATH
• Keywords: Assessment Year 2016-17; Faceless assessment; Income Tax; Jurisdictional issue; Writ of Certiorari
• Section: 148; 148A(d)

Judgement Text

"[ 337e ] HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF NOVEIVBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION NO: 31986 OF 2023 Between: Sridhar Kagne, S/o Mahadev Kagne, Aged about 44 years, Occ. Private Employee, Rr/o Plot No.76, 77, F.No.302, 3rd Floor, Sardar Patel Nagar, Sai Nagar, Beside DT.KKR GoMham School, Hydernagar, Ranga Reddy Telangana-500085. ...PETITIONER AND 1. lncome Tax Officer, Ward-|, Warangat, D.No.1-8-610, 3rd Floor, Mayuri Complex, Opposite to TSNPDCL Bhavan, Nakkalagutta, Hanmakonda, Warangal. 2. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Mayur Bhawan, Connaught Lane, Barakhamba, New Delhi-1 10001 . 3. Union Bank of lndia, Shankarpalli. Branch, '1St Floor, Grampanchayat Bhavan, Shankarpalli, Ranga Reddy District-s01203. ...RESPONDENTS 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 pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly in the nature of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for records and quashing of the order under Section 148A(d) of the lncome Tax Act, 1961 dated 30.03.2023 for the Assessment Year 2016-17 issued with DIN ITBA/ASTlFl148A12022-2311051702118(1), and consequently set aside the notice under section -t 48 of the lT Act dated 30.03.2023 for the Assessment Year 2016-17 issued with DIN ITBA/AST/F/148412022- 2311051702118(1). lA NO: 2 OF 2023 Petition under Section '1 51 of 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 consequent to the issuance of notice under section 148 of the lT Act dated 30.03.2023 for assessmenl year 2016-17 . Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI KAILASH NATH P S S Counsel for the Respondent No. 1: SRI J.V. PRASAD, SC FOR INCOME TAX Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA Counsel for the Respondent No.3: ---- The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.31986 OF 2023 ORDER: (per lTon'ble Sd Justice P.SdM KOSHY) When the matter is taken up for hearing today, it has been informed by the parties that an identical Wri( Petition i.e., W.P.No.3O153 of 2023 has aiready been allowed and disposed of uide order, dated 30.1O.2O23. 2. In view of the fact that the identical matter has alreadv been allowed by this Court, we are inclined to al1ow this Writ Petition in terms of the order passed in W.P.No.30153 of 2023 decided on 30. 10.2023 on similar terms. 3. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if aly in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. No order as to costs. //TRUE COPY// SD/- K.AMMAJI ASSTSTANT REGTSytAR v/ SECTION OFFICER To, GJ GJ '1 . The lncome Tax Officer, Ward-|, Warangal, D.No.1-8-610, 3rd Floor, Mayuri Complex, Opposite to TSNPDCL Bhavan, Nakkalagutta, Hanmakonda, Warangal. 2. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Mayur Bhawan, Conriaught Lane, Barakhamba, New Delhi-1 10001 . 3. Union Bank of lndia, Shankarpalli. Branch, 1St Floor, Grampanchayat Bhavan, Shankarpalli, Ranga Reddy District-SO1203. 4. One CC to Sri Kailash Nath P S S, Advocate [OPUCI 5. One CC to Sri J. V. Prasad, SC for lncome Tax [OPUC] 6. One CC to Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar, Deputy Solicitor General of lndia [OPUC] 7. Two CD Copies (Annex a copy of the order, dated 30.1O.2023 in W.P. No. 30153 of 2023) 4 {< I I HIGH COURT DATED:2011112023 ORDER WP.No.31986 of 2023 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS rELAlv .t N' ,,* lrl .Y a) t o .c_, Q9 C6 S * c H o d THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY W.P. No. 30153 of 2O23 ORDER:6\",. a./r'i ]i? :;t'i.]Ltsi i..- P.SAM KOS,HY) Heard Mr. A.V.A. Siva Kartikeya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. B. Sapna Reddy, learncd Junior Standing Counsel for Income Tax appearing for the respondents. Perused the cntire record. 2. The instant petition has been filed challenging the Assessment Order passed by respondent No.1 ur-rder section l48A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as \"the Act\") dated 25.04.2022 for the Assessment Year 2Ol8-19. 3. One of the contentions that the petitioner has rzrised in tire present u,rit petition is that under the amended provisions of thc Act which came into effect from (r ] .04.202 I , the responclents 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 1aw, the pr-oceedings to be drawn are also in a faceless manner. Whereas, it has been conlenrl.,-i by the petitioner that in the instant case, reopening has been initiated by tire Juridictionai Assessing Officer. In rcspe<:t of the saicl objection that the petitioner had raised, he relied upon the recent batch of writ .r/ 2 petitions decided by this very Bench on 11.O9.2023 vide W.P.No.259O3 of 2022 and batch to the limited extent. 4. Learned counsel for the Department would not dispute of having decided the said objection in the aforesaid batch matters. However, learned counsel submits that apart from the aforesaid objection, there have been other various objections also which the petitioner tras raised in the writ petition. 5. So far as this contention of the learned counsel for the Department is concerned, this Bench, while disposing of W.P.No.259O3 o{ 2022 and batch had taken note of the same in paragraph Nos.37 & 38 which is reproduced herein under: \"37. 'fhe preliminary objection raised by the petitioner rs sustaincd and all thcse writ pctitions stands allowed on this very jurisdictional issue. Since thc impugned notices and orders are getting quashed on thc point ofjurisdiction, we are not inclined to proceed further and decide the other issues raist:d b1' the petitioner which stands reserved to be raised and contended in an appropriate proceedings.\" 38. Sinoe the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the case ofAshish Agarwal, supra, as a one-time measure exercising the powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, permitted the Revenue to proceed under the substituted provisions, ancl this Court allowing the petitions only on the procedural flaw, the right conferred on the Revenue would remain reserved to proceed further if they so want from the stage of the order of thc Supreme Court in thc case ofAshish Agarwal, supra. 6. In view of the same, we are inclined to allow the present writ petiiion also on similar terms. Accordingly, the present Writ Petition stands :rllowed on the objection of the petitioner that thc proceedings have not been drawn in accordance with the amended provision but under the unamended provision which is other-wise not sustainable. i s hil:i lri't r neld by this Bench in the aforesaid batch lnalter:i rigtrt r:ri l ile respondents rvould stand reserved as rs cn,r-r.i p..,i.-rgt;rph l.los.37 & 38 of the saicl batch. No order a:; rl 3l: :,(: .iu€rntly, miscellaneous petitions pending. if :Lr '. slr,..ll s1 ;.rtcl r. ir.rsrcl P.SAM XOSHY,.I LAXMI NARAYANA ALISI{T: '1 lIr rr ci .l, ; o lt)23 \"r/ I "