Syed Ali Maehdi Razavi V. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, National e-Assessment Centre, New Delhi and The Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(1), Hyderabad and The Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Andhra Pradesh and Telangana

WP/23747/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Syed Ali Maehdi Razavi, the petitioner, challenging the legality of a notice and subsequent orders issued by the Income Tax Department for the assessment year 2020-21. The petitioner argued that the reassessment process modified by the Finance Act, 2021, was not properly adhered to by the respondents, rendering the notice and orders illegal and void ab initio. The court referenced a common order from a batch of writ petitions, including W.P.No.25903 of 2022, which had already addressed similar issues, leading to the decision to quash the impugned notice and orders in this case as well.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 817219 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 30-08-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Ashish Agarwal
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961, Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: BOKARO SAPNA REDDY
• Assessee Lawyers: A KIRAN MANOHAR
• Keywords: Finance Act 2021; Income Tax; Natural Justice; Reassessment; Void ab initio; Writ of Mandamus
• Section: 148; 143(3); 151; 148A; 226

Judgement Text

"[34111 HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 23747 OF 2024 Between: Syed Ali Maehdi Razavi, S/o. Syed Hassan Askari Razvi age 36 Years, Add 16-10-49/C, FIat No. 20 2nd Floor, Basera Bhavan, Malakpet, Hyderabad 5ooo2, Telangana ...pETrroNER AND 1. Assessment Unit, lncome Tax Department, National e-Assessment Centre, New Delhi, Room No. 401 , 2nd Floor, E-Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, New Delhi-110003 2. The lncome Tax Officer, Ward-9(l), Hyderabad, LT Towers, A.C. Guards, Hyderabad, Telangana-500004 3. The Principal Chief Commissioner of lncome Tax, Andhra Pradesh and Telangana Hyderabad. Room No. 922. 9lh Floor, B-Block, l.T Towers AC Guards, Hyderabad, Telangana-500004 ...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 of lVandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, declaring that the order passed by the 2nd Respondent, u/s 14BA(d) of the lncome Tax Act, '1961, dated 2310412024 bearing DIN and Notice ITBA/AST/F/I48A12024-2511064306182(1 ) for the Assessment Year 2020-21 as arbitrary, illegal, bad in law, void-ab-initio, violative of the principles of natural justice, apart from being violative of Articles 1a, 19(1)(g) and 265 of the constitution of lndia and Sec 1484 of the lncome Tax Act, 1961, and to consequently set aside the same in the interests of justice 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 proceedrngs, including any recovery, pursuant to the order passed by the 2nd respondent under section 14SA (d) of the lncome Tax Act' 1961 dated 23to4 12024 bearing DIN and Notice No. ITBA/AST/F/,148A12024- 2511064306182(1) for the assessment year 2O2O-21;, pending disposal of the above Writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. A. KIRAN MANOHAR Counsel for the Respondents: Ms. BOKARO SAPNA REDDY (Jr. SC FOR INCOME TAx) The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESIIWAR RAO UIRIT PETITION No.23747 OF 2o24 ORDER: (per Hon'ble Justice Sujog Paul) Heard Sri A. Kiran Manohar, learned counsel for the petitioner(s) and Ms. B.Sapna Reddy, learned Junior Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department, for the respondents. 2. The ground taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner(s) is that in furtherance of Finance Act,2O2l, re assessment process stood modified but the respondents have not taken care of it and therefore notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1 96 I cannot sustain judicial scrutiny. Since notice is bad in law, the consequential orders are also bad in law 3. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the parties agreed that curtains on this issue are Iinally drawn by this Court in a batch of writ petitions, W.P.No.25903 of 2022 and other connected matters, decided by common order dated 14.09.2023. T!:e parties agreed that this matter may be disposed of in terms of the Common Order dated 14.O9.2023. 2 4. This Court in the said order dated 14'09'2otl'3 W.P.No.259O 3 ol 2022, held as under: \"35. In wiew of the aforesaid discussions, it is by now very clear that the ptocedure to be follosed by the resPondent- Department uPon treating the notices issued for reassessmelrt beilrg under Section 148A, the subsequent Proceedings rf,as lraudatorily tequired to be uodertaken undet the substltuted provisioas as laid dowa uBder the Fitrance Act, 2O2l' ln the absence of which, we are coEstrained to hold that the procedure adopted by the resPondent-DepartmeDt is in cootraveotior to the statute i.e. the Finance Act,2021' at the first i[stance. secoDdly, it is also in direct contravention to the directives issued by the Hon'ble SupreEe Court in the case ofAshish Agarwal, suPra. 36. For all the aforesaid reasons, thc iEpugtred Dotices issued and the proceedings drawn by the respoDdeBt-DePartmettt is neither tenable, Eor sustainable. The notices so issued and the procedurc adoPted beiig Per se illegal, deseryes to be aad are accordingly set aEide/quashed. As a coEseque8ce, all th€ impugned orders getting quashed, the consequential orders passed by the resPondent DeParttuc[t Pursuant to the notices issued under section 147 and 1t18 woutd also get quashed aEd it is ordered accordingly. The reasoa we are quashiag the consequential ordet is on the PriaciPles that when the initiation of the proceedilgs itself was procedurally wrong' the subsequent orders also gets nullified autoEatically' 37. The preliminary objection raised by the Petitioner is sustained and all these writ petitiona staDds alloted oa this very jurisdictional issue. since the impugned notices and orders are getting quashed o! the Point ofjurisdiction, we are not inclined to proceed further atrd decide the other issues raised by the petitioner thich stands reseryed to be raised aud contended ia aD 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 under Article 142 of the Cotrstitution of tndia' permitted the Rcvenue to Proceed uDder the substitut€d provisions, and this court allowilg the Petitions only on the p!99e4g31 flaw, the right conferrcd oE the Revenue would 1n 3 remain reserved to proceed further if they so want from the stage of the order of the Supterne Court in the case of Ashish Agarwal, supra. 39. No order as to costs.' 5. In view of the consensus arrived, the impugned Show Cause notice and consequential orders passed in this writ petition are set aside. Liberty is reserved to both the parties to take respective stand and to proceed in accordalce with law as per paragraph No.38 of the order dated 14.09.2023 in W.P.No.25903 of 2022 6. The Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed. Sd/. C. PRAVEEN KUMAR ASSTSTANtRgGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ,/ SECTION OFFICER To, BM MP 1. The Assessment Unit, lncome Tax Department, National e-Assessment Centre, New Delhi, Rogm No. 401, 2nij Floor, E-Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, New Delhi-1 10003 2. ihe lncome Tax Officer, Ward-9(1), Hyderabad, LT Towers, A'C' Guards, Hvderabad. Telanqana-500004 s. f6e Fiiniipal Chiei Commissioner of lncome Tax, Andhra Pradesh and - fefanglniHyderabad. Room No. g22,}lh Floor, B-Block, l.T Towers AC Guards, Hyderabad, Telangana-500004 4. One CC to SRl. A. KIRAN-MANOHAR, Advocate [OPUC] 5. oil cc to ltrt.. BoKARo SAPNA REDDY (Jr. SC FoR INCoME TAX) [oPUC] 6. Two CD Copies s HIGH COURT DATED:3010812024 ORDER WP.No.23747 ot 2024 ALLOWING THE WRITPETITION WITHOUT COSTS nrcrri'8 E' ._--:=-..r-lig:,.-. ,,.. ...: -t i{i. l-t ,: ^ ::..r j.- ,,. .} . 2 i B cti 2tl24 :, ) cw "