Syeda Humera Hai V. Income Tax Officer, (Int Taxn)- 1, Hyd, Aaykar Bhawan and Union of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue

WP/14001/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Syeda Humera Hai, the petitioner, who challenged the legality and validity of an order and notice issued by the Income Tax Officer for the assessment year 2016-2017. The petitioner contended that the order was passed without proper consideration of her reply, which claimed a case of mistaken identity regarding the sale of immovable property. The court found that the petitioner's reply, although submitted two days after the deadline, was not considered before passing the impugned order. Consequently, the court set aside the order and notice, instructing the Income Tax Officer to reconsider the matter.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 798119 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 08-06-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961, Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: K MAMATA; B MUKHERJEE
• Assessee Lawyers: M V SWAROOP; MYTRI INDUKURU
• Keywords: Assessment Year 2016-17; Barred by limitation; Excess of jurisdiction; Natural Justice; Quashing of order; Writ of Certiorari
• Section: 147; 148; 148A(d); 226

Judgement Text

"[ 3311 I HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY ,THE EIGHTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION NO: 14001 OF 2023 Between Syeda Humera Hai, D/o. Syed Raza Ali Hashmy, Aged about 55 yrs, Presently residing at. 25839, Oakwood Knoll Drive, Katy, Foreign, United States of America - 77494 Permanent lndian address. 11-38/3, Mamidpally, KV Rangareddy, Behind Pahadishareef,Hyderabad, Telangana, lndia, 500005. ...PETITIONER AND 1. lncome Tax Officer, (lnt Taxn)- 1, Hyd, Aaykar Bhawan. Opposite LB Stadium, Basheer Bagh. Hyderabad - 500004. 2. Union of lndia, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Rep., by its Secretary (Revenue), North Block - New Delhi - 1 10001. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Anide 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to a) issue writ or direction or order mbre particularly in the nature of a writ of certioraricalling for the records and quashing the lmpugned Order dated 31.03.2023 and bearing DIN and Order No. ITBA/AST/F/148 N2O22- 2311051793665('l) for the Assessment Yeat 2016-17, passed by the 'lst Respondent under sub-section(d) of Section l48A of the lncome Tax Act, 1961 as beirtg ilLegal, arbitrary, barred by limitation, in excess of jurisdiction and in violation of principles of natural juslice, and pass such further or other orders as this Honorable Court may deem fit and necessary in the interest of justice. b) issue writ or direction or order more particularly in the nature of a writ of certiorari calling for the records and quashing the lmpugned Notice dated 31.03.2023 and I I I i I l. beanng D ll .l anrj Notioe No. ITBA/AST/Sl148- 1/202223t105'l82:985(l)for the Assessrnent Yra il016-17, rssued by thc lst Resportdert Lrr. er iection 148 of the lncome, lr:x A ;t, 1961 as berng illegal, arbilra y l>ar erl b't ltm jtation. in excess of jr ris,ir.. ro1 z rd in violation of principles oi nirtural justice. lA NO: 'l OF 2(t?: Petitron ur C€ r Section 15.1 CPC praying that ir tl-e r.irr;umstances stated in ther al'fid.:vrt fil )o in support of the petition, the Hig t CoJrt rnay be pleaseci to grant a stay of th3 operation of the lmpugned Orrler oate,l 31.03.2023 and bearing DIN ;rnc crrder No. ITBA/AST/F 1148A12022- 2311 C 5 ' 79:t665( 1 ) for the Assessment Ye. r t2016-1 Z, issued by the 1st Respondent Llnder clause (d) of Section 148 A o tire lncome Tax Act 1 961 , and conseque rtly in the interest of justice pendin,; c sposal of the above Wrrt Petrtion. lA NO: 2 OF 202 i Petition u dr-'r Section 151 CPC praying that in the tircunlstances stated in the affidavit fi ec in support of the petition, the High Courr may be pleased to stay the operati( n cf and consequently suspend all frrrther l)r,:)ce(,d ngs pursuant to the lmpugne j Notice dated 31.03.2023 and bearirrg DIN irnd Notice No. ITBA/AST/S/148 1,2A22- 2311051823985('1 ) for the Assesrin ent Yea( 2016.17, issued by the 1s I Flespondent under Section 148 of the Inc)r0e lax Act, 1961 in the interest of JU;ti,le pending disposal of the above V/rit Pe.itr)n. COUnSEI for the Pe,titioner : SRI M V SWAROOP FOR Ms. I /IY TRI INDUKURU Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Ms. K MAMATA SC FOtl ll{COME TAX DEPARTMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRI B MUKHERJEE REP SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR DE ]I.ITY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA The Court mad( the following: ORDER 7 THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAI BITUYAN AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.l4OOl of 2023 ORDER: Per the Hon'ble the Ctvef Justice Ujjat Bhut)an) Heard Mr. M.V.Swaroop, learned counsel for the petitioner; Ms. K.Mamata Choudary, learned Senior Standing Counsel, Income Tax Department, for respondent No.1; and Mr. B.Mukherjee, learned counsel representing Mr. Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India for respondent No.2. 2. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has assailed legality and validity of the order dated 31.O3.2O23 passed by respondent No.1 under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (briefly, 'the Act' hereinafter) for the assessment year 2016-2017 as well as the notice dated 31.03.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Act for the said assessment year. I ,.{?{:I?'.r 3. We mitr ntention '-hat tlrc lletitioner s lr-l i.-sscsse(l uncler th,r P.ct. Petitioncr did not lile ar-r v I-etur: be trg al non-residenL z s it is contendecl that no incomc rva:,,; eitrne(l by the pet,it oner during the assessmerrt , re.'.t rlltder consideratic,n the petitioner u nder Section 14BA(b) of the ct hat 4. On 1 I .C 3 2023 respondent No. 1 issr- ed a r.rotjce to s1 a.-in1; t he had rnl rrmation u,hich suggested thal ir come chargeable to tilx for the assessment year 201(t .liO 1 / had esc.Lped assc isment within the meaning of St:ctio n 147 of the Act. Thr rletails of information were attacl-rt'd ,o the notice as an lr nexure. It included amongst othe:ts s;ale of immovable p 'ooerty by the petitioner involving itn arnount of Rs.6B,7li,( 01.O0. Petitioner was callec upon to show cause as to u'h5' a notice under Section 148 ol tlre Act should not b,: rssued 5. It apDe rrs that petitioner had sought for {ifleer-r days adclitron al inre to collate related irLform al.ion and dot:uments r:l':vant for submission of an ,--ff<:ct rrr: rrlply to J the show cause notice. Taking the view that till 25.03.2023 no such reply .4 s filed, respondent No. 1 passed the impugned order hotd ing that present is a fit case for issue of notice under Section i48 of the Act for the assessment year 20 16-20 17 . 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 25.O3.2023 petitioner had submitted a reply online wherein she had contended that contrary to the information stated to be in possession of the assessing officer, she did not sell arry immovable property whatsoever. It appeared to be a case of mistaken identity. No details were furnished by the District Registrar of Ranga Reddy District like a copy of the sale deed or document registration reference number etc., irom which it could be deduced whether the sale belonged to the petitioner or not. Without considering the reply, respondent No'1 passed the impugned order which is not justil-red. 7. Ms. K.Mamata Choudary, learned Senior Standing Counsel, however, has referred to paragraph 11 of the writ I I I affidavii :rtlcl submits tl-rat accordinq '\"o [hc or'''rr .l 1'r-rne tl t upl,ratLe c ,rt'h oll of tl'ic 1t,:Lr :ioller, tlle rePlr 11. Lel :AS 27 .O3,2t)23 tl ,ough petitionr:r had sougl-rt l'cr tirnc t ill 25.O3.2t)2.3 8. After L e:Lring learned counsel for th': par.s rtnd on due conside a:ion, we are of the view that since pc itioncr had filecl eL r:1:ly, though two days after thc Linrr: r;or:ght 1or haC cxpirr:d but belore passing of tl're imlltlg:r:rl or-cler' iI u,ould lre jl st zrnd proper if respondent No' 1 t ak 3s irlto consideral-io r the reply submitted by thc lrtrlit otrer and thereafLer pi rs l a fresh order in accordancc with llur ' 9. Ordr:rr d accordinglY. I O. Cor-rse ltLetrtly. impugned order d:rtcd l' I .t'3 2023 passed b,r . er;pondent No.1 under Section 1'1 3rrr(d' of the Act as wr:1l as the notice dated 31 -O3.2C23 is sr-recl under Section 1.18 o t the Act are set aside. re s;,ondent No.1 take on board tile otrlirre reply sttbmitLe