Orusunnissa Begum V. The Income Tax Officer

WP/31574/2022

AI Insights

The case involves a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging an order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Income Tax Officer (ITO). The petitioner, an assessee for the assessment year 2013-14, contended that her taxable income was below the exemption limit and thus did not file a return for the said year. However, a notice under Section 148 was issued by the ITO, which was contested. The Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal was cited, which held that notices issued post-01.04.2021 should be construed as notices under Section 148A. The court found that the petitioner had been given an opportunity to submit her objections, which were considered before passing the impugned order.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 758185 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 04-08-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961, Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Respondent
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: J V PRASAD
• Assessee Lawyers: DUNDU MANMOHAN
• Keywords: Assessment Year; Income Tax; Jurisdiction; Natural Justice; Notice; Writ of Mandamus
• Section: 148; 148A(d); 226; 149(1)(b)(iii)

Judgement Text

"HIGH COURT FOR THE SI AT HYDERfJiDOF TELANGANA (Special Originat ULA=li\"tionl THUf-r_s^D1y, THE FouRrH DAy oF AUGUST Two THoUSAND AND rwer.riv'iiryt\" \", THE HONOURABLE THE CX[B: JUST,CE UJJAL BHUYAN THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY PRESENT ITPE NNO:3 1574 0F 2022 31ffi ??':,%Z:'#g.1lSi,S:,,Uy:il?,[lfi,H::f;{f#m;f cc;Housewire, Eetween: AND ...PETITIONER 1. The lncome Tax Officer. ^Ward. 14(1), lT Towers AC Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad Telangana_d00004. 2. The Principal Chiaf Commissioner of lncome Tax, Ap and TS, .t.th Ftoor, C- Block, l.T. Towers, 10-2-3, A.C. euarO. C\"ntraiiii\"i\" -rtsl, Hyderabad, Telangana-500004. ...RESPONDENTS Petition Under Article 226 of lhe 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 one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned order Uis 148A(d) dt., 30-06-2022 passed by the 1st respondent vide Document ldentification Number (DlN)- ITBA/ COMIF 11712022-23110436867 84(1), as void, illegal and contrary to the provisions of lT Act and contrary to the principles of natural justice. 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 proceedings pursuant to the impugned order dt., 30-06-2022 passed U/s 148A(d) of the Act by the 1st respondent U/s 148A(d) vide Document ldentification Number (DlN)- ITBA/ COM/ F/ 171 2022-231 1043686784(1). Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI.DUNDU MANMOHAN Counsel for the Respondents : SRI.J.V.PRASAD (SC FOR INCOME TAX) The Court made the following ORDER I.A.NO:1 OF 2022 THE r i_QNELJ_lllEltrIpL{uSTICEUJ.rAr, r !i-Lty3 lI AND THE TToN'BLD SRI JUSTICE C.V.B}IASKAR II.E)DD'' WRIT PETITION No.31574 of 2C2,2 ORDER: Pc ti., Ito .bte ttte Ctuel Justrce UJial Flhuyoal Hca C Mr. Dundu Manmohan, learnel colnsel for the petit oner and Mr. J.V.Prasad, lear.red Standing Counsel lb- Income Tax Department ar:.1,:arin E for the responde rt s 2. Th s writ petition has been hled under ArtLcle 226 of the Co: rstitution of tndia assailing thrl orCer dated 30.06.2(,f ') passed by respondent No.I under Section l4BA(d) ol the Income Tax Act, 196l ttnefl1 , .the Acr, hereina.Ler) for the assessment year 2O13_14. Pe ritioner is an assessee under the Act. But it is con tenc rtd that as her taxable income fell below the e. empt :n limit, she did not file return lor t te assessment vear un ler consideration :l I ) 4. Be that as it may, notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued by respondent No.l on 08.06.202 l. Supreme Court in Union of India v. Ashish Agarwalr has held that though the notice under Section 148 of the Act rvas issued post 01.04.2021, such notices shall be construed to be notices under Section 148A of the Act, whereafter assessees were given liberty to submit their show cause reply. Upon reply submitted by the petitioner, respondent No.l passed the impugned order holding that objection of the assessee on monetary limit cannot be sustained' It was further held that it is a fit case for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act' This order he has passed after obtaining prior approval of respondent No'2' whereafter notice under Section 148 of the Act has been issued. 5. Basic contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the objcction to the notice issued under Section l48A(bl of the Act' petitioner has raised various grounds' including the ground that the alleged escaped income ' 2022 SCC onlinc sc 543 I I would be m.rch less than Rs.SO.OO lakhs anri irr t€rms of Section 149 Il)(bXiii) of the Acr, respondent I'lr: 1 would not have the ju isdiction to proceed further. 6. We b lve carefully considered the objectLon rised by the petitio rer and the order passed by respor.dent No.1 on 30.06.2022. At this stage we may poirt orrt that the scheme ol Section t48A of the Act is to provicte opportunity of notice ud hearing to the assessee befrrre fornral notice under Sr ction 148 of the Act can be issrreC. In other words, a proceeding under Section lagA(d) cf thr: Act is at a stage J rior to issuance of statutory notice under Section 148 of t re Act. Therefore, the impugned r)rder has been passed € r. a stage even prior to the interlocut.ory s,tage. 7 ' wt ma-y mention that as provided ,,rrer Section r4g of the A t. petitioner would have a host ,rl. remeJies to put up her , lef'ence, including the contentiorr tltat p resent one ,is not a lt case for proceeding under Section 14., of the Act rn vievr Of the jurisdictional em barg;o r; nd :r Section 149(t)(b (iti) of the Act A/1 these aspects; czn t I.,, to 11.,\" notice urncler.,#\"1: i the petit iller in her rep 4 I i I I I 8. Consequently, leaving all contentions open to the petitioner we decline to entertain the writ petition' I Writ petition is accordingly dismissed' S.A sWtL-- Miscellaneous applications pending' if any' shall stand closed' However' there shall be no order as to costs' SD/.K.VENKAIAH ASSIsTANIREGISTRAR /TTRUE COPY/I LT SECTION OFFICER I 8ffi 33 l3 3El ?vtHsE?'i$tssr'et ffifJ\"\"r -\" r*o CD Coples i. on\" sPare coPY To of the Act. The assessing authority would be under an obligation to deal with such objection raised. But having regard to the scheme of Section 14BA of ttre Act and the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Ashish Aganval's case (supra), we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition and interdict the proceedings of the respondents under Section 1'48 of the Act at this stage' HIGH COURI DATED:04 lOt ,,lZ02Z ORDER WP.No.31St'4 of 2022 DISMISSII G THE W.P WITHOUT ]OSTS. 4 y'.t' .o'- l. t,. l,: l:. tott 24 Nllr ?m I '.:. * , lvtA- t1l,,l >.,. t s "