TNR Constructions India Pvt. Ltd. V. Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax/income Tax Officer

WP/29621/2021

AI Insights

The case involves TNR Constructions India Pvt. Ltd., which challenged an ex-parte assessment order issued by the National e-Assessment Centre, Delhi, for the assessment year 2018-19. The petitioner argued that the assessment was conducted without providing a reasonable opportunity to be heard, as the order was passed on the tenth day after a notice was issued, without waiting for the petitioner's response. The court, however, decided not to entertain the writ petition, emphasizing the availability of an alternative remedy through an appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 768239 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 19-11-2021
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: M/S Sri Dwaraka Balaji Developers v. Union of India
• Laws Referred To: Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Section 151 CPC, Section 144(3) read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 274 read with Section 271AAC of the Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: K MAMATA
• Assessee Lawyers: DUNDU MANMOHAN
• Keywords: Ex-parte assessment order; Faceless assessment; Income tax assessment; Reasonable opportunity of being heard; Writ of Mandamus
• Section: 143(3); 274; 271AAC; 144B; 144(3)

Judgement Text

"HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY ,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA Between: TNR Constructions lndia Pvt. Ltd., Rep by [t4anaging Director, Theratipally Narsimha Rao S/o T Venkataiah, Plot. No. 220, Vasavi Colony, Road No.9, Kothapet, Hyderabad-500035. ...PETITIONER AND 1 Additional/JoinVDeputy/Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax/income Tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, lncome-tax Department, Itilinistry of Finance, Room No. 401 ,2nd Floor, E-Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, Delhi-1 10003. (Formerly known as National e-Assessment Centre) Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of lncome{ax, Circle 2(1 ), Signature Towers, Opp, Botanical Gardens, Kondapur, Hyderabad-500084. (Earlier jurisdiction Circle 2(2), now merged in Circle 2(1)) Principle Commissioner of lncometax 2, lT Towers, Masab Tank, Hyderabad- 500004. ...RESPONDENTS lA NO: 1 OF 2021 Counsel for the Petitioner:SRl. DUNDU MANMOHAN Counsel forthe Respondents: MS. K MAMATA, SC FOR lT The Court made the following: J WRIT PETITION NO: 2962'l OF 202'l 2. 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 one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the impugned ex-parte assessment order passed by the 1st Respondent, vide order bearing Document ldentification No.(DlN) ITBA/AST/S/143(3)12021-2211032596400 (1), dt. 22.04.2021, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Art. 14 and 265 of the Constitution of lndia and direct the 1st Respondent to reframe the assessment after providing the Petitioner a reasonable opportunity of being heard 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 the impugned ex-parte assessment order bearing Document ldentification No. (DlN) ITBA/AST/S/143(3)12021- 2211032596400 (1), dt. 22.04.2021 , and may pass such other order/orders as the Honourable Court deems fit and proper in the interests of substantial justice, as otherwise the Petitioner would be put to irreparable loss and injury. 'I'H[, lONl]1-1. Sltl .lI S l ICI: t,lJ.- l- l]llL A: -IIII HO , ILE l)lt. Jt,'STIClr Cl{lLI.AKt lt SL.iMAI ., TIL Heard Mr.l [anmohan Dandu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. K. Mamatha 3howdary, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax. 2. ln this w it petition, petitioner has challenged the assessment order dated 22.04.2021 rassed by the National e-Assessrnent Centrc. Delhi i.e., responder.rt No.l rnder Section 144(3) read with Section 144 B of thc' lncome tax Act, l' 6l (briellv 'thc Act' hercinallcr) fbr thc assessrncnt ye ar 2018- r9. 3. Petitione , which is a company, had hled return of income online for the said asser sment year on 3 i . I 0.201 8 declaring total income ol thousand, one hun, red and ten only). The case was selected lor Complete Scrutiny on lhe is: ue ol whether there was real estate business with high closing stock and lr rge inclease in unsecured loans dr-rring the year. 4. By the i:rpugned order ol assessmcnt. the asscssed incorre was quantilled at 41,85,35,300.00 (llupees lilly one crores, eighty irve lakhs. I thirty five thousanc, and three hundred only), and directions were issued fbr ANI) _uu_429621 0[2!21 O ll f) E R (Pel the tlon'ble Sri Justice Uii:rl llhurant Rs.1,47,83,110.00 (Rupees one crore, forty seven lakhs, eighty three ') initiating penalty proceedings under Section 274 read with Section 27lAAC of the Act. 5. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, petitioner had sought for ten days time to reply to the notice issued, but exactly on the tenth day, the impugned order came to be passed, without waiting lor thc petitioner's reply. I Ic, therclbre, subrnits that reasonable opportunity ol' hearing was not granted 10 the petitioner and, therelore, the irnpugned assesslnent order shor-rld be set aside 5.1. Leamed counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon a recenl order passed by this couft in M/S SfiI DIYARAKA BALAJI 6. On due consideration, we are not inciined to entertain the writ petition inasmuch as, petitioner has got adequate and efficacious alternative remedv of filing appeal be l'ore the Cornmissioner of Incorne Tax (Appeals) under Section 24(r A ol- the Act. Supreme Court has also clarified that the period fi'orn 15.03.2020 to 02.10.2021 should be excluded rvhile calculating period ol linritation in vicw of Covid - l9 pandernic. Furlhcr, thc f'acts in M/s Sri Dwaraka Balaji Developers (supra) are distinguishable from the , present case. ' w.P.No.25577 of 2O2l dated ll.l t.2O2l (DB) DEVELOPERS v. UNION OF INDIA|. I In the lig rt of the above, petitioner is relegated to the fbrum of appeal before the Cr mmissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)' 8. Subject to :he above, writ petition is disposed of' 9. Interlocul try applications pending, if any, shall stand closed' No order as to c osts To, SD/..B.SATYAVATHI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY// q SECTION OFFICER 1. Additional/JoinV )eputy/Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax/income Tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, lncome-tax Department, Ministry of Finar:e, Room No. 401, 2nd Floor, E-Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, Delhi-'10003. (Formerly known as National e-Assessment Centre) 2. Deputy/Assistan Commissioner of lncometax, Circle 2(1), Signature Towers, Opp, Botanical ( ,ardens, Kondapur, Hyderabad-500084. (Earlier jurisdiction Ctcle 2(2), now nerged in Circle 2(1)) 3. Principle Comm ;sioner of lncome{ax 2, lT Towers, l ,4asab Tank, Hyderabad- 500004 4. One CC to Sri. I undu Manmohan, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to Ms. I Mamata, SC for lT [OPUC] 6. Two CD Copies. 7. One Spare Copl . ,*t DATEAtlgll'112021 ORDER WP.No.29621 of 2021 Disposing of t re WP Without costs E srA74: It L\" ..1. '{ 1 n DEC20?! il 0 fr-o[) HIGH COURT "