Tripura Bio Tech Limited V. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, National e-Assessment Center, New Delhi and The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Hyderabad and The Principal Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax, Andhra Pradesh And Telangana, Hyderabad

WP/4387/2024

AI Insights

The case involves M/s Tripura Bio Tech Limited, which challenged an order from the Income Tax Department regarding the assessment for the year 2016-17. The petitioner argued that the order was passed without following the procedural requirements set out in the amended Income Tax Act, specifically the need for a notice under Section 148A and an opportunity for a hearing. The respondents included various officials from the Income Tax Department. The court's decision was influenced by a previous judgment on a similar jurisdictional issue, which had set a precedent for allowing such writ petitions on procedural grounds.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 799416 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 20-02-2024
• 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: J V PRASAD
• Assessee Lawyers: A V A KARTIKEYA
• Keywords: Assessment Year 2016-17; Faceless Proceedings; Income Tax; Jurisdictional issue; Natural Justice; Writ of Mandamus
• Section: 147; 148; 144; 14; 144B; 148A; 265; 226; 19(1)(g)

Judgement Text

"[ 337e ] HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION NO: 4387 OF 2024 Between: M/s Tripura Bio Tech Limited, No.1-10-170128, Bharathi Nagar Temple, Alwal, Secunderabad - 500 010, Telangana Represented by its Managing Director, Mr. M. Phani Raj Kiran, S/o tMr. MVSS Sairam. .....PETITIONER AND 1. Assessment Unit, lncome Tax Department, National e-Assessment Center, New Delhi, Room No. 4O1 ,2nd Floor, E-Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, New Delhi - 110 003. 2. The lncome Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Hyderabad, Signature Towers, Sy.No. 6(P) of Kondapur, Sy. No. 37(P) of Kothaguda, Opposite Botanical Gardens, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad - 500 084, Telangana. 3. The Principal Chief Commissioner Of lncome Tax, Andhra Pradesh And Telangana, Hyderabad, Room No. 922,9th Floor, B Block, l.T.Towers, 10-2- 3, AC Guards, Hyderabad - 500 004, Telangana. 4. The lncome Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Hyderabad, Signature Towers, Sy. No.6(P) of Kondapur, Sy. No. 37(P) of Kothaguda, Opposite Botanical Gardens, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad - 500 084, Telangana. 5. The Principal Chief Commissioner of lncome Tax, Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, Hyderabad Room No. 922,gth Floor, 'B' Block, l.T.Towers, 1O-2- 3, AC Guards, Hyderabad - 500 004, Telangana. .....RESPONDENTS Petition Under A(icle 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 Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, declaring that the order passed by the 1't Respondent, uls 147 rlw Sec. '1 44 r/w Sec. 1448 of the lncome Tax Act, 1961 , dated 25.O1 .2024, bearing DIN and Notice No. ITBA/AST/S/14712023- 2411060224529(1), for the Assessment Year 2O16 - 17 as arbitrary, illegal, bad in law, void-ab-initio, violative of the principles of natural justice, apart from being violative of Articles 14, 19(1Xg) and 265 of the Constitution of lndia and Sec 148A of the lncome Tax Act, 1961 , and to consequently set aside the same in the interests of justice. |.A.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 proceedings, including any recovery, pursuant to the order passed by the 1't Respondent, uls 147 r/w Sec. 144 rtw Sec- 1448 of the lncome Tax Act, 1961, dated 29.01 .2024, bearing DIN and Notice No.lTBAlASf lg14712023- 241106022452(1), for the Assessment Year 2016 - 17, pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI A.V.A.SIVA KARTIKEYA Counsel for the Respondents : SRI J.V.PRASAD The Court made the following ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSITY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.4387 OF 2o24 ORDER:@er Hon'ble Sri Justice P.SAM KOSHY) The instant Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for the following reliet \"...to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction declaring that the order passed by the lst Respondent under Section 147 read with Section 144 read with Section l44B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 29.01.2024 bearing DIN and Notice No.ITBA/AST/ S I 147 /2023-24 I 1060224529(ll tor the Assessment Y ear 2016-17 as arbitrary, illegal, bad in law void abinitio, violative of the principles of natural justice, apart from being violative of Articles 14 19(1Xg) and 265 of the Constitution of India and Section 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and to consequently set aside the same in the interests of justice and to pass...\" 2. in One of the contentions that the petitioner has raised the present Writ Petition is that under the amended provisions of the Act which carne into effect from Ol.O4.2O2L, the respondents, while proceeding under Section 148 of the Act, were required to issue notice under Section l48A and provide an opportunity of hearing to the 2 PSK,J & NTR,J W.P.No.4387 of 2024 assessee. As per the amended provision of law, the proceedings to be drawn are also in a faceless manner. 3. Whereas, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, in the instant case, reopening has been initiated by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. In support of his contention, he relied upon the recent judgment rendered by this very Bench in WP.No.259O3 of 2022 & batch, dated 14.09.2023 wherein this Court disposed of the batch of writ petitions to the limited extent. 4. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Department does not dispute that the said objection was decided in the aforesaid batch of Writ Petitions. However, he further contended that apart from the aforesaid objection, there have been other various objections also rvhich the petitioner has raised in the writ petition. 5. So far as this contention of the learned counsel for the respondent-Department is concerned, this Bench, while disposing of said batch of writ petitions, had taken note of J PSK,J& ] ITR,J W.P.No.43a7 of 2024 the same at paragraph Nos.37 & 38 which are reproduced herein under: \"37. The preliminary objection raised by the petitioner is sustained and all these wit petitions stands alloued on this uery juri^sdictional issue. Since the impugned notices and orders are getting qtashed on the point of juisdictiory LUe are not inclined to proceed further and decide the other issues raised by tlrc petitioner which stands reserued to be raised and contended in an ap propiate pro ceeding s. \" '38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the case of Ashish Agarwal, supra, as a one-time measure exerci.sing the pouters under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, permitted the Reuenue to proceed under tlrc substituted prouisiors, and this Court allouing tle petitions onlg on the procedural flau, the ight confened on the Reuenue u.tould remain reserued to proceed further if theg so want from the stage of the order of tle Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Agarutal, supra.\" 6. In view of the sarne, we are inclined to allow the present writ petition also on similar terms. Accordingly, the present Writ Petition stands allowed on the objection of the petitioner that the proceedings have not been drawn in accordance with the amended provision but under the un-amended provision which is otherwise not sustainable. 7. As has been held by this Bench in the aforesaid batch matters, the rights of the parties would stand reserved as is 4 PSK,J & MTR,J W.P.No.4387 oJ 2024 envisaged at paragraph Nos.37 & 38 of the said order passed in the batch of writ petitions. No order as to costs. 8. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// sD/- c. PRAVEEN KUMAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ^/ ,- ^ / ' q SECTION OTHCTN / To SA 1. The Assessment Unit, lncome Tax Department'National e-Assessment \" C\"\"i\"i-rlu* Delhi, Room No. 40'1 , 2nd Floor, E-Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, New Delhi - 110 003. 2. i;;i;;;r;Tax officer, Ward 2(1), Hvderabad, Signature Towers'iv' l{o -' ii6r \"ix\"ndaour. Sv. trto gz(P)bf Koihaguda' opposite Botanical Gardens' slriri\"gr;prlt Hian'oat, Ransia Reddv Di'trict, Hvderabad - 500 084' Telangana. s. rh\" pffi\"ipal chief commissioner of lncome Tax, Andhra Pradesh and '' i\"[\"ou\"i Hvderabad, Room No. g22,gt Floor' B Block' lT Towers' 10-2-3' AC Giards, Hyderabad - 500 004, Telangana -. 4. ih\"-l\"d; Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Hyderabad, Signature Towers' Sy' \" r..r\"-ar pr \"i Kondaour. Sv. No. 37iP) of Kothaguda, Opposite Botanical - - - irii)r.i., s\"ilinglmpativ Mandai, Ranga Reddv District' Hyderabac - 500 084, Telangana. s. itJ'pn-*ip-J cniei commissioner of lnco..me Tax, Andhra Pradesh and -' i\"[\"ornJ, Hvderabad Room No. 922, grh Floor, 'B' Block' l T Towers' 1 0-2-3' AC Giards, Hvderabad - 500 004, Telangana . - - 6. 6;\" Ca b'Sri A.V A.Siva Kartikeva, Ad-v-o91t-e [OPUC] i. O\"\" CC to Sri J.V.Prasad, Advocate [OPUC] 8. Two CD CoPies GJW HIGH COURT DATED:20 10212024 ORDER WP.No.4387 ot 2024 ALLOWING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. () E ST4 / (-- B APfl 2U{ o It (_) I '') 0 C) * t .SSpalgytE0 P+lrlxt bg I "