Uf9 Sciences (Unit.3) Pvt. Ltd. V. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Government of India and Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

WP/8958/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Uf9 Sciences (Unit.3) Pvt. Ltd., which challenged the assessment order and notice issued by the Income Tax Department for the assessment year 2019-20. The petitioner argued that the reassessment was conducted under the unamended provisions of the Income Tax Act, which did not comply with the procedural requirements set out in the amended Act. The respondents did not dispute the procedural flaws but contended that other objections raised by the petitioner were not addressed in the previous judgments. The court, referencing a similar batch of writ petitions it had previously decided, allowed the petition on the grounds of jurisdictional error alone, without delving into other issues.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 688252 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 08-04-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Ashish Agarwal vs. Revenue
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961, Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: SUNDARI PISUPATI; GADI KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: MOHD MUKHAIRUDDIN
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Faceless assessment; Income Tax; Jurisdiction; Writ of Mandamus
• Section: 148; 151; 148A; 226

Judgement Text

"[ 33se ] HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON'BIE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU WRIT PETITION No.8958 oF 2024 Between: fgng, Uf9 Sciences (Unit.3) pvt. Ltd., having its office at 3_5B, Main Road r.r<.unamDers, Hamachandrapuram Hyderabad, Telangana SOZO32 Rep. by its Director PAN: AAFCA6947C ...PETITIONER AND 1 Assessment Unit, lncome Tax Department, National Faceless Assessment cenrre Gove rn ment of r no ;a., ^,tawi n'aii;i NI;;,...; M;4, e ro;k q Ediit;;i; ;;: Savitri Nagar New Delhi - 11OOO2 - '- - \"'*':'' Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle_g( 1 ), Hyderabad Siqnature Ilililii i [ ].% pl il fl x3333iui b p p B;i, ;; ; i G;d ; \";: sffi;: ;p:t ; (tj H,Ll\"|i ^[fl f, r[\".? ^P*'B.in?:r..,\"1136 l\"'a rt men t or Reve n ue, Mi n ist ry or ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Articre 226 0f the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue writ order or Direction more particurarry in the nature of writ of Mandamus decraring the impugned 'Assessment order having DrN No rrBA/AST/5r147/2023-24t10632g1808(1) dated 24-03-2024 passed by .rst respondent for A.Y.2019-20 pursuant to the impugned order dated 31-03_2023 passed u/s 1484 (d) of the rncome Tax Act, 1961 and impugned notice dated 3.1_ 03-2023 u/s' 148 of the lncome Tax Act, 'rg61 issued by 2nd respondent as being without jurisdiction, arbitrary, iregar, unjust and viorative of Articres 1a, 19 (1) g and 265 of Constitution of lndia and consequenfly set aside the same. 2 3 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 disputed demand of tax, interest and penalty and all further proceedings initiated . pursuant to impugned Assessment Order having DIN No.|TBA/AST/5114712023-24/1063291808(1) dated 24-03-2024 passed by 1't respondent for A.Y.2019-20. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI MOHD. MUKHAIRUDDIN Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2: Ms. SUNDARI R PISUPATI' SENIOR S.C. FOR INCOME TAX Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR' DEPUW SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA The Court made the following: ORDER 7 lA NO: 'l OF 2024 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASTVARAO NAIDU WRIT PETITION N0.8958 0F 2024 ORDER:lper Hon'ble Si Justice P.SAM KOSHfl) Heard Mr.Mohd.Mukhairuddin, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms.sundari R Pisupati, learned Senior Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. L artd 2 and Mr.Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India for respondent No.3. Perused the material available on record. 2. The instalt Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for the following relief: \"..to issue Writ Order or Direction more porticulorly in the noture of Writ of Mondomus decloring the impugned Assessment Order hdving DIN No.|TEA/AST/S/1a7/2023-24/1063291808(1) doted 24-Oj-2024 possed by 1't respondent for A.Y.2O19-20 pursuont to the impugned order doted 31.0i.2023 pdssed u/s.748A(d) of the tncome Tox Act, 7961 ond impugned notice dated 3743-202j u/s.148 of the lncome Tox Act, 7961 issued by 2nd respondent os being without jurisdiction orbitrory, illegot, unjust oN violotive of Articles 14, 19(1) g ond 265 of Constitution of lndio ond co::uent:ly set oside the some ond poss..,, -7 I 2 3. One of the contentions that the petitioner has raised in the present Writ Petition is that under the amended provisions of the Income Tax Act (for short .the Act,) which came into effect from Ol.O4.2O2l, the respondents, while proceeding und6r Section 148 of the Act, were required to issue notice under Section l48A and provide an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. As per the amended provision of law, the proceedings to be drawn are also in a faceless manner. 4. 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 e batch, dated 14.09.2023 wherein this Court disposed of the batch of writ petitions to the limited extent. 5. 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 I I 3 the aforesaid objection, there have been other various objections also which the petitioner has raised in the writ petition. 6. So far as this contention of the learned counsel for gfte respondent-Department is concerned, this Bench, while disposing of said batch of writ petitions, had taken note of the same at paragraph Nos.37 & 38 which are reproduced herein under: \"37. The preliminary objection raised bg the petitioner is sustained and all these urit petitions stand.s allouted on this uery jurisdictional issue. Since the impugned notices and orders are getting qua.shed on tle point of juri.sdiction, we are not inclined to proceed furtlrcr and decide ttte other issues raised by tLe petitioner uhich stands reserued to be raised and contended in an appropiate proceeding s.' \"38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court Lnd, in the case of Ashish Agaruta| supra, as a .one-time measure exercisirLg tte pouers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, permitted tle Reuenue to proceed under tLe substifitted prouisions, and this Court ollowing tte petitions onlg on the procedural Jlau, the ight conferred on tle Reuenue would remain reserued. to proceed further if tleg so utant from the stage of tle order of the Supreme Court in tle case of Ashi.sh Agonaa| supra.\" T. In rriew of the sarne, we are inclined to allow the present writ petition also on similar terms I I I 4 o 8. Accordingly, the present Writ petition stands allowed on the objection of the petitioner that the proceedings have not been drawn in accordance witJr the amended provision but under the un-amended provision which is otherwise not sustainable. 9' As has been herd by this Bench in the aforesaid batch matters, the rights of the parties would staad reserved as is envisaged at paragraph Nos.37 & 3g of the said order passed in the batch of writ petitions. No order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, sha-Il stand closed. SD/- P.Ch. NAGABHUSHAMBA . DEPUryREGISTRAR I //TRUE COPYII 9 SECTION OFFICER 1' The Assessment unit, rncome _ Tax Department, Nationar Faceress Assessment centre Government of tnoia, Jifiarrinii'hreiril'[,r;g,'Bi;;k\"E: Press Enctave, Savitri Nagar New Oetfriil'OOO2-\"- 2- The Assistant commissioner of rncome Tax circre-g(.r ), Hyderabad siqnature Towers, Sv No.6(p) of Kondapur opp. -eotani;iic\"iblJ\"i, t?iri;jr'r\"pxiiiiil,r R.R.Dist., Hyderabad 500084' 3. The Secretary, Department of Revenue, Minrstry of Finance, Union of rndia, North Block New Delhi - 110001 4. One CC to Mr. MOHD MUKHA|RUDD|N, Advocate tOpUCl 5' one cc to Ms. suNDARr R, prsupATr, Senior Standing counser for rncome Tax [OPUC] 6. one cc to sRl GAD| PRAVEEN KUMAR, Deputy soricitor Generar of rndia loPUCl 1. Two CD Copies To, MP OKKS HIGH COURT DATED:0BtO4t2024 ORDER WP.No.8958 of 2024 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WTHOUT COSTS 0 6 JtjN 202{ t IA e I t 1 c c) o o PATC t 91 l l I j r ( / l I "