Upendra Reddy Tanguturu V. Income Tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre and The Income Tax Officer, Proddatur and The Union of India

WP/26868/2021

AI Insights

The case involves a writ petition filed by Upendra Reddy Tanguturu against the Income Tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, and others, challenging an assessment order for the assessment year 2017-18. The petitioner argued that the order was passed beyond the permissible time limit and without proper jurisdiction, violating principles of natural justice and being arbitrary and perverse. The respondents contended that the petitioner should avail the statutory forum of appeal provided under the Income Tax Act. However, the court found that the assessment order was indeed passed beyond the statutory deadline and thus lacked jurisdiction, leading to the decision to set aside the order.

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 679734 (HC-ANDHRA_PRADESH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 30-12-2021
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: M KIRANMAYEE; N HARINATH
• Assessee Lawyers: G NARENDRA CHETTY
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Jurisdiction; Limitation; Mandamus; Natural Justice; Statutory Forum of Appeal
• Section: 144; 153

Judgement Text

" HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH AND HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE B. S. BHANUMATHI WRIT PETITION No.26868 OF 2021 Upendra Reddy Tanguturu, 21/429/1, M. P. Muni Reddy Colony, Jammalamadugu V & M, Kadapa District – 516434, Andhra Pradesh, India. . … Petitioner Versus 1. Income Tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Room No.401, II Floor, E-Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, Delhi – 110003. 2. The Income Tax Officer, Proddatur, 24-578, Vasanthapet, Proddatur – 516360, Kadapa District, Andhra Pradesh. 3. The Union of India, Rep.by its Secretary (Finance), Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi - 110001. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Mr. G. Narendra Chetty, Advocate Counsel for the respondents : Ms. M. Kiranmayee, no.1 and 2 Standing Counsel for Income Tax Counsel for the respondent : Mr. N. Harinath, no.3 Assistant Solicitor General. 2 ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 30.12.2021 (Per Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah) Heard Mr. G. Narendra Chetty, learned counsel for the petitioner; Ms. M. Kiranmayee, learned senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax appearing for the respondents no.1 and 2; and Mr. N. Harinath, learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the respondent no.3. 2. The petitioner has moved the Court for the following relief: “……. to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly in the nature of MANDAMUS holding that the impugned Assessment Order, dated 20.09.2021, passed by the First Respondent, for the A.Y.2017-18 under the Income Tax Act, 1961, is barred by limitation, was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, arbitrary, perverse, contrary to law, passed on mere assumptions and presumptions without any basis or material, and illegal and consequently set aside the same and pass ….” 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that though the time for passing of the assessment order, which is impugned, expired on 31.12.2019, the respondent no.1 has passed the order on 20.9.2021 under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the ‘Act’) without dealing with the issue as to whether he had jurisdiction to do so or not. 4. At this juncture, on a specific query to the learned counsel for the respondents no.1 and 2 with regard to whether the Act permits passing of such assessment order in the time 3 frame of the present case, it was fairly submitted that the date to pass such order did expire on 31.12.2019. However, it was contended that there is a statutory forum of appeal under the Act and the petitioner may be directed to avail the same. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when on the basic jurisdictional issue of there being inherent incompetence of the authority to pass the order of assessment, as has been done in the present case, is not disputed, the Court may not relegate the petitioner to the appellate forum as for the ends of justice, the matter be finally closed at this stage itself. 6. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court finds force in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner. It is not in dispute that the assessment order under challenge is for the year 2017-2018 and as per Section 153 of the Act, the time prescribed for passing such order under Section 144 is twenty one (21) months from the end of the assessment year i.e., 21 months from 01.03.2018 and thus, the limitation would expire on 31.12.2019. As the same being well prior to the pandemic period, even the general direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court extending such period would not apply in the facts of the present case. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. The order impugned dated 20.09.2021 passed by the respondent no.1 stands set aside. No order as to costs. 4 8. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, also stand disposed of. ________________________________ (AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J) ________________________ (B. S. BHANUMATHI, J) AMD 5 86 HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH AND HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE B. S. BHANUMATHI WRIT PETITION No.26868 OF 2021 Date : 30.12.2021 AMD "