Vani Jalagam V. Union of India

WP/910/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Vani Jalagam, who filed a writ petition challenging the notices and orders issued by the Income Tax Department for the assessment year 2014-15. The petitioner argued that the reassessment proceedings were initiated under the un-amended provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, whereas the amended provisions, effective from April 1, 2021, mandate a faceless approach to reassessment. The court referenced a previous judgment where similar objections were sustained, leading to the quashing of the notices and orders on jurisdictional grounds. The court did not delve into other objections raised by the petitioner, reserving them for future proceedings.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 735129 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 11-01-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: WP.No.25903 of 2022 & batch, dated 14.09.2023
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961, Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR; B SAPNA REDDY
• Assessee Lawyers: P SOMASHEKAR REDDY
• Keywords: Faceless assessment; Income Tax; Jurisdiction; Reassessment; Writ of Mandamus
• Section: 147; 148; 144; 148A; 226; 144(8)

Judgement Text

"Between: VaniJalagam,Wo.Jalagarn.PrasadRao,Agedabout55'PlotNo'280D' nojo r.ro.iod,'Lubiiee Ftitti, Telangana, Hyderabad' T'S - 500033 ...PETITIONER [ 337e ] HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYOERABAD (SPecial Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION NO: 910 oF 2024 Union of lndia, Ministry of Finance, Rep. by its Secretary, 166-8 North Block' New Delhi - 110 001. lncome Tax Officer, Ward 14(1 ), lncome Tax Towers, Masab Tank' Hyderabad, Telangana 500004 The Princioal Commissioner Of lncome Tax-|, lncome Tax Towers' Masab Tank, Hyddrabad, Telangana 500004 The National Faceless Assessment centre, lncome Tax Department Ministry of Finance, Govt. of lndia, New Delhi. ...RESPONDENTS AND 1 2 3 4 Petition under Articte 226 of lhe constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstancesstatedintheaffidavitfiledtherewith,theHighCourtmaybe pleased to: i) issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly' one' in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the order passed by the Respondent No'2 in issuing the Notice dated 17-05-2022 uts 148A (b) and Notice issued by the Respondent No.2 under Section 148 of the lncome Tax Act' 1961 dated 30.O7 .2022 as illegal, arbitrary' bad in law' void-ab-initio' and being violative of the provisions of lncome Tax Act 1961 and Articlesl4'lgand265oftheConstitutionoflndiaandconsequently To set aside the notice issued by Respondent No. 2 u/s 14g of the lncome Tax Act, 1961 dated 3O-O7 -2022 calling for the return of income of the Petitioner for AY. 2014-15 and consequent proceedings including the Assessment Order passed uls 144 rtw 141 of the lncome tax Act, 1961 dated 26-05-2023 as lacking in jurisdiction in terms of the amendment in the Act and procedure laid down in the Finance Act 2021 which mandates the authorities to initiate proceedings pertaining to reassessment u/s 1 48 and 1484 of the lncome Tax Act, .l 961 in a faceless manner through automated allocation, as is provided u/s .1448 of the Act rather than being, proceeded by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRt P.SOMA SHEKAR REDOY Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, Dy. SOLICITOR GEN. OF INDIA Counsel for the Respondent No.2 to 4: M/s. B.SAPNA REDDY, SC FOR INCOME TAX The Court made the following: ORDER ii) the THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTTCE N.TUI{ARAMJI WRIT PETITI ON No.91O OF 2024 ORDER: (per Hon'ble Srt Justice p.SAM KOSHE) Heard Mr. P.Soma Shekar Reddy, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr. Gadi praveen Kumar, learned Deput_v Solicitor General of India, appearing for respondent No.l and Ms. B. Sapna Reddy, learned junior Standing Counsel for Income Tax appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4. Perused the entire record. 2. The instalt Writ petition has been fi1ed by the petitioner under Articl e 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order issued under Section 14gA(b) of the Income Tax Act, 196 1 (for short, \"the Act\") bearing DIN No.l'lBA/COM/F / 17 /2022-23/to43ost2og (1), dated 17.05.2022 passed by respondent No.2 for the assessment year 2014-15 and the consequent notice under Section 147 read with Sections 144 and 144-8 of the Act, dated 26.O5.2023, bearing DIN No.ITBA/AST lS/147 /2023_ 24/10s32169s1 (1). 2 3. One ol the contentions that the petitioner has raised in the present Writ Petition is that under the amended provisions of the Act which carne into effect from Ol.O4.2O2I, the respondents, while proceeding under Section 148 of the Act, rvere required to issue notice under Section 148A and provide al 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 OfIicer. In support ol his contention, he relied upon the recent judgment rendered by this very Bench in WP.No.259O3 of 2022 & batch, dated 14.O9 .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 the aforesaid objection, there have been other various 3 objections also which the petitioner has raised in the writ petition. 6. 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 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 u,tit petitions stands allowed on this uery juisdictional issue. Since the impugned notices and orders are getting quashed on the point of juisdiction, LUe ore not inclined to proceed further and_ decide the other issues raised bg the petitioner which stands reserued to be raised and contend_ed in an ap p ro p riate p r o ce e ding s. \" \"38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the case of Ashish Aganual, supra, as a one-time measure exercising the pouers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, permitted the Reuenue to proceed under the substituted proui.sions, and_ this Court allou.ting tle petitions onlg on the procedural Jtau_t, the ight confered on the Reuenue uould remain reserued. to proceed furtlrcr if theg so utcint from the stage of the order of the Supreme Court in tle case of Ashi.sh Agaru.tal, supra.\" 7. In view of the same, we are inclined to allow the present writ petition also on similar terms. Accordingly, the present Writ Petition stalds allowed on the objection of the petitioner that the proceedings have not been drawn in , I 4 accordance with the arnended provision but under the un-amended provision which is otherwise not sustajnable- B. As has been held by this Bench in the aforesaid batch matters, the rights of the parties would stand reserved as is envisaged at paragraph Nos.37 & 38 of the said order passed in the batch of writ petitions. No order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petition s pending, if any, shall stand closed SD/. K. SAI KUMARI ASSISTANT#ISTRAR //TRUE COPY// To, SECTION OFFICER , I1?r:i1r55ry,.Ministry of Finance, .166-8 North Btock, New Dethi, Union of ' II3\"llB3T,\".J,:xr?f:'BlrUfld 14(1)' Income rax rowers, Masab rank, 3. The P.ncioal Commissioner Of Income Tax_,, Income Tax Towers, Masab Tank, Hyderabad, Tetangan; sooob?\"'\" ''\"-', . Ii;,*,,ll.Ji|f,::'ii\"r.A:.*\".?tsJlt cenrre, rncome rax Department, Ministry 5. One CC to SRt P.SOMA SHEKAR REDDY, Advocare tOpUCl 6. One CC to Mis. B.SAPNA REDDY, SC FOR TNCOME TAX [OPUC] 7. One CC ro SRt GADI. PRAVEEN KUrvAR, Dv. SO.LI^CITO_R GEN. OF tNDtA, High court for the Srate oi r\"rr\"grnl';i Hi#Loro IopUCI 8. Two CD Cooies BSR GJP .},,--- HIGH COURT DATED: 1110112024 ORDER WP.No.910 of 2024 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS 1ktg srAr€ 1 4 rEB 202[ c ,) tl 1- 1.,:, * l:-r nr ,;-r 'vq "