Venkat Ramana Rao Surabhi V. Union of India, Ministry of Finance and Income Tax Officer, Ward 9(1) Hyderabad and The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Hyderabad and The National Faceless Assessment Centre, Income Tax Department

WP/8987/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Venkat Ramana Rao Surabhi, the petitioner, challenging the legality of the notices and orders issued by the Income Tax Department under Sections 148 and 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2016-17. The petitioner argued that the orders were passed without following the amended provisions of the Act, which require a faceless assessment and an opportunity for the assessee to be heard. The respondents included various authorities from the Income Tax Department and the Ministry of Finance. The court's decision was influenced by a previous judgment on similar issues, which had addressed the procedural flaws in the issuance of such notices and orders.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 804133 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 08-04-2024
• 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: GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR; J V PRASAD
• Assessee Lawyers: P SOMASHEKAR REDDY
• Keywords: Faceless assessment; Income Tax; Jurisdiction; Natural Justice; Writ of Mandamus
• Section: 148; 148A(d); 226

Judgement Text

"[ 33e9 ] 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 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU WRIT PETITION NO: 8987 OF 2024 Between: Venkat Ramana Rao Surabhi, S/o. Dasharath Rao Surabhi, Aged about 60 years, R/o. 501, Meerpet Road, Hayathnagar, K.V.Rangareddy, Vanastalipuram, Telangana, 500070 AQXPS 1 733R ...PETITIONER AND 1 Union of lndia, Ministry of Finance Rep. by its Secretary, 166-8 North Block, New Delhi - 1 10 001 . lncome Tax Officer, Ward 9(1) Hyderabad lT Towers, Masab Tank, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500004. The Principal Commissioner of lncome Tax-|, Hyderabad lT Towers, Masab Tank, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500004. The National Faceless Assessment Centre, lncome Tax Department Ministry of Finance Govt. of lndia, New Delhi. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constilution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to i. lssue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly, one, in the nature of Writ of l rlandamus, declaring the order passed by the Respondent No.2 in passing the Order dated 2810312023 u/s. 148A(d) and Notice issued by the Respondent No.2 under Section 148 of the lncome Tax Act, 1961 also dated 2810312023 as illegal, arbitrary, bad in law, void ab initio, violative of the principles of natural justice and being violative of Articles 1 4,1 9 and 265 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently, ii. Set aside the Order dated 2810312023 u/s. 148A(d) and Notice issued by the Respondent No.2 under Section '148 of the 2 4 lncome Tax Act, 1961 dated 2810312023 calling for the return of income of the Petitioner for AY 2016-17 and any consequent proceedings as lacking in jurisdrction. iii. and/ or pass Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P SOMA SHEKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR Dy. SOLICITOR GEN. OF tNDtA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 4: SRI J.V. PRASAD, SC FOR INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT The Court made the following: ORDER ;.i THE HON'BLE SRI WSTICE P.SAIYI KOSHY AND THE HON'BLE SRI WSTICE SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU WRIT PETITION No.8987 OF 2024 ORDER (per Hon'ble Si Justice P.SAM KOSHY) Heard Mr.P.Soma Shekar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of Inf,ia appearing for respondent No.1 and Mr. J.V.Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4 . Perused the material available on record. 2. The instant Writ Petition has been liled by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for the following relief: \"..to lssue o Writ, Order or Direction more porticulorly one in the ndture of Writ of Mondomus decloring the order possed by the Respondent No.2 in possing the Order ddted 28/03/202j u/s 148A(d) ond Notice issued by the Respondent No.2 under Section 148 oJ the lncome Tox Act 1961 olso dated 28/03/2023 ds illegol orbitrory bod in ldw void ob initio violotive of the principles oI noturol justice ond being violotive of Articles 74, L9 ond 265 ol the Constitution of lndio ond consequently ii Set aside the order doted 28/0i/2023 u/s 148A(d) ond Notice issued by the Respondent No 2 under Section 148 of the lncome Tox Act, 7961 ddted 28/03/2023 collinq for the return oJ income ol the Petitioner for AY 2016-17 ond ony consequent proceedings os locking in jurisdiction ond/ or pass such...\" ( 2 3. One of the contentions that the petitioner has raised 1n the present Writ Petition is that under the amended provisions of the Income Tax Act (for short 'the ActJ which came into effect from Ol .O4.2O21, the respondents, while proceeding under Section 148 of the Act, u,ere required to issue notice under Section 148A of the Act 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.25903 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 hald, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Department does not dispute that the said objection r.,,'as decided in the aforesaid batch of Writ Petitions. Hou,ever, he further contended that apart from 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 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 roised by the petitioner is sustained and oll these uit petitions stands allou.ted on this uery juisdictional issue. Since the impugned notices and orders are getting quasled on tle point of juisdiction, u)e ore not inclined to proceed further and decide the other issues raised bg the petitioner uhich stands reserued to be roised and contended in an ap p ro p iate p r o ce e ding s. \" \"38. Since tlLe Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the case of Ashish Agarwal, supro, as a one-time measure exercising the pouers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, pennitted tle Reuenue to proceed under the substituted prouisions, and this Court allouing the petitions onlg on the procedural Jlau, tLrc right confened on the Reuenue utould remain reserued to proceed further if they so uant from the stage of the order of the Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Agarutal, supra.\" 7 . In view of the same, we are inclined to allow the present writ petition also on similar terms. 4 To, TJ BS o 1 2 4 B. Accordingly, the present Writ Petition stands allowed on the objection of the petitioner that the proceedings have not been drar.r,n in accordance with the amended provision but under the un-amended provision which is otherwise not sustainable. 9. As has been held by this Bench in the aJoresaid batch matters, the rights of the parties would stald reserved as is envisaged at paragraph Nos.37 & 38 of the said order passed in the batch of '\"vrit petitions. No order as to costs. Consequentlv, miscellaleous petitions pending, if any, sha, stand closed ^rrisi;liYGlffitft / //rRUE COPY// v / SECTION OFFICER The Secretary, Unron of lndia, Ivlinistry of Finance 166-8 North Block, New Delhi - '1 10 001. lncome Tax Officer, Ward 9(1) Hyderabad lT Towers, l ,4asab Tank, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500004. The Principal Commissioner of lncome Tax-|, Hyderabad lT Towers, lVlasab Tank, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500004. The National Faceless Assessment Centre, lncome Tax Department Ministry of Finance Govt. of lndia, New Delhi. One CC to Sri P. Soma Shekar Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri J.V. Prasad, SC for lncome Tax Department[OPuc] One CC to Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar Dy. Solicitor Gen. of lndia [OPUC] Two CD Copies 6 7 B HIGH COURT DATED:0810412024 ,.aa-- .:\" . t l). :'!r t .+ 2e itnl i\"it;,t ORDER WP.No.8987 of 2024 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS. "