Venkat Rao Paleti V. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)

WP/6204/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Venkat Rao Paleti, a retired government teacher, who filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the Income Tax Officer, and the Union of India. The petitioner challenged the inaction of the first respondent in not hearing his appeal against an ex-parte best judgment assessment order and the subsequent garnishee notice issued to his bank. The assessment order, which was contested, assessed the petitioner's income significantly for the year 2017-18 and initiated penalty proceedings. The court found merit in the petitioner's grievance regarding the delay in hearing his appeal and the issuance of the garnishee notice without a timely appellate review.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 753036 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 13-03-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: J V PRASAD; B MUKHERJEE
• Assessee Lawyers: G CHETTY
• Keywords: Appeal Delay; Best Judgment Assessment; Garnishee notice; Income Tax; Mandamus; Writ petition
• Section: 144; 250; 246; 271AAC; 151; 156; 226(3)

Judgement Text

"[ 3311 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION NO: 6204 OF 2023 Between: AND 1. 2. 3. 4. Venkat Rao Paleti, S/o Krishna Rao, aged 64 years, occ. Retired Govt. Teacher, rlo Flat no. 304, NR Residency, Kousalya Colony, Bachepalle, Bachupally, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, Telangana - 500090. ...PETITIONER The Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals), Hyderabad - 5, Signature Towers, Kondapur, Hyderabad - 500084. The lncome Tax Officer, Ward-2, Nizamabad, lncome Tax Office, 6-2-15613, Subhash Nagar, Nizamabad, Nizamabad District, Telangana - 503002. The Union of lndia, rep. by its Secretary (Finance), Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi - 1 10001 . The State Bank of lndia, H. no. 1-4-246, Main Road, Bodhan, Nizamabad District, Telangana, represented by its Branch lvlanager. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in ihe affidavit filed therewith, the High'Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly in the nature of MANDAMUS holding that the inaction of the First Respondent in not disposing of petitioner Appeal filed on 23-02-2020 vide Acknowledgement Number 308401060230220 filed against the ex-Parte Best Judgment Assessment Order, bearing Order no. ITBAiAST/S/14412019-2011020397840(1), dated 14-1 1-2019, for the Assessment Year 2017-18 passed by the Second Respondent, and the action of the Second Respondent in issuing Notice under S. 226(3) ot the lncome Tax Act, 1961, vide Notice no. ITBA/RCV/Si226(3)112019- 2011024092064(1), dated 21-01-2020 to the Fourth Respondent Bank aftaching the S.B. Account no. 30101820415 of the Petitioner as arbitrary, capricious, contrary to law, facts and illegal and consequently direct the First Respondent to dispose of the said Appeal expeditiously within such time as may be fixed by this r{on'ble High Court and direct the Second Respondent to revoke the said S 226(3) Notice issued by him to the Fourth Respondent Bank. lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petitlon, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the Notice under S. 226(3) ot the lncome Tax Act, 1961, vide Notice no. lTBtuRCV/S/226(3)1 12019-20 I 1 024092064(1 ), dated 21 -01 -2020 issued by the Second Respondent to the Fourth Respondent Bank attaching the S.B. Account no.301018204'1 5 of the Petitioner. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI G. NARENDRA CHETTY Counsel for the Respondent No.1 & 2: SRI J.V. PRASAD (SC FOR INCOME TAX) Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI B. MUKHERJEE REPRESENTING FOR SRI G. PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA Counsel for the Respondent No.4: M/s. PEARL LAW ASSOCIATES The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JI,STICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.62O4 of 2023 ORDER: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan) Heard Mr. G.Narendra Chetty, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. J.V.Prasad, learned Standing Counsel, Income Tax Department for respondent Nos.l and 2' Also heard Mr. B.Mukherjee, learned counsel representing Mr. G.Praveen Kumar, Iearned Deputy Solicitor General of India for respondent No.3. 2. Grievance of the petitioner is that appeal iiled by him against the assessment order has not yet been taken up for hearing though three years have passed by and in the meanwhile, garnishee notices have been issued by respondent No.2 to the banker of the petitioner. 3. Petitioner is an assessee under the Income Tax Act, 196 1 (briefly referred to hereinafter as 'the Act') having HC] & NTRJ W.P.No.62O4 of 2023 the status of individual. For the assessment year 2Ol7-18, a best judgment assessment order was passed on 14.11.2019 by the 2\"d respondent under Section 144 of the Act whereby and whereunder total income of the petitioner was assessed at Rs.69,22,910.00. That apart, direction was issued for initiating penalty proceedings separately under Section 27|AAC of the Act. The above assessment order was followed by notice of demand of even date under Section 156 of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 14.ll.2Ol9, petitioner preferred appeal before the 1\"t respondent under Section 246 of the Act on 23.O2.2O2O. However, the said appeal has not yet been taken up for hearing. In the meanwhile, notice under Section 226(3) of tlne Act was issued by the 2\"d respondent to the 4th respondent i.e., Branch Manager of State Bank of India, Bodhan Branch on 2I.OL.2O2O for attachment of bank account of the petitioner. a HCJ & NTRJ W.P.No.6204 of 2O23 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on due consideration, we are of the view that appeal filed by the petitioner is required to be heard expeditiously. In this connection, we may refer to Sub-Section (6A) of Section 25O of the Act which says that in every appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals), where it is possible, may hear and decide such appeal within a period of one year from the end of the financial year in which such appeal is filed before him under Sub-section (1) of Section 246A of the Act. Though the aforesaid provision pertains to appeal filed under Section 246A of the Act, nonetheless the objective behind the aforesaid provision is to hear appeal as early as possible. 6. That being the position, we direct respondent No.1 to take on board the appeal ltled by the petitioner on 23.O2.2O2O against the assessment order dated 14.1I.2019 for the assessment year 2Ol7 -18 and dispose of the same within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of ( ( / a copy of this order. HCJ & NTRJ W.P.No.62O4 of 2O23 7 . Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 8. Miscellaneous applications pending, if arry, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. SD/-A.V.S.PRASAD ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER 4 I to'',. ,n\" Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals)' Hyderabad - 5' Signature a+li81,*il+nr;}ir'ynff'r+?ml:t[.{r\"ti#:ffi 'fr f*111i.. ^ +;Yff 'x.; \"*=psn,;+,',,t'#l l*il:ffi \" ffi ;\", Bodhan. Nizamabac :, a-::ne^t:?s 9. Two CD CoPies BN GJP ,J- 1l HIGH COURT DATED:1310312023 ORDER WP.No.6204 of 2023 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS lrs STA i'd c/: ( J (J a 11 [!a ?lB {p v "