Vijay Kumar Darak V. Union of India, Ministry of Finance and Income Tax Officer, Ward4(1) and The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Hyderabad and The National Faceless Assessment Centre, Income Tax Department

WP/9014/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Vijay Kumar Darak, the petitioner, challenging the legality of the orders and notices issued by the Income Tax Department under the un-amended provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner argued that the proceedings should have been conducted under the amended provisions, which came into effect on 01.04.2021, requiring faceless assessments and hearings. The respondents included the Union of India, Ministry of Finance, and various officials from the Income Tax Department. The court's decision was influenced by a previous judgment in a similar case, WP.No.25903 of 2022 & batch, where it was held that the proceedings must comply with the amended provisions of the Act.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 703133 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 08-04-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Ashish Aganwal
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961, Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR; VIJHAY K PUNNA
• Assessee Lawyers: P SOMASHEKAR REDDY
• Keywords: Faceless assessment; Income Tax; Jurisdiction; Natural Justice; Writ of Mandamus
• Section: 148; 148A(d); 265; 14BA(d)

Judgement Text

"[ 33se ] HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) IVIONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU WRIT PETITION No.9014 OF 2024 Between Vijay Kumar Darak, S/ o.Gopal Das Darak aged about 4syears, Occ: Business, Rl/o. 3-1-324, A2, First Floor, Jamal Basti, Nimboliadda, Jasleen Pride, Himayathnagar, Telangana,500027 ...PETITIONER AND 1 Union of lndia, Ministry of Finance Rep. by its Secretary, 166-8 North Block, New Delhi - 110 001. lncome Tax Officer, Ward4(1), lT Towers, It/lasab tank Hyderabad, Telangana 500004 3. The Principal Commissioner of lncome Tax-1, Hyderabad lT Towers, Masab Tank, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500004. 4. The National Faceless Assessment Centre, lncome Tax Department tVinistry of Finance Govt. of lndia, New Delhi ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praytng that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be 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 passing the Order dated 23.03.2024 u/s. 14BA(d) and Notice issued by the Respondent No.2 under Section '148 of the lncome Tax Act, 1961 2 also dated 23.O3.2024as illegal, arbitrary, bad in law, void abinitio, violative of the principles of natural justrce and being violative of Articles 14,19 and 265 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently, Set aside the Order dated 23.03.2024uls. 148A(d) and Notice issued by the Respondent No.2 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 23.03.2024 calling for the return of rncome of the Petitioner for AY 2020-21 and any consequent proceedings as lacking in.iurisdiction. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P. SOMA SHEKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 4: Mr. VIJHAY K PUNNA, SENIOR STANDING COUNSEL FOR INCOME TAX The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASTVARAO NAIDU IIRIT PETITION No.9O14 OF 2o24 ORDER:lper Hon'ble Si Just[ce P.SAM KOSHY) Heard Mr.P.Soma Shekar Reddy, Iearned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for respondent No.1 arrd Mr. Vrjhay K Punna, learned Senior 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 filed bv the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for the following relief \"..to lssue o Writ, Order or Direction more porticularly one in the noture of Writ of Mondomus decloring the order possed by the Respondent No.2 in possing the order doted 2i.03.2O24 u/s.148A(d) ond Notice issued by the Respondent No.2 under Section 148 of the lncome Tox Act, 1961 olso doted 2i.03.2024 os illegol, orbitrory, bod in low, void ob initio, violotive of the principles of noturol justice ond being violotive of Articles 14, 19 ond 265 ol the Constitution ol lndio ond consequently ii Set oside the Order doted 23.03.2024 u/s.148A(d) ond Notice issued by the Respondent No.2 under Section 148 of the lncome Tox Act,7961 doted 23.03.2024 collinq for the return oJ income of the Petitioner for AY 2020-21 ond dny consequent proceedings ds locking in jurisdiction ond/ or poss..\" f 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 Ta-x Act (for short'the Act') w.hich came into effect from 01.O4.2O21, the respondents, whiie proceeding under Section l48 of the Act, rvere required to issue notice under Section 148,4. of the Act and orovide an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. As per the amended provision of la'\"r', the proceedings to be dralvn 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. [n support of his contention, he relied upon the recent Judgment rendered by this very Bench in WP.No.259O3 of 2022 & batch, dated 14 .O9.2023 u.herein this Court disposed of the batch of writ petitions to the limited extent 5. On the other hald, learned Standing Cour-rsel for the respondent-Department does not dispute thart the said objection vras decided in the aforesaid batr:h of Writ Petitions. However, he further contended that apart from 3 the aJoresaid objection, there have been other various objections also which the petitioner has raised in the writ pe tition. 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 urtt petitions stonds aLlotued on this uery juisdictional issue. Since the impugned notices and orders are getting quoshed on the point of juisdiction, LUe are not inclined to proceed further and decide the other issues raised bg the petitioner uthich stands reserued to be raised and contended in an appropiate p rocee ding s. \" \"38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court hod, in the case of Ashish Aganua| supro, as a one-time medsure exercising the potuers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, permitted the Reuenue to proceed under the substituted prouisions, and this Court allou-,ing the petitions onlg on the procedural flaut, the ight confened on the Reuenue uould remain reserued to proceed further if they so want from the stage of the order of the Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Aganaal, supra.\" 7. In view of the sarne, we are inclined to allow the present writ petition also on similar terms , I 4 To B. Accordingly, the present Writ petition stands altolr.ed on the objection of the petitioner that the proceedings have not been drawn in accordance with the amended provision but under the un-amended provision which is otheru,ise not sustainable. 9. 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. Consequentll,,, miscetlaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stald closed. SD/. G. SIREESHA ASSISTANT R GI R //TRUE COPY' SECTION OFFICER 1. The Secretary, Union of lndia, Ministry of Finance, 166-8 North Block' New Delhi -11000'l . 2. The lncome Tax Officer, Ward4(1), lT Towers, Masab tank Hyderabad, Telangana 500004 3. The Principal Commissioner of lncome Tax-1, Hyderabad lT Towers, Masab Tank, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500004. 4- The National Faceless Assessment Centre, lncome Tax Department tvinistry of Finance Govt. of lndia, New Delhi 5. One CC to SRI P. SOIVA SHEKAR REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUIVAR, Deputy Solicitor General of lndia toPUCl 7. One CC to SRI VIJHAY K. PUNNA, Senior Standing Counsel for lncome Tax loPUCl 8. Two CD Copies k MP a HIGH COURT DATED:0810412024 ORDER WP.No.9014 of 2024 '.,: IiiE S14f6 /. i1 :' it'j iL'- {- l. (. '.1 (_ 3 0 lrlAt 2024 ---ir' ..- . .--.,.f.'l --:_-:: ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS # *{/,} G' "