Vijay Kumar Mankala V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 Nizamabad and Principal Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax, IT Towers AC Guards, Hyderabad and Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi and National Faceless Assessment Center, Income Tax Department, New Delhi and Union of India, Department of Revenue, New Delhi

WP/4347/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Vijay Kumar Mankala, the petitioner, challenging an income tax assessment order issued by the National Faceless E-Assessment Centre. The assessment determined Mankala's total income for the year 2017-18 as Rs. 8,10,96,743, which he contested as arbitrary and illegal, citing violations of natural justice and constitutional rights. The primary legal contention was the improper application of the Income Tax Act's provisions, specifically the failure to adhere to the amended Section 148A, which requires a notice and an opportunity for a hearing before reassessing income. The court's decision was influenced by its previous judgment in a similar case, WP.No.25903 of 2022 & batch, which addressed jurisdictional issues under the amended provisions of the Act.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 795498 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 20-02-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Ashish Agarwal
• Laws Referred To: Constitution of India, Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: SUNDARI PISUPATI; GADI KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: THANNERU KUMAR
• Keywords: Faceless assessment; Income tax assessment; Jurisdiction; Natural Justice; Void ab initio; Writ of Mandamus
• Section: 147; 144B; 148A; 265; 226

Judgement Text

"AND 1 2 [ 337e ] HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION NO: 4347 OF 2024 Between: Vijay Kumar Mankala, S/o. lr4ankala Shankaraiah, aged about 47 years, Occ. Business, R/o.D NO 10-6-583/2A Gajulpet, Nizamabad 503001, Telangana, lndia PAN. AOOPM5694J Assessment Year. 2O17-18 ...PETITIONER The lncome Tax Officer, Ward-1 Nizamabad Telangana State. The Principal Chief Commissioner Of lncome Tax, lT Towers AC Guards [ ilasab Tank Hyderabad Telangana 3. The Central Board of Direct Taxes, Represented by its Chairman, Department of Revenue, Ailinistry of Finance, Government of lndia, Secretariat Buildings, New Delhi - 110 001 . 4. The National Faceless Assessment Center, lncome Tax Department, New Delhi. 5. The Union of lndia, Represented by its Secretary to the Government, Department of Revenue, lt4inistry of Finance, New Delhi - 110 00'l . ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the Hig'h Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of l /andamus declaring the order passed by the lncome Tax Authorities (National Faceless E-Assessment Centre completed the assessment UIS 147 riw Section 144-8 of the lncome Tax Act, 1961 vide DIN and Notice No.dated 1710112023 in ITBA/AST/S/14712023- 2411052671822(1) for the assessment year 2017-18 determining the total income of Rs- 8,10,96,7431 as arbitrary, illegal, bad In law, without jurisdiction, void-ab-initio, violative of the principles of natural justice apart from being violative of Articles 1 , 19(1)(g) and 265 of the Constitution of lndia and Sec. 148A of the lncome Tax Act, .,l961 , and consequently set aside the same in the interests of justice Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI THANNERU CHAITANYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: M/S SUNDARI R plSUpATl (Sr SC for lncome Tax Dept) Counsel for the Respondent Nos.5: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA The Court made the following: ORDER i{ THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.4347 oF 2024 ORDER:/per Hon'ble Si Justice P.SAM KOSHE) The instalt Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for the following relief: \"...to issue al writ, order, or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the order passed by the Income Tax Authorities (National Faceless E-Assessment Centre) completed the assessment under Section L47 read with Section 1448 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 vide DIN and Notice, dated tT / Ot /2023 in ITBA/AST/ S/ r47 / 2023-24 / to5267 1 822(r) for the assessment year 2Ol7 -18 determining the total income of Rs.8,10,96,743/- as arbitraqr, illegal, bad in law, without jurisdiction, void abinitio, violative of the principles of natural justice, apart from being violative of Articles la, 19(1)(9) and 265 of the Constitution of India and Section 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and consequently set aside the same in the interests of justice and pass...,, 2. One of the contentions that the petitioner has raised in the present Writ Petition is that under the amended provisions of the Act which came into effect from O1.O4.2021, the respondents, while proceeding under Section 148 of,the Act, were required to issue notice under 2 PSK,J& MTR,J W.P.No.4347 of 2024 Section 148A 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. 3. 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 14.09.2023 wherein this Court disposed of the batch of writ petitions to the limited extent. 4. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Department does not dispute that the said objection was decided in the a-foresaid batch of Writ Petitions. However, he further contended that apart from the aforesaid objection, there have been other various objections afso which the petitioner has raised in the writ petition. 5. So far as this contention of the learned counsel for the respondent-Department is concerned, this Bench, while petitions, had taken note of dispsing qf said batch of writ ra,r}i?i-' .) PSK,J & NTR,J W.P.No.4347 oJ 2024 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 uLit petitions stands allou.ted on this uery juisdictional issue. Since the impugned notices and orders are getting quashed on the point of juisdiction, we ore not inclined to proceed furth.er ond decid.e the other issues raised by the petitioner uhich stands reseraed to be raised and contended in an appropiate pro ce e ding s. \" \"38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the case of Ashish Agarutal, supra, as a one-time measure exercising the pouters under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, permitted the Reuenue to proceed under the substituted prouisions, and this Court allotting the petitions only on the procedural Jlaut, the right confened on the Reuenue utould remain reserued to proceed further if theg so uant from the stage of the order of the Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Agonual, supra.\" 6. In view of the same, we are inclined to allow the present writ petition a,lso on similar terms. Accordingly, the present Writ Petition stands allowed 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 otherwise not sustainable. 7. As has been held by this Bench in the aforesaid batch 0 t matters, the rights of the parties would stand reserved as is 4 PSIT,J & rV\"R,J w.P.No.4347 of 2O24 envisaged at paragraph Nos.37 & 38 of the said order passed in the batch of writ petitions. No order as to costs. 8. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/. MOHD. SANAULLAH ANSARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// /^ ,,' secrtoYorrtcen To, '1. The lncome Tax Officer, Ward-1 Nizamabad Telangana State' i. iii\" pii\"\"ipticr,i\"t corri.sioner of lncome Tax, lr rowers AC Guards lVlasab Tank HYderabad Telangana S. ih\" Lhuhan'The Central Bo-a rd of Direct Taxes, Delartment of Relenue' trilinistryofFinance,Governmentoflndia,SecretariatBuildings,NeWuelnl- 110001 . +. in\" r.frtionrl Faceless Assessment Center, lncome Tax Department' New Delhi. s. ih'e Secretary to the Government, Ttre Union^of lndia, Department of Revenue, NIinistry of Finance, New Delhi - 1'10 001' 6. One CC io Sri Thanneru Chaitanya Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] i. o;; cC io fvllt Sundari R Pisupaii (Sr SC for lncome Tax Dept) [OPUC] 8. Two CD CoPies TJ GJP w I HIGH COURT DATED:2010212024 ORDER WP.No.4347 ot 2024 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS. \"4.b ltl i. ,/< q -) n) cI2 ltRR zlzq a5 * I6 9, "