Vijayalakshmi Pendyala V. Union of India

WP/4684/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Vijayalakshmi Pendyala, the petitioner, challenging the legality of the income tax assessment 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 reassessment for the assessment year 2015-16 was initiated without following the amended procedural requirements that came into effect on April 1, 2021, which mandate faceless assessments and proper notice under Section 148A. The respondents included various authorities from the Income Tax Department and the Ministry of Finance. The court's decision was influenced by its earlier judgment in a similar batch of writ petitions, where it was held that the proceedings must comply with the amended provisions of the law.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 723544 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 22-02-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Ashish Agarwal case
• 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; Natural Justice; Writ of Mandamus
• Section: 148; 148A(d)

Judgement Text

"[ 337e ] HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OFFEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION NO: 4684 OF 2024 Between: AND 1. 2. a 4. Vijayalakshmi Pendyala, W/o. lVr. PendyataRosaiah aged about 62 years, Rl/o. RBI C-713O North lalaguda, Near Rammaniihir, Secundeiabad, Hyderabad - 5000'17 PAN CKTPP6814J ...PETITIONER !-lnion of lndia, I ilinistry of Finance Rep. by its Secretary, 166-8 North Block, New Delhi - '1 10 001 lncome Tax Officer, Ward 15(1) lncome Tax Towers, Masab Tank, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500 004. The Principal Commissioner of lncome Tax-|, lncome Tax Towers, Masab Tank, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500 004. The National Faceless Assessment Centre, lncome Tax Department Minislry of Finarrce Govt, of lndia, New Delhi ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstanc€s 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 06.04.2O22 uls. 148A(d) and Notice issue/ by the Respondent No.2 under Section '148 of the lncome Tax Act, 1961 , also dated 06.04.2022as illegal, arbitrary, bad rn 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 06.04.2022 u/ s. 148A(d ) and Notice issued by the Respondent No.2 under Section 148 of the lncome Tax Act, 196'1 dated 0610412022 calling for the return of income of the Petitioner for AY. 2015-16 and the Assessment order dated 26tl2t2o23andanyconsequentproceedingsaslackinginjurisdiction Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P. SOMA SHEKAR REDDY Counsel forthe Respondent No.1: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR Dy. SOLICIToR GEN. OF INDIA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2to4: SRI J'V' PRASAD, SC FOR INCOME TAX The Couft made the following: ORDER r- I I I ! i i r I /- THE HONOURABLE SRI WSTICE P.SAM KOSITY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TI'XARAMJI WRIT PETITIO N No.4684 OF 2o24 ORDPR:@er Hon'ble Si Justice P-SAM KOSHY) The instant Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for the following relief: a t I \"to issue a Writ, Ord,er or Direction more particulorlg' one, tn the nature of Wit of Mandamus, declaing the order pa'ssed bg respondint No.2 in possing the order dated O6'O4'2022 u7. f+Se@) and Notice issued respondent No'2 under Seaion 1i8 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, also dated 06.04.2022 a.s illegal, arbitrory, bad in law, uoid ob initio, uiolatiue of tle pnnciples of natural justice ond being utolatiue oi Arti\"L. 14, 19 and 265 of the Constidttion of India ond conseElentlA to set aside the same and pass other orders as this Hon'ble Court mag deem ftt and proper\"' 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 Ol.O4.2O2L, the respondents, while proceeding under Section 148 of the Act, were required to issue notice under 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' 2 PSK,J & MTR,J W.P.No.4684 of 2O24 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.259O3 of 2022 & batch, dated 14.09.2023 wherein this Court disposed of the batch of writ petitions to the timited extent. 4. 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 objections also 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 disposing of said batch of writ petitions, had taken note of the same at paragraph Nos.37 & 3g which are reproduced herein under: t 3 PSK,J & NTR,J W.P.No.4684 ol 2024 37. fhe preliminary objection raised bg the petitioner is sustained and all these uit petifions stands allound on this uery jurisdictional issue. Since the impugned notices and orders are getting quashed on th.e point of juri^sdiction, u)e are not inclined to proceed further and decide tle otler issues raised bg the petitioner uthich stands reserued to be raised and contended in an approprtate proceeding s.' \"38. Sine the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in tLe case of Ashish Agarwal, supro, as a one-time measure exercising tle pouerc under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, permitted the Reuenue to proceed under the substituted prouisions, and this Court allouing tlrc petitions onlg on the procedurol Jlatu, the ight confered on the Reuenue uould remain reserued to proceed furtler if theg so uant from the stage of the order of tlrc Supreme Court in the case of Ashi-sh Agarutal, supra.\" 6. In view of the sarne, we are inclined to allow the present writ petition also 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 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, 4 PSN,J & JUrR,.r V/.P.No.4684 of 2O24 Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. 3 //TRUE COPYII SD/. G. SIREESHA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, BIM KKS 1. The Union of lndia, tVlinistry of Finance Rep. by its Secretary, 166-8 North Block, New Delhi - 110 001 2. The lncome Tax Officer, Ward 15(1) lncome Tax Towers, Masab Tank, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500 004. 3. The Principal Commissioner of lncome Tax-I, lncome Tax Towers, Masab Tank, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500 004. 4. The National Faceless Assessment Centre, lncome Tax Department Ministry of Finance Govt. of lndia, New Delhi 5. One CC to SRl. P Soma Shekar Reddy Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to SRl. GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR Dy. SOLICITOR GENERAL OF rNDrA [OPUC] 7. One CC to SR|.J.V. PRASAD , SC FOR INCOME TAX IOPUC] 8. Two CD Copies }--- I HIGH COURT DATED:2210212024 ORDER WP.No.4684 of 2024 ALLOWING THE WRITPETITION WITHOUT COSTS 2 2 [1AB 2024 * * ($ ( z a .b o o A' o s c J IHE sT4 ( $l "