Counset For The [Petitioner: ]Srt. Thanneru Chaitanya Kumar v. Prasad(Sc For Tncome Tax

HIGH COURT FOR THE AT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY TWO THOUSAND PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI AND i.iTHE HONOURABLE [JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI]WRIT PETITION[NO: ][10560 ] Between: 57 years,Hyderabad, NAVEEN BELIDE, S/o. [Kameshwar ][Rao ][Belide, ][aged ][about]O.Cro"tion. Business, [R/o. ][Enclave ][Raj ][Bhavan ][Road,]UvJ"irU"O 500082, [Teiangana, ][lndia ][Assessment Year' ][2015-16] ...PETITIONER AN D 1office of the Assistant [commissioner ][of ][lncome Tax, Circle 9(1), ][Hyderabad,]Telanoana State.2dhief commissioner [of ][lncome ][Tax ][- ][Telangana ]919 4:l'fi;'F;;;p;l ivi.iidiollrtiJveers, [Guarcls, Masab ][Tank, ][Hvderabad ][- ][500 ][028']Telanoana.ni6" Ctiirrr Board of [Direct ][Taxes, ][Represented by its Chairman, Department];i'R"*;r;, [Ministry ][ot ][Finance, Gov6rnment ][of ][thdia, Secretariat ][Buildings,]New Delhi - - [1'10 001 ][.] New Delhi - - [[.]]ine 51riionar Faceless [Assessment ][center, ][lncome ][Tax ][Department, ][New]Delhi. 4 the. Government,10 001. Delhi.ihe Union of lndia, [Represented ][by ][its ][Secrefary. ][to.] 5 Department of [Revenue, ][tr/inistry ][of ][Finance, New Delhi ][- ][1] ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article [226 ][of ][lhe constitution ][of ][lndia ][praying ][that in ][the], circumstances stated ' in the [affidavit ][filed ][therewith, ][the ][High Court may ][be]1i [rpleased ][to ][issue ][an ][appropriate ][writ, ][order ][or ][direction more particularly ][one ][in]li [the ][nature ][of Writ ][of ][Mandamus declaring ][the order ][passed ][by the ][lncome ][Tax]lAuthorities [(National ][Faceless E-Assessment Centre completed ][the ][assessment]uts 147 r/w [Section ][144-8 ][of the ][lncome ][Tax ][Act, ][1961 ][vide ] [and ][Notice ][No.]id","o t o-os-2024 trdA/AS r [Et ][1 ][47 ][t2o23'241 ][1062592857 ][(1) ][tor ][the ][assessment]:.,l| iyear 2o15-l6deterrnining the total income of RS. 92,43,1 121- as arbitary, illegal'll [bad in law, without ][jurisdiction, ][void-ab-initio, ][violative ][of ][the princlples of ][natural].itl [,iustice ]apart [trom ][Deing ][violative ][of ][Articles ][14. ][19(1)(g) ][and 265 ][of ][the]l' ( ! I I I I i I I I I I Constitutron of India and Sec. 14gA of the lncome Tax Act. 196.1 , andconsequently set aside the sarne in tie interests of justice Counset for the [petitioner: ]SRt. THANNERU CHAITANYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1&2: SRI J. V. PRASAD(sc FoR TNCOME TAX) Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3to5: SRI B. MUKHERJEE REp SRI GADI.PRAVEEN KUMAR,DY. SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA The Court made the following: ORDER I III II r-ltil.f THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAULAND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE [N. ][TUI(ARAMJI] WRIT PETITION No.1O56O OF 2024 ORDER: [(per ][Hon'bte ][sP,J)] Heard Sri Thanneru Chaitanya [Kumar, ][learned counsel ][for]the petitioner; [Sri J.V.Prasad, learned Standing Counsel ][for ][Income]Tax Department for [respondent ][Nos. ][1 ][and 2 and Sri ][B- Mukherjee,]learned counsel representing [Sri ][Gadi ][Praveen ][Kumar, ][learned]Deputy Solicitor [General of ][India ][for respondent ][Nos.3 to ][5.] The ground taken by the ground taken by the taken by the by the the [[learned counsel ][for ][the]][[for ][the]][[the]] SRI GADI.PRAVEEN KUMAR,DY. SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA The Court made the following: ORDER I III II r-ltil.f THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAULAND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE [N. ][TUI(ARAMJI] WRIT PETITION No.1O56O OF 2024 ORDER: [(per ][Hon'bte ][sP,J)] Heard Sri Thanneru Chaitanya [Kumar, ][learned counsel ][for]the petitioner; [Sri J.V.Prasad, learned Standing Counsel ][for ][Income]Tax Department for [respondent ][Nos. ][1 ][and 2 and Sri ][B- Mukherjee,]learned counsel representing [Sri ][Gadi ][Praveen ][Kumar, ][learned]Deputy Solicitor [General of ][India ][for respondent ][Nos.3 to ][5.] The ground taken by the ground taken by the taken by the by the the [[learned counsel ][for ][the]][[for ][the]][[the]] 2. The ground taken by the ground taken by the taken by the by the the [[learned counsel ][for ][the]][[for ][the]][[the]]is that in furtherance [of ][Finance ][Act, ][2021, te']petitioner assessment Process [stood modified ][but ][the respondents ][have ][not]taken care of it and [therefore ][notice ][issued ][under ][Section ][148 ][of]the Income Tax Act, [196 ][1 ][cannot ][sustain ][judicial scrutiny' ][Since]notice is bad in law, [the ][consequential ][orders are ][also ][bad ][in]1aw.3. During the course of hearing, [learned ][counsel ][for ][the]parties agreed that curtains [on this ][issue are ][linally ][drawn ][by]this Court in a batch [of ][writ ][petitions, ][W.P.No'259O3 ][of ][2022]and other connected matters, [decided ][by ][common ][order ][dated] 14.O9.2023. The parties agreed that this matter may be disposedo[ in terms of the Common Order dated 14.O9.2023.o[ in terms of the Common Order dated 14.O9.2023. 4This Court in the said order dated 14.09.2023 inW.P.No.25903 of 2022, held as under: "35. ln view of the aforesaid discussions, it is by now very clear that theprocedure to be followed by the respondent-Department upon treating thenotices issued for reassessment being under Section 148A, thesubsequent proceedings was mandatorily required to be undertakenunder the substituted provisions as laid down under the Finance Act,2021. ln the absence of which, we are constrained to hold that theprocedure adopted by lhe respondent-Department is in contravention tothe slatute i.e. the Finance Act,2021, at the first instance. Secondly, it isalso in direct contravention to the directives issued by the Hon,bleSupreme Court in the case of Ashish Agarwal, supra.36. For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned notices issued and theproceedings drawn by the respondent-Departmenl is neither tenable, norsustainable. The notices so issued and the procedure adopled being perse illegal, deserves to be and are accordingly set aside/quashed. As aconsequence, all the impugned orders getting quashed, the consequentialorders passed by the respondent Department pursuant to the noticesissued under Section 147 and 148 would also get quashed and it isordered accordangly. The reason we are quashing the consequenlial orderis on the principles that when the initiation of the proceedings itself wasprocedurally wrong, the subsequent orders also gets nullifiedautomatically.37. The preliminary objection raised by the petitioner is sustained and allthese writ petitions stands allowed on this very iurisdictaonal issue. Sincethe impugned notices and orders are getting quashed on the point ofiurisdiction, [we ][are ]not inclined to [proceed ]further and decide the otherissues raised by the petitioner which stands reserved to be raised andcontended in an appropriate proceedings. 38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the case of Ashish Agarwal,supra, as a one-time measure exercising the powers under Article 142 ofthe Constilution of lndia, permitted the Revenue to proceed under thesubstituted provisions, and this Court allowing the petitions only on theprocedural flaw, the right conferred on the Revenue would remainprocedural flaw, the right conferred on the Revenue would remain 38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the case of Ashish Agarwal,supra, as a one-time measure exercising the powers under Article 142 ofthe Constilution of lndia, permitted the Revenue to proceed under thesubstituted provisions, and this Court allowing the petitions only on theprocedural flaw, the right conferred on the Revenue would remainprocedural flaw, the right conferred on the Revenue would remain reserved [to ][proceed ][further if ][they ][so ][want ][from the ][stage ][of the ][order ][of]the [Supreme ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of Ashish Agarwal' suPra']39No order [as ][to ][costs'"] In view view [[of the ][consensus ][arrived' ]][[consensus ][arrived' ]][[arrived' ]][the ][impugned ][Show] 5. In view view [[of the ][consensus ][arrived' ]][[consensus ][arrived' ]][[arrived' ]]Cause [notice ][and ][consequential ][orders ][passed ][in ][this ][writ]petition [are ][set aside' ][Liberty ][is ][reserved ][to both the ][parties ][to]take [respective ][stand ][and ][to ][proceed ][in ][accordance ][with ][law ][as]per [paragraph ][No'38 ][of the ][order dated ][14'Og'2023 ][in]W.P.No'25903 [of ][2022'] The [writ ]Petition1Sallowed. [No ][costs' ][Interlocutory]6apPlicattons,[if ][anY][ pending, ][sha-ll ][also stand ][closed]SD[[.MOHD.]][ ISMAIL] SD[[.MOHD.]][ ISMAIL]ISTRARASSISTA I'TRUE SECTTON [O][ FTCER] To,; '111fli# [ffi;r'ii*]ii;:,,hi1;,;3ffi';ffi* sJ:'''ffi '::Iti*::',:l'ffi l*"^t'"*'ffx'rlllttl,":"Tsi;fl lffifig***m**t**t;**ss^::'BMGJP$"- \I Ii, tIII I \iIt I III I It I I It 1I I HIGH COURT I I i I DATED:2310412024 III ! t I II I IIIIIIIIORDERIr WP.No.10560 of 2024II I; ]i ALLOWING THE WRITPETITION. WITHOUT COSTS I II IIIII iI t* iIIIIi (lttE [sIA]14.J(oor I ;Uh Zfl{)'2t)a?* otFspeTCHftO