Heard Sri v. During The Course Of Hearing, Learned Counsel For Theparties Ag_Reed That Curtains On This Issue Are Finally Drawn By\

HIGH COURT FOR THE SI1IE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD(Special Original .lurisUlciion)' [..] FRIDAY ,THE THIRD DAY OF MAYTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY;OUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION NO:12894oF 2024 Between Padavannur, tshwaramangara, MT.VINOD KUIMAR At VA IUENAL , 2-2OStp. Moodayuru House, puttur Talukoar<]hlna--x"a.riril[J]S,r,u of Karnataka. ...PETITIONER AND 1Hyderabad-500 004The lncome TaxOfficer, Ward 14(1), Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh,If iJ:'[:'fl'X"Si"i,f ",{!::}"#!oB'olz:ome [rax, ] [p ][& ][rerangana,]If iJ:'[:'fl'X"Si"i,f ",{!::}"#!oB'olz:ome [rax, ] [p ][& ][rerangana,] afh" [Assessment ]Unit. lncome Tax Assessment Centre. Department, National FacelessE. Ramp, Jawahartat Nehru Dcthi.J\,ilinistry Stadiuni, ollhi'] ,i firri[E,.'niom r'oiiboi"No.4O.l, 2nd Floor,Assessment Centre. Department, National FacelessE. Ramp, Jawahartat Nehru Dcthi.J\,ilinistry Stadiuni, ollhi'] ,i firri[E,.'niom r'oiiboi"No.4O.l, 2nd Floor, The Union of lndia, Rep. by its secretary, ft/inistry of Finance, New Derhi. 4 ...RESPONDENTS petition under Articre 226 0f the constitution of rndia praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may bepleased to issue writ, order or direction particurarry one in the nature of a writ ofMandamus' decraring the Assessment order, dated 2610312024 passed by the 1stRespondent under Section 147 rcad with section 144 0t the rncome Tax Act forthe Assessment year 2015-16 vide Document rdentification Number (DrN)I'BA/AST/S/14712023-2411063418629(1), which is passed as a consequence ofthe notice under Section 148, dated 3lO2l2O24 vide DtN,rBA/AST/F/147(scN)t2o23-24/1060474725(1) issued by the 1.r Respondentinstead of Faceress Assessing officer, as void, ilregar, without Jurisdiction and contrary to the [provisicns ]of lncome Tax Act and contrary to [the ][Principles ][of]Natural Justice. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated inthe affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be [pleased ]to [grant]stay of all further [proceedings ]pursuant to the Assessment Order, dated2610312024 [passed ]by the 1St Respondent under Section 147 rcad with Section144 of the lncome Tax Act for the Assessment Year 2015-16 [vide ]Documentldentification Number (DlN) ITBA/ASf lSl [1 ]47 12023-241 [1 ]06341 8629(1). Counsel for the Petitioner : SRl. V SIDDHARTH REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 : Ms B SAPNA REDDY, REP.SRI J V PRASAD,SC FOR INCOME TAX Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : SRI B MUKHERJEE REP. SRI GADI PRAVERN KUMARDEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAULANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.12894 OF 2024 ORDER: (per Hon'bte Justice Sujog Paul) . Heard Sri V. Siddharth Reddy, learned counsei for thepetitioner(s), Ms.B.Sapna Reddy, learned counsel representsSri J.V.Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for therespondent(s)-Income Tax Department and Sri B. Mukherjee,learned counsel represents Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar, learnedDeputy Solicitor General of India for the respondent(s)-Central Government, 2. The ground taken by the learned counsel for thepetitioner(s) is that in furtherance of Finance Act, 2O27, re-assessment process stood modified but the respondents havenot taken care of it and therelore notice issued under Section148 of the Income Tax Act, I 96 I cannot sustain judicialscrutiny. Since notice is bad in law, the consequential ordersare also bad in law. 3. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for theparties ag_reed that curtains on this issue are finally drawn by\ this Court in a batch of u,rit petitions, W.p.No.259O 3 of 2022and other connected matters, decided b_y comrnon ordcrdated 14.09.2023. The parties agreed that this matrer ma_v bedisposed of in terms of the Common Order dated 14.O9.2023. 2. The ground taken by the learned counsel for thepetitioner(s) is that in furtherance of Finance Act, 2O27, re-assessment process stood modified but the respondents havenot taken care of it and therelore notice issued under Section148 of the Income Tax Act, I 96 I cannot sustain judicialscrutiny. Since notice is bad in law, the consequential ordersare also bad in law. 3. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for theparties ag_reed that curtains on this issue are finally drawn by\ this Court in a batch of u,rit petitions, W.p.No.259O 3 of 2022and other connected matters, decided b_y comrnon ordcrdated 14.09.2023. The parties agreed that this matrer ma_v bedisposed of in terms of the Common Order dated 14.O9.2023. 4. This Court in the said order dated t4.Og.2023 lnW.P.No.25903 of 2022, held as under: ,,3S. In view of the aforesaid dircussions, it is by now veryclear that the procedure to be folloBed by the respondent-Department upon treating the notices issued for reassessmentDepartment upon treating the notices issued for reassessmentbeing under Sectioa l4gA, the subsequent proceedings wasmandatorily required to be undertaken undcr the substitutedmandatorily required to be undertaken undcr the substitutedprovisions as laid down under the Finance Act, 2O21. In theabsence of which, we are constrained to hotd that theprocedure adopted by the respondent_Department is incontravention to the statute procedure adopted by the respondent_Department is incontravention to the statute i.e. the Finance Act, 2O21, at thefirst first instance. Secondly, it Is also in direct contravention tothe directives issued by the Hon,btc Supreme Court in thecase ofAshish Agarwal, supra.36. For al.l the aforesaid reasons, the impugned notices issuedthe directives issued by the Hon,btc Supreme Court in thecase ofAshish Agarwal, supra.36. For al.l the aforesaid reasons, the impugned notices issuedand the proceedings drawn by the respondent_Department isneithet tenable, tror sustainable. The aotices ao issued andthe procedure adopted being per se iltcgal, deserves to be andby the respondent_Department isneithet tenable, tror sustainable. The aotices ao issued andthe procedure adopted being per se iltcgal, deserves to be andare accordingly set aside/quashed- As a consequence, atl theimpugned orders getting quashed, the consequentiar orderspassed by the respordent Department pursuant to thc noticesissued under Scctior l4Z and I4g would also get quashed andit is ordered accordiugly. The reason we are queahing theit is ordered accordiugly. The reason we are queahing theconsequential order is on the principtes that when theinitiafiou of the proceedings itself was procedurally wrong,the subsequent orders also get6 nullified automatically.37. The preliminary objection raised by the petitioner issustalned and all these writ petitions stands allowed on thisvery jurisdictional issue, Since the iEpugned notices andthe subsequent orders also get6 nullified automatically.37. The preliminary objection raised by the petitioner issustalned and all these writ petitions stands allowed on thisvery jurisdictional issue, Since the iEpugned notices andorders are getting quashed on the point ofjurisdiction, we arenot inclined to p.oceed further and decide the other issues raised by the petitioner which [stands ][reserved ][to ][be ][raised]and contended in an apPropriate [proceedings.]38. Since the Hoa'ble Suprerne Court had, [in ][the ][case ][of]Ashish Agarwal, supra, as e one-time [rneasure ]excrcising [the]powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of [tndia,]permitted the Rev€nue to proceed under the substitutedprovisions, and this Court allowing the petitions only on theprocedural 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. 39. No order as to costs." raised by the petitioner which [stands ][reserved ][to ][be ][raised]and contended in an apPropriate [proceedings.]38. Since the Hoa'ble Suprerne Court had, [in ][the ][case ][of]Ashish Agarwal, supra, as e one-time [rneasure ]excrcising [the]powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of [tndia,]permitted the Rev€nue to proceed under the substitutedprovisions, and this Court allowing the petitions only on theprocedural 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. 39. No order as to costs." 5. In view of the consensus arrived, the impugned [Show]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.O9.2023 ][in]W.P.No.259O3 of 2022. 6. The writ petition is allowed. No costs. [Interlocutory]if shall [also stand ][closed]applications, any [pending, ] SD/- P,Ch. NAGABHUSHAMBAASSISTANT REGISRSECTIOOFFICER //TRUE COPY// To,1The lncome Tax [Officer, ][Ward ][14('1 ]), [Aayakar ][Bhavan, ][Basheerbagh']Hyderabad-500 [004.]1The lncome Tax [Officer, ][Ward ][14('1 ]), [Aayakar ][Bhavan, ][Basheerbagh']Hyderabad-500 [004.]2ifre erincipal Chief [Commissioner ][of ][Income ][Tax' ] [and ][Telangana' ][lT]Towers, lVlasab lVlasab [Tank, ][Hyderabad-500 ][004']Towers, lVlasab lVlasab [Tank, ][Hyderabad-500 ][004'] Towers, lVlasab lVlasab aJThe Assessment [Unit, ][lncome ][Tax ][Department, ][National ][Faceless]Assessment Centre, [Delhi ][tvlinistry ][of ][Finance, ][Room ][No ][401, ][2nd ][Floor' ][E']Ramp, Jawaharlal [Nehru ][Stadium, ][Delhi ][- ][100 ][003']Assessment Centre, [Delhi ][tvlinistry ][of ][Finance, ][Room ][No ][401, ][2nd ][Floor' ][E']Ramp, Jawaharlal [Nehru ][Stadium, ][Delhi ][- ][100 ][003'] The becretary, [Union ][of lndia, ][tvlinistry ][of ][Finance, New Delhi'] 4 One CC to SRl. [REDDY, Advocate ][lOPUCl] E One CC to SRl. SRl. [ [PRASAD, ]][ [PRASAD, ]][[PRASAD, ]][ ][ ][ ][ [ ][[ ] 6One CC to SRl. SRl. [ [PRASAD, ]][ [PRASAD, ]][[PRASAD, ]][ ][ ][ ][ [ ][[ ]7o;; CC to SRt [KUlvAR, ] [sollclroR ] 7o;; CC to SRt [KUlvAR, ] [sollclroR ] oF rNDrA. Two CD Copies 8 SB"\.#-GJPGJP ilIII l HIGH COURT DATE D : 0 310512024 ORDER WP.No.12894 of 2024 Bo [lHE ] ((\o(a)i B Jrlh 2024'{t*{" t)lsp4TCHF- ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS