Itta/60/2021 Of Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -2 v. M/S. Gvk Energy Ltd

[337s]k! IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD SATURDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY oF DECETVIBERTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTHREEPRESENT 'jr ':.?e:. .*.,'i THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL NO:60 OF 2O21 lncpme Tax Tribunar Appear Under section 260-4 of the rncome Tax Act, againstthe order of the lncome Tax Appeflate Tribunar, Hyderabad Bench'B', Hyderabad in i.lrA No. 9251H12o19 No. 9251H12o19 9251H12o19 for assessment year assessment year year 2015-16 dated dated 25.03.2021, preferreo against the order of the commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals) - 2 Hyderabad, inAppeal No.1036612o17-18lclr(A)-2 dated 22.03.2019, preferred against the order ofthe Deputy Commissioner of lncome tax, Circle 2(2) , Hyde@bad, in pANiGlRNo.AADCG2348H dated 05.12.2011 . lrA No. 9251H12o19 No. 9251H12o19 9251H12o19 for assessment year assessment year year 2015-16 dated dated 25.03.2021, preferreo dl., ffi Between: Pr. Commissioner of lncome Tax -2, Hyderabad. ...Appetlant AND j{ Ml:.^cJ[ E_lqr.Sy !9._, # 156-159, pa(;ah, Sardar patet Road, Secunderabad- 500 003, PAN. AADCG23ZISH t.,'o*.'!a;.'flk, I' ...Respondent j IANO:1Of2 o23 Pe{ition under Section 1S1 of CpC praying that in the circumstancesstated in the affidavit fired in support or the petition, the High court m"v [-le]pleased to permit the Petitioner to fire the above documenrs and pass an orderpleased to permit the Petitioner to fire the above documenrs and pass an ordertaking into consideration the setflement opted by the petitionercno Form 5 issued by the Department."on."ar"niForm 5 issued by the Department."on."ar"ni "on."ar"ni Counsel for the Appellant : M/S. Sundari R pisupati, Senior SC for lncome Tax Dept Counsel for the Respondent : M/s. K. prabhavati The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT ii THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TI'KARAMJI I.T.T.A.No.6O OF 2O21 JUDGMENT:(per Hon'ble Sri Justice [p.SAM ]KOSHY) . [When ][the matter ]is taken up for hearing today, it has beeninformed by the learned counsel for the appellant that theassessee pending this appeal before this Court has settled thedispute under the Vivad SE Vishwas Scheme, 2023 and. as suchthe dispute does not survive any longer. 2. In view of the same, the instant appeal stalds disposed of as having become infructuous. 3. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any in thisappeal, shall stand closed. No order as to costs. SD/. M.VIJAYA BHASKERJOINTs//TRUE COPY//iTo,SECTION OFFICER;i.4'1. \tThe lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad, Bench ,B', Hyderabad.$ffi:i.l2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 2 Hyderabad.3. The Deputy Commissioner of lncome tax, Cicte 212,1, Hyderabad.4. One CC to M/S. Sundari R pisupati, Senior ['Sb ]for lncome Tax Dept,Advocate 1 5. One CC to M/s. K. Prabhabati, Advocate [OpUC]6. Two CD Copiesnjb/*(ALONG WITH WITH A COPY COPY OF ORDER DATED DATED 30.10.2023 PASSED BY THIS PASSED BY THIS COURTlN W.P.No.30153 W.P.No.30153 of 2023 2023 )cw$*i#*, (ALONG WITH WITH A COPY COPY OF ORDER DATED DATED 30.10.2023 PASSED BY THIS PASSED BY THIS COURTlN W.P.No.30153 W.P.No.30153 of 2023 2023 ) cw 1ig^ HIGH COURT DATED:1611212023 JUDGMENTlTTA.No.60 o12021 THE [sle]16.ffi;)'rc),,J0 E titAH 2024Izo-[?,.+...,--"..r-itl\.rO[*]!'i..';,l+lffiffis' [tt] DISPOSING OF THE ITTAAS INFRUCTUOUS ti @uF;',)tv ;i& ,'i THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYA}ID THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY W.P. No. 3O153 of 2023 ORI)ER:1per ao n'bte Si Justice p.SA KOs,Hfl) ' Heard Mr. A.V.A. Siva Kartikeya, learned counsel for thepetitioner and Ms. B. Sapna Reddy, learned Junior Standing Counselfor Income Tax appearing for the respondents. perused the entirerecord. (ALONG WITH WITH A COPY COPY OF ORDER DATED DATED 30.10.2023 PASSED BY THIS PASSED BY THIS COURTlN W.P.No.30153 W.P.No.30153 of 2023 2023 ) cw 1ig^ HIGH COURT DATED:1611212023 JUDGMENTlTTA.No.60 o12021 THE [sle]16.ffi;)'rc),,J0 E titAH 2024Izo-[?,.+...,--"..r-itl\.rO[*]!'i..';,l+lffiffis' [tt] DISPOSING OF THE ITTAAS INFRUCTUOUS ti @uF;',)tv ;i& ,'i THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYA}ID THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY W.P. No. 3O153 of 2023 ORI)ER:1per ao n'bte Si Justice p.SA KOs,Hfl) ' Heard Mr. A.V.A. Siva Kartikeya, learned counsel for thepetitioner and Ms. B. Sapna Reddy, learned Junior Standing Counselfor Income Tax appearing for the respondents. perused the entirerecord. 2. The instant petition has been filed challenging the AssessmentOrder passed by respondent No. 1 under section l48A(d) of the IncomeTax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as..the Act") dated 25.04.2022for the Assessment Year 20 l8- 19. 3. One of the contentions of the contentions the contentions contentions that the petitioner has raised in thepetitioner has raised in theraised in thein thethepresent writ petition is that under the amended provisions of the Actwhich came into effect from O 1.O4.2O2 l, the respondents whileproceeding under Section 148 of the Act were required to issue noticeunder Section 148A and provide an opportunity of hearing to theassessee. As per the amended provision of law, the proceedings to bedrawn are also in a faceless manner. Whereas, it has been contendedby the petitioner that in the instant case, reopening has been initiatedby the Juridictional Assessing Officer. In respect of the said objectionthat the petitioner had raised, he relied upon the recent batch of writ One of the contentions of the contentions the contentions contentions that the petitioner has raised in thepetitioner has raised in theraised in thein thethe petitions decided by this very Bench on 14.O9 .2023 videW.P.No.259O3 of 2022 and batch to the limited extent. 4. Learned counsel for the Department would not dispute ofhaving decided the said objection in the aforesaidbatch matters.However, learned counsel submits that apart from the aforesaidobjection, there have been other various objections a_lso which thepetitioner has raised in the writ petition. 5. So far as this contention of the learned counsel for theDepartment is concerned, this Bench, while disposing ofW.P.No.259O3 of 2022 and batch had taken note of the sarne inparagraph Nos.37 & 38 which is reproduced herein under: "37. Tl]e preliminary objection raised by the petitioner issustained and all these writ petitions stands allowed on this veryjurisdic$onal issue. Since the impugned notices and orders aregetting quashed on the point ofjurisdiction, we are not inclined toproceed further and decide the other issues raised by thepetitioner which stands reserved to be raised and contended in anappropriate proceedings. " 34. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the case ofAshishAgarwal, supra, as a one-time measure exercising the powersunder Article 142 of the Constitution of India, permitied theRevenue to proceed under the substituted provisions, and thisCou-rt allowing the petitions only on the procedural flaw, the rightconferred on the Revenue would remain reserved to proceedfurther if they so want from the stage of the order of the SupremeCourt in the case ofAshish Agarwa-I, supra. 6. 6. In vieiu of the same, we are inclined to allow the present writpetilion also on similar terms. Accordingly, the present Writ petitionstands allowed on the objection of the petitioner that the proceedingshave not been drawn in accordance with the amended provision butunder the unamended provision which is otherwise not sustainable. 3 As has been held by this [Bench ][in ][the ][aforesaid ][batch matters, ][the]right of the respondents [would ][stand ][reserved ][as ][is ][envisaged ][in]paragraph Nos.37 & 38 ofthe [said ][batch. ][No ][order ][as ][to costs'] 6. 6. In vieiu of the same, we are inclined to allow the present writpetilion also on similar terms. Accordingly, the present Writ petitionstands allowed on the objection of the petitioner that the proceedingshave not been drawn in accordance with the amended provision butunder the unamended provision which is otherwise not sustainable. 3 As has been held by this [Bench ][in ][the ][aforesaid ][batch matters, ][the]right of the respondents [would ][stand ][reserved ][as ][is ][envisaged ][in]paragraph Nos.37 & 38 ofthe [said ][batch. ][No ][order ][as ][to costs'] 7. Consequently, miscellaneous [petitions ][pending, ][if ][any, ][shall]stand closed. P.SAM KOSHY, J Dated: 30.lO.2O23aqs LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHET'IY' [J]