La No: 1 Af 2A24 v. Prasad

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY CF JUNETWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAULANDTHE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 15353 OF 2024 Between: Sri simran Samarjeet-SinghCH:il/" Samarjeet Singh Chaabra, Agedabout 32 years, Occ.Business, Flat No.102 Tulip-Tower Apartments, R5adNo.6,lncome Tax Colony Alkapuri, R.K.Puiam, Hyderabad 500035,Telangana' lndia. PAN No AuLPCo,l4F ...pErrroNER AND 1.Assistant Commrssioner of lncome Tax,, Ward 15 ('1), Hyderabad, lncomeTax Towers, AC Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad-500004Tax Towers, AC Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad-500004')Principal Chief Commissioner of lncome Tax lncome Tax Towers,, AC GuardsMasab Tank. Hyderabad-500004.Masab Tank. Hyderabad-500004.J.The Assessment Unit, lncome Tax Department National FacelessAssessment Centre Room No 401, 2nd Fioor ERamp Jawaharlal Nehrustadium Delhi 1 ['10003 ]Assessment Centre Room No 401, 2nd Fioor ERamp Jawaharlal Nehrustadium Delhi 1 ['10003 ] ..RE.'.NDENTSPetition under Article 226 ol lhe Constitution of India praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may bepleased to issue a wrrt, order or direction, more particulai-ly one in the nature ofWrit of Mandamus, declaring the impugned Order dt.06.03.2024passed uts 147R/w Section 144, read with section 1448 of the lncome Tax Act vide DIN No.ITBA/AST/S/14712023-24/1060208061(1)and also issued Notice of demand undersection 156 of the lncome-Tax Act, 196 1, dated 06.03 2024, vide DIN and NoticeNo. ITBA/AST|S|| 5612023- 2411062093295(1) by the 3rd respondent for A.Y.2015-16, pursuant to the order u/s 148A(d)dt.07 .04.2021'and notice issued u/s148 d1.07.04.2022by the IVIO instead of FAO,as void, illegal, and contrary to theProvisions of lncome-tax Act and contrary to the Principles of Natural Justice lA NO: 1 AF 2A24 Petition under Sect;cn 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated inthe affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all the further proceedings initiated by the 3rdRespondent against the Petitioner,pursuant to the impugned order passed u/s 147 Rlw Section 144, read withsection 144B of the lncome Tax Act vide DIN No. ITBA/AST tsl147 /2023-2411060208061(1)and the Notice of demand under section 156 of the Income-TaxAct, ['1961, ]dated 06.03.2024, vide DIN and Notice No. ITBA/AST/S/'1 5612023-2411062093295(1), by the 3rd Respondent for A.Y 2015-16, in PANNo AULPC00l4Fti'l ['1 ]the final disposal of this writ petitionCounsel for the Petitioner: SRI VENKATRAM REDDY MANTUR Counsel for Respondents: SRI J. V. PRASAD SC FOR INCOME TAX The Court made the following: ORDER I THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAULAND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUS?ICE NAMAVARAPU RA"IESHWAR RAO IVRIT PETITION No.15353 OF 2o24 ORDER: (per Hon'ble Justice Sujog Paul) Heard Sri Venkatram Reddy Maltur, learned counselfor the petitioner ald Ms.B.Sapna Reddy, learned JuniorStanding Counsel representing Sri J.V.Prasad, learned SeniorStanding Counsel for Income Tax Department, for therespondents. 2. The ground taken by the learned counsel for thepetitioner(s) is that in furtherance of Finance Act, 2021, re-;assessment process stood modified but the respondents havenot taken care of it ald therefore notice issued under SectionI48 of the Income Tax Act, 196 1 cannot sustain [judicial]scrutiny. Since notice is bad in law, the consequential ordersare a,lso bad in law. 3. During the course of hearing, learned counsei for theparties agreed that curtains on this issue are linally drawn bythis Court in a batch of writ petitions, W.P.No.259O3 of 2022ald other connected matters, decided by common order dated 14.09.2023. Thre parties agreed that this matter may bedisposed of in terms of the Common Order dated 14.09.20234. This Court in the said order dated 14.09.2023 inW.P.No.25903 of 2022, held as under: 2. The ground taken by the learned counsel for thepetitioner(s) is that in furtherance of Finance Act, 2021, re-;assessment process stood modified but the respondents havenot taken care of it ald therefore notice issued under SectionI48 of the Income Tax Act, 196 1 cannot sustain [judicial]scrutiny. Since notice is bad in law, the consequential ordersare a,lso bad in law. 3. During the course of hearing, learned counsei for theparties agreed that curtains on this issue are linally drawn bythis Court in a batch of writ petitions, W.P.No.259O3 of 2022ald other connected matters, decided by common order dated 14.09.2023. Thre parties agreed that this matter may bedisposed of in terms of the Common Order dated 14.09.20234. This Court in the said order dated 14.09.2023 inW.P.No.25903 of 2022, held as under: '35. [In ][view ][of the ][aforesaid ][discussions, ][it ][is ][by ][now very]clear that the procedure to be followed by the respondent-Department upon treating the notices issued for reasscssmentbeing u[der Sectiotr 148A, the subsequent proceedings wasmandatorily requiied to be undertaken under the substitutedprovisions as laid down under the Finance Act, 2021. In theabsence of which, we are constraiEed to hold that theprocedure adopted by the respondent-Department is incontraveatioa to the statute i.e. the Finance Act,2021, at the,irst instance. Secondly, it is also in direct contravention tothe directives issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in thecase of Ashish Agarwal, supra. 36. For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugred notic€s issuedand the proceedings drawn by the *espondent-Department isaeither tenable, nor sustaiDable. The notices so issued andthe procedure adopted being per se illegal, deserves to be anda.e accordingly set aside/quashed. As a consequeDce, all theimpugned orders gettiag quashed, the colsequential orderspassed by the respolrdert Department pursuant to the noticesissued uldet Section 147 atrd 148 would also get quashed andit is ordered accordingly. The reason we are quashing theconsequential order is on the principles that when theinitiation of the proceedings itself was procedurally wrong,the subsequent orders also gets nullified automatically.37. The prelimirary objectioa raised by the petitioae. issustained atld all these writ petitious stards allowed on thisvery jurisdictional issue. Sitrce the impugned notices andorders are getting quashed oE the point ofjurisdiction, we areaot inclined to proceed further and decide the othe. issues.aised by the petitioner which stalds reserved to be raisedand conterded in an app.opriate proceedings.38. Since the llon'ble Supreme Court had, in the case ofAshish Agafl al, supra, as a one-time rneasure exercising thepowers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, I permitted the Revenue to proceed under the substitutedprovisions, and this Court allowing the petitions only on theptocedural flaw, the right conferred on the Reveaue wouldrerlailr reserved to proceed further if they so want from thestage of the order of the Supreme Coutt in the case of AshishAgarnral, supra.39. No order as to costs."provisions, and this Court allowing the petitions only on theptocedural flaw, the right conferred on the Reveaue wouldrerlailr reserved to proceed further if they so want from thestage of the order of the Supreme Coutt in the case of AshishAgarnral, supra.39. No order as to costs." 5. In view of the consensus arrived, the impugned ShowCause notice and consequential orders [passed ]in this writpetition are set aside. Liberty is reserved to both the [parties]to take respective stand and to [proceed ]in accordarce [with]law as per pa.ragraph No.38 of the order dated [14.09.2023 ][in]W.P.No.25903 of 2022. 6. The writ petition is allowed. No costs. Interlocutoryapplications, if any pending, sha1l also stand closed.SD/- V. HARI PRASADASSISTANT REGISTRAR//TRUE COPY//SECTION OFFICER 5. In view of the consensus arrived, the impugned ShowCause notice and consequential orders [passed ]in this writpetition are set aside. Liberty is reserved to both the [parties]to take respective stand and to [proceed ]in accordarce [with]law as per pa.ragraph No.38 of the order dated [14.09.2023 ][in]W.P.No.25903 of 2022. 6. The writ petition is allowed. No costs. Interlocutoryapplications, if any pending, sha1l also stand closed.SD/- V. HARI PRASADASSISTANT REGISTRAR//TRUE COPY//SECTION OFFICER To,1The Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax,, Ward 15 (1), Hyderabad,lncome Tax Towers, AC Guards, Masab Tank,HyderaOad-50b00+2The Principal Chief Commissioner of Income iai lncome Tax Towers,, ACGuards Masab Tank. Hyderabad-500004JThe Assessment Unit, lncome Tax Department National FacelessAssessment Centre Room No 401, 2nd Floor ERamp Jawaharlal NehruStadium Delhi 110003.4One CC to Sri Venkatram Reddy Mantur Advocate [OpUC]59nu 99 [to ][Sri J ] [Prasad (SC ] [TAX)'Advocire ]tOpUCl6Two CD CopiesMBC0{-LS ---\s{qr* %'" HIGH COURT DATED: 2010612024 rC'[ri']()\11(.)1 B Ct' 20it::t..,.;li-tORDERWP.No.15353 of 2024ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITIONWITHOUT COSTS