La No: 1 Of 2023 v. Prasad, S.c. For Income Tax

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENTTHE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJIwRtT PETTTION NO.19155 0F 2023 Between: Shalini Kalkonda, PAN. , Flat No.304, Keerthi Apartments, Tilak [Nagar,]Hyderabad, Telangana- 500 044. ...PETITIONER AND '1 . The Principal Commissioner of lncome Tax-I, lncome Tax Towers, MasabTank, Hyderabad, Telangana- 500 004.Tank, Hyderabad, Telangana- 500 004. 2. lncome Tax Officer, Ward 4(1), lncome Tax Towers, Masab [Tank, ][Hyderabad,]Telangana- 500 004.Telangana- 500 004. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia [praying ][that ][in ][the]circumstances stated in the affidavit [filed ][therewith, ][the ][High Court ][may ][be]pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature ofwrit of Certiorari, declaring the action of the respondent [No.2 ][in passing ][the ][order]daled. 29.03.2023 Under Clause [(d) ]of Section [148-A lncome ][Tax ][Act, ][1961 ][for]reopening the assessment of the Petitioner for [2016-1 ][7 ][as ][arbitrary, ][illegal]and violative of [principles ]of natural [justice and ][to ][quash ][the ][notice issued ][by the]respondent No.2 U/S 148 of the [lncome Tax ][Act, ][1961 ][dated. 29.03.2023 ][calling]for the return of income of the [petitioner ]for [2016-1 ][7 ][and ][consequent] proceedings as racking in jurisdiction in terms of Section i 49(1) (b) of the rncomeTax Act, 1961Tax Act, 1961 lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated inthe affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be preased todirect the Respondent No. 2 herein, to stay the reassessment proceedings in thecase of the Petitioner for Ay. 2016_17 , in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRt pOLKAMPALLY PAVAN KUMAR FORSRI P. SOMA SHEKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: SRI J. V. PRASAD, S.C. FOR INCOME TAX The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJIWRIT PETITION No.19155 of 2023 ORDER:(per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.SAM KOSHY) Heard Mr.Polkampally Pavan Kumar, leamed counsel for the petitioner and Mr.J.V.Prasad, leamed Senior Standing Counsel for therespondent. Perused the material available on record. 2. The present is a writ petition where the challenge is to the issuanceof the order under clause (d) Section 148A of the Income Tax Act 1961. 3. It would be relevant to take note of the finding on the basis ofwhich the authority had passed the said order. The relevant portion is thatwhich is reflected in paragraph Nos.5 and 6 of the impugned order i.e.,annexure P-2 which read as under: 5. The reply and the documents furnishedare carefully examined. The assessee submittedthat she was an NRI during the FY 2015-16,however no proof was filed in support of thesame. Assessee also claimed that she purchasedproperty jointly with her ex-husband. But shedid not furnish the sale deed or loan approvalcertificate from bank evidencing her claim.Further her bank account statement showing the payments was also not submitted. Inabsence of the required evidence, the claim ofthe assessee cannot be accepted. 6. The assessee did notfile ITR even thoughshe is involved in certain financial transactionsI is ted above. Therefore, informat ion ava ila b lewith the Department suggests that incomechargeable to tax represented in the form ofasset which is likely lo amount to Rs.50 lakhsor more has escaped assessment within themeaning of Seciton I 47. As the assessee .failedto satisfactory explain the transactions, thecase of considered FIT for reopering theassessmentfor the AY 2016-17. 4. The petitioner is in support of his contention have filed along with the payments was also not submitted. Inabsence of the required evidence, the claim ofthe assessee cannot be accepted. 6. The assessee did notfile ITR even thoughshe is involved in certain financial transactionsI is ted above. Therefore, informat ion ava ila b lewith the Department suggests that incomechargeable to tax represented in the form ofasset which is likely lo amount to Rs.50 lakhsor more has escaped assessment within themeaning of Seciton I 47. As the assessee .failedto satisfactory explain the transactions, thecase of considered FIT for reopering theassessmentfor the AY 2016-17. 4. The petitioner is in support of his contention have filed along with the writ petition a copy of sale deed which would clearly indicate that theso called flat which has been purchased has been purchased jointly in thename of the petitioner and her ex-husband. Further, there is alsosufficient indication with the documentary proof to show that there hasbeen payments made only of an amount of Rs.30,54,191/-, during theassessment year 2016-17. Further there is also clear indication that forthe purchase of the said flat, there was a house loan obtained from HDFCbank to the tune of Rs.85,00,000/-. Further, there is also sufficientindication to show that the financial statement of the husband was also produced before the respondents [to ][substantiate ][the ][contention ][that ][the]petitioner raised in reply to [show ][cause ][notice ][that ][was earlier ][issued']None of these contentions [and documents ][seems ][to ][have ][been ][properly]appreciated by the respondents [while ][passing ][the impugned order ][under]clause (d) of Section 148A of [the ][Act, nor ][is ][there any discussion ][in ][this]regard by the authority [concerned ][except ][to ][the ][finding which ][is]reproduced in the preceding [paragraphs ][that which ][is ][reflected ][in]paragraph Nos.5 and 6 of the impugned [order.]5. Giving said facts and circumstances [of ][the ][case, ][particularly ][taking]note of the documents [which ][stands ][enclosed ][along ][with ][the show ][cause]notice and also which are [accompanying ][with ][present ][writ ][petition, ][we]are of the considered opinion [that that ][findings ][as ][is ][reflected ][in]paragraph Nos.5 and 6 of the impugned [order ][does ][not ][seem ][to ][be ][proper,]legal and [justified ]in the teeth [of ][the ][documents ][which ][are ][there ][abeady]available in the present [writ ][petition ][and which ][according ][to ][the]petitioner were also made available to [the ][assessing ][officer ][at ][the ][first]instance itself. The impugned [order ][annexure ] [accordingly ][stands ][set]aside/quashed and the matter [stands ][remitted ][back ][for ][a ][fresh]consideration and a fresh [order ][to ][be ][passed ][strictly ][after ][perusing ][the]documents and the contentions [that ][the ][petitioner ][has raised ][in ][their]response to the shorv cause. ,t 6. The Writ Petition stands allowed. [No ][costs] 7. As a sequel, miscellaneous [apptications ][pending ][if ][any ][in ][this ][writ] petition, shall stand closed. sD/' MoH [D' ]3rtltHi'-#Lfli'st//TRUE o/sECTloN'Orrlcen to''r. ,n" Principal [Commissioner ]*I:RT" [Tax-l' ][lncome ][Tax Towers' ][Masab],n" Principal [Commissioner ]*I:RT" [Tax-l' ][lncome ][Tax Towers' ][Masab]' 500 [004']il"k, iivo6*u'0, Telangana- il"k, iivo6*u'0, Telangana- 2. ' The Hfi";;6;A,relangana- [lncome ][Tax ][Officer' ]5oo -ry?ld oo4'[4(1)' ][lncome ][Tax ][Towers' ][Masab ][Tank'] 3. One [to ] [P' ][SOMA SHEKAR REDDY' Advocate IOPUCI] 4. One [to ] [V' ][PRASAD' ][S C' ][for ] 5. Two [CD CoPies] MPGJP b ,o\14(D[cof] HIGH COURT DATED:1311212023-l1HE [ 16:](zcaoO [2024].L*tr)FORDER WP.No.19155 of 2023 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITIONWITHOUT COSTS