La No: 1 Of 2023 v. Raghu Ram

HIGH GOURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJIWRIT PETITION NO: 26064 OF 2022 Between: Sri Arun Raj Goud Balagoni, S/o. Sri Balraj Goud Balagoni, 1-8-31271711,Chikkadapally, Hyderabad - 500020, Telangana. ...PETITIONER AND Deputy Commissioner of lncome Tax, Circle [-'l ][( ]1), l.T. Towers, A.C. Gurads,Masabtank, Hyderabad - 500004. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may bepleased to pass an order or direction, especially one in the nature of WRIT OFMANDAMUS holding that the order daled 2610412022 [passed ]by respondentu/s.'148A(d) of the Act, for the assessment year 2015-16 withDl N. ITBA/AST/F I 1 48N2O22-23l1 04285 [1 ]966( [1 ]) and the notice dated 26.04.2022issued under section 148 of the Act with DlN.lTBfuASTlsll4S-112022-2311042852025('1) for assessment year 2015-16 as being illegal, arbitrary andbarred by limitation apart from being [passed ]in [gross ]violation of [principles ]ofnatural [justice, ]ard consequently set aside the samelA NO: 1 OF 2022 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 ]tosuspend the operation of the notice daled 2610412022 issued by the respondentu/s.148 of the Act, for the assessment [year ]2015-16 with DIN: ITBA/AST/S/1481 12022-2311042852025( I ) and all consequential [proceedings ]thereto lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circunlstances stated inthe affidavit filed [rn ]support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased topermit the Petitioner to raise the above Additional Affidavit legal contention in thewrit petition in the Interest of JUStice Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. A. V. RAGHU RAM Counsel for the Respondents: M/s. B. SAPNA REDDY, JUNIOR STANDING COUNSEL FOR INCOME TAX The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE Szu JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJIW.P. No. 26064 of 2022 ORDER: per .lro n'ble Sri Justi<x p.S t KOSHfi) . Heard Mr. A.V. Raghu Ram, learned counsel for the petitionerand Ms. B. Sapna Reddy, learned Junior Starding Counsel for IncomeTa-x appearing for the respondents. Perused the entire record. 2. The instant petition has been tiled challenging the AssessmentOrder passed by respondent No. 1 under section l4gA(d) of the IncomeTax Act, 196 1 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") dated 26 .O4 .2022for thc Assessment Year 2015-16. 3. One of the contentions that the petitioner has raiscd in thepresent writ petition is that under the amended provisions of the Actwhich came into effect from Ol.O4.2O2l, the respondents whileproceeding under section 148 of the Act were required to issue noticeunder Section 148,{ and provide an opportunitlr of hearing to theassessee. As per the amended provision of law, the proceedings to bedrawn are a,lso 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 writpetitions decided by this very Bench on 14.Og.2023 videW.P.No.259O3 of 2022 and batch to the limited extent. 4. Learnerl cottnsel for [the ][Department ][would nrlt ][dispute of]having decicl,:cl [thc ][s:rid ][oblcction ][in ][the ][aforesaid ][batch ][mattcrs]However, lcarned [counsel submits ][that]apart from thc aloresaidobjection, tht'rc [hatc ][been other ][various]ob.jcctions also [which ][the]petilioner har raiscd [in ][thc rlrtt ][petition.] learned counsel lor lor [[the]] 4. Learnerl cottnsel for [the ][Department ][would nrlt ][dispute of]having decicl,:cl [thc ][s:rid ][oblcction ][in ][the ][aforesaid ][batch ][mattcrs]However, lcarned [counsel submits ][that]apart from thc aloresaidobjection, tht'rc [hatc ][been other ][various]ob.jcctions also [which ][the]petilioner har raiscd [in ][thc rlrtt ][petition.] learned counsel lor lor [[the]] 5. So fal as this [contention ][of ][the]learned counsel lor lor [[the]]Department [ls]concernecl, this Bcnch, [while ][disposing ][of]W.P.No.2590ll [of.]2022 and batch [had taken ][note o[ the ][same ][in]Nos.37 [& ][38 ][which ][rs ][reproduced herein ][under]paragraph "37. The [preliminary objection raised ][by the ][petitioner ][rs]sustain,:d aird [atl ][these ][$ ][rit ][petitions stands ][allowed on ][tl)is ][very]jurisdicrional issue. Since the [impugne<l notices ][and ][ordr:rs ][are]luashcd [on ][the ][point ][otjurisdiction, ][lvc ][are ][not ][inclined ][to]letting [rocecd [[urthcr ][and ][deci(le ][the ][othcr ][issues ][raised ][lry ][the]petition:r \!,hrch stands [rcscn'ed ][to ][be ][raised ][and ][contended ][in ][an]appropriate [proceedings."] 38. Srnce [the Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Court ][had, ][in the case ][of ][Ashish]Agaru,al, supra, as [a ][one-time measure exercising ][the ][pou'ers]uider ,\rticli: 142 [ot ][|ne Constitution ][of ][India, ][permitted ][the]Revenur: to [proceed ][under ][the ][substituted ][provisions, ][and ][this]Court altowing [the ][p€titions only ][on the ][procedural flaw, ][the ][right]conferrtd on the [Revenue ][would remain ][reserved ][to ][proceed]further if thel [so ][want ][from ][the ][stage ][of the ][order ][of ][the ][Srtpreme]Court in the case [of Ashish Agarwal, supra.] 6. In view of the [sarne, ][we ][are inclined ][to ][allow ][tho present ][wrlt]petitionalsoonsimilarterms.Accordingly,thepresentwritPetitionstands aliowed [on ][the ][objection ][of ][the ][petitioner ][that ][thc ][proceedings]have not becn drawn [in ][accordance ][with ][the ][amended ][provision ][but]under the unamended [provision ][which ][is ][otherwise ][not ][sustainable.]As has been helcl by this [Bench ][in ][the aforesaid batch matters, the] I To, right of the respondents would stand resen,ed as is envisaged inparagraph Nos.37 & 38 of the said batch. No order as to costs. 7. Consequently, misccllaneous petitions pending, if any, shallstand closed. SD/- C. PRAVEEN KUMARASSISTAIIT REGISTRAR I //rRUE coPY// s#roN oFFtcER [I] 1. The Deputy Commissioner [of ][lncome Tax, ][Circle ][-1(1)' ] [Towers, A C']Gurads, Masabtank, Hyderabad [- ][500004.] 2. One cc to SRl. [A. ][V. ] [RAM, Advocate ] a. O;; CC to tvtlt. [B. ] [REDDY, ][Junior ][SC for lncome ][Tax ][Dept) ][ ] 4. Two CD Copies BtVGJPT\r\",..- HIGH COURT DATED:0611112023 ORDER WP.No.26064 of 2022 ALLOWING THE WRITPETITIONWITHOUT COSTS ilt\6[\\][ wry] 1[6E ][51416:]z2 2 [N0\i ][2[8]II DEspA.TCS6O