One Cc To Sri J v. Prasad, Sc For Lncome Tax [Opuc

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF NOVEIVBERTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYAND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION NO: 31986 OF 2023 Between: Sridhar Kagne, S/o Mahadev Kagne, Aged about 44 years, Occ. Private Employee,Rr/o Plot No.76, 77, F.No.302, 3rd Floor, Sardar Patel Nagar, Sai Nagar, BesideDT.KKR GoMham School, Hydernagar, Ranga Reddy Telangana-500085.DT.KKR GoMham School, Hydernagar, Ranga Reddy Telangana-500085. ...PETITIONER AND 1. lncome Tax Officer, Ward-|, Warangat, D.No.1-8-610, 3rd Floor, MayuriComplex, Opposite to TSNPDCL Bhavan, Nakkalagutta, Hanmakonda,Warangal.Complex, Opposite to TSNPDCL Bhavan, Nakkalagutta, Hanmakonda,Warangal. 2. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Mayur Bhawan, Connaught Lane,Barakhamba, New Delhi-1 10001 .Barakhamba, New Delhi-1 10001 . 3. Union Bank of lndia, Shankarpalli. Branch, ['1St ]Floor, GrampanchayatBhavan, Shankarpalli, Ranga Reddy District-s01203.Bhavan, Shankarpalli, Ranga Reddy District-s01203. ...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 issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly in the nature of a Writof Certiorari, calling for records and quashing of the order under Section 148A(d)of the lncome Tax Act, 1961 dated 30.03.2023 for the Assessment Year 2016-17issued with DIN ITBA/ASTlFl148A12022-2311051702118(1), and consequently setaside the notice under section -t 48 of the lT Act dated 30.03.2023 for the Assessment Year 2016-17 issued with DIN ITBA/AST/F/148412022-2311051702118(1). lA NO: 2 OF 2023 Petition under Section ['1 ]51 of CPC praying that in the circumstances statedin the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be [pleased ]tostay all further proceedings consequent to the issuance of notice under section148 of the lT Act dated 30.03.2023 for assessmenl [year ]2016-17 [.] Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI KAILASH NATH P S S Counsel for the Respondent No. 1: SRI J.V. PRASAD, SC FOR INCOME TAX Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR,DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA ----Counsel for the Respondent No.3: The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.31986 OF 2023 ORDER: (per lTon'ble Sd Justice P.SdM KOSHY) When the matter is taken up for hearing today, it has beeninformed by the parties that an identical Wri( Petition i.e.,W.P.No.3O153 of 2023 has aiready been allowed and disposed ofuide order, dated 30.1O.2O23. 2. In view of the fact that the identical matter has alreadv beenallowed by this Court, we are inclined to al1ow this Writ Petitionin terms of the order passed in W.P.No.30153 of 2023 decided on30. 10.2023 on similar terms. 3. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if aly in thisWrit Petition, shall stand closed. No order as to costs. SD/- K.AMMAJIASSTSTANT REGTSytARv/SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To,'1 . The lncome Tax Officer, Ward-|, Warangal, D.No.1-8-610, 3rd Floor, MayuriComplex, Opposite to TSNPDCL Bhavan, Nakkalagutta, Hanmakonda,Warangal.'1 . The lncome Tax Officer, Ward-|, Warangal, D.No.1-8-610, 3rd Floor, MayuriComplex, Opposite to TSNPDCL Bhavan, Nakkalagutta, Hanmakonda,Warangal. 2. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Mayur Bhawan, Conriaught Lane,Barakhamba, New Delhi-1 10001 .Barakhamba, New Delhi-1 10001 . .3. Union Bank of lndia, Shankarpalli. Branch, 1St Floor, GrampanchayatBhavan, Shankarpalli, Ranga Reddy District-SO1203.Bhavan, Shankarpalli, Ranga Reddy District-SO1203. 4. One CC to Sri Kailash Nath P S S, Advocate [OPUCI 5. One CC to Sri J. V. Prasad, SC for lncome Tax 6. One CC to Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar, Deputy Solicitor General of lndia 7. Two CD Copies To,'1 . The lncome Tax Officer, Ward-|, Warangal, D.No.1-8-610, 3rd Floor, MayuriComplex, Opposite to TSNPDCL Bhavan, Nakkalagutta, Hanmakonda,Warangal.'1 . The lncome Tax Officer, Ward-|, Warangal, D.No.1-8-610, 3rd Floor, MayuriComplex, Opposite to TSNPDCL Bhavan, Nakkalagutta, Hanmakonda,Warangal. 2. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Mayur Bhawan, Conriaught Lane,Barakhamba, New Delhi-1 10001 .Barakhamba, New Delhi-1 10001 . .3. Union Bank of lndia, Shankarpalli. Branch, 1St Floor, GrampanchayatBhavan, Shankarpalli, Ranga Reddy District-SO1203.Bhavan, Shankarpalli, Ranga Reddy District-SO1203. 4. One CC to Sri Kailash Nath P S S, Advocate [OPUCI 5. One CC to Sri J. V. Prasad, SC for lncome Tax 6. One CC to Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar, Deputy Solicitor General of lndia 7. Two CD Copies (Annex a copy of the order, dated 30.1O.2023 in W.P. No. 30153 of 2023) GJGJ HIGH COURT DATED:2011112023 rELAlvo\d.YORDERa).tN',,*.c_,lrlQ9tC6WP.No.31986 of 2023oS*Hc ALLOWING THE WRIT WITHOUT COSTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY W.P. No. 30153 of 2O23 ORDER:6",. a./r'i []i? ]:;t'i.]Ltsi i..- P.SAM KOS,HY) Heard Mr. A.V.A. Siva Kartikeya, learned counsel for thepetitioner and Ms. B. Sapna Reddy, learncd Junior Standing Counselfor Income Tax appearing for the respondents. Perused the cntirerecord. 2. The instant petition has been filed challenging the AssessmentOrder passed by respondent No.1 ur-rder section l48A(d) of the IncomeTax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") dated 25.04.2022for the Assessment Year 2Ol8-19. 3. One of the contentions that the petitioner has rzrised in tirepresent u,rit petition is that under the amended provisions of thc Actwhich came into effect from [(r ]] .04.202 I , the responclents 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 1aw, the pr-oceedings to bedrawn are also in a faceless manner. Whereas, it has been conlenrl.,-iby the petitioner that in the instant case, reopening has been initiatedby tire Juridictionai Assessing Officer. In rcspe<:t of the saicl objectionthat the petitioner had raised, he relied upon the recent batch of writ petitions decided by this very Bench on 11.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 aforesaid batch matters.However, learned counsel submits that apart from the aforesaidobjection, there have been other various objections also which thepetitioner tras 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 o{ 2022 and batch had taken note of the same inparagraph Nos.37 & 38 which is reproduced herein under: "37. ['fhe ]preliminary objection raised by the petitioner rssustaincd and all thcse writ pctitions stands allowed on this veryjurisdictional issue. Since thc impugned notices and orders aregetting quashed on thc point ofjurisdiction, we are not inclined toproceed further and decide the other issues raist:d b1' thepetitioner which stands reserved to be raised and contended in anappropriate proceedings." 38. Sinoe 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, permitted theRevenue to proceed under the substituted provisions, ancl thisCourt 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 thc SupremeCourt in thc case ofAshish Agarwal, supra. 38. Sinoe 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, permitted theRevenue to proceed under the substituted provisions, ancl thisCourt 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 thc SupremeCourt in thc case ofAshish Agarwal, supra. 6. In view of the same, we are inclined to allow the present writpetiiion also on similar terms. Accordingly, the present Writ Petitionstands :rllowed on the objection of the petitioner that thc proceedingshave not been drawn in accordance with the amended provision butunder the unamended provision which is other-wise not sustainable. I "r/ \s hil:i lri't r neld by this Bench in the aforesaid batch lnalter:irigtrt r:ri [l ]ile respondents rvould stand reserved as rs cn,r-r.ip..,i.-rgt;rph l.los.37 & 38 of the saicl batch. No order a:; rl 3l: :,(: .iu€rntly, miscellaneous petitions pending. if :Lr\'. slr,..lls1 ;.rtcl r. ir.rsrcl P.SAM XOSHY,.I LAXMI NARAYANA ALISI{T: ['1] lIr rr ci .l, [; ]o lt)23