Wp/19572/2024 Of Krishna Prasad Kondapalli v. Office Of The Income Tax Officer

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JULYTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAULANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR WRIT PETITION NO: 19572 OF 2024 Between: KRISHNA PRASAD KONDAPALLI, S/o.RUKMA RAO [KONDAPALLI, ][Aged]about 61years, Occupation.Business R/o. Ei/6,SeetapuramDondapaduNalgonda 508246,Telangana, lndia, ...PETITIONER AND 1Office of The lncome Tax Officer, ward 1, Khammam/ [Telangana State] 2The Pnncipal Chief Commissioner Of lncome Tax Telangana [And ] [P.]Hyderabad, lT Towers, AC Guards, Masab Tank, [Hyderabad]Hyderabad, lT Towers, AC Guards, Masab Tank, [Hyderabad] 3. The National Faceless Assessment Center, lncome [Tax ][Department, ][New]DelhiDelhi ...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 an appropriate writ, order or direction more [particularly ][one ][in]the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring [the impugned ][notice ][dated. 25.03 ][2024]for A.Y.2017-18 passed u/s 148A (d) of the [Act ][vide DIN ][No.]ITBA/AST/F/148N2023-24t1063337433(1) [and ][the ][consequential notice ][u/s ][148]dated26 03.2024 vtde DIN No ITBA/AST/S/148 [112023-2411063353137(1). issued]by the JAO(1st respondent) [instead ][of ][FAO(3rd respondent),as ][void. ][illegal, ][and]contrary to the [provisions ]of [lncome-tax ][Act ][and ][contrary ][to the ][Principles of]Natural Justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: [SMT. ] [(Jr. ] FOR INCOME TAX) Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI [B. MUKHERJEE FOR ] PRAVEEN KUMAR, DY SOLICITARY GEN OF The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAULAITDTHE HOT{OURABLE SRI JUSTICE I{AM4.VARAPU RAJESHWAR RAOWRIT PETITION No.19572 OF 2024 ORDER: (y:er Hon'ble Justice Sujog Paul) Heard Sri Krishna Prasad Kondapalli, learned counselfor the petitioner, Ms.B.Sapna Reddy, learned JuniorStanding Counsel for Income Tax Department appears forrespondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri B. Mukheq'ee, Iearnedcounsel representing Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar, learnedDeputy Solicitor General of India for respondent No.3. 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 Section148 of the Income Tax Act, 196 1 cannot sustain [judicial]scrutiny. Since notice is bad in law, the consequential [orders]are also bad in iaw. 3. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for theparties agreed that curtains on this issue are finally drawn bythis Court in a batch of writ [petitions, ][W.P.No.259O3 ][of 2022]ald other connected matters, decided by common [order].--" / dated 14.09.2023. Tlne parties agreed that this matter may bedisposed of in terms of the Common Order dated 14.O9.2023. 4. This Court in the said order dated 14.09.2023tnW.P.No.25903 of 2022, held as under: '35. IE ?iew of the aforesaid discussions, it is by now veryclear that the procedure to be follocred by the respoEdent-Departmeat upon treatiDg the aotices issued for reassessrlentbeilg uuder Section l4gA, the subsequett proceediugs wasBandatorily required to be undertakeu under the sut stitutedptovisions as laid dorr,a utrder the Finauce Act, 2021. In theabsence of which, we are constrained to hold that theprocedure adopted by the respondent_Departhest is incontraventiou to the statute i.e. the Finauce Act, 2O21, at thefirst idstaace. Secoadly, it is also i! direct coEtlaventio[ tothe directives issued by the Hoa,ble Supreme Court itr thecase ofAshish Agan al, sup.a. 4. This Court in the said order dated 14.09.2023tnW.P.No.25903 of 2022, held as under: '35. IE ?iew of the aforesaid discussions, it is by now veryclear that the procedure to be follocred by the respoEdent-Departmeat upon treatiDg the aotices issued for reassessrlentbeilg uuder Section l4gA, the subsequett proceediugs wasBandatorily required to be undertakeu under the sut stitutedptovisions as laid dorr,a utrder the Finauce Act, 2021. In theabsence of which, we are constrained to hold that theprocedure adopted by the respondent_Departhest is incontraventiou to the statute i.e. the Finauce Act, 2O21, at thefirst idstaace. Secoadly, it is also i! direct coEtlaventio[ tothe directives issued by the Hoa,ble Supreme Court itr thecase ofAshish Agan al, sup.a. 36. For all the aforesaid reasoas, the irnpugEed notices issuedatrd the proceedilgs drawn by the respondeat-DepartEent isneither telable, Dor sustaiuable- The notices so issued andthe procedure adopted being per se illegal, deserves to be andaIe accotdiagly set aside/quashed. As a consequence, all theiDpugned orders gettiag quashed, the consequeatial ordetspassed by the respondent Departhent pursuaat to the lroticesissued under Sectioa l4Z aad 14g Eould also get quashed andit is ordered accordingly. The reason ee are quashing theconsequeEtial o.der is oa the p.inciples that wher theiritiatioa of the proceediags itself was procedurally rf,rong,the subsequeDt orde.s also gets nullified autoDnatically.37. The pretinirary objcction raised by the petitioner issustailed and all these Frit lrctitions stalrds auowed on thisverrr jurisdictional issue. Since the impugtted notices aldorders are gettiug quashed on the point ofjurisdictio!, we arelot irlcuaed to procecd further and decide the other issuesraised by the petitioEer which stands reserved to be raisedand coltelded i[ an appropriate proceediags. 38. Siace the Hon'bte Supreoe Court had, in the case ofAshish Agarwal, supn, as a one-time lueasure exercisittg theqowers under A.rticle 142 of the Constitution of IDdia, \ permitted the Revenue to [proceed ]utrder [the ][eubstituted]provisions, alld this Court allowing the Petitiors oaly otr thcprocedural flaw, the tight conferred on the Reveaue [would]remaia reserved to [proceed ]further [if ][they ][so ][want ][from ][the]stage of the order of the Supreme [Court ][in the ][case ][of ][Ashish]Agarwal, supra.39. I{o order as to costs."remaia reserved to [proceed ]further [if ][they ][so ][want ][from ][the]stage of the order of the Supreme [Court ][in the ][case ][of ][Ashish]Agarwal, supra.39. I{o order as to costs." 5. In view of the consensus arrived, [the ][impugned ][Show]Cause notice and consequential orders [passed ][in ][this ][writ]petition are set aside. Liberty is [reserved ][to ][both the ][parties]to take respective stand and [to ][proceed ][in ][accordance ][with]law as per pa-ragraph No.38 [of the order ][dated ][14.09.2023 ][in]W.P.No.25903 of 2022. 6. The u.rit petition is allowed. [No ][costs. ][Interlocutory]if applications, any [pending, ][shall ][also ][stand ][closed.] SD/. T. JAYASREEASSISTANT \_- |seciror.r o[prcen //TRUE COPY// ITo,1Office of The lncome [Tax ][Officer, ward ][1, Khammam/ ][Telangana ][State ][']1Office of The lncome [Tax ][Officer, ward ][1, Khammam/ ][Telangana ][State ]['] 2The Principal Chief [Commissioner Of lncome Tax.Telangana And A P']ivoerrnr.i, ir [iowers, ][AC Guards' ][Masab ][Tank, ][Hyderabad]ivoerrnr.i, ir [iowers, ][AC Guards' ][Masab ][Tank, ][Hyderabad] 3TheNationalFacelessAssessmentCenter,lncorneTaxDepartment'NewDelhiDelhi 4One CC to SRI [Advocate ] One CC to SMT [(Jr' ] [TAX)]loPUCl loPUCl 6One CC to SRI /trtrN KlrritAR D y soLI[SOLIIT(]CtroR ceru ol rr'rornloPUclloPUcl 7. Two CD CoPies GBRGJP +'y HIGH COURTDATED:2410712024 ORDER WP.No.19572 of 2024 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITTONWITHOUT COSTS qffi HtA.J{il)- tqT M(t tJtt:"{:t{t.[.-\]