Wp/21792/2024 Of Sri. Ravi Kethavath v. The Income Tax Officer

13411) HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction) I/ONDAY,THE TWELFTH DAY OF AUGUSTTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL THE HoNoURABLE SRI .IusTlcf TffIvIAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAo WRIT PETITIO N NO:2'l 792 0F 2024 Betwee n: Sri Occ Busrness, Ravi Kethavath. H NO.20-336/1 Sic,^ Chatdru T;tikoie-'R;L?",'ti"uururcnda, Kethavath Aged about 45, years,D [jstr-ict ]- 5A8248, TelanganaNatgonda .,PETITiONER AND 1. Th: in:o:r: T_:< Cffrr:r \iriard 0gi1) l,1C=:ata:]. ir:.:r: Trx T;,,,:.: ACG u : rd s. i\,!a sao iank.Hycerabad-d06'00i. [- ][- ][" ][- ]["]G u : rd s. i\,!a sao iank.Hycerabad-d06'00i. [- ][- ][" ][- ]["] 2 Principal chief commissioner of rncorne Tax, rncome Tax Towers AC Guardstu{asab Tank Hyderabad-500004tu{asab Tank Hyderabad-500004 3. The Assessment Unit lncome Tax Department, National FacelessAssessment Centre, Room No 401, 2hd Flo;;'Ei;mp Ja.,vahartal NehruStadium Dethi 1i0003.Assessment Centre, Room No 401, 2hd Flo;;'Ei;mp Ja.,vahartal NehruStadium Dethi 1i0003. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Articre 226 of the constitution of rndia praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, trre High 'C;rr,t Lrv n"pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, more particular-ry oie rn tlre natuie otWrit of i\landamus, declaring the impugned Orderdt_03.01 .ZCZ+ purruO ut,^ lqlR/w Section 144, read with section riqg or the Income Tax Act vide DrN No.lTBA/AST/S r147/2023-24,1059312024(1) arong with notice under section 156, dt.lTBA/AST/S r147/2023-24,1059312024(1) arong with notice under section 156, dt.03.01 .2024 of the rncome-Tax Act, 1961, by thi 3rd respondent for A.y. 2o1|_1g,pursuant to the order u/s 14sA(d) dt.19.o4.2022 and notice issued u/s 148dt20.04.2022 by the JAo instead of FAo, as void, ittegat. ano .""irrrv'io t.pursuant to the order u/s 14sA(d) dt.19.o4.2022 and notice issued u/s 148dt20.04.2022 by the JAo instead of FAo, as void, ittegat. ano .""irrrv'io t.Provisions of lncome-tax Act and contrary to the principres of Naturar Justice I I I I I IA NO:10F 2024 ,n" ,n,!3ljll",l#,X"n"#,:1.181 [cpc ][prayins ][rhar ][in the ]circumstances stared inu,, J,,ti " "," [il; ][;:'""# ][:i,,Iffi J;, ][[;,ir,Jx: ]3A ffi 1ff [.i:;*,#]i{"T ];], zq SJ:;::",,,1"_Jn"",,Tl;ni.* l osgs,t zolzot, l "[o,.o"I ]Tax [o,.Juj' ]Act vide [;,;;.R/w ]Dt N rvo. seuion rreAind 1a4 real iis,,Ziiroxwirhzora rg. in piilt.i.;[; iin.'f^"Ie -'K8659O [tncome-Tax ][Act, ][1e61. ][bv the ]3rd n".p"ro!r, #io ,",vriil rhe finat disposat or tr.,i, *riii"t]n"in Coundet for the petitioner: SRt. VENKATRAM REDDY MANTURSRt. VENKATRAM REDDY MANTUR counsel for the Respondents: sRr J v PRASAD (sc FoR rNcoME TAX) The Court made the following: ORDER ! I THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSI'ICE SUJOY PAULAND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.21792 OF 2o24 ORDER: (per Hon'ble Justice Sujog Paull Heard Sri Venkatram Recicil' Mantur, learned counsel forthe petitioner(s) and Sri J.V.Prasad, learned Senior StandingCounsel for Income Tax Departrnent for respondents.2. The ground taken by the iearned counsel for the petitioner{s} is that in furtherance ol Finance Act, 2021, re-assessment process stood modified but the respondents havenot taken care of it and tl-rerefore r-rotice issued under Sectionl4B of the Income Tax Act, i96 I cannot sustain -judicialscrutinv. Since notice is bad in lavr.. the consequential ordersare also bad in lau,. 3. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for theparties agreed that curtains on this issue are finaily dravvn bythis Court in a batch of writ [petitions, ]W.P.No.25903 of 2022and other connected matters, decided by common orderdated 14.09.2023. The parties agreed that this matter may bedisposed of in terms of the Common Order dated 14.O9.2023. 4. This Court in the saici order [dated ][14.O9.2023 in]W.P.No.259O3 cf 2O22. held as [u.nder] petitioner{s} is that in furtherance ol Finance Act, 2021, re-assessment process stood modified but the respondents havenot taken care of it and tl-rerefore r-rotice issued under Sectionl4B of the Income Tax Act, i96 I cannot sustain -judicialscrutinv. Since notice is bad in lavr.. the consequential ordersare also bad in lau,. 3. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for theparties agreed that curtains on this issue are finaily dravvn bythis Court in a batch of writ [petitions, ]W.P.No.25903 of 2022and other connected matters, decided by common orderdated 14.09.2023. The parties agreed that this matter may bedisposed of in terms of the Common Order dated 14.O9.2023. 4. This Court in the saici order [dated ][14.O9.2023 in]W.P.No.259O3 cf 2O22. held as [u.nder] '35. [In ][view ][of the ][aforesaid discussions, ][it ][is by ][now very]clear that the [procedlrre ]t(l lte [followed ]by [the ][respondent-]Departme'tt upon treating the llotices issuod [for ][reassessment]being u[der Sectiotr [143A. ]the [subseqqent proceedings ][was]mandatorily required to [be undertaken ][undet the substituted]provisions as laid dow:r under the Finance Act, [2021. ][ln, ][the]absence af which, we are constrained [to ][hold ][that ][the]proeedute adopted by the respondent-Department [is ][in]co[travention to the statute i.e. the Filance [Act,2O21, at the]first instance. Secondly, it is also in direct contravention [to]the directiwes issued by the Hon'bte [SuPreme ][Court iD ][the]case of Ashish Agarwal, supra, 36. For au the aforesaid reasons, the [impugaed ][notices ][issued]and the [proceedings ]drawa by the [respoodent-DePartment ][is]neither tenable, nor sustainable. The notices so [issued ][and]the p!:ocedure adopted bciirg Fer se [illegal, ][deserves ][to ][be and]are accoidingly set aside/quashed. [As ]a [consequence, ][all ][the]impugned orders getting [quashed, ]the [consequential ][orders]passed by the respondent Department [pursuaDt ]to the [notices]issued under sectioa 147 alld 148 would also [get quashed and]it is ordered accordingly. The reasQfl wc are [quashing ][the]consequential order is or the principles that [when ][the]initiation of the proceedings itself was ptocedurally [wrong']the subsequent orders also [gets ]nullifred automatically.37. The p.elimirar!, objc.tion raised by the [petitioner ][is]sustained and atl these writ petitiols [stands ][aUowed ][on ][this]very [jurisdictional ]issue- sirce the impugned notices [aad]orders a.e getting [quashed ]on the poitrt ofjurisdiction, [we ][are]not incliEed to [proceEd ]further and decide the other [issues]raised by the petitioner $/hich stands [reserved ]to be [raised]and contended in an apirropriate [proceedilgs.] 38. Siace the Hon't,le Slpreme Court had, in the [case ][of]Ashish Agarwal, supra: as a ore-time [measule exercising the]powers under Atti.le 142 of the Colstitution of India,permitted the Revenue to proceed under the substitutedprovisions, ard this Court allowing the petitions only on theprocedural flaw, the right conferred oa the Revenue wouldremaitr reserved to proceed further if they so waqt from the stage ol the order of the Suprerrre Cou:t in the case of AshishAtarwal, 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 .rre set aside. Liberty is resen,ed to both the partiesto take respective stand and to proceed in accordance withlaw as per paragraph No.3B ol the order dated 14.09.2023 inW.P.No.259O3 of 2022. 6. The r.r,rit petition is alior,r,ed. No costs. Interlocutoryapplications, if any pending, shall also stand closed. SD/- T. JAYASREEASSISTANT REGISRSECT{ON OFFICER HIGH COURT DATED:1210812024 ORDER WP.No.21792 of 2024 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITIONWITHOUT COSTS e)/,CxL' {.-t (,oY<