Wp/25485/2022 Of Mr. Saibaba Elakurthi v. The Income Tax Officer

IN THE HIGH COURT 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. TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION NO: 25485 OF 2022 Between: Mr. Saibaba Elakurthi, S/o Mr. Venkataramaiah Elakurthi,Aged 59 years,Occ: Business, Fi/o ['l ][-39/1 ], Dindi - 508 258, Nalgonda DistrictTelangana...PETITIONER AND 1.The lncome Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Nalgonda, lncome Tax Office, Near RailUnder Bridge, Nalgonda [- ]508 001 , Telangana.Under Bridge, Nalgonda [- ]508 001 , Telangana. 2.The Principal Commissioner of lncome Tax [- ][1 ], Hyderabad, Room No. 71 1,7th Floor, lT Towers, AC Guards, [\/asab Tank, Hyderabad - 500 004,Telangana.7th Floor, lT Towers, AC Guards, [\/asab Tank, Hyderabad - 500 004,Telangana.3.The Principal Chief Commissioner of lncome Tax, Andhra Pradesh andTelangana, Hyderabad, Room No.922,91h Floor, B Block, lT Towers, 10-2-3,A.C. Guards, Hyderabad [- ]500 004, Telangana.Telangana, Hyderabad, Room No.922,91h Floor, B Block, lT Towers, 10-2-3,A.C. Guards, Hyderabad [- ]500 004, Telangana.4.The Additional Commissioner of lncome Tax, Range [- ]3, Hyderabad,Signature Towers, Sy. No.6(P) of Kondapur, Sy. No.37(P) of Kothaguda,Ofposite Botanical Gardens, Serilingampally [tulandal, ][Ranga ][Reddy ]District,Hyderabad - 500 084, Telangana.Signature Towers, Sy. No.6(P) of Kondapur, Sy. No.37(P) of Kothaguda,Ofposite Botanical Gardens, Serilingampally [tulandal, ][Ranga ][Reddy ]District,Hyderabad - 500 084, Telangana. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 oI lhe Constitution of lndia [praying ]that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, [the ][High ]Court may [be]pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order orDirection, declaring. a. the order dated 30.04.2022, [passed ][u/s ][148A(d) ][of ][the]Act, vide DIN and Notice No. ITBA/AST/F/'148A12022-2311042918433(1), [by ][the]1st Respondent, for the Assessment Yea( 2015 [- ][16, ][and b. ][the ][notice ][dated]30.O4.2O22, issued by the 1st Respondent, [u/s ][148 ][of ][the ][lncome Tax ][Act, ][1961,]vide DIN and Notice. ITBA/AST/S/148 112022-2311042918531(1), for [the]Assessment Year 2015 - 16, as arbitrary, illegal, [bad ]in law, [void-ab-initio,]violative of the principles of natural [justice ]apart from [being ]violative of Articles14, 19(1Xg) and 265 of the Constitution of [lndia ]and [Sec. ]['148A ][of ][the ][lncome]Tax Act, 1961 , and consequently set aside the same [in ][the ][interests of ][justice.] li lA NO: ['t ]OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 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, including any recovery, pursuant to the notice dated30.04-2022, issued by the 1st Respondent, u/s ['148 ]of the lncome Tax Act, 196'l ,vide DIN and Notice. ITBA/AST/S/148_112022-2311042918531(1), for theAssessment Year 2015 - 16, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition; Counsel for the Petitioner: SR! A.V.A. SIVA KARTIKEYA Counsel for the Respondents: Ms. B. SWAPNA REDOY (SC FOR INCOME TAX) The Court made the following: ORDER I IlL{ii:it! Ei! t l, THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYAND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTTCE N.TUKARAMJI. W.P. No. 25485 of 2o22 ORI)ER:0rer ron'ble Sri Justice P.sAxI KosfiY) Heard Mr. A.V.A. Siva Kartikeya, learned counsel for thepetitioner and Ms. B. Sapna Reddy, learned Junior Standing Counselfor Income Tax appearing for the respondents. Perused the entirerecord. 2. The instant petition has been hled challenging the AssessmentOrder passed by respondent No.1 under section t48A(d) of t}re IncomeTax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") dated 3O.O4.2O22for the Assessment Year 2Ol5-16. Counsel for the Petitioner: SR! A.V.A. SIVA KARTIKEYA Counsel for the Respondents: Ms. B. SWAPNA REDOY (SC FOR INCOME TAX) The Court made the following: ORDER I IlL{ii:it! Ei! t l, THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYAND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTTCE N.TUKARAMJI. W.P. No. 25485 of 2o22 ORI)ER:0rer ron'ble Sri Justice P.sAxI KosfiY) Heard Mr. A.V.A. Siva Kartikeya, learned counsel for thepetitioner and Ms. B. Sapna Reddy, learned Junior Standing Counselfor Income Tax appearing for the respondents. Perused the entirerecord. 2. The instant petition has been hled challenging the AssessmentOrder passed by respondent No.1 under section t48A(d) of t}re IncomeTax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") dated 3O.O4.2O22for the Assessment Year 2Ol5-16. 3. One of the contentions that t.he petitioner has raised in thepresent writ petition is that under [he amended provisions of the Actwhich came into effect from O 1.O4.2O21, the respondents 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 law, the proceedings to bedrawn are also in a faceless manner. Whereas, it has been contendedby the petitioner tl'rat in the instant case, reopening has been initiatedby the Juridictional Assessing Officcr. [n respect of the said objectionthat the petitioner had raised, he relied upon the recent batch of writ petitions decided by this very Bench on 14.O9.2023 videW.P.No.259O3 of 2022 and batch to the limited extent. 4. Lrarned counsel for the Department counsel for the Department for the Department the Department Department would not dispute 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 has raised in the writ petition. Lrarned counsel for the Department counsel for the Department for the Department the Department Department would not dispute dispute of So far as this contention of the learned counsel far as this contention of the learned counsel as this contention of the learned counsel this contention of the learned counsel contention of the learned counsel of the learned counsel the learned counsel learned counsel for thethe 5. So far as this contention of the learned counsel far as this contention of the learned counsel as this contention of the learned counsel this contention of the learned counsel contention of the learned counsel of the learned counsel the learned counsel learned counsel for thetheDepartment is concerned, this Bench, while disposing ofW.P.No.259O3 of 2022 and batch had taken note of the same inparagraph Nos.37 & 38 which is reproduced herein under: "37. The preliminary objection raised by the petitroner issustained and all these writ petitions stands allor,r'ed on this [ven]Surisdictional [issue. ][Since ][the ][impugned ][notices ][and ][ortlcrs ][arc]getting quashed on the point ofjurisdiction, we are not int:ltned toproceed further and decide the other issues rarsed by thepetitioner which stands reserved to be raised and contended in anappropriate proceedings." 38- Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the case of AshishAgarwal, supra, as a one-time measure exercising tlle [powers]under Article 142 of the Constitution of tndia, perrnrtted theRevenue to proceed under the substituted provisions, and thisCourt allowing the petitions only on the procedural flar.\'. the rightconferred on the Revenue would remain reserved to [proceed]further if they so want from t.I.e stage of the order of the SupremcCourt in the case of Ashish Agarwal, supra. 6. [n view of the same, we are inclined to allow the present writ 38- Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the case of AshishAgarwal, supra, as a one-time measure exercising tlle [powers]under Article 142 of the Constitution of tndia, perrnrtted theRevenue to proceed under the substituted provisions, and thisCourt allowing the petitions only on the procedural flar.\'. the rightconferred on the Revenue would remain reserved to [proceed]further if they so want from t.I.e stage of the order of the SupremcCourt in the case of Ashish Agarwal, supra. 6. [n view of the same, we are inclined to allow the present writ petition also on similar terms. Accordingly, the present Writ PeLitionstands allou'ed on the objection of the petitioner that thc [proceedings]have not been drawn in accordance with the amendecl [provision ]butnnder the unarnended provision which is otherq'isu not sustainable. ,,/ As has been held by this Bench in the aforesaid batch matters, theright of the respondents would stand reserved as is envisaged inparagraph Nos.37 & 38 of the said batch. No order as ro costs. 7. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shallstand closed. osr,.roi?i[btsi{,ecffiorHcen /rrRuE coPY/' to,.,, . ,n" lncome Tax officer, ward - 1, Nalgonda, lncome Tax office, Near Rail' - 508 001' Telansana' Uffi;"#;se, t'taigonoa ,"'' - 508 001' Telansana' Uffi;"#;se, t'taigonoa ,"'z it . i;,i-"irft ic".i.'XS tBBt I": . 7th Floor, [lT ][Towers']E;,11 l"nHi %;i ; il5:833:' .if; +:*il10-r-.,FE'.X:?rEr,cllel.c*Tg:'#1,:l"n!'r:Slil?['.]:6t1g?:f .if; +:*il10-r-.,FE'.X:?rEr,cllel.c*Tg:'#1,:l"n!'r:Slil?['.]:6t1g?:f Telanqana, [HYderabi]'iffi ^+r";^E[t*ilulg:13S,;,'3'T?"X"',i1"1?!ie*"-3'Hvderabad',*#iik'g;'c;k^'i:ul,["&*rx;';,].";i1?l3l['J!iv'3,3i''"',*#iik'g;'c;k^'i:ul,["&*rx;';,].";i1?l3l['J!iv'3,3i''"',iioerabad [- ][500 ][084' Telangana']:. E'^" * l: [n:ie.Yn^:;xrntBl$iI6 ][#["''^il"JffEY?lr ][ro""r]7. Two CD [CoPies]BNGJP7. Two CD [CoPies]BNGJP $ HIGH COURT DATED:0611112023 ORDERWP.No.25485 [ot ][2022] ALLOWING WITHOUT C{[$,]23\^ \{[e ] q.'o22 [Nh1]0?1ootto DESPAI cst