Wp/25668/2024 Of Dsn Films Private Limited v. Income Tax Officer

[ [34111] HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAULANDTHE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR WRIT PETITION NO: 25668 OF 2024 Between: by its Director Mr. DulamPlot NoTB. M L A Colony, DSN Films Private Limited, RepresentedSatyanarayana, Row H.No.5, Urna Heights,Banjara Hills, Hyderabad- 500034 ...PETITIONER AND 1lncome Tax Officer, Ward-17(1), Hyderabad, [lncome Tax ][Office, ][Signature]Towers, Sy No 6(P) of Kondafur, Sy.No.37(P) [of ][Kothtg,u-d-1 ][Opp. ][Botanical]Garden, Sbrlingampally(M), R. R. District, [Hyderabad -500084.]Towers, Sy No 6(P) of Kondafur, Sy.No.37(P) [of ][Kothtg,u-d-1 ][Opp. ][Botanical]Garden, Sbrlingampally(M), R. R. District, [Hyderabad -500084.]2Principal Commissioner Of lncome Tax-2, Signature [Towers, Opp. ][Botanical]Gard6n, Serlingampally(M), R. R. [District, Hyderabad -500084]Gard6n, Serlingampally(M), R. R. [District, Hyderabad -500084] ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution [of ][lndia ][praying ][that in ][the]circumstances stated in the affidavit [filed ][therewith, ][the ][High ][Court ][may ][be]pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate [writ, order ][or]direction, declaring the order [passed ][by ][the ][lncome ][Tax ][Officer, ][Ward-17(1),]Hyderabad, Under Order 148-A of the [lncome Tax ][Act, ][1961 Date ][of ][Order ][22-03-]2024 DIN No. ITBA/AST/F/14i1N2023 [2411063204425(1) ][For ][the ][Year]Assessment Year 2020-21 , as arbitrary [illegal bad in law ][without ][jurisdiction ][void]abinitio violative of [principles ]of [Natural Justice part from ][being ][violative of ][Artble]4, 19 and 265 of Constitution of India and [consequently ][set ][aside ][the ][same ][in ][the]interests of [justice.] lA NO: ['l] oF 2024 Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated inthe affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to stayall further proceedings incruding any recovery, pursuant to the order passed by thethe affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to stayall further proceedings incruding any recovery, pursuant to the order passed by the1st respondent Under orde-r4g-A of the rncome Tax Act, 1961 Date of order of22-03-2024 DrN No. ,'BA/AST/F/148A1202324t106320442 5(1) For the yearAssessrnent Year 2O2O-21 pending disposal of writ petition.5(1) For the yearAssessrnent Year 2O2O-21 pending disposal of writ petition. Counsel for the [petitioner: ]SRI UpADHyAy RAGHAVENDER counsel for the Respondents: Ms. J. suNlrHA (JUNloR sc FoR lNcoME TAx)The Court made the foflowing: ORDERThe Court made the foflowing: ORDER i "*7 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTTCE SUJOY PAULAND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE IYAMAVARAPU RA"'ESIIWAR RAO trIRIT PETITION No.25668 OF 2024 ORDER: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice Sujog paul) . Heard Sri U. Raghavender, learned counsel for thepetitioner(s) and Ms. J. Sunitha, learned Junior StaldingCounsel for Income Tax Department, for the respondents.2. The ground taken by the learned counsel for thepetitioner(s) is that in furtherance of Financ e Act, 2021, re_assessment process stood modified but the respondents havenot taken care of it arld therefore, notice issued underSection 148 of the Income Tax Act, 196 1 carnot sustainjudicial scrutiny. Since notice is bad in law, theconsequential orders are also bad in law.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 2022and other connected matteJs, decided by common orderdated 14.09.2023. TI;.e parties agreed that this matter may bedispo_sed of in terms of the Common Order d,ated 14.O9.2023. 4. This Court in the said order dated 74.09.2023 in W.t'.No.25903 of 2022, held as under: 4. This Court in the said order dated 74.09.2023 in W.t'.No.25903 of 2022, held as under: '35. [In vies ][of the ][aforesaid dlscussions, ][it ][is by ][now ][very]clear that the procedure to be followed by the respoEdent-Departmert upon treating the notices issued for reassessmentbeing under Section 148A, the subsequett proceedings wasmardatorily required to be utrdertakeE under the substitutedprovlsions as laid doya uDder the FiraBce Act, 2021. ln theabsence of whlch, we are constrained to hold that theprocedure adopted by the respordeDt-DepartEetrt is incontraveution to the statute i.e. the Fi[allce Act, 2021, at thefirst instance. Secondly, it is also ilr dilect contraveation tothe directives issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in thecase of Ashish Agarsal, supra. 36. For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugred notices issuedatrd the proceedings drawo by the respondent-Department isleither tenable, nor sustqinable. The notices so issued andthe ptocedure adopted belEg per se illegal, deserves to be andare accordingly set aside/quashed. As a co!6equeace, all theiEpugned orders gettiag quashed, the cons€queutial orderspassed by the respondent Departmetrt pursuant to the noticesissued under Sectio! 147 aad 148 would also get quashed aadit is ordered accordiEgly. The reasoD we are quashing theconsequeEtial order is on the principles that when theitritiation of the proceedings itself was procedurally wrong,the subsequent orders also gets lullified autotaatically.37. The preliminary objectior raised by the petitiorer isaustained and all these writ petitiotrs strnds sllowed on thisvery jurisdictional issue. Siacc the impugrcd Eotices andordera are getti[g quashed oE the poilt ofjuriadiction, we arenot incliled to proceed further atrd decide the other issuesraised by the petitioaer shich stands rescrved to be raisedand coaterded in aE appropriate proceediugs.38. Since the ltron'ble Supretae Court had, ia the case ofAshish Agarwal, supra, as a otte-tiBe measure exercising thepowera ulrder Artlcle 142 of the Corstitutloa of llldia,pcrEitted the ReveEue to proceed under the substitutedprovisioas, aod this Court allowiDg the petitio8s otrly on theprocedurat flaw, the right confered on the Revenue wouldreEain reserved to proceed further if they so want from the \ , ,,. stage of the order of the Supreme [Court iB ]the [case ][of ][Ashish]AgarPal, 6upra.39. No 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 paragraph [No.38 of ][the ][order dated ][14.09.2023 ][in]W.P.No.25903 of 2022. 6. The Writ Petition is allowed. [No ][costs. ][Interlocutory]applications, if any pending, [shall ][also ][stand ][closed.] / SD/- T. TIRUMALA ASSISTANT //TRUE COPY//SECOFFICER To, 1. ' t;;;;;, lncome Tax sv ruo [Officer, ]otpi [Ward-17(1), ]or xJndairui, [Hyderab-qd, ]$v.t'ro szte) [lnc-ome ]of Kothas^ujj^9. [Tax ][Office' Signature ]pPP' Botanical[.]G;;;;;: slaingi;nbattv(M), [R. R. District, Hvderabad -500084]z [p'i"lipir-c.rntii..ion.i,"of 'rniomJrii-2, ][signature ][Torygr-s, ][opp ][Botanical]- d;#", S.;insampally(M), R R. District, Hyderabad -5000843. dilct to [SiiUpionfdv ][iiagnavender, ][A<ivocate ][t9f!91.^.];. on; cc io [rrll". ][Jlsunitni ][(Ju-nior ] [for ][lncome ][Tax) ][[oPUc]]G;;;;;: slaingi;nbattv(M), [R. R. District, Hvderabad -500084]z [p'i"lipir-c.rntii..ion.i,"of 'rniomJrii-2, ][signature ][Torygr-s, ][opp ][Botanical]- d;#", S.;insampally(M), R R. District, Hyderabad -5000843. dilct to [SiiUpionfdv ][iiagnavender, ][A<ivocate ][t9f!91.^.];. on; cc io [rrll". ][Jlsunitni ][(Ju-nior ] [for ][lncome ][Tax) ][[oPUc]] 5. Two CD CoPiesTJLS \s' I HIGH COURTDATED:2310912024 1HE 16110E[202raORDERtWP.No.25668 of 2024Op.so ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITIONWTHOUT COSTS?#l3il[2-\]1 II