Wp/3120/2024 Of Sree Vani Sanku v. The Income Tax Officer

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARYTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION NO: 3'120 OF 2024 Between: Sree Vani Sanku, W/o. Sanku Krishna, aged about 67 years,Occ.Homemaker, R/o.MlG-ll BLOCK-9 FLAT-2, Baghlingampally, Hyderabad50004, Telangana, lndia PAN Assessment Year 2015-'16 ..PETITIONER AND 1The lncome Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Hyderabad Telangana State. 2The Principal Chief Commissioner Of lncome Tax-Telangana and A.P,Hyderabad, lT Towers AC Guards Masab Tank Hyderabad 500 028TelanganaHyderabad, lT Towers AC Guards Masab Tank Hyderabad 500 028Telangana JThe Central Board of Direct Taxes, Represented by its Chairman,Government of lndia Secretariat Buildings New Delhi- I 100 001 .Government of lndia Secretariat Buildings New Delhi- I 100 001 . 4The National Faceless Assessment Center, income tax department new Delhi qUnion Of lndia, Represented by its Secretary to Government Department ofRevenue Ministry of Finance New Delhi - 1 10 001Revenue Ministry of Finance New Delhi - 1 10 001 6The Union of lndia, Represented by its Secretary to Government, Departmentof Revenue, lvlinistry of Finance, New Delhi - 110 00'1 .of Revenue, lvlinistry of Finance, New Delhi - 110 00'1 . ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 o'f the Constitution of lndia praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewrth, the High Court may becircumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewrth, the High Court may bepleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order, orDirection. declaring the order passed by the lncome Tax Authorities [(National]Direction. declaring the order passed by the lncome Tax Authorities [(National]Faceless E-Assessment Centre completed the assessment UIS 147 r/w Section144-8 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 vide DIN and Notice No.dated 29-12-2023 inITBA/AST/S/14712023-2411059181725(1) for the assessment year 2015-16144-8 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 vide DIN and Notice No.dated 29-12-2023 inITBA/AST/S/14712023-2411059181725(1) for the assessment year 2015-16 determining the total income of Rs.57,00,3301 and the consequential notice underSec.148 issued by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, Ward-4(.1), Hyderabad insteadof Faceless Assessing officer, as arbitrary, illegal, bad in law, without jurisdiction,void-ab-initio, violative of the principles of natural justice apart from being violativeof Articles 1a 19(1)(g) and 265 of the constitution of lndia and sec. 14BA of thelncome Tax Act. 1961, and consequenfly set aside the same in the interests ofjustrce. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under section 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated inthe affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased tosuspend the order Under section 147 rlw 144-8 of the lncome Tax Act, ',lg61 videDIN & Notice No.dated 29-12-2023 in ITBA/AST/st147t2023-24t1059181725(1)forthe assessment year 2015-16 determining the totar income of Rs.57,00,3301 andorder and Demand notice u/s 156 of the lncome Tax act 'l g6i, vide DIN & NoticeNo : I TBtuAST I s I 1 56 12023-24t 1 \sg 1 B 1 7 Bt (1) Dt:29 - 1 2-2023 for the assessmentyeat 2015-16 notice Under Section 148-A, (b) Dt.24_03_2022,ITBA/AST/F/148A(SCNy2021-22t1041423068(1),,148 A(d) Dt:25-04-2022 inlrBA/AST/Fi148A12022-2311042847162(1) and notice under section i48Dt:25.04-2o22 in lrBA/AST/st14B 1t2o22-23t1o42847234(1) for the AssessmentYear 2015-16, pending disposal of the above Writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI THANNERU CHAITANYA KUMAR counser for the Respona"nJ5v pRAsAD (Sr. sc FoR tNcoME TAx)The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJT WRIT PETITION No.312O OF 2o24 ORDER: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.SAM KOSHY) Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI THANNERU CHAITANYA KUMAR counser for the Respona"nJ5v pRAsAD (Sr. sc FoR tNcoME TAx)The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJT WRIT PETITION No.312O OF 2o24 ORDER: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.SAM KOSHY) The instant Writ Petition has been filed by thepetitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiaseeking for the following relief: "to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropnate WrttOrder or Directton dectaing the order passed bg the IncomeTax Authoities (National Faceless E-Assessment Centrecompleted the assessment U/ S 147 r/ u Section 144 B of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 uide DIN & Notice dated 29 12 2023 inITBA/AST/ S/ 147/2023-24/ 1059181725(1) fo, theassessment gear 2015-16 determining the total income ofRs.57,00,330/ - and the con sequential notice under Sec. 148issued bg Jurisdictional Assessing Ofiicer, Ward-4(l),Hgderabad instead of Faceless Assessing Officer, asarbitrary, illegal, bad in lau.t, uithout juisdiction, uoid ab-initio, uiolatiue of the pinciples of natural [justice ]aport frombeing uiolotiue of Articles 1a, 19(1)(9) and 265 of theConstitution of India & Sec. 148A of the Income Tax Ac\1961, and consequently set aside the same in the interestsof [justice; ]and pass such other orders as this Hon'ble Courtmag deem fit and proper". 2. One of the contentions that the petitioner has raised1n the present Writ Petition is that under the amendedprovisions of the Act which came into effect fromOl .O4.2021 , the respondents, while proceeding underSection 148 of the Act, were required to issue notice under Section l48A and provide an opportunity of hearing to theassessee. As per the amended provision of law, theproceedings to be drawn are also in a faceless marrner. 3. Whereas, learned counsel for the petitionercontended that, in the instant case, reopening has beeninitiated by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. In supportof his contention, he relied upon the recent judgmentrendered by this very Bench in Wp.No.25903 of 2022 &,batch, dated 14 .O9.2023 wherein this Court disposed of thebatch of writ petitions to the limited extent. 4. On the other hald, learned Standing Counsel for therespondent-Department does not dispute that the saidobjection was decided in the aJoresaid batch of WritPetitions. However, he further contended that apart fromthe aforesaid objection, there have been other variousobjections also which the petitioner has raised in the writpetition. 5. So far as this contention of the learned counsel forthe respondent-Depa_rtment is concerned, this Bench, whiledisposing of said batch of writ petitions, had taken note of ,7 ,, ) the same at pa-ragraph Nos.37 & 38 which [are ][reproduced] herein under: "37. The preliminary objection [raised bg ][the ][petitioner]is sustained and all these wit [petitions ]stands [allou.ted]on this uery [juisdictional ]issue. [Since th.e ][impugned]notices and orders ore getting [quashed ][on ][the ][point ][of]jurisdiction, u)e are not inclined to proceed further anddecide the other issues raised [by ][the ][petitioner ][uthich]stands reserued to be raised and [contended ][in ][an]appr o p iote pro ceeding [s. ]" "38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme [Court ][had, ][in ][the ][case]of Ashi.sh Agarutal, supra, as a [one-time ][meosure]exercising tlrc pouters under [Article ][142 ][of ][the]Constitution of India, [permitted ][the Reuenue ][to ][proceed]under the substituted [prouisions, ][and ][this ][Court]ollouing the petitions onlg [on tlrc procedural ]flau, [the]ight conferred on the Reuenue [u.tould ][remain ][resented]to proceed further if theg so want from [the ][stage of ][the]order of the Supreme Court in [the ][case ][of ][Ashi-sh]Agarutal, supra." "38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme [Court ][had, ][in ][the ][case]of Ashi.sh Agarutal, supra, as a [one-time ][meosure]exercising tlrc pouters under [Article ][142 ][of ][the]Constitution of India, [permitted ][the Reuenue ][to ][proceed]under the substituted [prouisions, ][and ][this ][Court]ollouing the petitions onlg [on tlrc procedural ]flau, [the]ight conferred on the Reuenue [u.tould ][remain ][resented]to proceed further if theg so want from [the ][stage of ][the]order of the Supreme Court in [the ][case ][of ][Ashi-sh]Agarutal, supra." 6. In view of the same, we are [inclined ][to ][a-llow the]present writ petition also on similar [terms. Accordingly, ][the]present Writ Petition stands allowed [on the objection ][of ][the]petitioner that the proceedings have [not ][been ][drawn ][in]accordance with the amended [provision ][but ][under ][the]un-amended [provision which is ][otherwise ][not ][sustainable.] 7 . As has been held by this [Bench ][in ][the ][a-foresaid ][batch]matters, the rights of [the parties would stand ][reserved as ][is] II(I( PSK,J 6L NTR,JW.P.No.372O of 2024 envisaged at paragraph Nos.37 & 3g of the said orderpassed in the batch of writ petitions. No order as to costs.passed in the batch of writ petitions. No order as to costs.Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any,shall stand closed.shall stand closed. SD/.8. SARASWATHIASSISTANT REGISTRARu'/<- ,,.SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// HIGH COURT DATED:0710212024 ORDER WP.No.3120 of 2024 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITIONWITHOUT COSTS. 0J@ g-tol[zl*-] oR'tHE1415koo07flIBM f**oIC'i