Wp/33477/2023 Of Mr. Srinivas Bhusa v. The Income Tax Officer - Ward 9(1)

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION NO: 33477 OF 2023 Between: Mr. Srinivas Bhusa, S/o Mr. Bhusa Pochaiah, aged 5'1Agriculturist, H.No. 5-63i 1 , Anjapur, Hayathnagar, Ranga Reddy512, Telangana. years, Occ.District - 501...PETIT]ONER AND 1. The lncome Tax Officer - Ward 9(1), Hyderabad, lT Towers, AC Guards,Masab Tank, Hyderabad - 500 004, Telangana.Masab Tank, Hyderabad - 500 004, Telangana. 2. The Principal Chief Commissioner of lncome Tax, Andhra Pradesh andTelangana, Hyderabad, Room No..922,91h Flo_or, B Block, lT Towers, 10-2-3, A.C. Guards, Hyderabad - 500 004, Telangaha.Telangana, Hyderabad, Room No..922,91h Flo_or, B Block, lT Towers, 10-2-3, A.C. Guards, Hyderabad - 500 004, Telangaha. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may bepleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order orDirection, declaring. a.the order passed by the 1st Respondent, u/s 1,18A(d) of thelncome Tax Act, 1961, dat€d O4.O4.2O22, bearing DIN and Notice No..ITBA/AST/F/148N2022-23110425O1416(1), for the Assessrnent Year 2015 - 16.and b.the notice issued by the 1st Respondent, u/s148 of the lncome Tax Act,1961, dated 06.04.2022, bearing DIN aM Notice No.. TTBtuAST/S/1 48_112022-2311042594192(1), tor the Assessrnent Year 2015 - 16. as arbitrary, illegal, bad inlaw, void-ab-initio, violative of the principles of natural [justice, ]apart from beingviolative of Articles 14, 19(1Xg) and 265 of the Constitution of lndia and Sec ['148A]of the lncome Tax Act, 1961 , and to consequently set aside the sarne in theinterests of [justice.] IA NOi1 oF 2023 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, including any recovery, pursuant to the notice issued bythe ['lst ]Respondent, uts 14g of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 06.04.2022,bearing DtN and Notice No.. ,TBA/AST/S/.4B_1t2022_23t1042594192(1), tor theAssessment year 2o1s - 16, pending disposar of the above writ petition. Counsel for the petitioner: SRI A.V.A.SIVA KARTIKEYAcounset for the Respondenrs: SRt J.v.piAbAb','ii. sc FoR tNcoME TAx The Court made the following: ORDER I :IIt THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSTTYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.33477 OF 2o23 ORDER:(per Hon'ble Si Justice P.SAM KOSHY) When the matter is taken up for hearing today, it has been informed by the parties that arr identical Writ Petition i.e.,W.P.No.30153 of 2023 has already been allowed and disposed ofuide order, dated 3O.10.2023. 2. In view of the fact that the identical matter has already beenallowed by this Court, we are inclined to allow this Writ Petitionin terms of the order passed in W.P.No.30 153 of 2023 decided on 3O.1O.2O23 on similar terms. 3. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications [pending ]if any in [this] .lvrit [Petlign, ][s-hall ][stand ][closed. ][No ][order ][as ][to ][costs.] SD/. K.SREERAMA MURTHYASSISTANT RISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTIONFFICER To 1. The lncome Tax Officer [- ]Ward 9(1), [Hyderabad, ][lT Towers, ] [Guards,]Masab Tank, Hyderabad [[- ]]500 [0O4, ][Telangana.] [[- ]]2. The Princioal Chief Commissioner of lncome [Tax, ][Andhra Pradesh ][and]Telangana', Hyderabad, Room [No.. ][922,grh ][Hoor, B Block, ] [Towers, ][10-2-]Telangana', Hyderabad, Room [No.. ][922,grh ][Hoor, B Block, ] [Towers, ][10-2-] 3, A.C-. Guards, Hyderabad [- ][5O0 ][004, Telangana.] 3. one cc to sRl A.v.A.slvA [KARTIKEYA, ][Advocate ]toPUCl 4. One CC to SRI J.V.PRASAD, [Sr. SC ] 3. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications [pending ]if any in [this] .lvrit [Petlign, ][s-hall ][stand ][closed. ][No ][order ][as ][to ][costs.] SD/. K.SREERAMA MURTHYASSISTANT RISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTIONFFICER To 1. The lncome Tax Officer [- ]Ward 9(1), [Hyderabad, ][lT Towers, ] [Guards,]Masab Tank, Hyderabad [[- ]]500 [0O4, ][Telangana.] [[- ]]2. The Princioal Chief Commissioner of lncome [Tax, ][Andhra Pradesh ][and]Telangana', Hyderabad, Room [No.. ][922,grh ][Hoor, B Block, ] [Towers, ][10-2-]Telangana', Hyderabad, Room [No.. ][922,grh ][Hoor, B Block, ] [Towers, ][10-2-] 3, A.C-. Guards, Hyderabad [- ][5O0 ][004, Telangana.] 3. one cc to sRl A.v.A.slvA [KARTIKEYA, ][Advocate ]toPUCl 4. One CC to SRI J.V.PRASAD, [Sr. SC ] 5. Two CD Copies(Along with the'Copy of Court Order [dt:30/1O12O23 ][in ][W.P.No. ][30153 ][of ][2023)](Along with the'Copy of Court Order [dt:30/1O12O23 ][in ][W.P.No. ][30153 ][of ][2023)] PSKGJP HIGH COURT DATED:1211212023 ORDER WP.No.33477 ot 2023 1 $E IC:(P3 10 JAl\l 2024z* oESPATCHeQ[*] ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITIONWITHOUT COSTS @G1it'lC'\gs- THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SA.}I KOSI{Y AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTYW.P. No.3O153 of 2o23 ORDER: 4rer Ao n'ble Si Justice P.SAIfi KOSHY) ' 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.I 2. The instant petition has been hled challenging the AssessmentOrder passed by respondent No. I under section i48A(d) of the IncomeTax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") dated 25.04.2022for the Assessment Year 2OLa-19. 3. One of the contentions that the petitioner has raised in thepresent writ petition is that under the amended provisions of the Actwhich came into effect from 01.O4.2021, the respondents whileproceeding under SecLion 148 of the Act were required to issue noticeunder Section 148A and provide arr opportunit5r of hearing to theassessee. As per the amended provision of [aw, the proceedings to bedrawn are also in d, faceless manner. Whereas, it has been contendedby the petitioner that in the instant case, reopening has been initiatedby the Juridictional Assessing Offrcer. In 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 ][vide]W.P.No.259O3 of 2022 and batch to [the limited ][extent.] 4. I-earned counsel for the Department [would ][not ][dispute ][of]having decided the said objection in [the ][aforesaid ][batch ][matters.]However, learned counsel submits that [apart from ][the ][aforesaid]objection, there have been other [various ][objections ][also ][which ][the]petitioner has raised in the writ [petition.] 5. So far as this contention of the learned counsel [for ][the]DepartmentISconcerned, thisBench, while disposing ofW.P.No.259O3of 2022 and batchhad taken note of the same inparagraph Nos.37 & 38 which is reproduced herein under: "37. The [preliminary ]objection raised by [the ][petitioner ][rs]sustained and all these writ petitions stands allowed on this [very]jurisdictional issue. Since the impugned notices and orders aregetting quashed on the point ofjurisdiction, we are not inclined toproceed further and decide the other issues raised by thepetitioner which stands reserved to be taised and contended in anappropriate proceedings. " 5. So far as this contention of the learned counsel [for ][the]DepartmentISconcerned, thisBench, while disposing ofW.P.No.259O3of 2022 and batchhad taken note of the same inparagraph Nos.37 & 38 which is reproduced herein under: "37. The [preliminary ]objection raised by [the ][petitioner ][rs]sustained and all these writ petitions stands allowed on this [very]jurisdictional issue. Since the impugned notices and orders aregetting quashed on the point ofjurisdiction, we are not inclined toproceed further and decide the other issues raised by thepetitioner which stands reserved to be taised and contended in anappropriate proceedings. " 38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the case ofAshishAgarwal, supra, as a one-time measure exercising the [powers]under Article L42 of tLie Constitution of India, permitted theRevenue to proceed under the substituted provisions, and thisCourt allowing the petitions only on the [procedural ]flaw, the rightconferred on the Revenue would remain reserved to proceedfurther if they so want from the stage of the order of the SupremeCourt in the case of Ashish Agarwal, supra. 6. In view of the same, we are inclined to allow the present writpetition also on similar terms. Accordingly, the present Writ Petitionstands allowed on the objection of the petitioner that the proceedingshave not been drawn in accordance with the amended provision butunder the unamended provision which is otherwise not sustainable. As has been held by this Bench in the aforesaid batch matters, theIright of the respondents would stand reserved as is envisaged inparagraph Nos.37 & 38 of the said batch. No order as to costs. 7. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shallstand closed. P.SAM KOSITY, J LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J Dated: 30.10.2023aqs s