Wp/34472/2023 Of Eshwaraiah Alishetti v. The Income Tax Officer

[ [33e7 ]I HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF DECEIMBERTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYAND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION NO: 34472 OF 2023 Between: Eshwaraiah Alishetti, age 78 yrs, H. No.1-5-3, Aravinda Nagar, Jagtial,Karimnagar(district), Telangan a-505327 . ...PETITIONER AND 1The lncome Tax Officer, [\N ]ard - 2, Karimnagar, lncome Tax Office, AayakarBhavan, Karimnagar, Telangana - 50500'1 .Bhavan, Karimnagar, Telangana - 50500'1 .2The Principal Commissioner of lncome Tax - 2, l.T. Towers, 10-2-3, A.C.Guards, Hyderabad-500004.Guards, Hyderabad-500004.3The Assessment Unit, , lncome Tax Department, National FacelessAssessment Centre, DAlhi, IVlinistry of Finance, Room No. 4o1,2nd Floor, E-Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, Delhi-1 10003Assessment Centre, DAlhi, IVlinistry of Finance, Room No. 4o1,2nd Floor, E-Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, Delhi-1 10003 ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 ol lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may bepleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in thenature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the impugned order dt.06.04.2022 passedu/s 148A(d) of the Act vide DIN No. ITBA/AST/FI148A|2O22-2311O42554613(1)and the consequential notice u/s 148 dt.06.04.2022 vide DIN No.ITBA/AST/S/148_112022-231'1042573637(1), for A.Y. 2018-19, issued by theJAO(1"t respondent) instead of FAO(3'd respondent),as void, illegal, and contraryto the provisions of lncome-tax Act and contrary to the Principles of NaturalJustice. lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated [in]the affidavit filed in support of the [petition, ]the High Court may be [pleased ]to [stay]all further proceedings pending before the 3'd respondent, [pursuant ]to the noticeu/s 148 dt.O6.04.2022 of the Act vide ITBA/AST/S/148 [112022-]23t1042573637(1)issued by the 1't Respondent(JAO)for A.Y. 2O1B-19 instead of3'd responden(FAO). Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI DUNDU MANMOHAN Counsel forthe Respondents: SUNDARI R PISUPATI (Sr SC for lncome Tax Dept) The Court made the following: ORDER ,,/ THE HONOURABLE [P.SAM KOSHY]ANDTHE HONOURABLE WRIT PETIT [No.3][4472 ][0F 2023] ORDER: ftter [Hon'ble ][Si ][Justice P.SAM KOSHII)] Whenthematteristakenupforhearingtoday'ithasbeeninformed by [the ][parties ][that an ][identical ][Writ ][Petition i'e'']W.P.No.30l53of2023hasalreadybeenallowedanddisposedofuid"e ord'er, [dated 30.1O.2023'] 2. In view of [the fact ][that ][the identical matter ][has ][already ][been]allowed [by ][this ][Court, ][we ][are ][inclined to ][allow ][this ][Writ ][Petition ][in]terms of [the ][order ][passed ][in ][W'P'No ][30153 ][of ][2023 ][decided ][on]30.10.2023 [on ][similar ][terms'] 3. As a [sequ€I, ][miscellaneous applications ][pending ][if ][any ][in ][this]Writ Petition, [shall stand ][closed' ][No ][order ][as ][to ][costs'] SD/- C, ASSISTANTGIS//TRUE SECTIOOFFICER to'',. ,n" lncome Tax Officer, Ward - 2' Karimnagar' lncome Tax Office' Aayakar-' , +n:rlissl.T"1gx**ruffii?";:3.'.'+:i-2, [rr ][rowers' ][10-2-3' A ][C]CuarOs, HVderabad-500004'3. i#X;i;;".i;i [u"ilIli"iih" ][rax ][Departmen\Y;"'lS: ]I3?iLTi r,"",, t-"A#fJi."""'u'1",t"t"*l,ylLl*y;li1ilii.T9"'Dept) roPUClI EffiH [3 ][n?[*llixttt*u,'tsl3"3i:1ffi:s]" ]'u* [[CD CoPies]] 6. Two [[CD CoPies]] TJ GJ(Along with [the ][Order Copy dt:30'10 '2023inW'P'No'3O153 of ][2O231] HIGH COURT DATED:2211212023 ORDER WP.No.34472 of 2023 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITIONWITHOUT COSTS, 1wESTA 14:oo1 I JAil 2024z6)**{, oFeF T ::ra$r { THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYAND SD/- C, ASSISTANTGIS//TRUE SECTIOOFFICER to'',. ,n" lncome Tax Officer, Ward - 2' Karimnagar' lncome Tax Office' Aayakar-' , +n:rlissl.T"1gx**ruffii?";:3.'.'+:i-2, [rr ][rowers' ][10-2-3' A ][C]CuarOs, HVderabad-500004'3. i#X;i;;".i;i [u"ilIli"iih" ][rax ][Departmen\Y;"'lS: ]I3?iLTi r,"",, t-"A#fJi."""'u'1",t"t"*l,ylLl*y;li1ilii.T9"'Dept) roPUClI EffiH [3 ][n?[*llixttt*u,'tsl3"3i:1ffi:s]" ]'u* [[CD CoPies]] 6. Two [[CD CoPies]] TJ GJ(Along with [the ][Order Copy dt:30'10 '2023inW'P'No'3O153 of ][2O231] HIGH COURT DATED:2211212023 ORDER WP.No.34472 of 2023 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITIONWITHOUT COSTS, 1wESTA 14:oo1 I JAil 2024z6)**{, oFeF T ::ra$r { THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYAND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA AIISHETTYW.P. No.3O153 of 2O23 ORDER: [per ]ao n'ble Si Justice P.SAM 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. 2. The instant petition has been filed challenging instant petition has been filed challenging petition has been filed challenging been filed challenging filed challenging challenging the AssessmentOrder passed by respondent No. 1 under section 148A(d) of the IncomeTax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act') dated 25.04.2022for the Assessment Year 2018- 19. The instant petition has been filed challenging instant petition has been filed challenging petition has been filed challenging been filed challenging filed challenging challenging the Assessment 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 01.04.2021, the respondents whileproceeding under Section 148 of the Act were required to issue noticeunder Section 148A and provide an opportunit5r of hearing to theassessee. As per tlre amended provision of law, the proceedings to bedrawn are also in a faceless manner. Whereas, it has been contendedby the petitioner that in the instant case, reopening has been initiatedby the Juridictional Assessing Officer. 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 videW.P.No.25903 of 2022 and batch to the limited extent. 4. Learned counsel for the Department would not dispute ofhaving decided the said objection in the a-foresaid 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. 5. So far as this contention of the learned counsel for theDepartment1Sconcerned, 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 petitioner issustained and all these writ petitions stalds allowed on this veryjurisdictional 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 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 the powersunder Article 142 of the 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 resewed to proceedfurther if they so want from the stage of the order of the SupremeCourt in the case of Ashish Agarwal, supra. 38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the case of AshishAgarwal, supra, as a one-time measure exercising the powersunder Article 142 of the 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 resewed 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 accordalce with the amended provision butunder the unamended provision which is otherwise not sustainable. ,a' 3 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 ofthe said batch. No order as to costs.7. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shallstand closed. P.SAM KOSHY, J LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J Dated: 30.1O.2O23aqs THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHE:TTY W.P. No.3O153 of 2023 Qter [the ][Hon'ble ][Sri ][Justice ][P.SAM ][KOSHY)] aqs Dated: 30.1O.2O23