Wp/4347/2024 Of Vijay Kumar Mankala v. The Income Tax Officer

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARYTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION NO: 4347 OF 2024 Between: Vijay Kumar Mankala, S/o. lr4ankala Shankaraiah, aged about 47 [years,]Occ. Business, R/o.D NO 10-6-583/2A Gajulpet, Nizamabad 503001,Telangana, lndia PAN. Assessment Year. 2O17-18 ...PETITIONER AND 1The lncome Tax Officer, Ward-1 Nizamabad Telangana State. 2The Principal Chief Commissioner Of lncome Tax, lT Towers AC Guards[\ilasab Tank Hyderabad Telangana[\ilasab Tank Hyderabad Telangana 3. The Central Board of Direct Taxes, Represented by its Chairman, Departmentof Revenue, Ailinistry of Finance, Government of lndia, Secretariat Buildings,New Delhi - 110 001 .of Revenue, Ailinistry of Finance, Government of lndia, Secretariat Buildings,New Delhi - 110 001 . 4. The National Faceless Assessment Center, lncome Tax Department, NewDelhi.Delhi. 5. The Union of lndia, Represented by its Secretary to the Government,Department of Revenue, lt4inistry of Finance, New Delhi - 110 [00'l ][.]Department of Revenue, lt4inistry of Finance, New Delhi - 110 [00'l ][.] ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India [praying ]that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the Hig'h Court [may ][be]pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in thenature of Writ of l\/andamus declaring the order [passed ]by the lncome [Tax]Authorities (National Faceless E-Assessment Centre completed the assessmentUIS 147 riw Section 144-8 of the lncome Tax Act, 1961 vide [and ][Notice]No.dated 1710112023 in ITBA/AST/S/14712023- 2411052671822(1) for [the]assessment year 2017-18 determining the total income of Rs- 8,10,96,7431 [as] arbitrary, illegal, bad In law, without jurisdiction, void-ab-initio, violative of theprinciples of natural justice apart from being violative of Articles 1 , 19(1)(g) and265 of the Constitution of lndia and Sec. 148A of the lncome Tax Act, [.,l961 ], andconsequently set aside the same in the interests of justiceconsequently set aside the same in the interests of justice Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI THANNERU CHAITANYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: M/S SUNDARI R plSUpATl(Sr SC for lncome Tax Dept) Counsel for the Respondent Nos.5: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR,DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.4347 oF 2024 ORDER:/per Hon'ble Si Justice P.SAM KOSHE) The instalt Writ Petition has been filed by thepetitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for the following relief: "...to issue al writ, order, or direction moreparticularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamusdeclaring the order passed by the Income TaxAuthorities (National Faceless E-AssessmentCentre) completed the assessment under SectionL47 read with Section 1448 of the Income Tax Act,1961 vide DIN and Notice, dated tT / Ot /2023 inITBA/AST/ S/ r47 / 2023-24 / to5267 1 822(r) for theassessment year 2Ol7 -18 determining the totalincome of Rs.8,10,96,743/- as arbitraqr, illegal, badin law, without jurisdiction, void abinitio, violativeof the principles of natural justice, apart from beingviolative of Articles la, 19(1)(9) and 265 of theConstitution of India and Section 148A of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 and consequently set asidethe same in the interests of justice and pass...,, 2. One of the contentions that the petitioner has raised in the present Writ Petition is that under the amendedprovisions of the Act which came into effect fromO1.O4.2021, the respondents, while proceeding underSection 148 of,the Act, were required to issue notice under 2. One of the contentions that the petitioner has raised in the present Writ Petition is that under the amendedprovisions of the Act which came into effect fromO1.O4.2021, the respondents, while proceeding underSection 148 of,the Act, were required to issue notice under Section 148A and provide an opportunity of hearing to theassessee. As per the amended provision of law, theproceedings to be drawn are also in a faceless manner. 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 14.09.2023 wherein this Court disposed of thebatch of writ petitions to the limited extent. 4. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for therespondent-Department does not dispute that the saidobjection was decided in the a-foresaid batch of WritPetitions. However, he further contended that apart fromthe aforesaid objection, there have been other variousobjections afso which the petitioner has raised in the writpetition. 5. So far as this contention of the learned counsel forthe respondent-Department is concerned, this Bench, whiledispsing [q]f said batch of writpetitions, had taken note of PSK,J & NTR,J the same at paragraph Nos.37 & 38 which are reproduced herein under: "37. The preliminary objection raised bg the petitioneris sustained and all these uLit petitions stands allou.tedon this uery juisdictional issue. Since the impugnednotices and orders are getting quashed on the point ofjuisdiction, we ore not inclined to proceed furth.er onddecid.e the other issues raised by the petitioner uhichstands reseraed to be raised and contended in an"appropiate pro ce e ding s. "38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the caseof Ashish Agarutal, supra, as a one-time measureexercising the pouters under Article 142 of theConstitution of India, permitted the Reuenue to proceedunder the substituted prouisions, and this Courtallotting the petitions only on the procedural Jlaut, theright confened on the Reuenue utould remain reseruedto proceed further if theg so uant from the stage of theorder of the Supreme Court in the case of AshishAgonual, supra." 6. In view of the same, we are inclined to allow thepresent writ petition a,lso on similar terms. Accordingly, thepresent Writ Petition stands allowed on the objection of thepetitioner that the proceedings have not been drawn inaccordance with the amended provision but under theun-amended provision which is otherwise not sustainable. 7. As has been held by this Bench in the aforesaid batchmatters, the rights of the parties would stand reserved as is PSIT,J & rV"R,Jw.P.No.4347 of 2O24 envisaged at paragraph Nos.37 & 38 of the said orderpassed in the batch of writ petitions. No order as to costs. 8. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/. MOHD. SANAULLAH ASSISTANT REGISTRAR/^ ,,' //TRUE COPY// secrtoYorrtcen To, '1. The lncome Tax Officer, Ward-1 Nizamabad Telangana State'lncome Tax Officer, Ward-1 Nizamabad Telangana State' '1. The lncome Tax Officer, Ward-1 Nizamabad Telangana State'lncome Tax Officer, Ward-1 Nizamabad Telangana State'i. iii" [pii""ipticr,i"t ]corri.sioner [of ][lncome ][Tax, ][lr ][rowers ][AC Guards]lVlasab Tank HYderabad [Telangana]i. iii" [pii""ipticr,i"t ]corri.sioner [of ][lncome ][Tax, ][lr ][rowers ][AC Guards]lVlasab Tank HYderabad [Telangana] S. ih" Lhuhan'The [Central ][Bo-a ][rd ][of Direct Taxes, ][Delartment ][of ][Relenue']trilinistryofFinance,Governmentoflndia,SecretariatBuildings,NeWuelnl-110001 .trilinistryofFinance,Governmentoflndia,SecretariatBuildings,NeWuelnl-110001 . .+. in" r.frtionrl Faceless [Assessment Center, lncome ][Tax ][Department' ][New]Delhi.Delhi. To, '1. The lncome Tax Officer, Ward-1 Nizamabad Telangana State'lncome Tax Officer, Ward-1 Nizamabad Telangana State' '1. The lncome Tax Officer, Ward-1 Nizamabad Telangana State'lncome Tax Officer, Ward-1 Nizamabad Telangana State'i. iii" [pii""ipticr,i"t ]corri.sioner [of ][lncome ][Tax, ][lr ][rowers ][AC Guards]lVlasab Tank HYderabad [Telangana]i. iii" [pii""ipticr,i"t ]corri.sioner [of ][lncome ][Tax, ][lr ][rowers ][AC Guards]lVlasab Tank HYderabad [Telangana] S. ih" Lhuhan'The [Central ][Bo-a ][rd ][of Direct Taxes, ][Delartment ][of ][Relenue']trilinistryofFinance,Governmentoflndia,SecretariatBuildings,NeWuelnl-110001 .trilinistryofFinance,Governmentoflndia,SecretariatBuildings,NeWuelnl-110001 . .+. in" r.frtionrl Faceless [Assessment Center, lncome ][Tax ][Department' ][New]Delhi.Delhi. s. ih'e Secretary to [the ][Government, ][Ttre ][Union^of ][lndia, ][Department ][of]Revenue, NIinistry of [Finance, ][New ][Delhi ][- ][1'10 ][001']Revenue, NIinistry of [Finance, ][New ][Delhi ][- ][1'10 ][001'] 6. One CC io Sri [Thanneru Chaitanya ][Kumar, ][Advocate ] Sri i. o;; cC io fvllt [Sundari ] [Pisupaii (Sr SC ][for ][lncome Tax ][Dept) ][ ]8. Two CD CoPies8. Two CD CoPies TJGJPw HIGH COURT DATED:2010212024 ORDER WP.No.4347 ot 2024 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS. I6\"4.b ltl[i.],/<9,q-) n)cI2 ltRR zlzq*a5