Wp/44991/2022 Of Prabhaker Pidisetty v. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax And 2 Others

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD(Special Original J urisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JULYTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY '\\l)THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE WRIT PETITION NO: 44991 OF [2022] Between: Prabhaker Pidisetty, S/o. P. Veeraswamy [Aged 63 ][years, ][H'No ][1--B-430/20lA']lnside Uma Gardens, [Near ][Lord ][Venkateswara ][Temple, ][Chikkadpally']Hyderabad, Telangana [-500020] ...PETITIONER AND ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of [Ihe ][constitution ][of ][lndia ][praying ][that ][in ][the]circumstances stated in the [affidavit ][filed ][therewith, ][the ][High ][court ][may ][be]pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, one, [more particularly ][in ][the ][nature ][of]certiorari and mandamus declaring [the inrpugned order dated ][2910712022 ][passed]u/s.148A(d) of the Act vide DIN [atrd ][Order ][No. ][ITBA/COMIFl1712022 ][-]2311044307422(1)A as illegal, [arbitrary ][and void ][ab ][initio ][as ][it ][is ][without]jurisdiction and barred by limitation and consequently [to ][quash the same ][along]with the original notice issued [u/s.148 dated ][28106/2021, ][received ][by ][the ][assesse]on 14tO712021 ( DIN and [Notice ][No. ][ITBA/AST/S/'14812021-2211033719310(1)),]and subsequent [proceedings initiated ][u/s.14BA(b) dated ][2410512022 ][vide ][DIN and]Letter No. ITBA/COM/F/1 [7 ][t2022 ][- ][23t1043148071 ][and ][consequential ][notice ][issued]under section 148 0f the Act dated [2910712022 ][vide ] [and ][Document ][No.]ITBA/AST/S/91 12022 - [23t1044314042(1) ][and ][stay ][all ][the ][consequential]proceedings lA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated inthe affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court m;ry be pleased to stayall further proceedings of the impr"rgned order dated 29lOll2O22 passedu/s.148A(d) of the Act vide DIN and Order No. tIBAtCOt\AtF 11712022-2311044307422(1)A and notice issued under section 148 of the Act dated2910712022 vide DIN and Document No. ITBA/ASTlslg1l2O22 - 23t1044314042(1)for the A.Y.201 3 - ['14 ]along with consequential Irroceeclings Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. VENKATRAM REDDy MANTUR Counsel for the Respondent NOs.1&2: MS. B. SAPNA REDDY (SC FOR TNCOME TAX) Counsel for the Respondent NO.3: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR Dy.SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAULAND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.44991 OF 2022 ORDER: (per Hon'l;le ,Justice Sujog Paul) Heard Sri Venkatram Reddy Mantur, lea-rned counselfor the petitioner(s), Sri B.Mukherjee, learned counselrepresenting Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned DeputySolicitor General of India, for the respondents CentralGovernment and Ms.B.Sapna Reddy, learned JuniorStanding Counsel for Income Tax Department, for therespondents-lncome Tax Department. 2. The ground taken bv the learned counsel for thepetitioner(s) is that in furtherance of Finance Act, 2027, re'assessment process stood modified but the respondents havenot taken care of it and therefore notice issued under Section148 of the Income Ta-x Act, 196 I cannot sustain [judicial]scrutiny. Since notice is bad in lau,, the consequential ordersare also bad in lalr,. 3. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for theparties agreed that curtains on this issue are finally drau'n bythis Court in a batch of writ [petitions, ][W.P.No.25903 of 2022] and other connected matters, decided [by ][common ][order]dated 14.09.2O23. The [parties ]agreed that this [matter ][ma1" be]disposed of in terms of the Common Order dated [14.09.2023] 4. This Court in the said order dated 14.09.2023 [in]W.P.No.259O3 of 2022, held as under: 3. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for theparties agreed that curtains on this issue are finally drau'n bythis Court in a batch of writ [petitions, ][W.P.No.25903 of 2022] and other connected matters, decided [by ][common ][order]dated 14.09.2O23. The [parties ]agreed that this [matter ][ma1" be]disposed of in terms of the Common Order dated [14.09.2023] 4. This Court in the said order dated 14.09.2023 [in]W.P.No.259O3 of 2022, held as under: "35. [In ][view ][of ][the ][aforesaid ][discussions, ][it ][is ][by ][noq, ][very]clear that the procedure to be followed by the respondeut-Department upon treating the notices issued for reassessmentbeing under Section 148A, the subsequent [ptoceedings ][was]mandatorily required to be undertakel under the substitutedprovisions as laid dowE urder the Finance Act, 2O21. In theabsence of which, we are constrained to hold that [the]procedure adopted by the respondent-Department is incontravention to the statute i.e. the Finance Act, 2O21, [at the]Iirst instance. Secondly, it is also in di.ect contravention tothe directives issued by the llon'ble Supreme court in [the]case of Ashish Agarwal, supra. 36. For all the aforesaid reasolrs, the impugned notices [issued]and the proceedings drawn by the respondent-Department [is]neither tenable, nor sustainable. The notices so issued andthe procedure adopted being [per ]se illegal, deserves to [be ][and]are accordi[gly set aside/quashed. As a consequence, all [the]impugned orders getting quashed, the consequential orderspassed by the respondent Department putsuant to the noticesissued under Sectiol 147 and 148 would also [get ][quashed ]andit is ordered accordingly. The reason we are [quashing ]theconsequential order is on the principles that when theinitiation of the proceedings itself was procedurally wrong,the subsequent orders also gets nullified automatically.37- The preliminary objection raised by the petitioner issustained and all these writ petitions stands allowed on thisvery jurisdictional issue. Since the impugned notices andorders are getting quashed on the point ofjurisdiction, we arenot iaclined to proceed further and decide the other issuesraised by the petitioner which stands reserved to be raisedand contended in an appropriate proceedings- 38- Since the llon'ble Suprerne Court had, in the [case ]ofAshish Agarwal, supra, as a one-time [measule ][exercising the]polsers under Article 142 of the Constitution of [India']permitted the R€venue to proceed under the substitutedprovisions, and this Court allowing the petitions only on theprocedural flaw, the right conferred on the Revenue [would]remain reserved to proceed further if they [so watrt ][from ][the]stage of the order of the Supreme Court in the [case ][of Ashish]Agarwal, supra.39. No orde. as to costs." 5. In view of the consensus arrived, the [impugned ][Show]Cause notice and consequentia-l 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.3B of the [order ][dated ][14.09.2023 ][rn]W.P.No.259O3 of 2022. To, 6. The Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. Interlocutoryapplications, if aly pending, shall [also ][stand ][closed] ARSD/. C. [P] ASSISTANT ARSECTIONFFICER ,TRUE 1. The Deputy [Commissioner of ][lncome-[ax' ][Circle 1(1)' Aayakar Bhavan']Hyderabad [- ][500004']Hyderabad [- ][500004'] 2 The Principal [Commissioner of lncome ][Tax-'l ][' ][3rd Floor' Aayakar Bhavan']' -5ooo4B;;i";;#sh, HYderabad ' -5ooo4B;;i";;#sh, HYderabad n t' De [p a ][rtm ][e ][nt ][or ][Reve ][n ][u ][e']t-H"#.I:11%"o31 Illfi [, ]lil ["J? ][Pt ][] ][:x;?, ]:' "''e t-H"#.I:11%"o31 Illfi [, ]lil ["J? ][Pt ][] ][:x;?, ]:' "''e 3 4One CC to [SRl. VENKATRAIVI ] [Advocate ] (One CC to [MS. ][B.SAPNA REDDY (SC FOR ] [TAX) ][ ](One CC to [MS. ][B.SAPNA REDDY (SC FOR ] [TAX) ][ ] ARSD/. C. [P] ASSISTANT ARSECTIONFFICER ,TRUE 1. The Deputy [Commissioner of ][lncome-[ax' ][Circle 1(1)' Aayakar Bhavan']Hyderabad [- ][500004']Hyderabad [- ][500004'] 2 The Principal [Commissioner of lncome ][Tax-'l ][' ][3rd Floor' Aayakar Bhavan']' -5ooo4B;;i";;#sh, HYderabad ' -5ooo4B;;i";;#sh, HYderabad n t' De [p a ][rtm ][e ][nt ][or ][Reve ][n ][u ][e']t-H"#.I:11%"o31 Illfi [, ]lil ["J? ][Pt ][] ][:x;?, ]:' "''e t-H"#.I:11%"o31 Illfi [, ]lil ["J? ][Pt ][] ][:x;?, ]:' "''e 3 4One CC to [SRl. VENKATRAIVI ] [Advocate ] (One CC to [MS. ][B.SAPNA REDDY (SC FOR ] [TAX) ][ ](One CC to [MS. ][B.SAPNA REDDY (SC FOR ] [TAX) ][ ] 6oneCCtoSriGadiPraveenKumar'DeputySolicitorGeneraloflndia[oPUC]7. Two [CD CoPies]7. Two [CD CoPies] 6 HIGH COURT DATED:0210712024 ORDER WP.No.44991 of 2022 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITIONWITHOUT COSTS qLsl""' 1HE2 3 ECT 2|Il4--_:--_ - -