Wp/5159/2024 Of Rama Trading Company v. Office Of The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF FEBRUARYTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION NO: 5159 OF 2024 Between RAIMA TRADING COIMPANY, Rep. by its partner, Avunoori Ravikumar S/o AvunooriVenkatesham aged about 48 years, Occ. Business 3-1-105, MAIN ROADPEDDAPALLY, KARIA/INAGAR DIST, 505172, Telangana, lndia PAN. AAGFR7989FAssessment Y ear. 201 B-1 9 ..PETITIONER AND 1Office of the Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax, Circle 1, KARIIVNAGARTelangana State.Telangana State.2The Principal Chief Commissioner Of lncome Tax Telangana And ApHyderabad, lT Towers, AC Guards, l/asab Tank, Hyderabad-500028.Hyderabad, lT Towers, AC Guards, l/asab Tank, Hyderabad-500028.3The Central Board of Direct Taxes, Represented by its Chairman, Departmentof Revenue .1 N/inistry of Finance Government of lndia Secretariat BuildingsNew Delhi - 10 00'1 .of Revenue .1 N/inistry of Finance Government of lndia Secretariat BuildingsNew Delhi - 10 00'1 . 4. The National Faceless Assessment Centre, lncome Tax Department NewDelhiDelhi 5. The Union Of lndia, Represented By lts Secretary To The Government,Department of Revenue, lVlinistry of Finance New DelhiDepartment of Revenue, lVlinistry of Finance New Delhi ...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 an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one inthe nature of Writ of f\landamus declaring the order passed by the lncome TaxAuthorities (National Faceless E- Assessment Centre completed the assessmentUIS 147 r/w Section 144-8 of the lncome Tax Act, 1961 vide DIN and NoticeNo.dated 24-01-2024 in ITBA/AST/S/147/2023-2411060062176(1) for thepleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one inthe nature of Writ of f\landamus declaring the order passed by the lncome TaxAuthorities (National Faceless E- Assessment Centre completed the assessmentUIS 147 r/w Section 144-8 of the lncome Tax Act, 1961 vide DIN and NoticeNo.dated 24-01-2024 in ITBA/AST/S/147/2023-2411060062176(1) for the assessment year 2018-19 determrning the totar income ot Rs. 1,16,50,501^asarbitrary, illegal, bad in law, without jurisdiction, void, ab- initio, violative of thearbitrary, illegal, bad in law, without jurisdiction, void, ab- initio, violative of theprinciples of natural justice apart from being violative of Articles 1 , i 9(1 and265 of the Constitution of lndia and Sec. 14gA of the tncome Tax Act, 196.1 Xg) , andconsequenfly set aside the same., andconsequenfly set aside the same. Counsel for the petitioner :SRt THANNERU CHAITANyA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: S_Rl SUNDART R plSUpATl,(Sr SC for lncome Tax Dept)(Sr SC for lncome Tax Dept) The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE [P.SAM KOSHY] AND THE HONOURABLE [N.TUKARAMJT]WRIT PETITIO [No.5159 ] [2024] ORDER:(per Hon'ble Si [Justice P.SAM ][KOSHY)] Heard Mr.T.Chaitanya [Kumar, ][learned ][counsel ][for] the petitioner and Ms.sundari [R. ][Pasupati, Iearned ][Senior]Standing Counsel for [the ][lncome ][Tax ][Department ][for]Perused [the ][materia,l ][available on record']respondents. 2. The instant Writ Petition [has ][been ][filed ][by ][the]petitioner under Articl e 226 of [the ][Constitution ][of ][India]seeking for the following [relief:] Counsel for the petitioner :SRt THANNERU CHAITANyA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: S_Rl SUNDART R plSUpATl,(Sr SC for lncome Tax Dept)(Sr SC for lncome Tax Dept) The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE [P.SAM KOSHY] AND THE HONOURABLE [N.TUKARAMJT]WRIT PETITIO [No.5159 ] [2024] ORDER:(per Hon'ble Si [Justice P.SAM ][KOSHY)] Heard Mr.T.Chaitanya [Kumar, ][learned ][counsel ][for] the petitioner and Ms.sundari [R. ][Pasupati, Iearned ][Senior]Standing Counsel for [the ][lncome ][Tax ][Department ][for]Perused [the ][materia,l ][available on record']respondents. 2. The instant Writ Petition [has ][been ][filed ][by ][the]petitioner under Articl e 226 of [the ][Constitution ][of ][India]seeking for the following [relief:] "to issue an [appropiote ][uit ][order ][or ][direction ][more]particutarlg -the one tn the nature of [Writ ][of Mondamtts declaring]order passed by the Income Tox Authoities NationalFaceless.& Assessment [Centre ][completed ][the ][assessment]U/S 147 r/tu Section [1448 of ][the ][Income Tax ][Act ][1961 ][uide]DIN and Notice No dated 24/01/2024 inITBA/ AST/ S/ 147/202324/ 1060062176(1) fo' theassessment geor [2O ][1819 ][determining ][the total ][income ][of]Rs.1,16,5O,501/- as [arbitrory illegal ][bad ][in ][lanu ][utithout]pisdtction uoid ab initio [uioLatiue ][of ][the ][principles ]-of [nahtral]-265 justice apart from being uiolatiue of Articles [14 ][19(1)(g) ][and]of the Constitution of India and Sec 148A of the IncomeTox Act 1961 and consequentlA [set ][oside the ][some ][in ][the]interests of [justice".] 3. One of the contentions that the petitioner has raisedin the present Writ Petition is that under the amendedprovisions of the Act which came into effect fromOl .O4.2O21, the respondents, while proceeding underSection 148 of the Act, were required to issue notice underSection 148A and provide an opportunity of hearing to theassessee. As per the amended provision of las,, theproceedings to be drawn are also in a faceless manner. 4. Whereas, learned counsel for the petitionercontended that, in the instalt 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.259O3 of 2022 &batch, dated 14.O9.2023 wherein this Court disposed of thebatch of writ petitions to the limited extent.5. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for therespondent-Department does not dispute that the saidobjection was decided in the aforesaid batch of WritPetitions. However, he further contended that apart fromthe aforesaid objection, there have been other various objections also which the petitioner has raised in the writpetition. 6. So far as this contention of the learned counsel forthe respondent-Department is concerned, this Bench, whiledisposing of said batch of writ petitions, had taken note ofthe same at paragaph Nos.37 & 38 which are reproducedherein under: "37. The preliminary objection raised by tLrc petitioneris sustained and all these writ petifions stands allowedon this uery juisdictional issue. Since the impugnednotices and orders are getting quashed on tlte point ofjuisdiction, u)e ore not inclined to proceed further anddecide tte other issues raised by the petitioner uhichstands reserued to be raised and contended in an"ap p ro p riate p ro ceeding s. "38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the case of Ashish Aganaal, supra, as a one-time measureexercbing the powers under Article 142 of theConstitution of India, permitted tLe Reuenue to proceedunder the substituted prouisions, and this CourtallouLing the petitions only on the procedural flotu, theright confered on the Reuenue toould remain reseruedto proceed further if theg so u.tant from the stage of theorder of the Supreme Court in the case of AshishAgaru.rul, supra." 7. In view of the same, we are inclined to allow thepresent writ petition also on similar terms. Accordingly, thepresent Writ Petition stands allowed on the objection of the "38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the case of Ashish Aganaal, supra, as a one-time measureexercbing the powers under Article 142 of theConstitution of India, permitted tLe Reuenue to proceedunder the substituted prouisions, and this CourtallouLing the petitions only on the procedural flotu, theright confered on the Reuenue toould remain reseruedto proceed further if theg so u.tant from the stage of theorder of the Supreme Court in the case of AshishAgaru.rul, supra." 7. In view of the same, we are inclined to allow thepresent writ petition also on similar terms. Accordingly, thepresent Writ Petition stands allowed on the objection of the petitioner that the proceedings have not been drawn inaccordance with the amended provision but under theun-amended provision which is otherwise not sustainable.un-amended provision which is otherwise not sustainable. B. As has been held by this Bench in the aforesaid batchmatters, the rights of the parties would stand reserved as isenvisaged at paragraph Nos.37 & 38 of the said orderpassed in the batch of writ petitions. No order as to costs.Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any,shall stand closed. / SD/. MOHD. SANAULLAH ANSARIASSISTANT REGISTAAR //rRUE coPY/' S, SECTION OFFICER To,1. The Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax, Circle 1, KARIIvINAGARTelangana State.1. The Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax, Circle 1, KARIIvINAGARTelangana State. 2. The Principal Chief Commissioner Of lncome Tax Telangana And ApHyderabad, lT Towers, AC Guards, lt/asab Tank, Hyderabad-500028.Hyderabad, lT Towers, AC Guards, lt/asab Tank, Hyderabad-500028. 3. The Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes, Department of RevenueA/inistry of Finance Government of lndia Secretariat Buildings New Delhi -.1 10 001 .A/inistry of Finance Government of lndia Secretariat Buildings New Delhi -.1 10 001 .4. The National Faceless Assessment Centre, lncome Tax Department NewDelhiDelhi 5. The Secretary To The Government, Union Of lndia, Department of Revenue,tr/inistry of Finance New Delhitr/inistry of Finance New Delhi 6. One CC to SRI THANNERU CHAITANYA KUIvIAR, Advocate. 7. One CC to SRI SUNDARI R PISUPATI, (Sr SC for lncome Tax Dept). 8. Two CD Copies.BSKGJP7. One CC to SRI SUNDARI R PISUPATI, (Sr SC for lncome Tax Dept). 8. Two CD Copies.BSKGJP CVW HIGH COURT DATED:2810212024 ORDERWP.No.5159 of 2024 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITIONWITHOUT COSTS 0.i\Lh iY\ [STAr€],kc:cj,0? [r+e ][mt]I 6c-cpt.Tc,i