Wp/5391/2024 Of Vishnuvardhan Reddy Muduganti v. Income Tax Officer

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, IHE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF FEBRUARYTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION NO: s391 OF 2024 Between: Vishnuvard.han Reddy Muduganti, S/o; Late Sri Gopal Reddy, Aged. 54 years,M. Sri Vishnu Sadan, # 68 Villa Grade, Dandamudi Enclaie Road, peiBasheerabad, Beside RTA Office, Medchal Malkajgiri, Hyderabad - 500067M. Sri Vishnu Sadan, # 68 Villa Grade, Dandamudi Enclaie Road, peiBasheerabad, Beside RTA Office, Medchal Malkajgiri, Hyderabad - 500067 ...PETITIONER AND 1lncome Tax Officer, Ward 10(1),1 T Tower, AC Guards, Masab Tank,Hyderabad - 500004Hyderabad - 500004 2The Principal Chief Commissioner Of lncome Tax AP And TS, 1Orh Floor, C-Block, LT. Towers, 10-2-3, A.C. Guards, Hyderabad-500004.Block, LT. Towers, 10-2-3, A.C. Guards, Hyderabad-500004. 3The Assessment Unit, lncome Tax Department, National FacelessAssessment Centre, Delhi, Ministry of Finance, Room No. 4O1,2nd Floor, E-Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, Delhi-1 10003.Assessment Centre, Delhi, Ministry of Finance, Room No. 4O1,2nd Floor, E-Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, Delhi-1 10003. ...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 direclion more particularly one in thenature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the impugned order dt.15.04.2O22 for A.Y.pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direclion more particularly one in thenature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the impugned order dt.15.04.2O22 for A.Y.2015-16 passed u/s 148A(d) of the Act vide DIN No. |TBA/AST/F|148A|2O22-2311042746884(1) and the consequential notice u/s 148 d1.15.O4.2022 vide DINNo. ITBA/ASTlsl148-112022- 2311042747133(1), for A Y. 2015-16, issued by theJAO(1st respondent) instead of FA0(3'd respondent), as void, illegal, and contraryto the provisions of lncome-tax Act and contrary to the Principles of NaturalJustice.No. ITBA/ASTlsl148-112022- 2311042747133(1), for A Y. 2015-16, issued by theJAO(1st respondent) instead of FA0(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 2024 Petition under section 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated inthe affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to stayall further proceedings pursuant to the notice u/s 148 dt.1s.04.2022 vide DIN No.ITBA/AST/S/148 112022- 23t1042747133(1) issued by the [.1.1 ]Respondent(JAO)for A.Y. 2015-16 instead of 3'd respondent (FAO).the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to stayall further proceedings pursuant to the notice u/s 148 dt.1s.04.2022 vide DIN No.ITBA/AST/S/148 112022- 23t1042747133(1) issued by the [.1.1 ]Respondent(JAO)for A.Y. 2015-16 instead of 3'd respondent (FAO). Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI DUNDU MANMOHAN Counsel for the Respondents: SRI VtJHAy K PUNNA (SEN|OR SC FOR ITD) The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TTIKARAMJIWRIT PETITION No.5391 OF 2o24 ORDER:(per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.SAM KOSHY) Heard Sri Dundu Manmohan, Iearned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vrl ay K. Punna, learned Senior StandingCounsel for the Income Tax Department for therespondents. Perused the material on record. 2. The instant Writ Petition has been frled by thepetitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiaseeking the following relief; Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI DUNDU MANMOHAN Counsel for the Respondents: SRI VtJHAy K PUNNA (SEN|OR SC FOR ITD) The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TTIKARAMJIWRIT PETITION No.5391 OF 2o24 ORDER:(per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.SAM KOSHY) Heard Sri Dundu Manmohan, Iearned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vrl ay K. Punna, learned Senior StandingCounsel for the Income Tax Department for therespondents. Perused the material on record. 2. The instant Writ Petition has been frled by thepetitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiaseeking the following relief; "...to issue an appropriate writ, order, or directionmore particularly one in the nature of Writ ofMandamus declaring the impugned order, dated15.04.2022 for A.Y. 2015-16 passed under Section148A(d) of the Act uide DIN No.ITBA/AST /F / l48A/2022-23 /1O42746a84(I) and the consequentialnotice under Section 148, dated 15.04.2022 uideDIN No. ITBA/ AST/ S/ L 48 _r / 2022 -23 / ro427 47 L 33(1) for A.Y. 2015-16 issued by the JAO (1strespondent) instead of FAO (3d respondent) asvoid, illegal and contrary to the provisions oflncome Tax Act and contrary to the Principles ofNatural Justice and pass..." J.One of the contentions that the petitioner has raised inthe present Writ Petition is that under the amended provisions of the Act which carne into effect from PSj(,J & ,lu[R,JW.P.No.539t oJ 2024W.P.No.539t oJ 2024 Ol.O4.2O2l, the respondents, while proceeding underSection 148 of the Act, were required to issue notice underSection 148A and provide ar opportunity of hearing to theassessee. As per the amended provision of law, theproceedings to be drawn are also in a faceless marrner. 4. Whereas, learned counsel for the learned counsel for the 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.259O3 of 2022 &batch, dated 14.O9.2023 wherein this Court disposed of thebatch of writ petitions to the limited extent. Whereas, learned counsel for the learned counsel for the for the petitioner On the other hand, learned Standing the other hand, learned Standing learned Standing Counsel for thethe 5On the other hand, learned Standing the other hand, learned Standing learned Standing Counsel for thetherespondent- Departmentdoes not dispute that the saidobjection was decidedin the aforesaid batch of WritPetitions. However, he further contended that apart fromthe aforesaid objection, there have been other variousobjections a.lso which the petitioner has raised in the writpetition. \ ItI J 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 paragraph Nos.37 & 38 which are reproducedherein under: "37. The prelimtnary objection raised bg the petitioner is sustatned and all th-ese u,trit peiitionssfands allowed on this uery juisdtctional issue.Since the impugned notices and orders are gettingquashed on th.e point of juisdiction, we are notinclined to proceed further and decide th.e otherissues raised bg the petitioner tahich slandsreserued to be raised and contend.ed in on"approp rtate procee ding s. "38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court Lnd, in tlecase of Ashish Agarutal, supra, as a one-timemeasure exercising tLe pouters under Article 142 ofth.e Constitution of India, pennitted the Reuenue toproceed under the substituted prouisions, and thisCourt allowing the petitions only on tlLe proceduralflaw, [the ]ight confened on tle Reuenue wouldremairt reserued to proceed further if theg so utantfrom [tlrc ][stage ][of ][the ][order ]of the Supreme Court inthe case of Ashish Aganaal, supra." 7. In view of the same, we ar€ inclined to allow the "38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court Lnd, in tlecase of Ashish Agarutal, supra, as a one-timemeasure exercising tLe pouters under Article 142 ofth.e Constitution of India, pennitted the Reuenue toproceed under the substituted prouisions, and thisCourt allowing the petitions only on tlLe proceduralflaw, [the ]ight confened on tle Reuenue wouldremairt reserued to proceed further if theg so utantfrom [tlrc ][stage ][of ][the ][order ]of the Supreme Court inthe case of Ashish Aganaal, supra." 7. In view of the same, we ar€ inclined to allow the present writ petition also on similar terms. Accordingly, thepresent Writ Petition stands allowed on the objection of thepetitioner that the proceedings have not been drawn in I 1 PSK,J& irr&JW.P.No.5397 of 2024 accordance with the amended provision but under theun-amended provision which is otherwise not sustainable. 8. As has been held by this Bench in the aforesaid batchmatters, the right of the parties would stand reserved as isenvisaged at paragraph Nos.37 & 3g of the said orderpassed in the batch of writ petitions. No order as to costs. 9. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if anyshall stand closed. SD/. N. SRIHARIASSISTANT REGISTRAR//TRUE COPYIIH'SECTION OFFICER To,1.lncome Tax Officer, Ward 10(1 ),1 T Tower, AC Guards, Masab Tank,Hyderabad - 5000042.The Principal Chief Commissioner Of lncome Tax Ap And Ts, 1Oth Floor, C-Block, l.T. Towers, 10-2-3, A.C. Guards, Hyderabad-500004.3.The Assessment Unit, lncome Tax Department, National FacelessAssessment Centre, Delhi, Ministry of Finance, Room No. 4O1 ,2nd Floor, E-Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, Delhi-110003.4One CC to Sri Dundu Manmohan, Advocate 5One CC to Sn Vijhay K Punna (SENIOR SC for ITD) 6Two CD CopiesTJKKSI HIGH COURT DATED:2910212024 ORDERWP.No.5391 of 2024 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS. @r'6'e (o[B][ lytE ] [ ..:]3 04 ApH,lffto,I.** oPAT CttE0 tI