Wp/6343/2024 Of Nageswara Rao Patibandla v. Office Of The Income Tax Officer

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF TVARCHTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDAND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION NO: 63430F 2024 Between: Nageswara Rao Patibandla, S/o Venkateswarulu patibandla, Occ:Businessaged about 66jears, R-/o. H No-4-6-9i502, Srinivasa Towers Savarkar Nagar,aged about 66jears, R-/o. H No-4-6-9i502, Srinivasa Towers Savarkar Nagar,Nacharanr X Rods Nacharam Hyderabad 500026, Telangana, lnOia.pAN.AWQPBBoT3J Assessment Y ear. 2O16-1 7 ...PETITIONER AND 1Office of The lncome Tax Officer, Ward 13(3), Hyderabad, Telangana State. 2The Frincipal Ctief Commissioner Of lncome Tax Telangana And ApHyderabad, lT Towers AC Guards Masab Tank, Hydera6ad TelanganaHyderabad, lT Towers AC Guards Masab Tank, Hydera6ad Telangana JThe Central Board Of Direct 1axes. Represented By lts Chairman,Department of Revenue, Ministry ot Finance, Goveinment of lndia, SecretariatBuildings, New DelhiDepartment of Revenue, Ministry ot Finance, Goveinment of lndia, SecretariatBuildings, New Delhi 4The National Faceless Assessment Center, lncome Tax Department, NewDelhiDelhi The Union Of lndia, Represented By lts Secretary To The Government,Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, New DelhiDepartment of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in thecircumslances 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 order passed by the 3rd (NationalFaceless E-Assessment Centre) completed the assessment U/S 147 read withsection 1448 of the lncome-tax Act Date of Order 23-02-2024,DINITBA/AST/S 114712023-2411061409975(1 ) for the Assessment year 2016'12DINITBA/AST/S 114712023-2411061409975(1 ) for the Assessment year 2016'12determining the total income of Rs. 30,17,01gtas arbitrary, iltegal, bad in law, wrthout jurisdiction, void-ab-initio, vrolative ot the princrples of rralural justice apartfrom being violative of Articres 14, i9(1)(g) and 265 of the constitution of rndra andSec. 14BA of the lncome Tax Act, 1g61, and consequen y set aside the same inthe in terests of justrce. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI THANNERU CHAITANYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: MS. B. SAPNA REDDY,(sc FoR TNCOME rAX) Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI K. RAJESH REDDY, SC The Cou( made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI [P.SAM ] ANDTHE HONOURABLE [JUSTICE N.TUKARAIUJI] UIRIT PETITION No.6343 [2024] ORDER:lper Hon'ble [Si ][Justice ][P.SAM ][KOSHY)] Heard Mr. T.Chaitanya [Kumar, ][learned counsel ][for] the petitioner and Ms. [B.Sapna ][Reddy, learned ][junior]Counsel [for ][Income Tax appearing ][for respondent]Standing Nos. I to 4 and Mr. K.Rajesh [Reddy, ][Iearned ][Standing]Counsel for respondent [No.S. ][Perused ][the entire ][record'] The instant Writ Petition instant Writ Petition Petition [[has ][been ][Iiled ][challenging]][[been ][Iiled ][challenging]][[Iiled ][challenging]][[challenging]] Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI K. RAJESH REDDY, SC The Cou( made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI [P.SAM ] ANDTHE HONOURABLE [JUSTICE N.TUKARAIUJI] UIRIT PETITION No.6343 [2024] ORDER:lper Hon'ble [Si ][Justice ][P.SAM ][KOSHY)] Heard Mr. T.Chaitanya [Kumar, ][learned counsel ][for] the petitioner and Ms. [B.Sapna ][Reddy, learned ][junior]Counsel [for ][Income Tax appearing ][for respondent]Standing Nos. I to 4 and Mr. K.Rajesh [Reddy, ][Iearned ][Standing]Counsel for respondent [No.S. ][Perused ][the entire ][record'] The instant Writ Petition instant Writ Petition Petition [[has ][been ][Iiled ][challenging]][[been ][Iiled ][challenging]][[Iiled ][challenging]][[challenging]] 2. The instant Writ Petition instant Writ Petition Petition [[has ][been ][Iiled ][challenging]][[been ][Iiled ][challenging]][[Iiled ][challenging]][[challenging]]the Assessment Order [passed ][by the ][Income ][Tax]Authorities under [Section 147 ][read ][with ][Section ][l44B ][of]the Income Tax Act, [1961 (hereinafter referred ][to ][as ]["the]Act") dated 29.02.2024 [for ][the ][Assessment Year 2016-17 ][']3. One of the contentions [that ][the petitioner ][has ][raised]in the present Writ [Petition ][is ][that ][under the ][arnended]of the Act [which ][carne ][into ][effect ][from]provisions OI.O4.2O2I, the [respondents, ][while ][proceeding ][under]Section 148 of the [Act, ][were ][required to issue notice under]Section 148A and [provide ][an opportunity ][of hearing ][to ][the] assessee. As per the arnended provision of law, theproceedings to be drawn are also in a faceless manner.Whereas, it has been contended by the petitioner that inthe instant case, reopening has been initiated theby Jurisdictional Assessing Oflicer. In respect ol the saidproceedings to be drawn are also in a faceless manner.Whereas, it has been contended by the petitioner that inthe instant case, reopening has been initiated theby Jurisdictional Assessing Oflicer. In respect ol the saidobjection that the petitioner had raised, he relied upon therecent batch of rvrit petitions decided by this ver1. Bench onrecent batch of rvrit petitions decided by this ver1. Bench onL4.O9.2023 vide W.P.No.259O3 of 2022 and. bartch to thelimited extent.limited extent. 4 . Learned counsel for the for the Department ,,vould not,,vould notdispute of having decided the said objection in theaforesaid batch matters. However, learnerl counselsubmits that apart from the aforesaid objection, there havesubmits that apart from the aforesaid objection, there havebeen other various objections also which the petitioner hasraised in the writ petition. Learned counsel for the for the Department ,,vould not,,vould not 5. So far as this contention of the learned counsel forthe respondent-Department is concerned, this Bench, whiledisposing o[ said batch of writ petitions, had taken note ofthe same at paragraph Nos.37 & 3g which are reproducedherein under: I t "37. TIE [prelimindry ][objection ][raised ][by ][the ][petittoner]is sustained and all these [u-trit ][petitions ][stands ][alloued]on fhis uery [jurisdictional ][issue. ][Since ][tte ][impugned]notices ond orders are [getting quashed on ][tle ][point ][of]jurisdiction, u)e are not inclined to proceed furtLer [and]decide tle other i.ssues raised bg [the ][petitioner ][uhich]stands reserued to be raised and [contended ][in ][an]"appropiate procceding s. '38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in [th.e ][case]of Ashkh Agaruta\ supra, as a [one-time ][measure]exercising the pouers under Article [142 ][of ][the]Constitution of India, [permitted ][tlrc ][Reuenue ][to ][proceed]under the substituted [prouisions, ][and ][this ][Court]allouing the petitions only on [the procedural ]flaut, [the]ight confened on the Reuenue [uould ][remain ][reserued]to proceed further if tLeg so [u-tant ]from [the stage ][of ][the]order of the Supreme Court in the [case ][of ][Ashi-sh]Agaruto\ supra." '38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in [th.e ][case]of Ashkh Agaruta\ supra, as a [one-time ][measure]exercising the pouers under Article [142 ][of ][the]Constitution of India, [permitted ][tlrc ][Reuenue ][to ][proceed]under the substituted [prouisions, ][and ][this ][Court]allouing the petitions only on [the procedural ]flaut, [the]ight confened on the Reuenue [uould ][remain ][reserued]to proceed further if tLeg so [u-tant ]from [the stage ][of ][the]order of the Supreme Court in the [case ][of ][Ashi-sh]Agaruto\ supra." 6. In view of the szune, we are [inclined ][to ][a'llow ][the]present writ peLition also on similar [terms. Accordingly' ][the]present Writ Petition stands allowed on [the ][objection ][of the]petitioner that the proceedings have not [been ][drarvn ][in]accordance with the [arnended ][provision Lrut ][under ][the]un-amended pro\rision which [is ][otherwise ][not ][sustainable.]As has been held by this [Bench ]in [the ][aforesaid ][batch]matters, the rights of the [parties would stand ][reserved ][as ][is]envisaged at [pa-ragraph ][Nos.37 ]& [38 ][of ][the ][said ][order]passed in the said batch of writ petitions. [No ][order ][as ][to] : costs.Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shali stand closed SD/.V.KAVITHAASSrsrANr [*[t.llo*]SECTIO( //TRUE To, 1. 2. 34 ffiffim+*fgqffiH#ffig.*fl,l*'ffi4 ffiffim+*fgqffiH#ffig.*fl,l*'ffi 3t{:*rru^slE:l;ff [s:ti,sfiiiifiiqs"fiitff'ff ];':;"""'6On'e CC [to ][Sri ][Thanneru ][uni]7BBffi BB [u;,: ][.Tsrn ][ffiffi ]['dq*ffffit-}i+izu ]["',]7BBffi BB [u;,: ][.Tsrn ][ffiffi ]['dq*ffffit-}i+izu ]["',] BBB ITwo CD [CoPies]ITwo CD [CoPies] TJ SB @ C"qrl> HIGH COURT DATED:1210312024 ORDER WP.No.6343 of 2024 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITIONWITHOUT COSTS. oi+ I -(i\E [r, ]roTo.?JOO1 6 ilAY 202{a2:t)DcI]PA TT