Wp/6646/2024 Of Ashok Kumar Katakam v. Income Tax Officer

I]IGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF IMARCHTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYAND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION NO: 6646 OF 2024 Between: Ashok Kumar Katakam, S/o t(atakam Narahari, aged 57 years H. No.3_49/42l.1,!g-s9r11 [Nag Old Alwal, Post ][Boilaram, ][Secunderabid, ][Ranja ][Reddy, ][Telangana_]500010. .....PETITIONER AND 1. lncome Tax Officer. Ward2(1), Signature Towers, Sy.No.6(p) of Kondapur,!V [No 37(P) of Kothaguda, OPP. Botanicat ][Garden6, ][Serirhgampaily, ]dangaReddy, Hyderabad, Tetangana - 500084.!V [No 37(P) of Kothaguda, OPP. Botanicat ][Garden6, ][Serirhgampaily, ]dangaReddy, Hyderabad, Tetangana - 500084. 2. 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.Block, l.T. Towers, 10-2-3, A.C. Guards, Hyderabad-500004. 3. The Assessment Unit, lncome Tax Department, National FacelessAssessment Centre, Delhi, Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, t\4inistry Delhi-1 of Finance, Room [j ]0003.No. 401 , 2nd Floor, E_Assessment Centre, Delhi, Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, t\4inistry Delhi-1 of Finance, Room [j ]0003.No. 401 , 2nd Floor, E_ .....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 pa(icularly one inthe nature of writ of [r/landamus, declaring the Assessment order dr.2sto1t2o24passed by the 3rdrespondent u/s 147 r.w_s1448 of the lncome-tax Act for A,y.201 5-1 6 vide DIN No. lrBA/AST tst 1 47 t2023-24t 1o601223s6(1 ),which is passedas a consequence of the order passed u/s 1a8A(d) dt.131)412022 vide DIN No.IrBA/AST/F/1 4BAl 2022-231 10427 37a64I') and the notice u/s 1 48 dt.13to4t2o22vide DIN No. ITBA/AST lsl148 1/2022- 23t1O42737899(.1 ), issued by the JAO(tst respondent) instead of FAo(3rd respondent), that too contrary to provisions ofsection 1490f the Act,as void, iflegar, and contrary to the provisions of rncome_tax Act and contrary to the prrnciples of natural justice.section 1490f the Act,as void, iflegar, and contrary to the provisions of rncome_tax Act and contrary to the prrnciples of natural justice. l.A.NO:1 oF 2024 Petition Under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances statedin the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be preased tostay all further proceedings pursuant to the Assessment orderdt.25lo1l2o24passed by the 3rdrespondent u/s 147 t.w.s144B of the Income_taxAct for A'Y- 20 1 5-1 6 vide DrN No |rBA/AST r s r 1 47 12023-241 1 0601 21 3s6(1 l. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI DUNDU MANMOHAN !9_Ynsel [for the Respondents ][: Ms ][suNrrHA, ] FoR Ms suNDARr RPlsuPATt (SR SC FOR TNCOME TAX DEPT) The Court made the following ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYAND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJTWRIT PETITION No.6646 OF 2024 ORDER:(per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.SAM KOSHY) Heard Mr.Dundu Manmohan, Icarncd counsel for thepetitioner, Ms.Sunitha, lcarncd Standing Counseirepresenting Ms.Sundari R Pasupati, learned SeniorStarding Counsel for respondcnts. Pcrused the materialavailable on record. 2. The instant Writ Petitron has bcen filed by thepetitioner under Article 226 ol Ll'rc Constitution of Indiaseeking for the following rclic[: Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI DUNDU MANMOHAN !9_Ynsel [for the Respondents ][: Ms ][suNrrHA, ] FoR Ms suNDARr RPlsuPATt (SR SC FOR TNCOME TAX DEPT) The Court made the following ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYAND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJTWRIT PETITION No.6646 OF 2024 ORDER:(per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.SAM KOSHY) Heard Mr.Dundu Manmohan, Icarncd counsel for thepetitioner, Ms.Sunitha, lcarncd Standing Counseirepresenting Ms.Sundari R Pasupati, learned SeniorStarding Counsel for respondcnts. Pcrused the materialavailable on record. 2. The instant Writ Petitron has bcen filed by thepetitioner under Article 226 ol Ll'rc Constitution of Indiaseeking for the following rclic[: "to issue on oppropriote writ order or direction more porticulorly one inthe noturc of Writ of Mondomus decloring the Assessment Order dt25,/o1/2024possed by the 3rdrespondent u/s 147 r w s1448 of thelncometox Act lor A Y 2015-16 vide DIN NolrBA/ASl/S/147/202324/10601273561 which is possed os oconsequence of the order possed u/s 148Ad dt 13/04/2022 vide DIN NoITBA/AST/F/148A/202223/10427378641 ond the notice u/s 148 dt13,/04/2022 vide DtN No |TBA/AST /5/148 1/2022 23/70427378991issued by the JAO 1't respondent insteod of FAO3rd respondent thot toocontrory to provisions of section 149of the AcL os void illegol ondcontrory to the provisions of lncome tox Acl ond controry to thePrinciples oI Noturol Justice ". 3. One ol the contentions that the petitioner has raisedin the present Writ Petitlon is that under the amendedprovisions of the Act which came into effect fromOl.O4.2O2l, the respondcnts, while proceeding underSection 148 of the Act, nere rcquired to issue notice underSection 14BA and provide an opportunity of hearing to theassessee. As per the amended provision of 1aw, theproceedings to bc drawn rire also in a facclcss rnanner.4. Whereas, learned counsel for the petitionercontended that, in thc instarnt case, rcopening has beeninitiated by the Jurisdicrional Assessing Oificer. ln supportof his contention, he relicd upon the reccnt judgmcntrendered bJ, thi" very Bench in Wp.No.259O3 of 2022 &,batch, datecl 14.O9.2023 wherein this Court disposed of thcbatch of writ petitions to thc limited extent. 5. On the other hand, Iearned Standing Counsel lor therespondent- Deparlment does not dispute that the saidobjection was decided in the aforesaid batch ol WritPetitions. However, hc further contended that apart fromthe aloresaid object.ion, therc have been other various^I objections also which the petitioner has raised in the writpetitionpetition 6. So far as this contention far as this contention as this contention this contention contention of thc learned counsel forthc learned counsel forlearned counsel forcounsel forthe respondent-Department is concerncd, this Bench, whiledisposing of said batch of wrir pctitions, had taken nore ofthe same at paragraph Nos.37 & 3g which are reproduced So far as this contention far as this contention as this contention this contention contention of thc learned counsel forthc learned counsel forlearned counsel forcounsel for herein under: ?7 [fhe ][preliminary ][objectiort ][raised ]br1 the petitionerrs sustarned and all these urit petittons srandi allotuedoru .this uery jurisrlictional issite. Since the i,ipugnea:?:r:: ::! [orders ][are ][g.euinq ][quasheri on ][the ]iltnt [of]Juf'tsdtctton, u)e are not inclirted to proceed furtier and.decide the other issues raisetl bu ihe petitioner-ranichstands reserued to be raised inci conlende:d. irL anapltropiate p rocee dinq s. " So far as this contention far as this contention as this contention this contention contention of thc learned counsel forthc learned counsel forlearned counsel forcounsel for herein under: ?7 [fhe ][preliminary ][objectiort ][raised ]br1 the petitionerrs sustarned and all these urit petittons srandi allotuedoru .this uery jurisrlictional issite. Since the i,ipugnea:?:r:: ::! [orders ][are ][g.euinq ][quasheri on ][the ]iltnt [of]Juf'tsdtctton, u)e are not inclirted to proceed furtier and.decide the other issues raisetl bu ihe petitioner-ranichstands reserued to be raised inci conlende:d. irL anapltropiate p rocee dinq s. " "38. Stnce the Hon'ble Suprerne Court had, in the caseof As.lti.sh Agarwal, supra, as a one_time meosureTercistng_ [tlte ][potters ][under ][Article 142 ];f theConstihttion of India, permiued the Reuenue to pio...aund.er the substituted" prouisions, and. this CourtallguinO the petitions only on the proced_ural Jlau_,, theright conferred on ttLe Reuenue uould remain reserued.,:-f:in"^d.Pnher if they so tuont from the stage of tteo.rder oJ the Supreme Court itt the cose oj e"nirnAgarutal, supra." 7. In view of the samc, \,c arc inclined to allow the present writ petition also on similar terms. Accordingly, thepresent Writ Petition stands allou,cd on the objection of the petitioner that thc [proceodings ][have ][not ][been ][drar'r'n ][in]accordance \\'ith the amcnded [provision ][but ][under ][the]un-amended [provision lvhich is ][otherwise ][not ][sustainable']8. As has been held by this [Bench ][in ][the ][a-foresaid ][batch]matters, the rights of [the partics ][would ][stand ][reserved ][as ][is]envisaged at paragraph [Nos.37 ][& ][38 of the ][said ][order]passed in tht: batch ol'rt'rit [petitions. ][No ][order as to ][costs']Consequenth', misccllaneous [petitions ][pending, ][if ][any,]shall stand closed. SD/. V. KAVITHAASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTIOOFFICER To 1The lncome Tax Officer, [Ward2(1), Signature ][Towers' ][Sy ][No 6(P) ][of]XonOaprr, Sy.No,37(P) [of Kothaguda, ] [Botanical Gardens']d.ri.-rir*pairv, [Ranga Reddy, Hyderabad, ][Teianq.ana ][- ][500C34']XonOaprr, Sy.No,37(P) [of Kothaguda, ] [Botanical Gardens']d.ri.-rir*pairv, [Ranga Reddy, Hyderabad, ][Teianq.ana ][- ][500C34']2il; Pii;;i;;i erriei [iommissloner ][of lncome Tax AP ][and ][rs, ][1oth ][Floor' ][c-]sioik, t r ['rowers, ][10-2-3, A ][C. Guards, Hyderabad-500004]sioik, t r ['rowers, ][10-2-3, A ][C. Guards, Hyderabad-500004]3in" ntt"tt."nt [Unit, lncome ][Tax ][Department, ][National ][Faceless]n.i".i*"nr Centre, [Delhi, Ministry of Finance, Room ][No ][4O1 ]' [2nd ][Floor' ] Ramp, Jawaharlal [Nehru ][Stadium' ][Delhi-1 ][100-03 ]--n.i".i*"nr Centre, [Delhi, Ministry of Finance, Room ][No ][4O1 ]' [2nd ][Floor' ] Ramp, Jawaharlal [Nehru ][Stadium' ][Delhi-1 ][100-03 ]--4to"" o;; ['Cc ]aC to Sri io [tVs. ][Dundu Manmohan, Advocale ][Sundari R Pisupaii (Sr ] [foi ][ ][lncome Tax Dept) ]-6Two CD CoPies6Two CD CoPies SAKKS \ HIGH COURT DATED:1410312024 ORDER WP.No.6646 of 2024 ALLOWING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. @ [C"1it>]qbv k\E ;E()(q>'-t0ill [Y2[2{.:t.1.I'* ot ,/,.'/