Wp/9601/2024 Of Umadevi Bandikatla v. The Income Tax Officer

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF APRILTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENf THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAULAND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION NO: 9601 oF 2024 Between: Umadevi tandikatla, D/o Vishnumurthy Bandikatla, Aged 59 years, Occ.g-o-c!o_r_ in Govt. Hospital, 16-2-83616t2.' LtC Cotony, Saldabad, Hydeiabad-500059.500059. ...PETITIONER AND 1The^lncome Tax Officer, \Nard 12(11, Hyderabad, Aaykar Bhawan, OppositeLB Stadium, Basheer Bagh, Hyderabad, Telangana, ['SOOOOq.]LB Stadium, Basheer Bagh, Hyderabad, Telangana, ['SOOOOq.] 2The 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. JThe Assessment Unit, lncome Tax Department, National FacelessAssessment Centre, Delhi, Ministry Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, Dethi-110003of Finance, Room No 4O1 , Znd Floor, E-Assessment Centre, Delhi, Ministry Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, Dethi-110003of Finance, Room No 4O1 , Znd Floor, E- .RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constrtution of lndia praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may bepleased toto issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one inthe nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the Assessn'tent Order dt.1 5.03.2024the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the Assessn'tent Order dt.1 5.03.2024passed by the 3d respond ent uts 147 rw s1448 of the lncome-tax Act for A.y.2015-16 vide DIN No. ITBA/AST/S 114712023-2411062700823(1). which is passedas a consequence of the order passed u/s 14BA(d) dt 18.04.2022 vide DIN No.ITBAJAST/F/148 N2022-2311O42762O17(11 and the notrce u/s 148 dt 18.04.2022vide DIN No.ITBA,/AST/S 1148 112022- 2311042762540( 1 ), issued by rhe JAo(1stvide DIN No.ITBA,/AST/S 1148 112022- 2311042762540( 1 ), issued by rhe JAo(1strespondent) instead of FAO(3rd respondent). that too contrary to provrsions ofsection 149 of the Act, as void, illegal, and contrary to the provisions of Income-taxAcl and contrary to the Principles of Natural Justicesection 149 of the Act, as void, illegal, and contrary to the provisions of Income-taxAcl and contrary to the Principles of Natural Justice lA NO: 1 OF 2o?4 Petitron under Sectron ['151 ]CPC [praying ]that [in ]the [circumstances stated ][in]the affidavit filed in support of the [petition, ][the ][High Court may ][be ][pleased to stay]all furtl.rer [proceedings pursuant to the Assessment Order ][dl-15.O3 ][z}24passed ][by]the 3rdrespondenl uls 147 [r.w.s144B ][of the ][lncome-tax ][Act ][for A ] [2015-16 ][vide]DIN No ITBA/ASr H [1 ][47 ][12023' ][241 ][1062700823(1),] Counsel for the Petitioner: [MANIiOHAN] Counsel for the Respondents: [SRI K. ] SRI VIJHAY K PUNNA [(SENIOR SC FOR ][ITD)] The Court rnade the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAULANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJIWRIT PETITION N0.9601 0F 20.24 ORDER: lDer Honbte Sp.J) Heard Sri Manmohan Dundu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K. Aroam, learned Counsel representingSri Vijhay K Punna, learned Senior Standing Counsel for IncomeTax appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. The ground taken by the learned counsel for thepetitioner is that in furtherance of Finance Act, 2021, re-assessment process stood modified but the respondents have nottaken care of it and therefore notice issued under Section 148 ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 calnot sustain judicial scrutiny. Sincenotice is bad in law, the consequential orders are also bad inlaw. 3. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAULANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJIWRIT PETITION N0.9601 0F 20.24 ORDER: lDer Honbte Sp.J) Heard Sri Manmohan Dundu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K. Aroam, learned Counsel representingSri Vijhay K Punna, learned Senior Standing Counsel for IncomeTax appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. The ground taken by the learned counsel for thepetitioner is that in furtherance of Finance Act, 2021, re-assessment process stood modified but the respondents have nottaken care of it and therefore notice issued under Section 148 ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 calnot sustain judicial scrutiny. Sincenotice is bad in law, the consequential orders are also bad inlaw. 3. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the parties agreed that curtains on this issue are hnally draw,n bythis Court in a batch of writ petitions, W.P.No.25903 of 2022and other connected matters, decided by common order datedthis Court in a batch of writ petitions, W.P.No.25903 of 2022and other connected matters, decided by common order dated14.O9 .2023. The parties agreed that this matter may be disposedof in terms of the Common Order dated 14 .O9 .2023.of in terms of the Common Order dated 14 .O9 .2023. "35. ln [view ][of the ][aforesaid ][discussions, ][it ][is by ][now very ][clear ][that]the [procedure ]to [be ][followed ][by ][the ][respondent-DePartment upon]treating the notices [issued ][for ][reassessment ][being under ][Section]148A, the subsequent [proceedings ][was ][mandatorily required ][to ][be]undertaken under [the ][substituted provisions ][as ][laid ][down ][under the]Finance Act, [2021. ][ln the absence of which, we ][are ][constrained ][to hold]that the [procedure adopted ][by ][the ][resPondent-Department ][is ][in]contravention [to ][the ][statute ][i.e. ][the ][Finance ][Act, ][2021' ][at ][the ][first]instance. Secondly, [it ][is ][also in direct contravention ][to the ][directives]issued by the [Hon'ble ][SuPreme ][Court in the ][case ][of ][Ashish ][Agarwal']supra. 36. For all the [aforesaid reasons' ][the ][impugned ][notices ][issued ][and ][the]the [respondent-Department ][is ][neither ][tenable']proceedings drawn [by ]nor sustainable- [The ][notices ][so ][issued and ][the ][procedure ][adopted]se [illegal, ][deserves ][to ][be ][and ][are ][accordingly ][set]being [per ]aside/quashed. [As ][a ][consequence, ][all the ][impugned ][orders ][getting]quashed, the consequential [orders ][passed ][by ][the ][respondent]Oepartment [pursuant to the notices issued ][under Section ][147 and ][148]would also [get ][quashed ][and ][it ][is ][ordered ][accordingly' ][The reason ][we]are [quashing ][the ][consequential order ][is ][on the ][principles ][that ][when]the initiation of the [proceedings ][itself ][was ][procedurally ][wrong' ][the]subsequent [orders ][also gets ][nullified automatically'] 37. The [preliminary objection ][raised ][by ][the petitioner ][is sustained and]all these writ [petitions stands ][allowed on ][this ][very ][jurisdictional ][issue']Since the [impugned notices and ][orders ][are ][getting ][quashed ][on ][the]point of [jurisdiction, ][we are ][not ][inclined ][to ][proceed ][further ][and decide]the other [issues raised by the petitioner which stands ][reserved ][to ][be]raised and contended [in an ][appropriate proceedings'] 38. Since the [Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Court ][had, ][in ][the ][case ][of ][Ashish]Agarwal, supra, [as a one-time ][measure ][exercising ][the ][Powers under]Article 142 of the Constitution [of ][lndia, permitted ][the ][Revenue to]proceed under the substituted [provisions, ][and ]this [Court allowing the]petitions only on the [procedural ]flaw, the [right ][conferred ][on ][the]Revenue would [remain reserved ][to ][proceed ][further ][if ][they ][so ][want] from the stage of the order [of the ][Supreme ][Court in the ][case ][of ][Ashish] Agan ral, supra. 39. No order as to costs." 38. Since the [Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Court ][had, ][in ][the ][case ][of ][Ashish]Agarwal, supra, [as a one-time ][measure ][exercising ][the ][Powers under]Article 142 of the Constitution [of ][lndia, permitted ][the ][Revenue to]proceed under the substituted [provisions, ][and ]this [Court allowing the]petitions only on the [procedural ]flaw, the [right ][conferred ][on ][the]Revenue would [remain reserved ][to ][proceed ][further ][if ][they ][so ][want] from the stage of the order [of the ][Supreme ][Court in the ][case ][of ][Ashish] Agan ral, supra. 39. No order as to costs." In view of the consensus view of the consensus of the consensus consensus [[arriv€d, ]][[the ][impugned ][Show]][[impugned ][Show]][[Show]] 5. In view of the consensus view of the consensus of the consensus consensus [[arriv€d, ]][[the ][impugned ][Show]][[impugned ][Show]][[Show]]Cause [. ]notice and consequential [orders ][passed ][in ][this ][writ]petition are set aside. Liberty is [reserved ][to ][both the ][pa'rties ][to]take respective stand and to [proceed ][in ][accordance ][with ][law ][as]per paragraph No.38 of the order [dated ][14'O9'2023 ][in]W.P.No.259O3 of 2022. 6. The writ petition is allowed. [No ][costs' ][Interlocutory]applications, if any [pending, ][shall ][also ][stand ][closed'] SD/-K.SREERAMA ASSISTANT RARSECTIN OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To,1 Tlre Income Tax Officer, Ward [12(1), Hyderabad, Aaykar Bhawan' Opposite]LB Stacliurn, Basheer [Bagh, Hyderabad' Telangana, 500004]1 Tlre Income Tax Officer, Ward [12(1), Hyderabad, Aaykar Bhawan' Opposite]LB Stacliurn, Basheer [Bagh, Hyderabad' Telangana, 500004] 2 - The Principal Chief C-Block t t. Towers, [Commissioner ]1O-2-3, A.C. Guards, Hyderabad-500004 [Of ][lncome Tax Ap ][And ][Ts, ]['lOth ]'[Floor'] 3 - The Assessment a.rn.i-"nt Centre, [Unit, lncome Tax ]oelhi, Ministry [Department,National ]of Finance, Room No' [Faceless]401' 2nd Floor'E Rurrrp Jawaharlal [Nehru Stadium, ][Delhi-1 10003]E Rurrrp Jawaharlal [Nehru Stadium, ][Delhi-1 10003] 4 one cc to SRI DUNDU [I\4ANMOHAN, ][Advocate ] 5 one CC to SRl. [PUNNA (SENIOR SC FOR ][ITD) ][ ] 6 Two CD CopiesGBRGBRkKKS HIGH COURT DATED:16/0412024 ORDER WP.No.9601 of 2024 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITIONWITHOUT COSTS V,V 1i-rr', [ti ] [r,l ][<i]osY('J,-)0 [1 it,it ][21124]