Ramesh Kumar Agarwal vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

The ground taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner(s) is that in furtherance of Financ e Act, 2021, re- assessment process stood modified but the respondents have not taken care of it and therefore, notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 196 1 cannot sustain judicial scrutiny. Since notice is bad in law, the consequential orders are also bad in law. '

During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the parties agreed that curtains on this issue are finally drawn by this Court in a batch of writ petitions, W.p.No.25903 of 2022 and other connected matters, decided by common order dated 14.09.2023. The parties agreed that this ma.tter may be disposed of in terms of the Comrnon Order dated 14.O9.2023. 2

This Court in the said order dated l4-O9.2O23 rn W.P. \o.25903 of 2022, held as under:

Ia view of the aforesaid discussions, it is by now very clear that the procedure to be follorred by the respotrdent- DepartEent upon treatiEg the notices issued for reassessment being ulrder Section 148A, the subseque[t proceedings was ruaDdatorily requited to be uldertaken uEder the substituted provisions as taid dowa uEder the Finarce Act,2021. In the absence of c,hlch, se are constraiaed to hold that the procedure adopted by the respondetrt-DePartmert is in contraveEtio! to the statute i.e. the Fitrance Act, 2o2l' at tlre tirst iastance. secondly, it is also in direct cootraveEtion to the directives issued by the llon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Agarwal' suPra.

For atl the aforesaid reaaons, the inpugned Dotices issued aDd the proceedings drawn by the respoadent-DepartmeDt is nelther tenable, nor sustainable. The notices so issued arrd the procedure adoPted beitrg pet se illegal, deserves to be and are accorditrgly set aside/quashed. As a colsequetrce, all the impugned orders getting quashed, the consequertial orders passed by the respondent Department pulsuaat to the notices iasued under Section 14? and 148 would also get quashed and it is ordered accordiogly. The reasot we are quashilg the consequential ordet is o! the pri[ciples that when the initiation of the proceediltgs itself was procedurally wioag' the subsequent orders also gets auuified autotratically. 3?. The preumiE.ry objection raised by the petitioner is Euataitred and all these writ petitions staads aUowed on this very lurisdictional isaue. Siace the impugred lrotices aad orders are gettirg quashed on the Poiut of jurisdiction, we are not iucllled to proceed further and decide the othet issues raised by the petitioner which stands reserved to be raised aad couteaded ia alr appropriate proceedings.

Since the Ho!'ble Supt'eEe Court had, i! the case of Ashish Agarc/al, supra, as a one-tiEe measure exercising the powera utrder Article 142 of the Constitution of India, permitted the Revenue to proceed u!de. the substituted provlsions, aud this Court allowing the Petitions only on the procedural flaw, the right colferted olr the Revenue would I

No order as to costs.-

In view of the consensus arrived, the impugned Show Cause notice and consequentia_l orders passed in this writ petition zre set aside. Liberty is reserved to both the parties to take respective stand and to proceed in accordance with law as per paragraph No.38 ofthe order dated 14.09.2023 in W.P.No.25903 of 2022. 6. The Writ Petition is a_llowed. No costs. Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed. ; 1 //// T, TIRUMALA DEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, T '1 . Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax, Circle 8(1), Hyderabad, Signature Towers, Sy.No.6(P) of Kondapur, Sy.No.37(P) of Kothaguda, OPP. Botanical Gardens, Serlingarnpally, Ranga Reddy, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500084. 2. The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax AP and TS, 1Oth Flbor, C-Block, l.T. Towers, 10-2-3, A.C. Guards, Hyderabad-500004. 3. One CC to Sri Dundu Manmohan, Advocate IOPUC]

One CC to Ms. Bokaro Sapna Reddy (Jr. SC for lncome Tax) [OPUC]

Two CD Copies l ,W J -.1 /