Mallaiah Vanaparthy vs. The Income Tax Officer

PDF · subscribers
WP/2152/2024HC TelanganaHBHC01004157202430 January 2024Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,N.TUKARAMJI7 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the writ petition, following its previous decision in W.P. No. 25903 of 2022 & batch. The Court held that the proceedings were not drawn in accordance with the amended provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, but under the unamended provisions, rendering them unsustainable. The Court explicitly stated that it was not inclined to proceed further and decide other issues raised by the petitioner, as the impugned notices and orders were being quashed on the point of jurisdiction. The right of the revenue to proceed further was reserved as envisaged in paragraphs 37 and 38 of the previous order, which referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Ashish Agrawal. The operative direction was to set aside the assessment order.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Mallarah Vanaparthv, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order passed by the National Faceless E-Assessment Centre under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2018-19. The order determined the total income at Rs. 1,11,66,800. The petitioner contended that the assessment proceedings were initiated by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, not in a faceless manner as required by amended provisions, and that the mandatory notice under Section 148A and an opportunity of hearing were not provided. The respondents, represented by the Standing Counsel, acknowledged that the jurisdictional issue was decided in a previous batch of writ petitions by the same bench but argued that other objections also existed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2018-19, were vitiated by not being conducted in a faceless manner as mandated by the amended provisions of the Act, and by the initiation of proceedings by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of the National Faceless E-Assessment Centre. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that post-amendment (effective from 01.04.2021), proceedings under Section 148 of the Act must be faceless and require issuance of a notice under Section 148A with an opportunity of hearing. They relied on a previous judgment by the same bench in W.P. No. 25903 of 2022 & batch. Revenue's Contention: The revenue acknowledged that the jurisdictional objection was decided in the aforementioned batch of writ petitions but stated that the petitioner had raised other objections as well.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144B,Section 148A,Section 148,Section 156

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION NO: 2152 OF 2024 [ 337s ] ...PETITIONER Between: Mallarah Vanaparthv S/o pedda Rajarah Vanaparthy, Age 62 years, occ Agricurrurb. H No 1 93 xaieJmpe-i-vrragll Snanrarapatnam Mandar, Karimnagar - 505490. Telangana tndr; pAN diOpvreaqa AND 1. 2. The lncome Tax Officer. Ward-2, Kanmnagar Telangana State. The .Principal Chlef Commrssroner of tncome I ax J elanqana and Andhra Pradesh. lT Towers AC Grrards l/aseo lank Hyde;b;;- 500 02g, Telangana The Central Board of Direct Taxes. Represented by its Chairman, Department of Revenue, Mrnistry of Frnance. Government oi rni,", r.fu,i Oerni_ r r'O Obi. - The Natronal Faceless Assessment Center lncome Tax Department, New Delhi. It^U-l"l:ti*ra Represenred by rrs Secrerary ro the Government, uepanment ot Revenue Mrnrstry of Frnance. New Delhi - 1.lO OO1. 3 4 5 ...RESPONDENTS Petrtion under Artrcle 226 of the Constrtutron of lndra praying that in the circumstances stated rn the affrdavrt fired therewrth the Hrgh court may be pleased to issue a Writ of ft/andanius or any other appropnate Writ, Order, or Direction, decraring the order passed by the rncome Tax Authorities (Nationar Faceless E-Assessment cenlre conlpreted the assessrnent U/s 147 r/w section 144-Bof the lncome Tax Acr i 961 vrde DrN and Notrce No.dated o4to1r2oz3 in lrBtuAST/s/147 12023-24ri059385 r 34(1)for the assessment yeat 2o1a-rc determining the totar income of Rs 1..1 1.66 800/ as arbrtrary rlegal, bad in law,

without lurrsdlctton votd-ab-tnitto. from being vrolatrve of Arttcles 14 Sec. 148A of the lncome Tax Act the interests of lustrce vrolative of the principles of natural Justice apart 19(1Xg) and 265 of the Constitution of tndia and 1961, and consequenfly set aside the same in lA NO: 1 oF 2024 Petrtron under secron 151 cpc praying that in the crrcumstances stated in the affrdavrt frled rn support of the petitron, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the order Under Section 147 rlw 144 B dated. O4tO1/2024, including any recoveT under order Demand notrce u/s 156 of the lncome Tax act .1961, vide DIN and Notice No rrBA/AST/sr156t2023-24 1059385303(1) Dr o4ro1t2O24 for the Assessment yeat 2OjB-1g and /notice Under Sechon .148-A, (d) Dt.O7lO4/2022. ,rBA/AST/F1148 -A/2022-2311042608517 (1) and notrce rssued u/s 148 dated 0710412022 fo, the Assess,nent yper )n,tA_1o ^^^r:^^ r. petitron :nt year 2019-19, pending disposat of the above Wflt Counset for the petitioner: SRt THANNERU CHAITANYA KUMAR counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 4: A RADHA KRTSHNA (Sr SC For rr DEpr) Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERiL OF INDIA The Court made the following: ORDER

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI WSTICE N.TUI(ARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.2152 OF 2024 ORDER:/per Hon'ble Sn Jttstice P.SAM KOSHY) The instant Writ Petition has been fiIed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the follorving relief; '...to issue a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate rvrit, order, or direction declaring the order passed by the Income Tax Authorities (National Faceless E-ssessment Centre) completed the assessmcnt under Section L47 tead. with Section 144 B ot thc Income Tax Act, 196l uide DIN and Notice, dated 04 lOl12023 in ITBA/AST lSl 147 / 2023-21 11059385 134(1) for the assessment year 20l8-19 dctermining the total income of Rs. I,11,66,800/- as arbitrary, illegal, bad in law, u'ithout jurisdiction, void abinitio, violative of the principles of natural justice, apart from being violative oI Articles 14, 19(1)(g) arrd 265 of the Constitution of India and Section 148A of the lncome Tax Actm, 1961 and consequently set aside the same in the interests of justice and pass..." 2. One of the contentions that the petitioner has raised in the present Writ Petition is that under the amended provisions of the Act which came into effect from O l.O4 .2O2I , the respondents, while proceeding under Section 148 ol the Act, u'ere required to issue notice under II I I I I i I

2 PSIT,J & IYTR,J W.P.No.2752 of 2O24 Section 148A and provide an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. As per the amended provision of law, the proceedings to be drawn are also in a faceless manner. 3. Whereas, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, in the instant case, reopening has been initiated by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. In supporr of his contention, he relied upon the recent judgment rendered by this very Bench in Wp.No.25903 of 2022 & batch, dated 14.O9.2023 wherein this Court disposed o[ the batch of writ petitions to the limited extent. 4. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Department does not dispute that the said objection was decided in the aforesaid barch of Writ Petitions. However, he further contended that apart from the aforesaid objection, there have been other various objections also which the petitioner has raised in the *.rit petition. 5. So far as this contention of the learned counsel for the respondent-Department is concerned, this Bench, *,hile disposing of said batch of writ petitions, had taken note of

3 PSI(,J & MTR,J W.P.No.2752 oJ 2024 the sarne at pa-ragraph Nos.37 & 38 which are reproduced herein under: "37. TLe preliminary objectiotl raised bg. the petitioner ii sustained and all these utrit petitions stonds allotued on this uery iurisdictional issue' Since the impugned notices and orders are getting quashed on the point of jurisdiction' -we .are not inclined to procebd further ond decide the oth-er lssues raisl d bg the petitioner tuhich stands reserued to be raised and contended in an appropriate proceeding s. " 1 i "38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the case of Ashish Agaruta\ supra, as a one time measu;e exerasing the powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, permitted the Reuenue to proceed under thb substituted prouisions, and -this 'Court allotuing the petitions onlg on the proceduraL Jlatt, the ight coiferred on the Reuenue uould "remain reserued. to proceed furtter if theg so unnt from the stage of tie order of the Supreme Couri in 'the case of Ashish Agaru-tal, supra'" 6. In view of the same, we are inclined to allow the present writ petition also on similar terms Accordingly' the present Writ Petition stand-s allowed on the objection of the petitioner that the proceedings have not been drau'n in accordance with the amended provision but under the un- amended provision which is otherwise not sustainable'

4 PSI(,J&,MrR,J W.P.No.2752 of 2024 7. As has been held by this Bench in the aforesaid batch matters, the right of the parties would stand reserved as is envisaged at paragraph Nos.37 & 3g of the said order passed in the batch of writ petitions. No order as to costs. 8 Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any shall stand closed. SD/- MOHD. SANAULLAH ANSARI //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT EGISTRAR SEC N OFFICER l To, TJ GJ 1. The lncome Tax Officer Ward 2 Kaflmnagar Telangana State 2. The Principal Chref Commrssrone, of lncoie Tar _ T-elangana and Andhra i:?rxTlj, rowers AC GLraros rraasaolr"r irva.iJ;!; sob oza, - * 3. The Ciairman. The Central Board of DIecl I a)es Department of Revenue . [ilinistry of Fjnance Governmenr or lno,a. r,le,i olrni]ij O oor 4 ThehNational Faceless Assessment Center lncome Tax Department, New 5. The Secretarv to the Governntent. Ttle Unron of lndta. Department of ^ Xuu"IIu., lrithistry of frnance New Oernr I iO OJ'i'- " o \Jne uu Io 5n I hannefl r chatla.lya Ku,rrar Advocate lopuc] 7 one CC ro Sri A Radha x,. snna i6isC i"l ri'oL?ii-tdpucl 8. Two CD Copies q..Ot:c cc {b S}i GoJ;" l(urrr,r,, U+{ $Lif.v Ge,*.-goFs"l-[oar] bD

HIGH COURT DATED:30 tO1t2OZ4 ORDER WP.No.21 52 of 2024 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS. t9 o i_1- 1 t, i. r. r r, j--\,.... .. ,''i\ ( io l] i 1;:: 2i:i c -)- Lq'

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →