Kalavathi Bulkapuram vs. The Income Tax Officer And another

PDF · subscribers
WP/21886/2022HC TelanganaHBHC01029542202229 November 2023Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,N.TUKARAMJI8 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the writ petition on the objection raised by the petitioner that the proceedings were not conducted in accordance with the amended provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court referred to its previous order in W.P. No. 25903 of 2022 and batch, which had sustained the preliminary objection on a jurisdictional issue and quashed the impugned notices. The Court reiterated that since the impugned notices were being quashed on the point of jurisdiction, it was not inclined to proceed further and decide other issues raised by the petitioner. The rights of the respondents were reserved as envisaged in paragraphs 37 and 38 of the aforementioned batch order. The Court also noted that an identical writ petition, W.P. No. 30153 of 2023, had already been allowed and disposed of on similar terms.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Kalavathi Bulkapuram, filed a writ petition challenging an order passed under Section 148A(d) and a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2018-19. The petitioner argued that the proceedings were initiated by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, contrary to the amended provisions of the Act which came into effect from April 1, 2021, mandating faceless proceedings and an opportunity of hearing under Section 148A. The respondents did not dispute that similar objections had been decided in previous writ petitions. The High Court noted that an identical writ petition, W.P. No. 30153 of 2023, had already been allowed and disposed of by the same bench on October 30, 2023.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the proceedings initiated under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2018-19, are liable to be set aside for not adhering to the amended provisions requiring faceless proceedings and an opportunity of hearing under Section 148A, as contended by the petitioner. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the amended provisions of the Act, effective from April 1, 2021, require notices under Section 148A and an opportunity of hearing. The petitioner contended that the proceedings in this case were initiated by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, which is contrary to the faceless manner mandated by the amended law. The petitioner relied on a recent batch of writ petitions decided by the same bench. Revenue's Contention: The learned counsel for the Department did not dispute that similar objections had been decided in the aforesaid batch matters. However, the counsel submitted that there were other various objections raised by the petitioner apart from the procedural one.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

[ 337e ] HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION NO: 21886 OF 2022 Between: Kalavathi Bulkapuram, W/o Mr. B,Vittal Reddy, aged 67 -years, Occ ;House.Wife, H.No.1-1-382Al1/44, Vyshalinagar, Near State Lrbrary, Champapet, Hyderabad - 500 079, Telangana. .....PETITIONER AND 1. The lncome Tax Officer, Ward '14(1), Hyderabad, lT Towers, Assistant Commissioner Guards, lVasab Tank. Hyderabad - 500 044' Telangana. 2. The Principal Commissioner of lncome Tax - 1, Hydelabad, Aayakar Bhavan, LB Stadium Road, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad - 500 044, Telangana. .....RESPONDENTS Petition Under Article 226 ol lhe constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit frled therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or Direction, declaring. (a) the order passed u/s 148A(d) of the Act, dated 07to4l2o22, vide DIN and nolice No. ITBA/ASTlFl148Al2O22-2311042604235(1), by the lst Respondent, for the Assessment Year 2018 - 19, and (b) the notice issued by the 1't Respondent, uis 148 of the lncome Tax Act, 1961, dated 07to4t2o22, vide DIN and Notrce ITBA/AST/S/148 112022- 2311042639029(1), for the Assessment Year 2018 19. as arbitrary, illegal, bad in law, void-ab-initio, violative of the principles of natural iustice apart from being violative of Articles 14, 1g(1xg) and 265 of the constrtution of lndia anrl Sec. 148A of the lncome Tax Act, .1961 , and consequently set aside the same rn the interests of iustice.

I.A.No:1 0F 2022 Petition Under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to stay all further proceedings, incruding any recovery, pursuant to the notice issued by the 1"t Respondent, u/s 14g of the rncome Tax Act, 1961, dated o7ro4t2o22, vide DrN and Notice. rrBAiASTis/148_112022-2311042639029(1), for the Assessment Year 2O1B - 1 9, pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the petitioner : SRI A.V.A.SIVA KART|KEYA Counsel for the Respondents : SRI J.V.PRASAD (SC FOR TNCOME TAX) The Court made the following ORDER

THE IION'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.2 1886 of 2022 ORDER:@er flon'ble Sri Justice p.SAM KOSH\) When the matter is taken up for hearing today, it has been informed by the parties that an identical writ petition l.€., w.P.no.30153 of 2023 has already been ailowed and disposed of vide order dated 30.10.2023. 2. [n view of the fact that the iclentical marter has already been allowed by this Court, we are inclined to allow this writ petition also, in terms of the order passed in W.lr.No.j0l53 of 2023 decided on 30.10.2023 on similar terms. 3. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending il any in this writ petition, shall stand closed. No order as to costs. SD/.A.V.S.PRASAD ASSISTANTEEGISTRAR //TRUE coPY/' aecrr& orrrcen To ' - 1 . Tnu lncome Tax Officer And another' W ald 1.4(] )' Hyderabad' lT^Towers' ' nlliiiani commissio-neicuaids, MasaO Tank. Hyderabad - 500 044, Telangana. 2. The Principal Commissioner of lncome Tax - 1" UYgg'-'b39' Aayakar Bhavan' - iettrOiui' ioad, Bjsheerbagh' Hvd.erabad - 5o0 0'44' Telangana 3. b;""Cd i,; sti nv.n.si,, Kartixeva Advocate-[oPUC] ;. il; cc i; s;i.r.V.pratao (sc FoR lNcotvE rAX)[oPUC] 5. Two CD CoPies SA GJPl\nx-

HIGH COURT DATED:2911112023 ORDER WP.No.21886 of 2022 ALI,O\IING I'IIE W.P \\,t-fl{ou-f ('()sTS. HE STA 7{i ( t Co [ 3 JAti 2024 z c) * * D ct\ €SPAT cS ({'r \--- 11r l[. \ rr,) \xtr I

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON,BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY W.P. No. 3O153 of 2O23 ORDER:6^'.;i,,it i:it'i'), tt;: tt. ( ?.5)t; tiits; ff) Heard Mr. A.V.A. Siva Kartikeya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. B. Sapna Reddy, learned Junior Standing Counsel for Income Tax appearing for the respondents. Perused the entire record. 2. The instant petition has been filed challenging thc Assessment Ordcr passed by respondent No.1 under section I48A(cl) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as'thc Act") datccl 2r.O4 -2022 for thc Assessment Year 2OlA-19. 3. One of the contentions that the petitioner lras raised in the prcsent writ petition is that under the amcnclccl provisiorls of the Act rt hich came into effect from Ol.O4.2O2 I , th( rt'spondcnts rt hilc procceding under Section 148 of the Act u'cre rcrlttircd lo tssue rlotice r:ncicr Section 148,{ and provide an opportunitv o[ hcerring to the assessee. As per the amended provision o[ larr , t ht' procceditrgs to be drau n are also in a faceless manner. Whcrt as. it hlts llecn cotllenclccl br thc petitioner that in the instant case, rettllctritrg h:ls bt:etr initiatcd Itr thc Juridictional Assessing Officer. Itr rcsltct l ol-thc said oblectiorr that thc pe titioner had raised, he reliecl ullctrl thc r('( ent batch o[ \\'rit

2 petitions decided by this very Bench on t4.Og .2023 vide W.P.No.25903 of 2022 and batch to the limited exrent. 4. Learned counsel for the Department would not dispute of having decided the said objection in the aforesaid batch matters. However, learned counsel submits that apart from the aforesaid objection, there have been other various objections also which the petitioner has raised in the writ petition. 5. So far as this contention of the learned counsel for the Department is concerned, this Bench, while disposing of W.P.No.25903 ot 2022 and batch had taken note of the same in paragraph Nos.37 & 38 rvhich is reproduced herein under: "37 The prelirninar-r. objection raised by the petitioner is sustarned ancl all thesc $,rit petitions stands allowed on it,i" u"A, jurisdictional issue. Since the impugned .roti"." ,.rJ oJ"." ".. gctting.quashed on the point ofjurisdlction, *. ".. rti inJi.rea to proceed l-Lrrrhcr and decide the other issues raised- by the petitior)er n hir.lr stands reserved to be raised aa,a aoaiaaa"a ia, un appropriate Jrr ocet'dings. " 38 Srnr c rhr. llt,n blc Supreme Court had, in the case ofAshish nqiln\al. sLrpla. .rs a one_time measure exercising the powers urrclcr r\rritlc t-t2 ol rhc Constitution of India, fr"._itt.a tn. Rerrrntrr. ro prot.et-d uncler the substituted p.rrfuili", -""a ,ni" C,u_rr all.rr r.s rtre p(.ritions only on the p.".;J;.;i-a;;, ite .rgt,t conferrrrl on tl)e Rclenue rvould ."_r1., ..""-"J- io 'paoa".a furthcr r[ t h( \ s() \\ arrt lrotl the stage of the order of the S-upreme Cortrt ln tltt'r'irst,ol Asl)ish Aganval, supra. 6. [n r.rcu ol rlrc s;rnc, rvc arc inclined to allow the present u.r.it petition zriso on sirnil;rr tcrms. Accordingly, the present Writ pctitiorr stands allo,"rt,d ()n rh(, olt_jcction of thc petitioner that the procecdirrgs havc nr>t bccr cr*r* r'r irr .t'c.rdance *ith the amended provisi.. 'r-rt undcr rhr. rrrr;rrnctrrlr.tl ,l.,rr isi.rr rr'hich is otherwiSe not susr.rirr.rlrlt.

3 t As has been held by this Bench in the aforesaid batch matters, the right of the respondents would stand reserved as is envisaged in paragraph Nos.37 & 38 of the said batch. No order as to costs 7 . Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed P.SAM KOSHY, J LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J Datcd: 3O. 10.2023 aqs

4 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY W.P. No. 3O153 of20/23 lpo tlK' I{(),t l)la,Sn Justice p.SAM KOSHY) l)a tt'cl: 3O. 1O.2023 oqs

More judgments on Section 148A

All 3,543 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →