Mr. Venkata Rami Reddy Madduri vs. The Income Tax Officer - Ward 3(1)

,- ,r. ilcouRr FoR rHE srArE oF TELANGANA II I AT HYDERABAD ! ltso""iut original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY [ 337s ] THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE URABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SAM KOSHY ff" luf*,, "=r,r,o* no' ,rrn or roro Between: I I Mr. Venkata n#ri[heOOy Madduri, S/o. Madduri Subbareddy, aged 61 years, Occ. Salaried Etndloyee, Rl/o. Flat No. 202, Srinagar Colony, Hyderabad - 500 ...PETITIONER ^-, ,^" *-:lJ"". ward 3(1), Hyderabad, sisnaturerowers, opp. Botanical Garddn, fiondapur, Hyderabad - 500 084, Telangana 2. The Princip"f CiLtCor.issioner of lncome Tax, Andhra Pradesh and Telangand, Hydtrfrad Room No. 922, gth Floor, B-Block, l.T.Towers, '10-2-3, AC Guards, Hyder6bad - 500 004, Telangana 3. Assessment Urt, i..or" Tax Department, National e-Assessment Center, New Delhi, Roo?n l(lo. 4O1 , 2nd Floor, E-Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, New Delhi - 11d003 I I ...RESP.NDENr. Petition unOerftr[cte 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances state{irt the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court rnay be pleased to issue a Wriflof Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, declaring dl tfe order passed by the 'lst Respondent, u/s 14BA(d) of the lncome Tax Actft $Ot, OateO 23.03.2023, bearing DIN and Notice No. ITBA/AST/F/148At2022-23t1O512O44$6(1), for the Assessrnent Year 2016 - 17: & b. the notice issueft tly the 'lst Respondent, u/s 148 of the lncome Tax Act, rxe rftrounaeLe s#TflsrcE N. TuKARAMJT 202d fot fl{e 1961, dated 23.03. 2311O51204634(1), law, void-ab-initio, violative of Articles of the lncome Tax interests of justice. bearing DIN and Notice No. ITBAiAST/S/148 112022- Assessment Year 2016 - '17 as arbitrary, illegal, bad in vidhiVE of the principles of natural justice, apart from being 141 (1Xg) and 265 of the Constitution of lndia & Sec 148A Att 961, and to consequently set aside the same in the

Counsel to, tn" n""#Jents: SRI J.V. PRASAD (Sr. SC FOR lNcoME TAX) The Court made the fr,,[*,nn, oRDER lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under in the affidavit filed i stay all further pro by the 1st Responde bearing DIN and Not Assessment Year 2of6 Counsel for the ion 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated rt of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to ncluding any recovery, pursuant to the order passed 48 of the lncome Tax Act, 1961 , dated 23.03.2023, o. ITBA/AST/S I 1 48 1 I 2022-23 I 1 05 1 204634( 1 ), fo r the 17; pending disposal of the above Writ Petition; : SRI A.V.A. SIVA KARTIKEYA

) THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI IVRIT PETITIONNo.21a9 0F 2024 ORDER:@er F1o n'ble Sri Justice P.SAM KOSHY] The instant Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for the following relief: "to i^ssue a Wit of Mandamus or ang other appropiate Writ Order or Direction declaing a the order pasibd -bg the Irt Respondent u/s 148Ad of the Income Tax Act 1g6j dated 23.03.2023 beaing DIN and Notice tvo ITBA/AST/ F/ 148A/202223/ 10512044661 .for the Assessment Year 2016 17and b the notice issued by the lst Respond.ent u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act 196l aated. 23.03.2023 beaing DIN and_ Notice No ITBA/AST/ S/ 1481/202223/ 105j2046341 fo, tt.ie Assessment Year 2O 1 6 17 as arbitrary illegat bad in latu uotd-ab-initio uiolatiue of the pincipLes of natural justice a?ar! frory being uiolatiue of Artictes la 190)@ and. 265 of the Constitution of India and Sec 148A of the Income Tox Act 1961 and to consequentlA set aside the same in the interests ofjustiee". 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 carne into effect from Ol.M.2O2l, the respondents, while proceeding under Section 148 of the Act, were required to issue notice under Section 148A and provide an opportunity of hearing to tJle -,7

z PSr(,J & lvlfR,./ W.P.No.2789 of 2024 assessee. As per the amended provision of law, the proceedings to be drawn are a-lso 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 support of his contention, he relied upon the recent judgment rendered by this very Bench in WP.No.259O3 of 2022 & batch, dated 14.O9.2023 wherein this Court disposed of the batch of writ petitions to the limited extent. 4. On the other hand, Ieamed Standing Counsel for the respondent-Department does not dispute that the said objection was decided in the aforesaid batch 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 writ petition. 5. So far as this contention of the learned counsel for the respondent-Department is concerned, this Bench, while disposing of said batch of writ petitions, had taken note of

3 PSI(,J 6. lYfR,J W.P.No.2789 of 2024 the same at paragraph Nos.37 & 38 which are reproduced herein under: "37. The preliminary objection raised by the petitioner is sustoined and all these writ petitions stands ollou-ted on this uery jurisdictional issue. Since the impugned notices and orders are getting quashed on the point of juisdbtion, tt)e are not inclined to proceed further and decide the otler issttes raised by the petitiorter uhich startds reserued to be roised ond contended in an appropiate p ro ceeding s. " "38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in tlrc case of Ashish Aganua| supra, as a one-time measure exercisirLg tLe pouers under Article 142 of tLrc Constitution of India, pennitted the Reuenue to proceed under the substituted proui.sions, and this Court allouing the petitions onlg on tle proedural Jlaut, tle right anfened on the Reuenue u.tould remain reserued to proceed further if tLey so u-nnt from tLrc stage of the order of the Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Agaruta| supra." 6. In view of the sarne, we are inclined to allow the present writ petition also on similar terms. Accordingly, the present Writ Petition stands allowed on the objection of the petitioner that the proceedings have not been drawn in accordallce with the amended provision but under the un-amended provision which is otherwise not sustainable. 7. As has been held by this Bench in the aforesaid batch \ matters, the rights of the parties would stand reserved as is ,/' \

4 PSI<,J & NTR,J W.P.No.2789 of 2O24 envisaged at paragraph Nos.37 & 38 of the said order passed in the batch of writ petitions. No order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. 4. One CC to SRt .\,.A. SIVA KARTI KEYA, Advocate loPUCl 5. One CC to SRI PRASAD (Sr. SC FOR TNCOME TAX) IOPUC] 6. Two CD Copr BN GJP To, s 1 2. 3 SD/- N. CHANDRA SEKHAR RAO / ASSISTANT //TRUE COPYI SECTION OFFICER pal cht Commissioner of Hyderabad, Signature Towers bad - 500 084, Telanqana lncome Tax, Andhra Fradesh Botanical Gard - Ward 3( apur, Hyd 1), Telangana, H AC Guards, ltbad - 500 004, Telan ana and Room No. 922,gth Floor, B-Block, l.T.Towers, 10-2-3, , opp. era s nlti lhcome Tax Department, National e-Assessment Center New Delhi, Rootr No. 401 , 2nd Floor, E-Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium New Delhi - 1'l 0d3 I

HIGH COUR DATED:31/0 ] ORDER I WP.No.2189 ALLOWING T wrrHour co$ -49 cPf" I vo JI4 WRIT PETITION 024 t's I