Consortium of Institutions of Higher Learning vs. Income Tax Officer

12313379 | HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAO (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION Nos.18098, 14302,14331,19083, 20301, 20925. I 20935.21181,21 805, 21949 AND 22543 0F 2022 WRIT PETITION No. 18098 0F 2022 Between: KalvanChillara,s/o.KotaiahNaidu'agedabout63years,RJo'PIotNo.31B,H.No il':S;i i;; Nil;yam, Road No 5, Jubiiee Hills, Hvderabad - 500033' ...PETITIONER AND 1 . Deputy Commissioner of lncome Tax, Central Crrcle-1(3)' Hyderabad 2. The Central Board of Direct 13xs5, De:|artment of Revenue' Ministry^of - ii;;";;: -Govt,'- ot lndla, Secretariat Buildings' New Delhi - 110001 ' RePresented bY its Chairman' 3. The Union of lndia, Ministry of Ftnance'.Central Secretariat' North Block' New Delhi-1'10001 Represented by rts secrelary' ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith' the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction' more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, by declaring the impugned Assessment order u/s 143(3) ( .w 's, 147 dl. 29,03.2022 passed by the 1 St respondent vide Document ldentificationNo(DlN)ITBA/AST/S/1471?Q?1-2?11O41933665(1)dl?903?O??'

without followinq the 'lue procedure of Law. as vor(i. illeqal :rnir i:ontrary to the provisions of nconte-lax Act and ultftr vrrr:s thc ConstrtLrtion of lrriir._r. Petition under Section 151 cpc prayrng that in the circr jrnstances stated in the a{fidavit filcd in support of the petitron, the High court may be pleased to suspend th€ oper.rtion of the impugned Assessment order c1r. 2g.o3.2022 passed unde,r serction i143(3) t.w.s. 147 of the Act vide Dor;un.rent ldentification No. (Dl N ) I TIIA/AST/S/1 4 7 t2O21 -22t 1 O41 933665 ( 1 ). IA NO: 1 OF 2023 Between 1 Depuiy cornnr issioner. of Income Tax, cerrtrar circre-1(3\ Aayakar Bhavan, Bashr:er Baqh Hyderabad - 500004. 2. central Boarci of Drrect. Tales, Deparlment o[ Reve.ue, rrrrinistry of Finance, Govt of lndia Secretariat Buildings, New Derhi - 11000i n"piut*tei 6v'it" Ch airma n. AND 1. Kalyan Chi|ara,S/o. Kotaiah Naidu, R/o. plot No.31B, H.No. G1, Sri Hari Nilayam, Roacl No. 5, Jubilee Hills, Hyilerabad _ 500033. ...RESpONDENT No.1/pETtTtONER 2. Union of lndia. r lr,4ini5try. of .Finance, Central Secretariat, North Block, New Deil-i-l10001 nepreseitet by ;t!.5;;;;:' " ...RESpoNDENT/RESpONDENT No.3 Petition unde:r Section '15'l cpc praying that in the cr.cumstances slated in the affiriavit fircrl in'support of the petitiorl, the High court rray be preased to vacate the intr:rinr order dated 1.1 .O4.2022 in l.A. No. 1 of 202!2 in W p No.1g098 of 2022 and disrnrss the present writ petition in w.p. No. rB0gB of 2022 wi*t costs. Counset for the petitioner: SRI DUNDU MANMOHAN Counset for the Respond":l!9:, i & 2: SRt J.V. PRASAD, SENIOR STANDING COUNSEL FOR INCOME TAX Counset for the Respondent N_o.3: SRI B. MUKHERJEE, REPRESENTTNG SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DE;ijil;;i18,.,o* o.*.*AL oF INDIA lA NO: 1 OF itl22

WRIT PETITION NO: 14302 OF 2022 Between: Anja Reddy N/iuddam, # 16-1-398, Recldy Street, Saidabad Hyderabad, Telangana- 500059 ...PETITIONER AND 1 . The lncome'lTax Officer, Ward 1 3(3), Aayakar Bhawan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad-500004. 2. The Central iBoard of Direct Taxes' Department of Revenue, N'4inistry-of - Fininie, Govt. of lndia, Secretariat Buildings, New Delhi - 1 10001 ' Represented bY its Chairman. 3. The Union of lndia, IVlinistry of Finance, Central Secretariat, North Block, New Dethi-1 10001 . Represented by its Secretary' 4.TheAdditional/JoinUDeputy/ASsiStantComtnissioneroflncomeTax/ tncome Tai Ofticer, Natibndl Faceless Asscssmenl Cenlre Delhi, llcome Tax Deoartment, Ministry ol Financc. Room No 401. 2"" Floor' t-Ramp' Jawahailal Nehru Stadium. Delhr I 10003' ResoondentNo.4isimpleadedasperCourtOrderdated:1608'2023Vide l.A.No.2 of 2022 in W.P.No.14302 of .202? ,.RESPONDENTS Petrtion under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances statedil in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of tVlandamus, declaring the Assessment order in DIN No. ITBA/AST/S/147l 2021-2211042104667(1 ), d1.30.03.2022, passed, by the 4rr' respondent herein without following the due procedure of Law, as' void' rllegal and contrary lo the provisionsoflncome.taxACtandultravirestheConstitutionoflndia,and consequently set aside the same wherever it occurs' (PrayerisamendedaSperCourtorderdatedl6.0B.2023Videl.A'No'4of2022in W.P.No.14302 of 2022) lA NO: 1 OF 2022 PetitionunderSectionl5lCPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstatedin the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspendthereassessmentproceedingsinitiatedbyissuingnoticeU/S148ofthe

Act vide Docrment lcientrfication No (DlN) trBA/AST/s/1 4 tJt2o2.1-)2l.o3z12ooo4 (1) dt 31 03',,.02., . lA NO: 3 OF 2022 Pe tition undcr Siection 151 CPC prayinq that in the circun,stances stated in the affidavit frlecl in support of the petition, the High court nray be preased to suspend the Ass.ssment order in DrN No rrBA/Asrr/s/1 47rzo2i_22t 104210466711 ) dt. _r0.03.2022 passed pursuant to reassessrrent proceedings initiated u/s l4B of tl'o Act vide DtN No. trBA/AST/ st148t2o21 ,)_2t 10321zooo4(1) Dt'31 03.2021 and nlay pass such other order(s) as the Hon ble court deems fit and proper irr the intr:rests of substantiar .lustice, as otherwise ti)e petitioner wourd be put to irrepairable loss and severe injury. WRIT PETITION NO: 1 4331 0F 2022 (Prayer is arrendcd i;s per Court Order dated 16.Og.2023 Vide l.A W.P.No.143,12 of 2022) Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI DUNDU MANMOHAN Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: SRI J.V. PRASAD, SENIOR STANDING COUNSEL FOR INCOME TAX counsel for the Respondent No.3 & 4: sRr B. MUKHERJEE, REPRESENTTNG SRI C;ADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDiA No.4 of 2022 in Between: Man .lVohar r Agarw;.t HUF S/o. Satyanarayana Agarwal. aged aoout 60 years, 5_5_ 10811, Pan 3azar, R:rnigunj, Secuncieraba,i, nep 6v Xi.tu AND 1 The lnconrc 'fax Officer, Ward 500c 04 ..PETITIONER 10(1 ), lT Tower, AC (,;1r3165, Hyderabad- lvlinistry of - 110001 2 The Central Board of Direct Taxes, Department of R(jvenue, Fina rce. Gr, 11. o1 lndia, Secretariat guiidingr, Nerr. Delhi Repr esented hy its Chairman. The Union of India. Ministrv of Finance. Central Secretari.t, No(h Block, New Delhi- 1 1 00o 1 Represented Oy its Sciietaiy 4 The Adcirtron;rllJoinuDeoutv/Assrstant, commissioner ot rncome Tax/rncome Tax Offrce r National facetess' nis"*r,"ri"'C-"rtr!, o"lt.,i, lncome_Tax

-) Depa.rtment. I\rlir-ristry of I Jawaharlar ru"riiir'siJai,Li, .d:ili:"i,,f,?.'n No 401, 2*i I X",iB"i 3F ?b|r" ; i,ii fl,$:" ? i : g f i,,,2,,3 1,, n o rd e r d a re d Fioor, E_Ramp, 16.08.2023 Vide ...RESPONDENTS petition under Article 226 of the Constitutior circumstances statedirin the affidavit fired therewi of rndia praying that in the pteased ro issue a writ, order or direcrion, ,,.- orjlr,tj*::J flT"l:::; Writ of Mandamus, declaring the Assessment Order 2o2 1 -22/ 1 o42 1 o 4B2o (1 ), dt.30. 03.2022, pa ssed by,,.:; :;:":t: ::: :::, ^:, the Assessment year r201 void, iiresa, and conrrary ,:;: ;::l:j: :l;::":: due procedure or Law, as :-tax Act and ultra vires the constitution of rndia' and consequentry set aside the same wherever it occurs. [,i;"il'":[5ITl1|fff., courr order dared 16.08.20 23 vider.A.No.2 or 2022 in IA NO: 10F 2022 Petition under Section 151 C the affrdavit filed in support of the suspend the reassessment proceed Act vide Document ldentification No (1) dt.31 .0s.2021 . PC praying that in the circumstances stated in petition, the High Court may be pleased to ings initiated by issuing notice u/s 14g of the (Dt N) trBA/A Sr t st 1 48 I 2021 _22t 1 032006347 lA NO: 3 oF 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 pleased t<r suspend the Assessment order in DrN. ,rBA/AST rsr147 r2o21-22r1042104820(1), Dt 30 03'2022 passed pursuant to reassessment proceedings initiated u/s 14g of the Act vide DrN no. rrBA/AST/s/i 4 8/2021-22/1032006347(1) D1.31.03.2021 and may pass such other order(s) as the Hon'bre court deems fit and proper in the interests of substantial justice, irreparable loss and severe injury as otherwrse the petitioner would be put to Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI DUNDU MANMOHAN

lt counsel for the RespFondent ti'-l,t 3'":fri,iJ;IF8iis.oME rAx ""'"'3'*1%)[",EiT;iEi'"'15;iifr '?t i'?Y3[:''S'5EiSiJff"5ill ii?^ WRtT PETITIONNO:19083 OF 2022 Between: M r Ven ka ra s ubb a Redd y.ljll, ? o ?i'.,Ui Al 1i"i,T:#J ;,'3:f" frl [ *, 3;i Practicing A' lvocate ntgn 500 057, Telangana ...PETITIONER AND 1 2 r he r nco.r e, r' a, oli:"^l : w3;? J,:1,#,H?,?""1 .?3:3H,.E Jt3ffi H Jii" 8gi il5flJ1iY"*?Xo)'l o',j'll,; "ir;;;;'Di'tiict' Hvae abad 500 Telartgana Addilionali Joinl/Deputyi Assrsl ant Commrssioner of. lncnnre Tax/lncome I ax offic:r. Natioral Faceless i'i"ttt""t Center'' New Del-li' Room No - 401 ' 2ncl r=roor, t-Ramp, ,r*rnui]l'r.iJnrJ stJ"' n"w Delh - 110 003' The Central Floard of Direct Taxes Represented.by- its^Chairman' Department of R:venue, Ministry ot ''nu'il"I"bov5'nment of lhdia' secretariat Buildings' New Delhi - .1 10 001 Reoresented by iis Secrelary I' the Government' Ji,[i,]i'iv Jirii'rnc" N"* Delhi- 110 001 No.- ens, 084, 3 4. The Union of India, DePartment tlf Revenu ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstartces stated rrin the affidavit frlecl therewith' the High Court may be preased t. issue a writ of N/andamus or any other appropriate writ, order or Direction. Ceclarinl;: theAssessnrentOrderinDlN:ITBA/ASTlst147l2O21-2211042255287(1)' passed by llte 2nd Respondent on 31 03 2022' pursuant to a notice issued by the 1st Respondent, u/s 148 of the lncome Tax Act, 1961, dated 30.o3 2021 ,lsigned on 31 03.2021 and served on 03.04.2021), for the Asssssrnent year 2016 _ 11, as arbitrary, illegal, bad in law, void_ab_initio, violertive of the principles of naturar Jrsticc apart fronr being violative of a

1 Articles i4, 19(1Xg) and 265 of the Constitutron or set aside the same in *re i.,r^...,-:,""1:"t"'tlon of India, and consequenfly b. the Notificatron No.: 2oe interests of rustrce; & :::J"ilT:: i:,r.:iYi[x::::;:::;:;:::rPl da,ed s1 .3 2.21 extendrng the time ,,rro"o o' Direct raxes' tn" '-'"t clated 27 'o4.2021 ' appiicabre after 01 .04.2(t under the pre-amend'3rd ResPondent herein' provis ons or the rnco me ;l' ;';TT fi ;"":::"'::."'il;'',,.:: ;J IA NO:1OF 2022 petition under Secl the arrdav r r, "o n ",ppolo],,.',: :ffi:,#jll :iI ;,;H::H. .1,; all furlher proceedingsl including "n, ru"ou.rn, O,ir", in DrN_rrBA/A STtsr147/2021 ';,r^^;;:::'"rv' pursuanr ro rhe Assessmenr order on J1 .o3.2o22,pursuant t)21 22/1042259287 (1)' passed by the 2nd Respondent rncome rax Acr, 1e61, .j,::";::";;;1H:":"J,r Responc,ent, ," ,.u ", *" 03.o4.2021), for the Assess;;:"::"1"^'0.T" "' 31 032021 and served on Writ petition. ssment year 2016_11, pending disposal of the above Counsel for the petitioner: SRI A. V. A. SIVA KART|KEYA Counset for the Respond"l!!9:,] to 3: SRt J.V. PRASAD, sENroR STANDTNG courusef roR TNCoME TAx Counsel forthe RespondentNo.4: SRI B. MUKHERJEE, REpRESENTING sRr GADI pRAVEEN KUMAR, oepuii soiiiiro* ou,ue*Al oF rNDrA WRIT PETITION NO: 2030 1 0F 2022 Between: Anantha Reddv pannala S/o. Anji Reddy pannala. aged about 42years.Occ Rlr]?.",rt"t #&fri oDtranalaxmrAp"i'""t"lto,'h'ivft;-' c;l";v, ffi;r;;'"ilir"#, AND ...PETIT|ONER 1- The Additionar/Joint/Deputy/Assistant commissioner of rncome Tarrncome Tax officer, Nationat Fateress nsseismeni centre, o6ir,i lil;*'""H

S ffi 3 [:]iJ',\ "Xl;' 3\%, ::" F inance. Ro'ltn , Delhi-1 1 0r)0:r No. 401, 2"'' Floor' E-RamP' Tax-4, A;lYakar Bhawan' 2 IA NO: 10F 2022 Counsel fcr the Petitioner SR. DUNDU MANMOHAN AND 1. -rL,^ I)r,n{.rr)al , Commisstoner I::h.1,,'n;;"h" i lvcrerabad '5oooo 4 of lncome ..,RESPONDENTS Petition uncler Article 226 of tht: Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstanctrs staterl'l in the affidavit filed therewith' the Hioh Coufi may be pleased to il;sue a v/rit' order or direction' more particularly one in the nature of Writ of N,4an<lamus, t'y declaring the impugned order passed rts 147 r'w s.1448 of the Act, vrde Document ld-entification No (DlN) ITBA/AST/S/'147 t2021-221 1O4232BBO|\ (1) dl 31 03 20 22' tot the Assessment Year "]''- ]t^^'l"ll'' following th(r principles of Natural justice and the due procedure :t ''1 ::::::'t^t' under sectitln 144tJ"148of the Act' as' voicf illegal and contrary to the provtstons of lncome-tax Act' Petilion undor Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstance the affrdavit filed in support of the petition' the High Court may be suspend the lmpugned assessment order dt 31 'O3 2022 vide ldentificati,rn No(DlN) ITBA/AST/S/147t2O21-2211042328808(1) Assessment Year',-C17-18 and stay the collection of arbitrary t-lemand' s stated in pleased to Document for the ...PETITIONER Counsel for the Respondent Nos'1 & 2: SRI J'V' PRASAD' s;NioR sTANDING couNSEL FoR INCoME TAx WRIT PETITION NO:20 s25 0F 2022 Between: GoCL Ccrporatbn Ltd-, Kukatpally, Represented by its Whole Time Director Shri Pankaj Kumar Hll,,l"f lntiu,_Represented hy rts Revonue Secrera^ Deparrrnent,,, nerenrLI H6om No 4c North Btock r"# #lll]," or Finance,

lo Between: 1. Addl./Joint/De1;uty/ACIT/|TO, Natronal Facek:ss Assessment Centre, I\,4inistry of Frnanco. I T Department, North Block. New Delhr 2. Dy.ClT. Circle-2(1 ), Hyderabacl ....PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 2 & 3 AND .1 . GOCL Cttrporation LtcJ., Kukatpally. Rep by its Whole Time Director Shri Pankaj Kumar. -..RESPOND ENT/PETITIONER 2. Union of lndra Rep by Revenue Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Dept. of Revenue, Roonr No.46, North Block, New Delhr. ...RESPONDENT Petition under Section 151 cPC praying that in the circurnstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the pctit;on, the High Court nray be pleased to vacate the interim order granted on 25.O4.2022 in W. p. No.2092 ,.i of 2022. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI Y. RATNAKAR, SENTOR COUNSEL Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI B. MUKHERJEE, REpRESENTING SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3: Ms. K. MAMATA CHOUDARY, SENIOR STANDING COUNSEL FOR INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT M/s. SUNDARI R. PISUPAT|, SENIOR STANDING COUNSEL FOR THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT WRIT PETITION NO: 20935 OF 2022 Between: GocL. corporation Ltd, Kukatpally, Represented by its whore: Time Director shri Pankaj Kumar'. ...PETITIONER AND 1 . Union . of lndra,_Represe nted by its Revenue Secrutary, l\,4inistrv of Finance Department of Revenue, Room'No.46. No(h Block, rue* leltri. 2. Addl./JointlDeDUtv/ACIT/lro/National Faceless Assessn)ant centre, tt/inistry of Finance. I T. D6partment, fvorth Si;ct(, N",i"6urrri 3. Dy.ClT , Circte 2(t ), Hyderabad

...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances .131sdriin the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of l\,4andamus or any other writ, order or direction, declaring tthat the Reassessment Order dated 31.03.2022 for Assessment Year 2013-14 bearing PAN No.AABCGB433B made on the petitioner by the Respondent No.2 as illegal, arbitrary, untenable in law and in violation of Section 1448 of the IlT.Act and principles of natural justice and based on wrong facts and consequently declare all actions taken pursuant to the said reassessment are illegbl, arbitrary and unenforceable in law. Prayer is amended asrper Court Order dated 20.12.2023 vide l.A-No.1 of 2023 ia W.P.No.20935 of 2022. lA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petitron under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in Support of the petitron, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the impugned Reassessment order issued Under Section 143(3) rlw. Section 147 and 1448, dated 31 .o3.2021 for Assessment Year 2013-14 bearing PANo.AABCG84338 and all consequential proceedings pursuant to the impugned order, pending drsposal of the above Writ Petition. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Between: 1. Addl./JoinVDeputy/AcIT/lTO/National Faceless Assessment Centre, [\4inistry of Finance, l.T.Dept., North Block, New Delhi. 2. Dy.ClT, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad ..,PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 2 AND 1. GOCL Corporation Ltd-, Kukatpally, Rep. by its Whole Time Director Shri Pankaj Kumar. ...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER 2. Union of lndia, Rep. by its Revenue Secretary, lViintstry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Room No.46, North Block, New Delhi. ...RESPONDENT

l Petition uncler Section 151 CPC prayinq that rn the crrcumstances stated in the affidavit filec in support of the petition. the High Court nray be pleased to vacate the interinr order granted on 25.04 2022 in W P No 20935 tt 2022. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI Y. RATNAKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI B. MUKHERJEE, REPRESENTING SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3: Ms. K. MAMATA CHOUDARY, SENIOR STANDING COUNSEL FOR INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT M/s. SUNDARI R. PISUPATI, SENIOR STANDING COUNSEL FOR THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT WRIT PETITION NO: 21181OF 2022 Between: Medwin Hospital Services Private Limited, 100 Raghava Ratna Tc,wers, Chirag AIi Lane Abids, Hyderrabad 500001 .Rep- by its Director ...PETITIONER AND 1. The lnconre Tax Officer, Ward 16(3), Hyderabad, lT Tower, Ac Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad-04 2. The Additional/JoinVDeputy/Assistant, Commissioner of lncome Tax/lncome Tax Officc-r, National Faceless Assessment Centre, D,rlhi, lncome-tax Departmerrt, IMinistry of Finance, Room No 401 . 2"' Floor, E-Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, Delhi-l 10003 3. The Central Board of Direct Taxes, Deparlment of Revenue, Ivlinistry of Finance, Govt.r of lndia, Secretanat Buildings, New fielhi - 1 1000'1 . Represent,ed by its Chairman. 4- The Union of lndia, lVlinistry of Finance, Central Secretariat, llorth Block, New Delhi-1 10001 . Rep. by its Secretary ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Anicle 226 of the Constitution of lndra praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Couft may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, more partlcularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, by declaring the impuc;ned Assessmenl Order passed u/s 147r.w.s. 144Bdt.21lO3l2O22 vide Document ldentification No. (DlN) lTBA/ AST/ Sl 1471 2021-221 1041133564 (1), without following the due procedure of Law and

ti suspend the operation of the Assessnrent Ordcr in DIN No ITBA/AST/S/1471 2021- 2211042105789(1), dated 30.O3.2022 passr:d by the 1-1 Respondent for the Assessment Year 2013-14 under Section 147 read with 1448 of the lncome Tax Act, 1961, including Demand Notice, datcd 30.03 2022 rssued under Section 156 of the lncome Tax Act and Penalty Notice, dated 30.O3.2022 issued under Section 274 tead with Section '271(1)(c) of the lnconre Tax Act 1961, pcnding disposal of the above Writ Petition, as otherwise, the Petitioner would be put to severe loss and ha rdsh ip. lA NO: 2 OF 2022 Between: 1. The Additional/JoinUDeputy/Assistant Commtssioner of lncome Tax/l Tax Officer, National Faceless Assessmen[ Centre, Room No.401, 2nd E.Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadtum, Delhi - 1 10 003. 2. The lncome Tax Officer, Ward No. 1 7( 1 ), llyderabad. ncome Floor, 3. The Union of lndia, Rep. by its Secretary, I\,4rnistry of Finance, Government of lndia, North Block, New Delhi - 1 10 001 . ...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS AND Smt. Bhanumathi Vallabhaneni, W/o.Shri Bala Showry Vallabhaneni, Plot No.260, IAS/IPS Officers Colony, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad - 500 034. State of Telangana. RESPONDE NT/PETITIONER Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the Htgh Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order daled 27 -04-2022 in W.P.No.2180512022. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. SHAIK JEELANI BASHA Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2: SRI J.V. PRASAD, SENIOR STANDING COUNSEL FOR INCOME TAX Counsel forthe Respondent No.3: SRI B. MUKHERJEE, REPRESENTING SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA WRIT PETITION NO: 21s49 OF 2022

l6 Between Consortium of lnstitutions of Highcr Learning, Survey No. 115. IllT Campus, Gachibowli, l-lyderabad -500 032, Represented by fi,4 r. N,4 Venkate:rwarlu, Director .PETITIONER AND 1 lncomr-, Tax Officer, National Faceless Assessntent Ccntr:. Government of lndia, Ministry of.Finance, New Delhi. lncomr: Tax Officer, Exemption Ward 1(1), Aaykar Bhailan, Opposite LB Stadium, Basheer Bagh, Hyderabad, Telanqana- 500 004. Union of lndia, iThrough the Secretary, Department of Revenue, l\,4inistry of Finance, Room No. 128A, North Block, New Delhi -1 10001. .,,RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the Hrglr Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Drrection or Order partrcul:rrly in the nature of Writ of certiorari, a. Quashing and setting aside the lmpugned Assessment Orler bearing DlN. No. ITBA/AST/S/14712021-2211042258851(1) dated 18 January 2022 issued by Respondent No.1 under Section 147 of llrc lncome Tax Act, 1961 ; b. Quashing and setting aside the lmpugned Demand Notrce trt:aring DIN and Notice No. ITBA/AST/S/1 5612021-2211042259009(1 ) (late(l :11 ttAarch 2022 issued by Respondent No.1 issued under Sectron 156 of tlre lncome Tax Act, 1961; c. Quashir-rg and setting aside the Inrpugned S. 148 Notice lrcaring DIN and Notice No. ITBA/AST/S/14812020-211103209527 511 ) cjatecl ll1 tr,4arch 2021 issued by Respondent No.2 under Section 148 of tile lrlcorne Tax Act, '196'1 ; d. Quashing and setting aside/lmpugned S.148 Order beartng DIN ITBA/AST/F/1 712021-2211040464069(1) dated 08 ltlarch >-022 issued by Respondent No.2. 2 lA NO: 1 OF 2022

Petition under Section 151 CPC praylng that in the clrcurlrstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petrtion, the Hiqh Court may bc plcased to dispense with the requirement of filing the certificd copy of thc lmpugned Assessment Order bearing DIN No. ITBA/AST/S/14712021-2211042258851 (1 ) dated 18 January 2022 issued by Respondent No.1 under Section 147 of the lncome Tax Act, .1 961 . Petition under Section 15'1 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petrtion, the High Court may be pleased to dispense with the requirement of filing the certifred copy of the lmpugned S. 148 Notice bearing DIN and Notice No ITBA/AST/S/1 4 Bl2o2o- 2111032099275(1) dated 31 March 2021 issued by Respondent No.2 under Section 148 of the lncome Tax Act, 1961 . lA NO: 3 OF 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 pleased to dispense with the requirement of filing the certrfied copy of the lmpugned Demand Notice bearing DIN iand Notice No ITBA/AST/S/1 5612021-2211042259009(1 ) dated 3'l lttlarch 2022 issued by Respondent No.1 issued under Section 156 of the lncome Tax Act, 1961. lA NO: 4 OF 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 pleased to dispense with the requirement of filing the ce(ified copy of the lmpugned S.148 Order bearing DIN No. ITBA/AST/F/1 712021-2211040464069(1 ) dated 08 March 2022 issued by Respondent No.2. lA NO: 5 OF 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 pleased to direct '.i.; :i. lA NO: 2 OF 2022

ts the Respondent Nos-1 and 2 not to take any further stcl)s in relatron to proceedings pursu.rnt to the lmpugned Demand Noticc bearrnc DIN & Notice No. ITBA/AST/S| 1 5612021-2211042259009( 1 ) dated 31 March 2A22 issued by Respondent No.1 under Section 156 of the lncome Tax Act, 196 l. lA NO: 6 OF 2022 Petrtron under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circunrstances stated in the affidavit frled in support of the petition, the High Court nray le pleased to stay the lmpugned Assessment Order bearinq DIN No. ITBA'AST/S/14 712021- 2211042258851(1) dated 18 January 2022 issued by Respondent No.1 under Section 147 of lhe lncome Tax Act, 196'1 pending disposal of the Writ Petttron. lA NO: 7 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circunrstances stated in the affidavit f led in support of the petition, the High Court nray br: pleased to Stay the Impugned Demand Notice bearing DIN and Notice No. ITBA,/AST/S/15 612021- 2211042259009(1) dated 31 March 2022 issued by Responrlent No.1 under Section 156 of the lncome Tax Act, 1961 pending disposal of this Petitron. lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Between: .i . lncome Tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centr(.. Government of lndia, tr,4inistry of Finance, New Delhi. 2- lncome Tax Offrcer, Exemption Ward 1(1), Aaykar Bhaw,rn, Opposite LB Stadiunr, Basheer Bagh, Hyderabad-500 004. ....PETITIONERSiRESPONDENTS 1 & 2 AND 1 Consortium of lnstitutions of Higher Learning, Survey No. ll5, lllT Campus, Gachibowli, Hyderabad-500032, Represented by tr4r. [t4 Venkateswarlu, Director ...RESPONDENT No.1/PETITIONER 2. Union of lndia. Through the Secretary, Department of Revr:nue, lVinistry of Finance, Room No- 128A, North Block, New Delhi -110001 . ...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT No.3

l9 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circunrstances stated rn the affidavit frled in suppo( of the petition, the High Court nray be pleased to vacate the order dated 28.04.2022 in W.P No.21949 of 2022 by staying the operation of the impugned proceedings and to dismiss the present Writ Petition with cost. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. VIVEK REDDY, REPRESENTING rI SRI CUDDAPAH NANDAGOPAL Counsel for the Respbndent Nos. 1 & 2: SRI K. RAJI REDDY, SENIOR STANDING COUNSEL FOR INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT I Counsel for the Respbndent No.3: SRI B. MUKHERJEE, REPRESENTING SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA WRIT PETITION NO: 22543 OF 2022 Between: Consortium of lnstitutions of Higher Learning, Survey No. 25, lllT Campus, Gachibowli, Hyderabad - 500 032, Represented by Mr. tvl. Venkateswarlu, Director ..PETITIONER AND 1 lncome Tax Officer, National Faceless Assessnrent Centre, Government of lndia, Ministry of,Finance, New Delhi. lncome Tax Officer, Exemption Ward 1(1), Aaykar Bhawan, Opposite LB Stadium, Basheer Bagh, Hyderabad, Telangana- 500 004. Union of lndia, rThrough the Secretary, Department of Revenue, l\,4inistry of Finance, Room No. 128A, North Block, New Delht - 110001 ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 o{ the Constitution o[ lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, thc High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Direction or Order, particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus and Certiorari, a. Quashing and setting aside the lmpugned Assessment Order bearrng DIN No. ITBA/AST/SI 1 47 12021 -221 1 04226A 1 O8(1 ) dated 3 1 t\,4arch 2022 issued by Respondent No.1 under Section 147 of the lncome Tax Act, 1961; 2 .1

l b. Quashing and sctting aside the lrnpugned Demand Notic:e bearing DIN and Notict: No. IIBA/AST/S/1 5612021 -221 1 042260251 (1 ) riatr:d 3'1 March 2OZZ issued by Respondent No.1 issuecl under Section 156 lrf the lncome Tax Act, '1 961 , c. Quashing and setting aside the lmpugned S. 148 Noticr bearing DIN and Noticer No ITBAiAST/S/1 4812020-21 I 1 032099352(1 ) datr,d 31 March 2021 issuecl by Respondent No.2 under Section 148 of the lncome Tax Act, 1961, d. Quashrrrg and setting aside the subsequent lmpugned S.- 48 Order bearing DIN No. ITBA/AST/F/1 712021-2211040463903(1) dated OB tttarch Z02Z issued by Respondent No.2. lA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petitior-r under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circun.stances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court miry be pleased to dispense with the requirement of filing the certified copy of the rmpugned S. 148 Notice bearing DIN &,Notice No. |TBAJASTlsll4S|2O2O-21/1032099352(1) dated 31 March 2021 issued by Respondent No.2 under Section 148 of the lncome Tax Act, 1961 lA NO: 2 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circum:;tances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to dispense with the requirement of filing lhe certified copy of the mpugned S.148 Order bearingl DIN No. ITBA/AST/F/1 712021-2211040463S03( 1 ) Cated 08 I\/arch 2022 issued by Despondent No.2. lA NO: 3 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court mav be pleased to dispense with the requirement of filing the certified copy of the lmpugned Assessment Order bearing DIN No. ITBA/AST/S/14712021-2? 110422601 0B( 1 )

ll dated 31 ltAarch 2O22 issued by Respondent No.1 under Section 147 of the lncome Tax Act, 1961, IA NO: 4 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circunrstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to dispense with the requirement of filing the certified copy of the lmpugned Assessment Order bearing DIN No. ITBA/AST/S/14712021-2211042260108( 1 ) dated 31 l\Aarch 2022.11 lA NO: 5 OF 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 pleased to direct the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 not to take any fudher steps in relation to proceedings pursuantlto the lmpugned Demand Notice bearing DIN & Notice No. ITBA/AST/S/15612021,2211042260251(1) dated 31 March 2022 issued by Respondent No.1 issJed under Section 156 of the lncome Tax Act, 1961 pending disposal of the Writ Petition. lA NO: 6 OF 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 pleased to stay the lmpugned Demanid Notice bearing DIN & Notice No. ITBA/AST/ 5t15612021- 2211042260251(1 ) dated 31 March 2022 issued by Respondent No.'l issued under Section 156 of the lncome Tax Act, 1961 pending disposal of thrs Petition lA NO:7 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated rn the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to stay the lmpugned Assessment Order bearritrg DIN No ITBA/AST/S/14712021- t:

22110422601O8( 1) dated 31 l!4arch 2022 issued by Resporrdent No.1 under Section 147 of l"rr: Income Tax Act, 1961 pendinq disposal of thc Writ Petition. lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Between: 1. lnconre I ax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Government of lndia, l\4inistry of Finance, New Delhi. 2. lncome T:lx Officer, Exemption Ward 1(1), Aaykar Bhawan, Opposite LB Stadium, Basheer Bagh, Hyderabad - 500 004. ...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 AND 1 Consortium of lnstitutions of Higher Learning, Survey No.25, lllT Campus, Gachrbowh, Hyderabad - 500 032, Represented by i: Director lr.4r. lV. Venkateswarlu. ...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER 2. Union of lndia,,Through the Secretary, Department of Rt:venue, Ministrv of Finance, Room No. 128A, North Block, New Delhi - 110001 ...RESPONDENTS Petitron under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circurnstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court nray be pleased to vacate the order dated 28.04.2022 in W P. 22543 of 2022 staying the operation of the impugned proceedings and to dismiss the present Writ Petiti,rn with cost. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. VIVEK REDDY, REPRESENTING SRI CUDDAPAH NANDA GOPAL Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2: SRI K. RAJI REDDY, SENIOR STANDING COUNSEL FOR INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI B. MUKHERJEE, REPRESENTING SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

Pagc 3 ol 29 t,st.,l & i\'t R.l \\I lllr')S .lr)ll.\l)r1( h THE HOI,TOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SAM KOSHY 1 IiN AND THE HO OURABLE SRI JUSTICE N, TUKARAMJI Writ Petition N 18098 14302 14331 19083 20301 20925 "L 20935, 2!18L,21805, 21949 arrd 22543 of 2022 COMMON ORDER I I, I b lr I (Per the Horible Sri Ju.slr( c P SarL Kosltg) IS Constitution oI India challenglng the issuauce under Article 226 of atch the i these batch of writ ipetitions is the objection of, the notice being barred The instant of writ petitions hled by the pctitioners I of notice uncler Sbction 148 of the Income Tax Act, 196 I by the ,i respondent-Departilent. Though tl-rc challenge in all these writ I petitions are on valious grounds, both on maintainability as also on i the merits, howevei one preliminary objection which runs through al1 by limitation und short, 'the Act'f 2. In all these w notice and initiating proceedings uncler Section 148 of the Act was coming to an end on 31.03.202 1. In majority of the cases, the notice under challenge iri the instant writ petitions is dated 31 .O3.2O21 , however the been issued from the office of the the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for ht petitions, admittedly the last date for ser-vice of i notibes r have I I respondcnt- Departinent either on Ol.O4.'2021 or on subsequent dates i

l'rrrl' 4 ol 29 This is 1.he bonr: ol .ontention ,lsi reg issued itself r>r-r or alter O1.O1 .2021 rvoulcl l,r l{J ct N]-RJ \ ii l!r '))i lo22&l),|1clr arcls r.vhethe 11 he r Lotice which is 1he grounds of limitation. Sin<:e thc issr-rc is cornmon in all be {hit tnL*" on wri I Court is not re ti:rnnq to thc acluzrl datcs in each o 3. He ard NIr.Drrrrclu Manmohan W.P.Nos. 18098, 14ii02, 14331. 20301 and t petitions, this e notrces. ol 2022; Mr.Y. letltioners in Basha, learned Nar.A.V.A. Siva f'th I IF I lcarned counsll for petitioners in ^o0.,^.,r* , {ro. r.Shaik .leefni 21 181 Ratnakar, learr-recl Senior Cortnsel, W.P.Nos.2092.5 an<l 2O93.5 of 2022; M counsel for petitioncr in W.P.No.21BO5 of Kartikeya, learned counsel for 1hc petitioner in o.19083 of 2022; Mr. Vivek Reddy, lcirrned Senior Counsel appe on behalf of Mr. ann! Cuddapah Nandzr Gopal, lc:rrned counsetr ,pt g>etitioners in I W.P.Nos.2l919 &,2'2.43 of 2022. ar.rd Mr. J.V. Prasad, learned Senior I Standing Counsei ftrr Income Tax. fbr the respondents. 4 The real issuc lo bc clecidccl is rr.thether it was 1 proper on thc part of respondents in mere pre tion of the notice legal , justified and under Scction 148 ol the Act orr 3 1.03.2O2 1 and rwar<ling the same fo I for dispatch is sufflr:ir:nt to meel the require ment,under Sections 148 o"J" and 149 or not. In other words, without properl effectivc dispatch and I service of noti<:e as is required under Sections 148land I49 of the Act I I on or before 11 1.03.202 1, u,hethcr the impugnedr notices in these batch

p Pagc 5 o[ 29 I'Sli.l & \'l l{.1 \\'P lSl r()fi lrrl.rNl, r1( rl uld be sustainable or not. Alternatively, it is also of writ the cas clrtlons wo e where it n eds to be decided as to whether though the noticc I I b l I is dated 37.O3.20217, but the dispatcl-r being made on Ol-O4-2021 ot I I thereafter from thelI.T.B.A. portal would be sufficient so far as meeting I the period of limitation as is prescribed under Sections 148 and 149 ol the Act 5 It was predonlinantly contencled by almost all the counsel for thc petitioners that Section 148 bY th der the unamended provisions, a notice under jurisdictional officer had to be issued and ser-ved on or before 31.O3.2021. However, in case if the service of notice has been done beyond 31.03.2O21, i.e., on or alter Ol.O4.2O2l' in terms of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India and others vs. Ashish Agarwall, it should be the amended provision which would come into force and lbr this reason, the impugned notice I in all these writ petitions would not be sustainable. Nonetheless, the I primary contentionf ,was that since in all these batch of writ petitions, lr the notice under Sbction 148 being issued beyond 3l'03'2027 by the i I respondent-Depart+nent itseif, as would be evident from the I documents availabie with the respondent-Department, whether these I I impugned notices Are rliable to be vitiated holding them to be hit by limitation | \20221 414 LT.R. 1 (S.C.) i Irl -. ll

fralr'6 o1 29 r)sr\,I c\ N rRJ I lirr)S ll)llc\h.1rclr 6. Lc:rrned cor.rnscri for tl.rr: I)ctitioners highlightect tlre aspect that the documents / r-c'cords maint,rirled bl, the responderlt- Department wou1c1 clearly clcpict thc actLral rlate of dispatch anrl the date of service. In eL few r:r ses thcrc is a cliscrepancy which is t eflected so far as the dzrte of dispatr:h ancl the clate of service mentiont d in the other pages of the por-t al. A<:c:ording to thc petitione rs, rt is th< boundcn clull of the learned I c s ponden t i r S co,-lnsel for the to mandatorily be accepted as maintain a record of tht: ctate orr rvhich the disp4tch vras made and I also the datr.of selr.'ir-e of lhc nr,licc in the portal so lh;rt the same is i easily availal)le wilh the respondents, as these notices are mostly sent by e-mail rvhrch t:asil1, r-eflccls lhc time of clispatch ancl the date and time of delivery. 'll're page in tl-re portal *orldlealily ..,flect the date I ancl time at the originator's placc and tl-re and time at the recipient's end. In c:ase if thc respondent is unable to produce records in this regard, thc r:or-rtentior-r of tl-rc respondcnts o treating the notice date dated 3 1 .O3.2021 as propcr service ol notice is limitation first. I n case if' thc sround of limi not to 'gospel truth'. 7. Though ther'<: :rre othcr grounds also raised, the learned counsel for thc petitioners, deciding this batch of writ pctitions on the pre a I I nd highlighted by ourselves in objection of on raised by the confine we lnanr I lim I tati I v petitioners u,oul<l srrstain, thcrc rvould not be an necess;ity for taking

Page 7 o1' 29 PSK.I ct N'r'R.l \p I8()9ll lr.il2&L)rrcL up the other grounds and issues .is the entire notices and the proceedings initiated under Section 148 would stand collapsed on the l ground of limitation. 8. On the other jhand, Iearned Senior Standing Counsel for income I Tax, appearing on behalf of the respondents, contended that for all practical purposes thei notices under Section 148 of the Act, the date mentioned on it shbuld be taken as the date of issuance of the notice It was his further ontention that earlier there was a system in the I l" I respondent-Department where after the notices were prepared and signed it was sent for the dispatch which was to be sent by post and I therefore if any delhy occurs it would be the date of dispatch which ts lr important. Howev6r, now because of the technologrcal developments li notices are being sdnt relectronically, the question of physical dispatch no longer survives ..rd thrt immediately after the Assessing Officer signs the notice Section which is I au deri Section 148 ol the Act it is sent to the I.T'B.A l thdrrzed to send the mails. g. According to learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents, it s that since there are iarge number of Department and which theY send it by mail, tl t because of the reason that there is too much notices in the PiP ol eli happens ne with the I.T.B.A iu I l= I I i pressure upon the aid Department, the notices are normally delayed

more because of the rlctwor-l( I)r-()l)l(iln ancl lrot for any lir pse or lacking on thc part of tht- rcsponclcnt I-)r:parlmcnt. Hence, prir-rcipally and tcchnically, it has to bc prcsrunccl that dispatch has bcen made but for the techrrir:alitics lhLil ansc l;ct:zrusc of the system at'd not because r,vhereas Sectron 148 refers to t l-rc "service of notice", and as long as there rs an effective issuance of r-rotice before the period of limitation notice so issuecl witl-rin thc pcriocl of limitation cannot be interdicted only on the ground of ser-vice beir-rg rnade cffective lbeyond a period of ommlssloner I -rch held that Divis I'rrt1r' 8 ol 29 t,5r\,1 & N'fttJ L I) lSr tll l0llc\l)irclr Se rior Standing Counsel for thr: respondents. hr:avil.v reliecl on the jr-rrlgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the casc of R.K. Upadhyaya vs. Shanabhai P. Patel2, conler-rcling that Scction 149 of lhe Act refr:rs to "notice" ortan,re and such a limitation of Gujarat in Rajesh Sunderdas Vaswani vs. C.P. Meena - De of Income Tax & 5 others3, urhcrein thc t goi s irretrievably of the lault or lacking on the pirrt ol'the authorities le arned 11. He further r<:lied on thc dccision of the High once when the noticc is har-rdecl over to post-office;t out of the hands of the Asscssing Oflicer and mer 1(). In support ol I'ris contcntion, the under Section .1 49. the service of notice loses imp I Cottrr I lnl"'" ion Ber 1(,3 s7r {t).R ) 't987 11t,f,1 I.T. tt r 2017 (392) L',t'. R v br:ceruse there is

I l 'l behest of the postal a r-r tl-roritic s, the date of issuance Page 9 o[ 29 PSI{,J & 1.Y l R,l \\l l8rr98 lrrl2&brtch control over such notice and therefore it has to wouid not get postfoned. I L2. Likewise, reliance was also placed by the learned Senior ,l I Standing Counsel for the respondents on a judgment rendered by the Madras High Court in! the case of Malavika Enterprises vs. Central Ilr Board of Direct TAxei and othersa, rvherein the Madras High Court also took the stan that date of issuance of notice is what matters and not the date of ser\[ce 13. Further, the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents placed CC on the judgment of the High Court of Guj arat in the Kanubhai M. Patel vs. Hiren Bhatts, contending that th moment the signature is appended on the notice under Section 148 by the Assessing Oflicer and forwards the file, it is l irctilation and that the concerned officer, i.e., the officially put into c delav at the Assessing Officer i I dl I Irelian Iei of cas Ie JSES be assumed that t dhte which is reflected on the notice is the date of issuance a1so. 74. Even relying upon the judgment rvhich is being relied upon by the learned counsdl for the petitioners aiso, i.e., the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Surnan Jeet Agarwal vs. Income-Tax 4 l2o22l 44s LT.R. 6s1 (Mad) s 201 1 (334) r.'r.R. 25 (D.Et.) I rJ"

I']:rge 1O ol 29 r)sli.l c\ NTRJ \ l) lSrr!S 2tr22&l)atch his signature on the notice generated, the officer as suc 11 loses control I over the said notice ancl 1t goes fttrther down to thg I.T B.A. portal for i dispatch which is cquirralent to the role of a postal clc partment, and hi I n lirnitation would limit. 15. Accordins to the learnecl Senior Standin for the enerated b.".- the Assessing Officer reaches the I.T.B.A. Section, the Assessin Ofhce r loses control 1n o the queue where Officer and others6, the lcarnecl Sentor Standing Counsel for the respondents contendecL that thc moment the Assessing Officer puts therefore, the act of generation of notice if it is wit also amount to issuance of notice within the time I of the postal department. Once the notice g over the notice so generated. Thereafter it goe I 1 Counsel i I I oortai is to rl 1 respondent Department, the I.T.B.A. I s I be eqr.rate d with that I I Office r 16. Upon l-rcaring tl-rc learned counsel for the petitione:s and also the 'tl II resplndents t I the technicians issue the notices in seriatim which ofl':r-r takes some time. Therefore, the time when the Assessing i signature to tl-re notice it has to be treated as'issu i I I through certain records which were produced befc I I I ed' I has put his we went re us and some of ther-e were some learned Scr-rior Stancling Counsel for the which were part of the pleadrngs 'lhough Itake I discrepancies reflcctccl in the screen-shots n t ctr i I i i l i I from the portal pages, but on actual verificatron of the records whi t' I2O22l 1+9 I.-l'.R. 517 (Dr:l l h:rs come before

Page 11of29 t5r...l & Nlrt,l 11> ll'l{)9S l(l2l&l)rt( h us and which clea-rly indicate that thc notices have been issued in all these writ petrtions ( not served ) itself on 01.04.202 1 or on a later l I date. The questioniof servlce of thesc notices and the date of service of lr t: notices upon the petitioners is of no r-lcvaitce or consequence in all Lrtt these writ petitionS, as the notices itself have been dispatched from the office of the I.T. I Def artment on or before O1.04.2021 which itself is beyond the period fli m1tation LIl L7. It is relevant at this juncture to note that upon coming into force of the Finance Ac 2021, certain amenclments were brought to the Income Tax Act, wherein Section 148 stood substituted with It t96r Section 14BA bY e Finance Act, 2O27 w.e.f. 01.04.2027. In the landmark decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ashish Agarwal (supra) w ich has also been lbllowed by practically every High Court in the count , held that for anY notice oI re assessment on or after Ol.O4.2O2l il wJuld be the new amcnded law which would be l asl the un-amendecl provisions were valid only tili I' governing the {ieldl 31.O3.2021 18. We leave that issue for the time being there itself. 19. It is necessary at this juncture to refer to the decision of the It l Madras High Cour iulthe case of Smt. Parveen Arnin Bhathara vs. I I Ith

Plt't'. 12 ctl 29 I'SI(.I & N'I'RJ \ l, Il.j(r,18 2o2lc\barch Income-Tax OfficerT, whcrcin the learned Divisron Bench at paragraph No.12, after rleeLling lvitl'r certain judicial precedents on the issue, has hcld as unclcr, 1 '12022) 446 L',t'.R. 201 (\lad) vlz "12 148 in relotion to ossessment yeor 2003-04, Thus, the expression 'to tssue' in the context of issuonce of notices, writs ond process, hos been ottributed the, meaninq, to send out; to ploce in the honds ol the proper officer fort service. The i expression "sholl be issued" os used in section 149 would. t\erefore rl hove to be reod in the ot'oresoid context. ln thelpresent cose, the I impugned notices hove been signed on 31.03.201o,lwhereos the some I were sent to the speed post centre for booking oqly on 07.()4.2o1o. I Considering the definition of the word issue, it is opporeit that merely signing lhe noli(es on 31.03.2010, connot be equatedlwith ssuonce I of notice os contemploted under Section 149 oJ the Act. The dote of I issue would be the dote on which the some were honded over for I service to thc proper ot'ficer which in the facts ol th{present cose would be the dote on which the soid notices were ocyuollV honded over to the post office for the purpose of booking for the purpose of et'fectinll service on the petitioners. Till the pointlof time the envelopes ore properly stomped with odequote volue o,F postol I stomps, it connot be stoted thot the process of issue is comolete. ln the Jocts of the present cose, the impugned notices hoJ,ing br:en sent for booking to the speed post centre only on 07.0 issue of the soid notices https://www.mhc.tn.go 07.04.2010 and not 31.0i.?010, os contended revenue. ln the circumstonces, impugned the no 4.2070, thr dote of r.l vttn/lldts r ould be I 'pn ibehou oJ the il ticest'under Section 't ino been issued on ,-|,'l rri I 'irl hov

I i I i I I I 07.04.2010, w Pzrgc 13 of 29 l)sL,l & \1'R,,1 \\ Lr l8lrl8 .lollNl)xrLh hich is cleorly beyond the period of six yeors t'rom the l end of the relevont ossessment yeor, are cleorly borred by limitotion and os such, connot be sustoined." Thus, lit isl opporent t'rom the oforesaid decisions thdt the issuonce oJ notice under section 149 is complete only when the some I is issued in tlle monner os prescribed under section 282 r/w rule 127 ol the lncomte,Tdx Rules prescribing the mode of service of notice under the Aci,,,The signing of notice would not omount to issuonce of ll notice os contemploted under section 149 of the Act. ln other words, the requirembnt d7 ittrrnr" of notice under section 149 is not mere l signing of thb no;tice under section 148, but is sent to the proper i person withinlthe end of the relevont ossessment yeor." I, I 2C . Similar stand has also been tarken by a Division Bench of the Iti Allahabad High Coirrt ,in the case of Daujee Abhushan Bhandar Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of, India and otherss. The Division Bench, while dealing with the prSvisions of the Inlbrmatron Technology Act, 20O0 at paragraph Nos.1B, 9 and 20, held as ur.rcler, viz. , "18. Sidce Section 149 of the Act 196L requires notice to be I issued by lncdme iox Authority, therefore, in terms of sub Section (1) of Section 282 A it hos to be signed by thot outhority ond to be issued i in poper formlor communicoted in electronic form by thot outhority in Ill occordonce with pirocedu re prescribed i D. The communicotion in electronic form hos been prescribed in Rttle 727 A of the Rules '1962 which provides o procedure for issuance of 'every notice or other document ond the e-moil in l l '1zozz1 +++ I T.R.41 (Allr)

Prrrlr' 14 ol 29 clectrontc forrn/electronic ntoil which hos to be issued fi tn the l,\r\.1 c\ N't1{,1 li IS(rrri: llrl l&l)llr.h e out;ide his of tim( would o procedure desiglnoted e-ntorI oddress of such income tox outhority.i 20 Thus, ot'ter dtqiLolly signing the notice the inco,ne tox outhonty ltos lo issue it to the ossessee either :in poper .lorm or through clettrcuttc noil. Sub Scctton (1) of Section 13 of the A,t 2000 provides thot dtspotch of on plcctronrc record occurs when tt t nters o computet resautce outside the control of the originotor.tThe aJcresoid sub Section (1) of Section 13 inclicotes the point of timelpf issutnce of rl notice. Therefore, ofter o nottce is digitolly signed and whtn it is entered by the income tox outhority in computer resou control i.e. tllc control of the originotor then thot point be the tinte of tssuance of notrcc " 21. Further, a Division Ber-rch ol' the Madhya fraflesh l{igh Court in the casc of Yuvraj vs. f ncome-Tax Oflicer I and otherse held at paragraph Nos.4 to 7 as unclcr. vrz n s I '4 thc aforcsoid newly inserted sectio specifitolly provtdes t'or issuonce of o notice il the As I 148 ,\ now essing Officer re, I,1quired to be odhered to by the Asscssinq Olficer ofter 1/04/2021 he dote on tokes o rlcr i\io,r to inittolc rr. o\\pssment ond therefo hos Ltcan lotd down undtr \c( tion 148-A which lis i.e. t which the Finonce Act, 2O21 contc into force 5. thr: counscl for tllc porttes werc heold and durilg the lr course of heoring, the counsel lor respondent/reveque Srhri Sonioy Lol produccd o latter doted 24/02/2022 beoring no. 1qO2 issr ed by lncome Tox Officer - 3 (1) of Bhopol which wosioddressed to the I counsel for lhc revenue ond in the soid letter it wos stotel thot " 1zozz1 ++,t I.1'.R :r2{) lt\,I l I

Perge 15 ol 29 l']S I\.1 t{ \-1'R,l \ l) I Sl19S lrrl lt l,,1Lcl, 24/02/2022 tond 'in view of the odmission by the counsel for respondents, we hove no hesitotion to hold thot the impugned notice is bod in the eye ol low, contoined in Annexure P/1 doted 31/03/2021 lr (received by the petitioner on 16/04/2021 through Emoil) inosmuch lr os ofter 1/04/2021, it is mondotorY requirement thot prior to re- I ossessment lroceedings notice under sectrcn 748-A of lncome Tox I Act, 1961 shbuld lbe issued to ossesseee. Since now in view of the I odmission bylthe respondents the other reliefs os sought for by the ln, i"ti"f clouse hove become redundont inosmuch os I ho dispute obout the dote oJ issuonce ol tlrc impugned i I 7 Accordingly, the impuqned notice dated i1/03/2021 (served through Emoil to the petitioner on 1'6/04/2021) stonds quoshed' However, it is lelt open for the respondents to toke recourse to the procedure loid down in newly enocted section 148-4 of the lncome Tox Act, 1951lif it is required under the low." 22. Recently, iDivision Bench of thc Delhi High Court also though in the notice which was issued to the petitioncr herein, the dote wos meh oned os 31/03/2021 but, the system of the oft'ice of the respondehts reveoled thot the Enoil to the petittoner wos in foct I sent on 16/04/2021. Thus, the counsel t'or respondent does not I dispute thot the notice which is impugned in the petition contoined in Annexure Pn in Joct wos issued on 16/04/2021 though the ddte on I the some wos mentioned os i1/03/2021 but wos issued loter on 6/04/2021 6. ln View bf the oforesdid letter so produced before us dated petttrcner tn now there is not ice. a endorsing the viewltaken by the Allahabad High Court as well as the Madhya Pradesh High Court (sttpra), in the case of Suman Jeet

[)rr13 16 ol 29 P)l\.1 N N'rRJ \ i' l:lrr!\ llll]Nl)rrrch Agarwal (supra1. Ir;rs clalroralr,lr rlealt with tltc said issrlc and held as unde r, YIZ "16.1. rhe cxpression "rssued" hos been judiciolly interpreted by tlrc courts cts fromtng of thc order ond toking necessory o,tion to despotch th(' some. Therefort. merc qenerotton oJ notice on the lnconte Tax Business Applicotion portol doe< not sotisly the test ol "issue" vrithoLtt provtnq thot the some hos been despotcheo within thc time botring pcriod. (Delhi Development Authority v H. C. Khurono 1q Jt t5C( 1q6). notice should be scnt forth and q1o beyond the contlol of the oL.,thority issuing the sam€, to concludc thot it hos been issued.l(Konut hoi M. Potel (HUF) v. Hireri Bltott or ltis successors to ofiicl TZOtlll 534 tTR 25 (Gui)1. I Iri 16.3. The provtsiorts of section 149 of the Act of 7,961, does not contoin the t,xpression "Assesstnq Offtccr". Therefore, lno distinction con De n)ode betweetl tllc "Assessitlg Ot't'icer" ondl"lnconte Tox Business ApplicotioD portal" under sectrcn 149 of the Act of 19(;1. The time token by thc lncome Tox Busincss Applicationi softw(,re for trigg(ring of c ntoil ts ottribuloblc to the Assessing Officer ond since odmittedly tlt(,in1pt)qned notrc?s werc d"rpotrh") on)epril 1, 2021, 16.2. Even though thc service of noticet is howt'ver, for deternlining if o rtoticc hos been volid or thereoftcr, the somc ore tintc borred 16.4. Thc E-vcrit'icotion 5cheme, 2021. issued by not r€ levont, y tssu,td, the I I { i IlCentral Boord I ol Diiect Totr'., vidc NoliJicotDn beoring No. 137 Decembcr 13. )02) (l)0221 440 tfR tst.) 9 )tn po ,I stotes thot oft'ixotion of dig!tol signoturc certificote I o\ 2021, ddted rosl6, 9 old 11, in le-orocc.dinos I I

Page 17 <t| 29 PSti.l & N l1{.1 trl) 18r)9S 2{ ) )l&l)irch is a monddtory requirement. ln the absence of diqitol siqnoture certificote, the impugned notices would be null and void' 16.5. The circulor beoring No. 19 of 2019, doted Auqust 14, 2019 (t201gli416llTR (st.) 140 ), issued by centrol Boord of Direct I Toxes men dns thot the ollotment oJ o document identificotion ll number to thte notice is o mondotory requirement prescribed by the oforesoid circulortonly to mointoin the oudit trail oJ the documents L] issued by theiDeportment ond to provide tronspdrency in the process' I The ottotmeni of document identificotion number to the notice does j not omount tL issuonce os sought to be contended by the Deportment in these proceedings. ,L l1 15.6.'Since the impugned notices hove been issued in on I electronic forin, the provisions of section 2(1)(t), section 3, section 13, I section 66A of the Act of 20OO would be relevont os the some govern electronic communicotion. ln the present cose, os per section 13 of I the Act of 20lOO, the lncome Tox Business Applicotion system should -lr be considerdd a's the "oriqinotor" Theret'ore, the despotch of ir electronic recbrd would occur only when the some enters o computer i resource oudide the control of the lncome Tox Eusiness Applicotion ond only o|t), ,u h despotch woutd the notice be deemed to hove been issued 16.7. ilhe te-filing portol os viewed by the ossessee cleorly highlights the foct thot there is o system in ploce for duly disploying I the dote on vihichithe notice is "issued" by the jurisdictionol Assessing Officer. Howiver, for the impugned notices under considerotion, the dote of issuonce, is conspicuously not mentioned on ony of the ossessee! occounts on the e-filing portol. lllustrotively the screen shot for PAN AAFCA 9047H is extrocted below : t I

I'agt: 18 of 29 lnaone lox ,3r./!/ne-ss Ap p I i co tt o n/ASf /f / 1 7 / 2A 2 1 2 2 /1034161151(1) Oactment telerencc lD PSri.J .r N'rRJ ,.rr I Srr9S 2t/ll&L,irch N oti cc /Com tn u n ici t t o n Reference lD: 100036s66022 Notice u/s lssued on:1+lul-2027 Desc ptiot) : (lncome Tor B u s i n e ss App lico tion ) I s su,- letter Submit Response Descriptian : (lnco$e To' Business lApplicotioni Notice Lt/s. I usl vi"^ tesponSe Act, 1961 ofl lncolme-to\ Natice/l-etter PDF S e e k/V i ew Ad j o u rn n)e D t Notice/Letter PDf S c e k/V i e w Ad j o u r ti ne t) t Notice/Communicdtnn Reference lD: 100033602029 148 Notice u/s lssued on lncome Tox Bu-s/ness Ari p I i. atl on /AST/S / I 4 8 / 2A 2O 21 / 103 2044E08 ( 1 ) Dac u ment refetence lD i 16.8. A conjoint reodinq of tlte relevont provisionslof tie Act of 1961 ond Act of 2000, leods to the inescopoble ,onrtiriof, thot for the notice to be votidly "issued" it hos to be diqitolty signedtdnd shoutd be i out of the control of the originotor for sotisfying the test of "sholl be issued" under section 149 of the Act of 1961 I 16.9. The mere generotion of t)otice on the lncomeITox Bustness 'l Applicotion screen ond signinq the some is not sulfigienlfor sctist'ying the test of "issued'' ond it is only when thelnotice has been 'l despotched in terms of section 13 of the Act of 2000, would tt e some be dectored to be issuecl. ln this regord relionce hios bleen pluced on I the ludgment of the Suprcme Court in Union of lndio J, G. S. Chotho l Rice Mills (2021) 2 SCC 209, wlrerein Lhe Supreme Courqhos h,:ld thot I o notificotion would be in elfect from the time ond dole on which it wos uplooded on the e-gozrrtte ond not the dote'l melitionet.r in the notificotion."

Page L9 ol 29 PSIi,l c\ N',l l(.1 rrp LSli()S lrll.)&h,rtch 17.L. The det'oils of the dote ond time of despotch of the impuqned notices by the lncome Tox Business Application servers dre ovoiloble with the respbndent. ln the cose of Sontosh Krishno HUF v. Union of lndia [2022] 449 ITR 457 (All), bearing Writ Tox No. 211 of 2022 ond Mohan Lol Sontwoni v. lJnion of lndio [2022] 449 ITR 476 (All) beoring i Writ Tox No.l569 of 2022. the Deportment provided the Allohobod I Hiqh Court with the detoils of: (1) generotion of notice ; (2) diqital li signing by thd jurisdictionol Assessinq oft'icer, ond (j) triggerinq of e- moil to the ossessee. Further, the Allahobod High Court in Mohon Lol Sontwdni (supro) hos directed thot the dote and time of triggering e- moil should lbe reflected in the e filing portol accessed by the l dssessee. Thdrefoie, in the present coses, the oforesoid informotion, even thouqh ovoiloble is being withheld by the respondents. l 17.2. ln the ivrit petitions, wherein the e-moil wos triggered by the i lncome Tox B,usinbss Applicotion servers before March 31, 2021' the respondents tfiove reodily t'urnished the soid informotion in their i counter offidivitstos is evidenced by the counter filed in W. P. (C) No. 3038 of 2022,. titled os Sont Sondesh Medio ond Communicotion P . Ltd. v. lTO. Hbwever, in the petitions where the e-moil wos triggered on April 1, 2021, or thereot'ter, the soid informotion hos been withheld ond on, untenoble submission hos been mode by the respondents,lhotlthe notice is deemed to hove been issued on mere generdtion of the notice on the lncome Tox Business Applicotion screen I 18.1. As per s:ection 148 of the Act of 1961, volid issuonce of notice is o jtrrisdictionol reqLtirempnt not just o mere procedural requirement. There is o heovytonus on the Deportment to provide the dote on which the impugned notices have been posted or the dote and time

Pzult: 2O ol 29 I']Sh.l .\ r.\'fRJ I fir r()s 2llllc!{l)i1rch on whrch the e moil was sent from the e mail lD of the iurisllictional Assessing Oft'icer. (ClT v. Cheton Gupto [2016] 382 ITR 673 (Delhi)), 18.2. All impugned notices sent by e moil hove been issued l'rom the destgnoted c moil oddress of the jurisdictionol Assessing Officers, therefore, to olleqe thot the triqgering oJ e moil by th,e lncome Tox Business Appticotion is seporote from the jurlsdictiotnol lssessing Officer is foctuolly incorrect. The process of triggering te-mttil by the i lncome Tox Business Applicotion softwore system is forpnd cn beholf I ol the jurisdictionol Assessing at't'icer ond therefore, dttribLtoble to I the iurisdictionol Assesj/nq Off icer. Iri 9.1. The screenshot onnexed os onnexure P-5 in W.lP. (C) No. 4567 of T 2022 shows thot eoch notice in oddition to o documenqidenl iJication ll number, olso contoins o communicotion referen9e lD, ("Clll"). The ri communicotion reference lD is generated by the lncome Tox Business Applicotion portol to record the dote of the issuonce of th,? tlotice. i Although the communicotion reference lD for thel.impugned notices l issued under section L48 of the Act of 1961, is disployed cn the e- Jiling portol, the dote of issuoncc is conspicuously obsent. N oti c c /Co rn m u n i co t i o n Refercnce lD: 100044446529 142(2) Notice u/s lssued on:2i-Nov 2027 Incoi)e Iox Bu5ttl.55 Ap pl i cL1 t i o n /Ast / t / 1 4 2( 1 )/2 021 22/1A371ss946 (1) Docunlent rcference ID D.escripton . (lncarne Tox Business Alplicotion) notice u/s. 142 Vtew espolse ol lntotne toY I Act 1961. Notice/Lctla. PDF Se e k/V rc \,v Ad I a u r n me n t Response due dotc :q-D?c 2021 I

Pase 27 of 29 I)Sli,l .Yr \l R,l \rp lN(r()S l0ll&bxrch Notice/ Communicdtion Reference lD': 100033640093 lncome Tax Buslness Ap p I ico t i on/AST/S/ 1 4 8/ 2A 2A 2 1/ 103 2078906( 1 ) Docu me n t reference lD Description : (lncome fox Business Applicotion) notice u/s. 148 Submit respanse of lncome tox Act 1961. 1-9.2. Per contro, onother screenshot onnexed os onnexure P-3 in the I some writ petitioh, shows thot in the cose of other notices issued ir subsequentlylin 2021, to the some assessee, the dote of issuonce is duly mentnned oiong with the communicotion reference lD on the e Relevont portion of the screen shot is extrocted I filinq hereinbelow: 19.3. The date of issuance hos been selectively withheld only with respect to the impugned notices, os providing the informotion would moke it evideht thot the dote of issuonce even os per the lncome Tox Business Applicotion softwore system is April 1, 2021, or thereofter, os the softwoire isiolso progrommed to record the date of issuonce os the dote of despotch. 20.2. While ieferring to correspondence in the digitized world, the i, word "issuedi' hoi been reploced with the word "communicoted" in section 282A'oJ the Act of 1961. Therefore, when o notice is in poper form, it hoslto leove the oft'icc of thc conccrncd Authority for despotch b clonstitute o volid issuance. However, in digitol form, the communicotion is instant and therefore, merely puttinq the notice into transmiision connot be deemed to be communicotion. To .l constitute a lalid Communication the notlce hos to be effectively sent portol u/s I 148 Notice Seek/View AdlournmeDt lssued on out by the concerned outhority to the ossessee

P .t,c: 22 of 29 21.4. To demonstrote the aforesoid, onnexure R-2t r)S ra.l & N.I.RJ \r, lflr '18 llrll&trrrch I i I onnexed uith the l Re isler Detoils Deportment's counter ofJidovit in W. P. (C) No. 856 of 202t'con be perused, which is the screenshot of the lncome lTox .3usiness Applicotion screen of the ossessee os visible to thet iurisdictionol Assesslng Ot't'icer only. ln this onnexure, the Deportment itself hos extrocted the relevont portion of the screenshot, which hos complete detoits of the time ot which the e moil wos sent, time ot whi(:h the e- I moil wos delivered, etc. evidenctnq thot the dote ond time t"t'hen the rl e-moil contoining the impugned notice os on ottochment wa: sent by il the lncome Tox Business Applicotion servers, ts dulysovoi,loble with the I Depdrtment. The relevont extroct of the screenshot is reproduced hereinbelow: I 31-3 2021 /t4E/2020. 21/1032) )/ 6278(1) o1/a4/2a21 Shore.l $r' r r tt.,,.elna an I l 01/04/2D1 /2A. B/A4 I 23.1,. The impugned notice issued by the resp ondent was nct served on the petitio ne r/o sse ssee's registered e-mail lD ond wos sent to on unreloted e-moil tD. The petttioner leornt obout the impugned notice

E'age 23 of 29 PSr(,J & N fn,l sI lS(t()8 2()21.!l,rrch i which wos neither signed phystcolly nor ony digitol signoture certificote was oppended, incidentally through its e-Jiling portol. t; Therefore, thgre hos been no compliance of the provistons of section I 749 of the Act of 1961, while issuing the impugned notice. 23. Further, the Division Bench, while dealing with the notices and reasons held as u er ,t Yi7. , It 25. Question:No. (l) : Whether the iurisdictiondl Assessing Officer's oct 1 of qenerotinqlnotice in the lncome Tox Business Applicotion portol on Morch 31, ZOL;, witnort despatching the notice meets the test of the 26.6. Fu I expression "shall be issued" in section 149 ol the Act of 1961, ond ll soves the notices from being time bar rcd ? section 11 of the Act of 2000 is olso of relevonce Attribution of electronic records.-An electronic record sholl be ottributed to the originotor,- (o) if it wos ent by the originator himself ; I (b) by o pe n ,who had the outhority to oct on beholf of the oriqinotor in )espect of thot electronic recorcl ; or (c) by on int'brmotion system programmed by behalf of the i I I I I I rther,l i I I '11 I Is I rso or on origi notor to bpe rote d utom otico I ly 26.7. ln the plesent cose, the "oriqinotor", as pe( section 2(zo) of the I Act of 2O0O, i\ indubitobly the Deportment. The some is confirmed by i the contents bf the complionce aft'idovit. As stoted in the complionce

Ptty:.c: 24 ol 29 l,sli.l c\ N:I lU \\p lSlrr)il 2tt22ctbatch ofJidovit, the jurisdictionol Assessing Offrcer is the lntome tox outhoritv desiqnoted by the Deportment to generotelond sign the section 148 notice on beholf of the Deportment. The lncome Tox Business Applicotion portol is on tnJormotion system progror'lmed by TCS Jor the Deportment to operote outomoticolly. The lnc)me Tox Business Applicotion portol is the computer resource designated bY the Deportment t'or (o) drofting the e moil to which the lotice is attoched ; ond (b) for despotching the soid e moilwith noti.e to the I ossessee through e moil ; os well os (c) for sharinglthe soid t)otice on ossesseet "My Account" on the e t'iling poirtol.l Helce, the jurisdictional Assessing Officer and lncome Tox Business Applicotion perform two inseporoble ond complementing functions for the Deportment, which together constitute generotionlof rtotice + I drofting of the e-moil by the lncome Tox Business Applicotic,n e-moit softwore ond its despotch through dedicoted lncomel,Tox Business Applicotion servers. Thus, whilst the Deportmenq is originotor of the impugned notices within the mgon 11(c) of the Act of 2000, lncome Tox Business Applicotion pottal is the I "computer resource" under the control of the Depdrtment. I 26.8. ln the light of the oforesoid findings of this ccurt, the il submissions mode by Zoheb Hossoin. leorned senior stondirtgt counsel t! for the Deportment, thot the iurisdictional Assessilg OfJicet ond the lncome Tox Eusiness Applicdtion ore distinct ond tttat thc rl jurisdictionol Assessing Officer is the originotor ond hence rtot liable for deloy in despotch, ore untenoble in low ond focts. I i 1l 26.9. Now, in order to determine when does "dqspotFh", i. e., the tt tronsmission of electronic record or the notices ini thelpresent case, from the Depdrtment occur, we nl:y first note theilprelgden,e set by the l ins I ottributed o.'section U I severol High Courts in the context of lncome Tox I siness Applicdtion l I I I I

Page 25 of 29 moil reoches the des of the recipient's e-ma intermedio ry server, 'mdssoge tronsfer ogents, i 1'S li.l & N l'RJ \l lS0()S l(rl2&1,.:Icli portol. Underisection 13 of the Act of 2000, various High Courts hove concluded thot the despotch of on electronic record occurs when it enters o compute\ resource outside the control of the originotor, t. e., i when the lncome Tox Businest Applicatrcn's e moil system is 'itl triggered ond,thele-moil leoves the lncome Tox Business Applicotion servers. (Daulee Abhushon Bhondor (supro), Yuvraj (supro), Advonce lnfrodevelopdrs @) Ltd. (supro)). 26.13. Typico ly, n e-moil service based on SMTP Model utilizes o o choin of se Once on e- ogents, tronsler the rec intermediory: intermedioryi hand, the Dt t, ribrs to tronsmit e moil t'rom the sender to the recipient. mlail is drafted ond the,ender presses the "send" bullon, the e-moil seivice) i. e., the user oqent ("UA") of the sender tronsmits it to the mdssog'e tronsler ogents ("MTAs"), i. e., servers of the sender's ugh o sequence of such e., messoge tronsfer tinotion messoqe il service. ln cose it reoches the server of the It thereofter, finolly reaches the recipient. ln the cose on lpoia"nt', e-mdil service is the lncome Tox Business il Appticotion elmoil softwore system ond the assessee's e moil service lr is G-moil, Outlook, etc. The lncome Tox Business Applicotion e-moil softwore uses dedicoted servers Ior tronsmitting e moils ond therefore th;:le-moit is despatched when the some leoves the lncome Tox Businesi Appticotion servers for the recipient ossessee's ;] designoted e:mailservice servers. A simplified illustrotion of the SMTP model showihg this process, as confirmed hy the counsel Jor the :l I petitioners odd respondenls. is reproduced ltereinunder : serve

['aty: 26 t:f 29 The noticcs falling under the registered e-moil lD IJSI{J C\ N'|RJ r\rl I S|(lS lrr2l.\l)'.rtch 26.14. Far the purpose of this illustration, the double orrows indtcote tronsmission between computer resources thot orepf the lncome Tox Business Application e mail softwore system ond therefqre, within the control of the Deportment , ond the singlel orrpws indicote trdnsmissian between computer resources thot oretwitiin th,? control of or used by the ossessee. 26.15.This itlustrotion, os verified by the respondents, ottests to the loct thot the messoge tronsfer ogents, i. e., servertof the lncome Tax Eusiness Applicotion is o computer resource belonging to the Deportment. As estoblished edrller. the Deportmenlt is the oriqinotor as per section 11(c) oJ the Act of 2OOO, hence, thF deyOotrh occurs when it leoves the ldst messoge tronsf er agents, server'Pf th,' lncome Tox Business Applicotion ond enters o computerlreso)1trce thot the ,l Deportment (1aes not hove control over, i. e., thelmesrsoge transt'er ogents server of the e-moil service thot the ossesseq I I I I 31. For the reasons ond principles thot we hove loid, down, w,: dispose of these writ petitions with the following directions :lr rl 31.7. Coteqory "A" :The notices t'olling under colegofy "/t', which I were digitolly signed on or ofter April 1, 2021, ore hep to beor the I dote on which the soid notices were diqitolly signed ond not Morch lt 31., 2021. The soid petitions orc disposed of with thel direction that the soid notices ore to be considered os show-couse no undcr section 148A(b) of the Act os per the directions of the apex ou in tne Ashish Ago rwol, (su p ro ) judg ment ts ustng tces 31.2. Category "8" were sent through cotedorv l-t' 9f tle l "9" which r?spective

Page 27 ,,tl 29 l)\t\,1 & \'f R.l \\ l) liio'lri lrll'Nl) ii.l' jurisdictionol Assessing Officers, though not digitolly signed ore held to be volid. The soid petitions ore disposed of with the direction to the jurisdictionol Assessing Officers to vcrify ond determine the dote ond 'I time of its ldespotch os recorded in the lncome Tox Business ,l Applicotion portol in accordonce with the low loid down in this I iudqment os the dote of issuance. lf the dote ond time of despdtch recorded is on or at'ter April L, 2021, the notices ore to be considered os show-cause notices under section 148A(b) as per the directions of :i the opex couh in ihe Ashish Agorwol (supro) judgment 31.3. Cotego,i! ly "d" The petitions chollenging notices folling under were digitolly signed on Morch 31., 2021, ore cdtegory "C'lwhich disposed o7,),nn tn" direction to the iurisdictionol Assessing Officers I to veriJy ondbetelmine the date ond time of despotch os recorded in the tncome Tlx i Business Applicotion portol in occordonce with the low loid down in il this judgmenlt os1 the dote of issuonce. lf the dote ond time of I despotch recdrded is on or ot'ter April 1, 2021, the notices ore to be I considered ai show-couse notices under section 148A(b) os per the directions of the opex court in the Ashish Agorwol (supro) judgment. l 31.4. Cotegoiy "D" : The petitions chollenging notices folling under l cotegory "O"lwnitn were only uplooded in the e-filing portol ol the i ossessees wiihout ony reol time olert, ore disposed of with the I direction to the jurisdictionol Assessing Officers to determine the dote jl ond time whCn the ossessees viewed the notices in the e t'iling portol, os recorded.iin the lncome Tox Business Applicotion portol ond I conclude sucA date os the dote of issuonce in occordonce with the low I loid down in this iudgment. lf such dote of issuonce is determined to 1r be on or oftlr aplrit 1, 2021', the notices will be construed os issued I I

l'lryr: 28 of 29 |sli.l & N IR.I , ) lSrr',1 lr-.l&lJ.irclr under scctiotl laBA(b) of thc Act ol 1961 os per the Ashish Aqorwol (supro ) ludqment 31..5. Coteqory "E" : The Detitions chollenging noticesl.follinq under cotegory "[" which were monuolly despotched, are disposed of with the diraction to the juristlictionol Assessing Officers to,dete rmine in occordoncc vtith the tow toirl down in this judgment,lthe dote ond time when the notices were rlelruered to the post ot'fice t'or despotch onrl considcr the some os dote of issuonce. tl thd dote ond time of I despotch recordcd is on or ot'ter April 1, 2021, thti notices are to be il construed trs show-couse notices under section 1(8A(p) o:; per the directions ol the opex court in the Ashish Agdrwol (supro) jurtgment." 24. Witl'r the :rfor esnid judicial precedents and th fa<:t that the Delhi High Court hzrs cxtensively clealt rvith these (which have also been the contention of the learned Seni Counsel for the Income Tax, lbr the respondents, ln atch of writ petitions), zlncl re r)(iered the jrrdgment in favour of the assessee , and urhich has not becr.t lurther cherllcrrged by the resp nclent- De partme nt e I I h t contention s ".1r,f..,"* " ]""1""" o I In I views laid dorvn by the Division Bench of the Delhi H igh Court in the I I till now,. Tl-rcreirle. rve also arc lully in agreeme t rLnd endorse the hold that the impugned limitation ar9 thL I I case of Suman Jeet Agarwal (supra) and notices in :r1l thesc batch of writ petitions undcr Sections 148 and 149 of the Act, since the I.T.B.A. portal on or after O1 .O4 2021. brarr3dbv sald notices have left

-o,- of lncomc Tax-4, Aayakar Bhawan, 10 The Secrrtarv to the Governrrert, Der)artment or R.ve.ue rVrinistry of Finarte ,. Uniul of lndia. Ncw O.f f , 1;ijo t" "" ' ' 11 . The Princrpal Commissioner Basheerbaq;h Hyderabad_500004 12.The Revcnue Secretarv. l\,4inrstry ol Firrance. Departmunt ol Revenue, Union of tnrtie. Room No 46. Nrorth eroif,, t\c;'D;lh, """" 13. The lleputy Comnrissioner of lncorne Iax (Dy.ClT), Circle_2(1 ), Hyderabad '14. The Inconrc Tax Officer, Ward 16(3), Hydcrabad, tT I ower, Ac Guards, [4a s; rn Tank rlyderabad_04 15.The Chairnran. Central Board of Direct Taxes, Department of Revenue. [,4inrsrry of Frnance, Govt of tnota, secreiari;ia;it'd,;g. N,,:w Delhi _ 110001 16.The lnr:ome Tax Officer, Warcl No.17(1 ), Hyderabad 17.The lncome Tax Officer, Exemption Ward 1(1), Aaykar Bhawan, Opposite LB Stadium. Basheer Bagh, Hyderabad, Telangana- 500 004 18. The Secret;rry, Department of Revenue, I\,4inistry of Finance, Union of lndia, Roorr No. 1 2BA, North Block, New Delhi -1 10001 4. The lncome Tax Officer, Nalional Faceless Assessment Oentre, Government of lndia, Ir4inistry of Finance, New Delhi. 19. One CC to SRI DUNDU wANIVOHAN, Advocate [OPUC] 20. One CC to SRI J.V. PRASAD, Senior Standing Coun.;el for lncome Tax loPUCl 21.One CC to SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUN/AR, Deputy Solicitor General of lndia [oPUC] 22.One OC to SRI A V. A. SIVA KARTIKEYA, Advocate [OPJC] 23 One CC to SRI Y. RATNAKAR, Senior Counsel [OPUC] 24.One CC to lt4/s; SUNDARI R. PISUPATI, Senior Standing Counsel for the lnconre Tax Department [OPUCI 25. One CC to I\,4s. K. I\i1AN/ATA CHOUDARY, Senior Standing Counsel for Inconre Tax Department [OPUC] 26. One CC ro [\,4 r SHATK JEELANT BASHA, Advocate [OPUO] 27.One CC to SRI K. RAJI REDDY, Senior Standing Cou rsel for lncome Tax Department [OPUC] 28. One CC to SRI CUDDAPAH NANDA GOPAL, Advocate ICPUC] 29. Twr; CD Copies \ tVP GJP 3

li HIGH COURT DATED:1410612024 i E i],;i 207{ :\\ a , \(-a) coM RDER W.P.Nos.18098, 14302, 14331, 19083, 20301 ,20925, 20935, 21181,21805,21949 AND 225430F 2022 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS --- =:_-_\ ..'. .\l :3);,r.