M/s Baba Amarnath Impex vs. The Income Tax Officer

PDF · subscribers
WP/29892/2023HC TelanganaHBHC01054323202320 October 2023Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY7 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the present writ petition in terms of its earlier order dated October 13, 2023, passed in W.P. No. 28860 of 2023. The Court noted that an identical writ petition had already been allowed. The reasoning followed the decision in W.P. No. 25903 of 2022 and batch, where the preliminary objection raised by the petitioner regarding jurisdictional issues and non-compliance with amended provisions (specifically, the requirement to issue notice under Section 148A and conduct proceedings in a faceless manner) was sustained. The Court had quashed the impugned notices and orders on the point of jurisdiction and had not proceeded to decide other issues raised by the petitioner, reserving the right of the respondents to raise them in appropriate proceedings. Consequently, the present writ petition was allowed on similar terms, with the rights of the respondents reserved as envisaged in the earlier order. Miscellaneous applications pending were closed, with no order as to costs.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s. Baba Amarnath Impex, represented by Sri Girish Agarwal, filed a writ petition before the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. The petition challenged an order passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 17(1) under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated March 24, 2023, and a notice under Section 148 of the Act dated March 24, 2023, both pertaining to Assessment Year 2016-17. The petitioner sought to declare these actions arbitrary, illegal, and void ab initio, violating principles of natural justice and constitutional provisions. The respondents included the Income Tax Officer, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, and the Assessment Unit of the National e-Assessment Center. The High Court was informed that an identical writ petition, W.P. No. 28860 of 2023, had already been allowed and disposed of by the Court on October 13, 2023.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the order passed under Section 148A(d) and the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2016-17 are arbitrary, illegal, void ab initio, and violative of the principles of natural justice, Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 265 of the Constitution of India, and Section 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961? (Question of law and fact) Assessee's contentions: The petitioner argued that the reopening proceedings were initiated by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, whereas, under the amended provisions of the Act effective from April 1, 2021, the respondents were required to issue notice under Section 148A and provide an opportunity for hearing, with proceedings to be conducted in a faceless manner. The petitioner relied on a batch of writ petitions decided by the same Bench on September 14, 2023 (W.P. No. 25903 of 2022 and batch). Revenue's contentions: The counsel for the Department did not dispute that the objection regarding the procedure had been decided in the aforesaid batch of matters. However, the counsel submitted that there were other various objections raised by the petitioner.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

AND 1 2 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY WRIT PETITION NO: 29892 OF 2023 Between: M/s.Baba Amarnath lmpex, Rep by Sri Girish Agarwal, 21-6-399, Simlawala Nivas, Chandra Chowk, Ghansi Bazar, Hyderabad- 500002 ...PETITIONER The lncome Tax Officer, Ward 17(1 ), lncome Tax Department, Hyderabad The Principal Commissioner of lncome Tax-2, Signature Towers, Sy No 6(P) of Kondapur, Sy. 37(P) of Kothaguda, Opposite Botanical Gardens, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad 500 084 3. Assessment Unit, lncome Tax Department, rep by Assessment Officer, National e-Assessment Center New Delhi, Room No 401, 2nd Floor, E-Ramp Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, New Delhi-l 10 003- ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed 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 b the 1st Respondent u/s 148A(d) of the lncome Tax Act 1961 dated 241O312023 bearing DIN and Notice No DIN Notice No. ITBA,/AST/F1148A12022- 2311051245523(1) for the A.Y.' 2016-17 dated 24-03-2023 and Notice under 148 of the Act vide DIN Notice No. ITBAJAST/S/148 112022-2311051266923(1) for the A.Y. 2016-17 dated 24-03-2023 as arbitrary illegal bad in law void-ab initio violative of the principles of natural .iustice apart from being violative of Articles 14,199 and 265 of the i i 13386 I

.; Constitution of lndie and Sec 148A of the lncome Tax Act 1961 and ,lonsequently set aside the same. lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in thr, circurnstan:es stated in the affidavit filed in r;upport of the petition, the High Court may be ple,ased please direct the responderts to stay all further proceedings, includin,S aiy recovery, pursuant to the notir:e issued by the 1st Respondent, u/r; 148,rf the lncome Tax Act, 1961, vide DIN ,,lotice No. ITBtuAST/S/148 112022-231105 1236923('l)for the A.Y. 2016-17 daled 24-03-2023, for the Assessment Year 2016-17, pending disposal of the Main Whit Petition. Counsel for the Peti ioner : SRI HIMANGINI SANGHI counserrortheResrondents:,.r?!."r#il::ii'rt*t#1,, The Court made the tollowing: ORDER

.I'HE HON'BLE SRI .II-]STICI], P.SAM KOSHY ANT) THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMT NARAYANA ALISHETTY WRIT PITTITION No.29892 of 2023 ORDER:@er Hon'ble Sri Justice P.SAM KOSHY) When the matter is taken up for hearing today, it has been informed by the parties that an identical writ petition i.e., W.P.no.28860 of 2023 has already been allowed and disposed of vide order dated 13.10.2023 2. In view of the fact that the identical matter has already been allowed by this Court, we are inclirred to allow the present writ petition also, in terms of the order passed in W.P.No.288 60 of 2023 decided on 13.10.2023 on similar tenr.rs. 3. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any in this writ petition, shall stand closed. No order as to costs. SD/.T.KRISHNA KUMAR DEPUTY REGI$TRAR SECTION.6FFICER To, 1. The lncome Tax Officer, Ward 17(1), lncome Tax Department, Hyderabad 2. The Principal Commissioner of lncome Tax-2, Signature Towers, Sy No 6(P) of Kondapur, Sy. 37(P) of Kothaguda, Opposite Botanical Gardens, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad 500 084 3. The Assessment Officer, Assessment Unit, lncome Tax Department, National e-Assessment Center N'ew Delhi, Room No 401, 2nd Floor, E-Ramp Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, New Delhi 1 10 003 4. One CC to SRI HIMANGINI SANGHI, Advocate. [OPUC] 5. One CC to SRI SUNDARI R PISUPATI, (Sr SC for lncome Tax Dept).[OPUC] 6. Two CD Copies. (Along with a copy of the order, daled 13-10-2023, passed by this Court in W.P.No.28860 ot 20231o this order) BSK LSN1\"-'' //TRUE COPY// I \

HIGH COURT DATED:20 1012023 ORDER WP.No.298)2 of 2023 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT (:OSTS 'r P,f: s rA r€- ir ti []I 2Ml i q )) .'ri . \" ''l 1A I I \.^ {.\\ 4., 7a\lu

I THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY W.P. No. 2aA6O of 2o23 ORI)ER: per ao n'bte Sri Ju.stice P.SATI KOSIIp Heard Mr. A.V.A. Siva Kartikeya, learned counsel for the peLitioner 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 Iiled challenging the Assessment Order passed by respondent No.1 under section 147 read with 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") dated 11.05.2023 for the Assessment Year 2016-17 . 3. One of the contentions that the petitioner has raised in the present writ petition is that under the amended provisions of the Act which came into effect from 01.04.202 1, the respondents while proceeding under Section 148 of the Act were required to issue notice under Section 148,4. and provide an opportunit5z of hearing to the assessee. As per the amended provision of law, the proceedings to be drawn are also in a faceless manner. Whereas, it has been contended by the petitioner that in the instant case, reopening has been initiated by the Juridictional Assessing Oflicer. In respect of the said objection that the petitioner had raised, he relied upon the recent batch of writ t

2 petitions decic e<l by this very Bench c,n 1'+.t)9.2023 vide W.P.No.259O3 ol 2022 a-nd batch to the limited e xtent 4. Learned ')ounsel for the Department v,ould not dispute of having decided the said objection in the afotesaid tratc:h matters. However, learn,:d counsel submits that apart frorn th,: aforesaid objection, there have been other various objer:tions aiso which the petitioner has rz.ised in the writ petition. 5. So far a; this contention of the learned <:o rnsrel for the Department is concerned, this Bench, while disposing of W.P.No.25903 <,f 2022 and batch had taken note o,' ttLe same in paragraph No.3" rvhich is reproduced herein un,1er: "37. The preliminary objection raised by trre pelitione' is sustained :nd all these writ petitions stands allcwed o:r this very jurisdictio: ra1 issue. Since the impugned notices and cr,lers are getting qu{rshed on the point ofjurisdiction, we are not nclint d to proceed firrther and decide the other issues raised by the pelitionervhich stands reserved to be raised and conte:rd:d i:r an appropriat : proceedings." 6. In view 01 the same, we are inclined to z[low the present writ petition also on similar terms. Accordingly, the pres(lnt \lrrit Petition stands allowed ,rn the objection of the petitioner that the proceedings have not been < lrawn in accordance with the alnendt:d provision but under the unanrended provision which is otherwise nrrt sustainable. As has been held by this Bench in the aforesaid ba;-ch nratters, the right of the re: pondents would stand reserved as is envisaged in paragraph No.3" ofthe said batch. No order as :o costs.

3 Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. P.SAM KOSHY, J LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J Dated: 13.10.2023 Put

More judgments on Section 148A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →