Tangirla Sivacharan vs. Income Tax Officer

PDF · subscribers
WP/31906/2023HC TelanganaHBHC01058367202318 November 2023Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,N.TUKARAMJI5 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed both writ petitions. The Court noted that an identical writ petition, W.P. No. 30153 of 2023, had already been allowed and disposed of by the Court on 30.10.2023. Consequently, following the precedent set in the earlier identical matter, the present writ petitions were also allowed on similar terms. The operative direction was to set aside the impugned notices and consequent proceedings. The Court did not delve into the merits of the reassessment itself, but rather quashed the proceedings based on the procedural defect identified in the earlier judgment. No specific issue was left undecided; the decision was based on the allowance of an identical petition.

What were the facts?

The petitioners, Swarnalata Kurra (WP No. 31900/2023) and Tangirla Sivacharan (WP No. 31906/2023), challenged notices issued under Section 148A(b) and Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2015-16 and 2016-17 respectively. The petitioners also challenged the consequent assessment orders. The core of their challenge was that the reassessment proceedings were initiated by the jurisdictional assessing officer, rather than through the faceless, automated allocation mechanism mandated by the Finance Act, 2021, specifically under Section 144B. They contended that this procedural deviation rendered the notices and subsequent orders illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction. The respondents are the Income Tax Officer and the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the jurisdictional assessing officer, without following the faceless assessment procedure mandated by Section 144B of the Act, are illegal and without jurisdiction, particularly in light of the amendments brought by the Finance Act, 2021? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The petitioners argued that the action of the Respondent No. 1 in issuing notices under Section 148A(b) and Section 148, and the consequent assessment orders, were arbitrary, illegal, and without jurisdiction. They specifically contended that the Finance Act, 2021, mandates reassessment proceedings and the issuance of notices under Section 148A(b) to be conducted in a faceless manner through automated allocation as provided under Section 144B, and not by the jurisdictional assessing officer. They relied on the principles of natural justice and Articles 14, 19, and 265 of the Constitution of India. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments presented by the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

[ 337e ] HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION NOs.31900 AND 31906 0F 2023 WRIT PETITION No.31900 0F 2023: Between: SwarnqLata Kurra, PAN. AGLPK1394E 7-1-168/NG20S, 2nd Floor Nilagiri Block, Aditya Enclave, Ameerpet, Hyderabad, T.S.-500036 ...PETITIONER AND '1. lncome Tax Officer, Ward 6(1), lncome Tax Towers, Masab Tank, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500004 2. The_ Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-|, lncome Tax Towers, Masab Tank, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500004 ...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 lssue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondent No. 1 in issuing the Notice dated 24-05-2022 u/s 1484 (b) and Notice u/s 148 daled 26-07 -2022 calling for the return of income for AY. 2015-16 as arbitrary, illegal, and without jurisdiction;

To set aside the notice issued by Respondent No. '1 u/s 148 of the lncome Tax Act, '196'1 dated 26-07 -2022 calling for the return of income of the Petitioner for AY. 2015-'l6and consequent proceedings including the Assessment Order passed uls 144 rlw 147 of the lncome tax Act, '1 961 dated 24-05-2023 as lacking in jurisdiction in terms of the amendment in the Act and procedure laid down in the Finance Act 2o21which mandates the authorities to initiate proceedings pertaining to reassessment u/s 1 48 and issuance of notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act in a faceless manner through automated allocation, as is provided u/s 1448 of the Act rather than being, proceeded by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under the lncome Tax Act. 1961 . WRIT PETITION NO: 31906 OF 2023 Between: Tangirla Sivacharan, s/o. Mr. Ralaram Babu, Aged: 41 years, PAN: CEBPS0736L A 32 1st Floor, Venture 02 SBH Colony, L.B Nagar, Hyderabad, 500074. ...PETITIONER AND 1 lncome Tax Officer, Ward 9(1), lncome Tax Towers, Masab Tank, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500004 The Principal Commissioner of lncome Tax-|, lncome Tax Towers, Masab Tank, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500004 ...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. lssue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly, one, in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the order passed by the Respondent No.1 in issuing the Notice dated 25-03-2023 u/s 148A(d) and notice issued by the Respondent No.'1 under Section 148 of tlre Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 25-03-2023 as illegal, arbitrary, bad in law, void ab initio, violative 2

of the principles of natural justice and being violative of Articles 14,19 and 265 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently; I Set aside the notice issued by Respondent No.1 under Section 14BA(d) and Section 148 of the lncome Tax Act, 1961 dated 25-03-2023 calling for the return of income of the Petitioner for AY. 2016-17 and any consequent proceedings as lacking in jurisdiction. Counsel for the Petitioner in both the Writ Petitions: SRI P. SOMA SHEKAR REODY Counsel for the Respondents in both the Writ Petitions: M/s. BOKARO SAPNA REDDY, Jr. SC FOR INCOME TAX The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

THE T{ON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION Nos.31900 and 31906 of 2023 COMMON ORDER (per lktn'ble Sri Justice P.SAM KOSHY) When these matter are taken up for hearing today, it has been informed by the parties that an identical writ petition i.e., W.P.no.30l53 of 2023 has already been allowed and disposed of vide order dated 30.10.2023 2. In view of the fact that the identical matter has already been allowed by this Court, we are inclined to allow these writ petitions also, in terms of the ordel passed in W.P.No.30l 53 of 2023 decided on 30.10.2023 on similar terms 3. As a sequel, miscellancous applications pending if any in these writ petitions, shall stand closed. No order as to costs. SD/- N.RAJAGOPAL ASSISTANT REGISTRAR -;4' SECTION OFFICER '1 . The lncome Tax Officer, Ward 6(1), lncome Tax Towers, Masab Tank Hyderabad, Telangana - 500004 2. The Principal Commissioner of lncome Tax-l, lncome Tax Towers, Masab Tank, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500004 3. The lncome Tax Officer, Ward 9(i ), lncome Tax Towers, Masab Tank Hyderabad, Telangana - 500004 4. One CC to SRI P. SOMA SHEKAR REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to M/s. BOKARO SAPNA REDDY, Jr. S.C. for tncome Tax [OpUC] 6. Two CD Copies Along with a copy of the Order dated 30 '10.2023 in W.p.No.30153 of 2023 //TRUE COPYII To, MP GJ kN*

HIGH COURT DATED:1811112023 COMMON ORDER W.P.NOs.31900 AND 31906 OF 2023 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS \il* \N< * .r\ rG 6' o * 1 gE ST47 5 0E[ 208 oEs t, 1T c'i i3 1

More judgments on Section 148A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →