Padmadevi Roopireddy vs. The Union of India

PDF · subscribers
WP/33704/2023HC TelanganaHBHC01062130202314 December 2023Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,N.TUKARAMJI6 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the writ petition, following its previous decision in WP.No.25903 of 2022 & batch, dated September 14, 2023. The Court found that the proceedings were not drawn in accordance with the amended provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, but rather under the un-amended provisions, rendering them unsustainable. The Court noted that the preliminary objection raised by the petitioner regarding the jurisdictional issue was sustained, and the impugned notices and orders were being quashed on this point. Consequently, the Court was not inclined to proceed further and decide the other issues raised by the petitioner, which were reserved to be raised in appropriate proceedings. The Court also reiterated that the right of the respondents to proceed further, as envisaged in paragraphs 37 and 38 of its previous order in the batch matters, would stand reserved. No order as to costs was made.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Padmadevi Roopireddy, filed a writ petition challenging an order passed by the Income Tax Officer (ITO), Ward 15(1), Hyderabad, under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated April 6, 2022, and a consequent notice under Section 148 of the Act, also dated April 6, 2022. These actions were taken for the assessment year 2015-16. The petitioner contended that the proceedings were initiated by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer and that the amended provisions of the Act, effective from April 1, 2021, require a faceless assessment and an opportunity of hearing. The respondents, represented by the Standing Counsel for the IT Department, did not dispute the procedural objection but noted that other objections were also raised by the petitioner.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the proceedings initiated under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2015-16, were conducted in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act, which came into effect from April 1, 2021, requiring a faceless assessment and an opportunity of hearing. Assessee's Contentions: - The petitioner argued that the amended provisions of the Act, effective from April 1, 2021, mandate that proceedings under Section 148 must be initiated by issuing a notice under Section 148A and providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. - It was further contended that these proceedings should be conducted in a faceless manner. - The petitioner relied on a previous judgment by the same Bench in WP.No.25903 of 2022 & batch, dated September 14, 2023, which disposed of similar writ petitions. Revenue's Contentions: - The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Department acknowledged that the objection regarding the procedural flaw was decided in the aforementioned batch of writ petitions. - However, the counsel also stated that the petitioner had raised various other objections apart from the procedural one.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

[ 3379 ] HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION NO: 33704 OF 2023 Between: Padmadevi Roopireddy, Wo. D R Purushotham Reddy, Age 69, Occ Housewife, 7-918, Jaisantosh Nagar, First Floor, Habsiguda Road No 8 Hyderabad' Telangana 500007 ...pETrroNER AND 1. The Union of lndia, Ministry of Finance, Rep. By its Secretary 166-8 North Block, New Delhi- 110001 2. lncome Tax Officer, Ward 15(1), lncome Tax Towers, Masab Tank, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500004 3. The Principal Commissioner of lncome Tax-|, lncome Tax Towers, Masab Tank, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500004 4. The National Faceless Assessment Centre, lncome Tax Department Ministry of Finance Government of lndia New Delhi. ...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 pa(icularly, one, in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the Order passed by the Respondent No.2 dated 0610412022 u/s 148A(d) of the lncome Tax Act, 1961 and the notice issued by the Respondent No.2 u/s. 148 of the lncome Tax Act, 1961 dated 06/04/2022and any consequent proceedings thereof as lacking in jurisdiction, illegal, bad in law, void ab initio, being violative of the provisions of lncome Tax Act, 1961 and Articles 14, 19 and 265 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently (ii.)Set aside the Order passed by Respondent No.2 dated 0610412022 u/s. 148A(d) and the Notice issued u/s. 148 of the [ncome Tax Act, 1961 dated 0610412022 calling for the return of income of the Petitioner for AY. 201 5-16. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI POLKAMPALLY PAVAN KUMAR RAO Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.1 & 4: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR Dy. SOLICITOR GEN. OF ]NDIA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3: SRI J.V.PRASAD, SC FOR lT The Court made the following: ORDER

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITIOIT No. 3370,4 0F 2023 ORDER:/per Hon'bte Si Justice p,SAM KOSH4) The instant Writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Articl e 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order issued under Section lagA(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, "the Act") bearing DIN No.ITBA/AST/F/ r48A/2O22_2g/ tO42SZg2B3 (1), dated O6.O4.2a22 passed by respondent No.1 for the assessment year 2Ol5-16 and the consequent notice under Section l4g of the Act, dated 06.04.2022, bearing DIN No.ITBA/AST / s / t48-! / 2022_23 /1042s81 rZ6 (L). 2. One of the contentions that the petitioner has raised in the present Writ petition is that under the amended provisions of the Act which came into effect from Ol.O4.2O2l, the respondents, while proceeding under section 148 0f the Act, were required to issue notice under Section l48A and prouide an opportunity of hearing to the

2 PSI(,J & MrR,J W.P.No.337O4 of 2O23 assessee. As per the amended provision of law, the proceedings to be drawn are also in a faceless ma-nner. 3. Whereas, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, in the instant case, reopening has been initiated by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. In support of his contention, he relied upon the recent judgment rendered by this very Bench in WP.No.25903 of 2022 & batch, dated L4.O9.2023 wherein this Court disposed of the batch of writ petitions to the limited extent. 4. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Department does not dispute that the said objection was decided in the aforesaid batch of Writ Petitions. However, he further contended that apart from the aforesaid objection, there have been other various objections also which the petitioner has raised in the writ petition. 5. So far as this contention of the learned counsel for the respondent-Department is concerned, this Bench, while disposing of said batch of writ petitions, had taken note of

3 PSr(,J & .I\ITR,J W.P.No.337O4 of 2023 the same at paragraPh Nos.37 & 38 which are reproduced herein under: '37. The pr.eliminary objection raised bg tle petitioner is sustained and all these writ petitions sfands allouted on this uery juisdictional issue. Since the impugned noties and orders are getting qtashed on the point of juisdiction, u)e are not inclined to proceed further and decide the other issues raised bg the petitioner uhich stands reserued to be raised and contended in an app rop riate proceeding s.' "38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court ha"d, in the case of Ashish Agartual, supra, as a one-time measure exercising the pouers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, permitted the Reuenue to proceed under tle sabstifiited prouisions, and this Court altowing the petitions only on the procedural flaw, the right conferred on the Reuenue uould remain reserued to proceed further if theg so tuant from the stage of the order of the Supreme Court in tle case of Ashi-sh Aganaal, supra." 6. In view of the sarne, we are inclined to allow the present writ petition also on similar terms. Accordingly, the present Writ Petition stands allowed on the objection of the petitioner that the proceedings have not been drawn in accordance with the amended provision but under the un-amended provision which is otherwise not sustainable. 7. As has been held by this Bench in the aforesaid batch matters, the right of the respondents would stand reserved I I

4 PST,J& IVTR,J W.P.No.337O4 o:f 2023 as is envisaged at paragraph Nos.37 & 38 of the said order passed in the batch of writ petitions. l{o order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- K.SREERAMA MURTHY ASSISTANT RE ISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION FICER To 1. 2. 4. 5. b. 7. 8. PSK. GJP The Secretary, Union of lndia, Ministry of Finance '166-8 North Block' New Delhi- 1 '10001 i"i"r,j iii onicer, ward 15(1), lncome Tax Towers, Masab Tank' Hvderabad, Telangana - 500004 ii;;;;;;i 6ominisiion.r oi lncome Tax-l, lncome Tax Towers, Masab Tank, Hyd'erabad, Telangana - 500004 il;'it;ii.ir;l F;c6teis Rlsessment centre, lncome Tax Department Ministry of Finance Government of lndia New Delhi' ci;.;' CC 6 5 ni F o r-rn rvt pn tV pnvn u x g M{ry FAo-. Aq vqqq !e [o-l l lQ] ^ il; dd i6 Siii eAor pnnVeetr ruvnn, Dv. soLlclroR GEN' oF INDIA roPUCl 5;tCC to sRt J.v.PRASAD, sc FoR lr [oPUc] Two CD Copies

HIGH COURT DATED:1411212023 ORDER WP.No.33704 of 2023 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS. ( 1$E STAr€ 1 0 JAN 2024 q 5oo ai t * OEs pa-t C\' CrsQ- 69 9\

More judgments on Section 148A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →