Mr. Madharshab Qureshi vs. Income Tax Officer

[ 33e7 ] HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRlT PETITION NO: 34539 OF 2023 Between: Mr. Madharshab Qureshi, # 1-89, Ameenpur Villege, Ameenpur Patancheru Mandal, Medak 502032 ...PETITIONER AND 1 lncome Tax Officer, Ward 1, lncome Tax Office, Veerabhadra Nagar, New Bus Stand, Sangareddy, Andhra Pradesh,502001 The Principal Chief Commissioner of lncome Tax AP AND TS, lOth Floor' C- Block, l.T. Towers, 10-2-3, A.C. Guards, Hyderabad-500004 The Assessment Unit, lncome Tax Department' National Faceles^q Assessment Centre, Delhi, tr/inistry of Finance, Room No. 4O1' 2'- Floor, E- Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, Delhi-110003 ...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 an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the impugned order dt.18/04/2022 passed u/s l BA(d) of the Act vide DIN No. ITBA/AST/F|148A|2O22 - 2311042763485(1) and the consequential notice u/s 148 dl.18lO4l2O22 vide DIN No. ITBA/AST/S/148 - 1t2)22-23t1}42163g12(1), for A.Y. 2015-16, issued by the JAO(1't respondent) instead of FA0(3d respondent), as void, illegal, and contrary to the provisions of lncome{ax Act and contrary to the Principles of Natural Justice' 2 3

IA NO: 10F 2023 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 all further proceedings pursuant to the notice u/s 148 dt'18l}4t2O22of the Act vide ITBA/AST/S/14 8-1t2o22- 23 t1042763g12 (1)issued by the 1't Respondent(JAO)for A.Y. 2015-16 instead of 3'd respondent(FAO)' Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI DUNDU MANMOHAN Counsel for the Respondents: SUNDARI R PISUPATI (Sr SC for lncome Tax DePt) The Court made the following: ORDER

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No.34539 OF 2o23 ORDER (per 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.3O153 of 2023 has already been allowed and disposed of uide order, dated 3O.1O.2023. 2.Inviewofthefactthattheidenticalmatterhasalreadybeen allowedbythisCourt,weareinclinedtoallowthisWritPetitionin terms of the order passed in W.P'No'3O 153 of 2023 decided on 30 .1O.2023 on similar terms. 3. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any in this Writ Petition, shall stand ciosed. No order as to costs' SD/. K.SREERAMA MURTHY ASSISTANT RE TSTRAR /ITRUE COPY// SECTTON FFICER i i i i ! II To, 1m 6. Two CD CoPtes TJ GJ (Along with the Order Copy dt:30'10' 2023 inW'P'No'30153 ol 2023\ \v

HIGH COURT DATED:2211212023 ORDER WP.No.34539 ot 2023 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 0 g ,!A1\l 202f ( .4 Fs gO t * D PATCH oo 14 E S H 1 B o ( ,h t)

-.4 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY W.P. No. 3O153 of 2O23 ORDER:per ao n'ble St: Jusuce P.SAM Kosr:f:) Heard Mr. A.V.A. Siva Kartikeya, learned counsel for the petitioner 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 filed challenging the Assessment Order passed by respondent No.1 under section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") dated 25.04.2022 for the Assessment Year 20 18- 19. 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 O 1.O4.202 1, the respondents while proceeding under Section 148 of the Act were required to issue notice under Section 148A and provide an opportunit5r 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 Officer. In respect of the said objection that the petitioner had raised, he relied upon the recent batch of writ {

2 petitions decided by this very Bench on 14.Og .2023 vide W.P.No.259O3 of 2022 and batch to the limited extent. 4. Learned counsel for the Department would not dispute of having decided the said objection in the aforesaid batch matters. However, learned counsel submits that apart from the aforesaid objection, there have been other various objections also which the petitioner has raised in the writ petil ion. 5. So far as this contention of the learned counsel for the Department is concerned, this Bench, while disposing of W.P.No.25903 of 2022 and batch had taken note of the same in paragraph Nos.37 & 38 which is reproduced herein under: "37. The preliminary objection raised by the petitioner is :":t1,""9 and all these writ petitions stands allowed on this very jurisdictionat issue. Since the impugned notices and orders are getting quashed on the point ofjurisdiction, we are not inclined to proceed further and decide the other issues raised by the petitioner which stands reserved to be raised and contended in an appropriate proceedings." 38. Since the Honble Supreme Court had, in the case ofAshish Agarwal, supra, as a one-time measure exercising the powers under Article I42 of the Constitution of India, [ermlttea tfre Revenue to proceed under the substituted provisibns, and this Court allowing the petitions only on the procedural flaw, the right conferred on the Revenue would remain reserved to proceed further if they so want from the stage of the order of the Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Agarwal, supra. 6. In view of the same, 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 unamended provision which is otherwise not sustainable.

3 ,1 As has been held by this Bench in the aforesaid batch matters, the right of the respondents would stand reserved as is envisaged in paragraph Nos.37 & 38 of the said batch. No order as to costs. 7. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. P.SAM KOSHY, J LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J Dated:3O.iO.2O23 aqs