Rajeswari Mopur vs. Assessment Unit,

PDF · subscribers
WP/35044/2023HC TelanganaHBHC01064922202329 December 2023Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,N.TUKARAMJI8 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the writ petition in terms of the order passed in W.P.No.30153 of 2023 decided on 30.10.2023. The Court noted that an identical writ petition had already been allowed. The reasoning in the cited order (W.P.No.30153 of 2023) was that the assessment proceedings were not drawn in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act but under the unamended provisions, which was unsustainable. The Court had sustained the preliminary objection raised by the petitioner on this jurisdictional issue and quashed the impugned notices and orders. The Court explicitly stated that it was not inclined to decide other issues raised by the petitioner, which were reserved to be raised in appropriate proceedings. The right of the respondents to proceed further, as envisaged in paragraph Nos. 37 & 38 of the earlier batch order (W.P.No.25903 of 2022 and batch), was reserved. The operative direction was to allow the writ petition and close pending miscellaneous applications. No order as to costs was made.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Raiswari Mopur, filed a writ petition challenging an Assessment Order dated 18-12-2023, issued by the Assessment Unit (respondent 1) for Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17. This order was pursuant to an order dated 16-03-2023 passed under Section 148A(d) and a notice dated 24-03-2023 under Section 148, both issued by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(1), Hyderabad (respondent 2). The petitioner sought to quash these orders as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, without jurisdiction, and violative of constitutional provisions. The petitioner also sought a stay on the disputed demand of tax, interest, and penalty. The High Court was informed that an identical writ petition, W.P.No.30153 of 2023, had already been allowed and disposed of by an order dated 30.10.2023.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned Assessment Order dated 18-12-2023, the order dated 16-03-2023 under Section 148A(d), and the notice dated 24-03-2023 under Section 148 are arbitrary, illegal, unjust, without jurisdiction, and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 265 of the Constitution of India. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the assessment proceedings were initiated and conducted in violation of the amended provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which came into effect from 01.04.2021. Specifically, the petitioner contended that the respondents were required to issue notice under Section 148A and provide an opportunity of hearing, and that proceedings should be faceless. The petitioner relied on a previous batch of writ petitions decided by the same Bench on 14.09.2023 (W.P.No.25903 of 2022 and batch). Revenue's Contention: The counsel for the Department did not dispute that the issue raised by the petitioner had been decided in the aforementioned batch matters. However, the counsel submitted that the petitioner had raised other objections as well.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

[ 337e ] HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUST]CE N.TUKARAMJI wRtT PETtTtON NO.35044 0F 2023 Between: Raieswari Mopur, W/o. Mopur Venkata Tami Reddy Aged about 48 years, Fl/o.11- 14:393, Flat No.101 Sai Surya Marvel Apartments, Siri Nagar, L. B. Nagar, Hyderabad - 500074 ...PETITlONER AND 1. Assessment Unit, lncome Tax Department, National Faceless Assessment Centre Government of lndia, Jawaharlal Nehru Marg, Block B, Press Enclave, Savitri Nagar, New Delhi t 10002 2. lncome Tax Officer, Ward-6(1), Hyderabad Income Tax Tower A.C.Guards, Masab tank, Hyderabad - 500004 3. Union of lndia, Rep. by its Secretary, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, North Block New Delhi- 11O001 ...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 writ order or Direction more particularly in the nature of writ of Certiorari quashing the impugned Assessment Order having DIN No.ITBA/AST/S114712023-2411058842546(1) dated 18-12-2023 issued by respondent for A.Y.2016-1 7 pursuant to the impugned order dated '16-03-2023 passed u/s 148A (d) and impugned notice dated 24-03-2023 u/s 148 passed by

2nd respondent as being arbitrary, iflegar, unjust, without jurisdiction and viorative of Articles 14, 19 (1) g and 265 of Constitution of lndia. lA NO: I OF 2023 Petition under Section I 51 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to stay the disputed demand of tax, interest and penarty and a, further proceedings initiated pursuant to impugned Assessment Order No ITBA/AST/S I 1 4Z t2O23-241 1058842546( 1 ) dated 1 8_1 2_2023 having issued by DIN 1"t respondent tor A.y.2016-17. Counsel for the petitioner: Mr. MOHD. MUKHAIRUDDIN Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: SRI J. V. PRASAD, S.C. FOR INCOME TAX Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA The Court made the following: ORDER

\ THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSI{Y AND THE HON,BLE SRI WSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PE{ITION Ho.35O44 of 2o23 OR.EIER:lper Hon'ble Si Justice P.SAM KOSHY) Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, 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.2O23. 2. In view of the fact that the identical matter has already been allowed by this Court, this Writ Petition also stands allowed in terms of the order passed in W.P.No.30153 of 2O23 decided on 30.10.2023. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this writ petition, shall stand closed. No order as to costs. SD/. N. CHANDRA SEKHAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SEC OFFICER 1. The Assessment Unit, lncome Tax Department, National Faceless Assessment Centre Government of lndia, Jawahadal Nehru Marg, Block B, Press Enclave, Savitri Nagar, New Delhi 110002 2. The lncome Tax Officer, Ward-6(1), Hyderabad lncome Tax Tower A.C.Guards, Masab tank, Hyderabad - 500004 3. The Secretary, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Union of lndia, North Block, New Delhi- 'l 10001 4. One CC to Mr. MOHD. MUKHAIRUDDIN, Advocate IOPUC] 5. One CC to SRt J. V. PRASAD, S.C. for INCOME TAX [OPUC] 6. One CC to SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, Deputy Solicitor General of lndia toPUCl To,

7.

Two CD Copies Along with a copy of the order dated 30.1O.2O23 in W.p.No.3O.l 5 3 of 2023 It i I MP GJP \t5

\ I HIGH COURT DATED:2911212023 I -n:'' .' /"tit' ,''/; < t O(t ORDER WP.No.35044 of 2023 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 5i';'. 1

THE HON'BLE SRI WSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY W.P. No. 3O153 of 2o23 ORDER:trce. rio n'ble Sri Justice P.SAM KOSHfi) 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 chatlenging the Assessment Ordcr passed by respondent No. I under section l48A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 196 1 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act,,) dated 25.04.2022 lor the Assessment Year 20 18- lg. 3. One of the contentions that the petitioner has raised in rhe presen t writ petition is that under the amended provisions of the Act which came into effect from O1.O4.2O2 l, the respondents while proceeding under Section 148 of the Act were required to issue notice under Section 148A and provide an opportunity 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 .Iuridictional Assessing Officer. In respect of the said objection that the petitioner had raised, he relied upon the recent batch o[ writ

2 pe titions decided by this vcry Bench on L4 .O9.2023 vide W.P.No.259O3 of 2022 and batch to the limited extent. 4. Learned counsei 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 raiscd in the u,rit petition. 5. So far as this contention of the learned counsel for the Department is concerncd, 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 preliminarv objection raised by the petitioner is sustained and all these u,rit petitions stands allowed on this very jurisdictional issue. Since the impugned notices and orders are gettrng quashed on the point o[jurisdiction, we are not inclined to proceed further and decide the other issues raisetl by the petitioner which stands reserved to be raised and contended in an appropriate procecdings. " 38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the case of Ashish Agarwal, supra, as a one time measure exercising the powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, permitted the Revenue to procecd undcr the substituted provisions, and this Court allowing the petitions only on the procedural flarv, the right conferred on the Revenue would remain reserved to proceed further if they so lvant from the stage of the order of the Supreme Court in the casc of Ashish Agarwal, supra. 6. [n view o[ the same, we are inclined to allow the present writ petition also on similar [erms. 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 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: 30.10.2O23 aqs

More judgments on Section 148A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →