Sri Rajeshwar Reddy Alle vs. Assessment Unit

PDF · subscribers
WP/3538/2024HC TelanganaHBHC01006511202412 February 2024Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,N.TUKARAMJI7 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the writ petition on the preliminary objection raised by the petitioner that the proceedings were not drawn in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act but under the un-amended provisions, which is not sustainable. The Court referred to its previous judgment in WP.No.25903 of 2022 & batch, dated September 14, 2023, where similar petitions were allowed on jurisdictional issues. The Court noted that in that batch of petitions, the preliminary objection was sustained, and the impugned notices and orders were quashed on the point of jurisdiction. The Court also acknowledged that the rights of the parties would stand reserved as envisaged in paragraphs 37 and 38 of the said previous order, which indicated that the Revenue's rights to proceed further from the stage of the Supreme Court's decision in Ashish Agarwal would remain reserved if they so wished. Consequently, the present writ petition was allowed on similar terms, quashing the order on the procedural ground.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Sri Rajeshwar Reddy Alle, filed a writ petition challenging an order passed by the Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre, under Section 147 read with Sections 144 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated January 18, 2024, for Assessment Year 2015-16. The petitioner contended that the reopening of assessment was initiated by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer and that the proceedings were not conducted in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act, which came into effect from April 1, 2021. Specifically, the petitioner argued that notice under Section 148A and an opportunity of hearing were not provided, and the proceedings should have been faceless. The respondent-Department did not dispute the petitioner's objection regarding the procedural aspect but noted other objections raised by the petitioner.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the order passed by the 1st Respondent under Section 147 read with Sections 144 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2015-16 is arbitrary, illegal, bad in law, void ab initio, and violative of Sections 148A, 149, and 151A of the Act, as well as contrary to CBDT circulars. Assessee's Contention: The reopening was initiated by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, and the proceedings did not comply with the amended provisions of the Act effective from April 1, 2021, specifically the requirement to issue notice under Section 148A and provide an opportunity of hearing. The proceedings should have been faceless. Reliance was placed on a previous judgment by the same Bench in WP.No.25903 of 2022 & batch, dated September 14, 2023. Revenue's Contention: The respondent-Department did not dispute the objection regarding the procedural aspect of issuing notice under Section 148A and providing an opportunity of hearing. However, they noted that the petitioner had raised other objections.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 148A,Section 149,Section 151A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

[ 337e ] HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (SPecial Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY,THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P'SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N'TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION NO: 353AoF 2024 Between: AND 1 Sri Raieshwar Reddy Alle, S/o, Sri Satyanarayana Reddy Alle, aged about 53 illtl'5:i:',i5b, k"iltl" iri"' H"numkohda' Waransar - 506001' ...PETITIONER 2 Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre' lncome Tax Deoartment, Ministry ol 1n"'i"-e -nlorn No 401' 2nd Floor' E-Ramp' ir1lli-,lirriil"niu stidium, Delhi -'1 10 1 1 0 003' The lncome Tax officer, war.i"i, o r'lci i-g-oto' sr.a Floor' May-uri Complex' 5r; tIXi PEif t;;;;' Ni,ki'i;wta, u anamrond a' waransal 50600 1' ,..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 pass an order or direction' especially one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS holding that the order passed by 1st Respondent uls' 147 r'w s' 144 r.w.s 1448 of the Act, dl 18'01 2024 with' DIN No ITBtuAST/S 114712023- 24t1l5g887152(1) for the Ay 2015-16' as arbitrary' illegal' bad in law' void ab initio, apart from being violative of provisions of section 148A and sectlon 149 of theActandalsocontrarytothecircularissuedbyCBDTandprovisionsofSection 151A of the Act, and consequently set aside the same IA NO:1OF 24 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in theaffidavitfiledinsupportofthepetition,theHighcourtmaybepleasedtostay all further proceedings, including any recovery' pursuant to the order passed by

7 the 1St Respondent u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s 1448 of the Act, dt.18 01.2024 wilh D I N No. ITBA/ASI t S t 1 47 t 2023-241 1 059887 1 52(1 ) for the Av. 20 1 5- 1 6 Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI A. V. RAGHU RAM Counsel for the Respondents: SRI J. V. PRASAD (SC FOR INCOME TAX) The Court made the following: ORDER

lr ,l THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJT UIRIT PETITION No.3538 OF 2o24 ORDER:(per Hon'ble Si Justice P.SAM KOSfiY) The instant Writ Petition has been frled by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for the following relief: "to pass an ord.er or direction especia-Llg one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS holding that tle order passed by lst Respond.ent u/ s 147 r u.t s 144 r u.t s 7448 of the Act dated 18.01.2024 uith DIN No. ITBA / AST / S / 147 / 202324 / 1059887152(1) for the Ay 2015-16 as arbitrary illegal bad in law uoid ab initio apart from being uiolatiue of provision-s of section 748A and section 149 of the Act anl- also contrary to the circttlar i.ssued by CBDT and proubions of section 151A of the Act and consequently set aside tlne same". 2. One of the contentions that the petitioner has raised in the present Writ Petition is that under the amended pro'/isions of the Act which carne into effect from Ol.O4.2O2l, 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 AND /

2 PSK,J & NTR,J W.P.No.353a of 2024 assessee. As per the amended provision of law, the proceedings to be drawn are also in a faceless manner. 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 14.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, ttris Bench, while disposing of 9a1{bat9_h of writ petitions, had taken note of

--7 3 PSK,J & NTR,J W.P.No.3538 of 2024 the same at paragraph Nos'37 & 38 which are reproduced herein under: t t "37. The preliminary objection roised by the petitiorer is sustaiied and olltheie lDrit petitions stands alloued on this uery juisdictional issue' Since the impugned notices ond orders are getting quasled on the point of iuri"di"tion, u)e are not inclined to proceed further and 'decide tle other issues roised bg tlw petitioner uhich stands reserued to be raised and contended in an oppropiate P ro ceeding s. " "38. Sine the Hon'bte Supreme Court had, in the case of Ashish Agartaal, supra, as a one-time measure ixercising tie potoers und-er Article 142 of the Constituion of India, pennitted tle Reuenue to prowed under the substituted prouisions, and this Court illiii"g the petitions only on tle procedural Jlattt' the iit i"f.oia on the Reienue uould remain reserued ti proceia T"rther if theg so uant from the stag-e 9f the ii., of *rc supieme- Court in tle ca'se of Ashish Agarutal, suPra." , I 6. In view of the s€une, 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 rights of the parties would stand reserved as is

4 PSI(,J & IUTR,J W.P.No.3538 of 2O24 envisaged at paragraph Nos.37 & 38 of the said order passed in the batch of writ petitions. No order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. \ SD/-MOHD SANAULLAH ANSARI ASSrsrANrRE9lslsaR //TRUE coPY// sEcroNfFFlcER To, 'l . The Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment-Centre, lncome Tax D;;a;6;i. Ministrv of Finance, Room No. 4o1,Znd Floor, E-Ramp' Jawaharlal Nehru Siadium, Delhi -110 110 003. z. inelncome rlibtriler, Ward 1, Warangal, 1€-610, 3rd Floor, Mavuri - comofei. OooTSNPDCL Bhaw6n, Nakk:lagutta, Hanamkonda, Warangal' s. ih'.'i,i"...%x brncir, wara -1, D.No.1-8-610, 3rd.Floor, Mayu.ri complex' ooo TSNPDCL Bhawan, Nakkalbqutta, Hanamkonda, Warangal - 506001 4 o;i) cc ro SRl. A. v. RAGHU RAM, Advocate [oPUC] 5. o;; aa io sht L. v. PRASAD (sc FoR lNcoME rAx) [oPUC] 6. Two CD Copies BM BS s ,ii

HIGH COURT DATED:1210212024 ORDER WP.No.3538 of 2024 ALLOWING THE WRITPETITION WITHOUT COSTS ,>*' l YtE STA.,c ( o 2 0 IrlAE 202{ o t \\ ( ?- C) o 2

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →