Rajaiah Tarigoppula, vs. Income Tax Officer

PDF · subscribers
WP/3669/2024HC TelanganaHBHC01007049202413 February 2024Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,N.TUKARAMJI7 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the writ petition, holding that the proceedings were not drawn in accordance with the amended provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, but under the unamended provisions, which is unsustainable. The Court relied on its previous judgment in WP.No.25903 of 2022 & batch, dated September 14, 2023. In that judgment, the Court had sustained the preliminary objection raised by the petitioners regarding jurisdictional issues and quashed the impugned notices and orders on that point. The Court explicitly stated that it was not inclined to proceed further and decide other issues raised by the petitioners, which were reserved to be raised in appropriate proceedings. The Court also noted that the Supreme Court, in the case of Ashish Agarwal, had permitted the Revenue to proceed under the substituted provisions as a one-time measure. Therefore, by allowing the present writ petition on similar terms, the Court quashed the impugned order and notice. The rights of the parties were reserved as envisaged in paragraphs 37 and 38 of the previous order. No order as to costs was made.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Rajaiah Tarigoppula, filed a writ petition challenging an order passed under Section 147 read with Sections 144 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2016-17, and a consequential notice under Section 148. The petitioner contended that the notice under Section 148 was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of the Faceless Assessment Unit (FAO), and that the proceedings were initiated under the unamended provisions of the Act, failing to provide an opportunity of hearing as required by the amended Section 148A. The impugned order was dated January 24, 2024, and the notice under Section 148 was dated March 30, 2023. The respondents included the Income Tax Officer, the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, and the Assessment Unit.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice under Section 148 and the consequential order under Section 147, passed for Assessment Year 2016-17, are void and illegal for having been issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of the Faceless Assessment Unit (FAO), contrary to the amended provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, particularly concerning faceless assessment and the requirement of notice under Section 148A? Assessee's Contentions: - The proceedings initiated under Section 148 were required to be in accordance with the amended provisions, which came into effect from April 1, 2021. - This necessitates issuing a notice under Section 148A and providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. - The proceedings should be conducted in a faceless manner. - The reopening was initiated by the JAO, which is contrary to the amended provisions. - Relied on the High Court's judgment in WP.No.25903 of 2022 & batch, dated September 14, 2023. Revenue's Contentions: - The respondent-Department acknowledged that the objection regarding the procedural flaw was decided in the aforementioned batch of writ petitions. - However, they contended that there were other various objections raised by the petitioner in the writ petition.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 148,Section 148A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

[ 337e ] HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH 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:3669 OF 2024 Between: Rajaiah Tarigoppula, S/o. Veeriah Tarigoppula, aged 65 years, Ft/o. House No. 8-1-470, Kattarampur, Karimnagar, 505'10'l , Andhra Pradesh Assessment Year.2016-17 ...PETITIONER AND 1. lncome Tax Officer, Assistant Commissioner Of lncome Tax Circle 1, Karimnagar. 2. The Principal Chief Commissioner of lncome Tax AP and TS, '1Oth Floor, C- Block, l.T. Towers, 10-2-3, A.C- Guards, Hyderabad-500004. 3. The Assessment Unit, lncome Tax Depa(ment, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, Ministry of Finance, Room No. 4O1 ,2nd Floor, E- Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, Delhi-'l 10003 ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of lhe 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 for A.Y 2016-17 passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144 read with section 1448 of the lncome{ax Act vide ITBA/AS f lSl147l2023 -2411060047975(1)dt.24-01-2024andtheconsequential notice u/s 148 dt. 30.O3.2O23 vide DIN No. ITBA/AST/S/148 112022- 231105'1686650('1 ) issued by the JAO(1st respondent) instead of FAO(3rd respondent), as void, illegal, and contrary to the provisions of lncome-tax Act and contrary to the Principles of Natural Justice.

lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under section 15i 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 14g dt. 27 .03.2023 vidt DIN No. lrBA/AST/s/148 112022-231i0516s6650(j) issued by the 1.t Respondent(JAo) for A.Y. 2016-17 instead of 3rd respondent(FAO). Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI THANNERU CHAITANYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: SRI SUNDARI R plSUpATl, Sr SC for lncome Tax Dept The Court made the following: ORDER

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND TTIE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.3669 OF 2024 ORDER:lper Hon'ble Si Justice P.SAM KOSHY) The instant Writ Petition has been frled by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for the following relief: '...to issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned order for A.Y.2O|6-17 passed under Section 147 read with Section 144 read with section l44B of the Income Tax Act, 196l vide ITBA/AST/S/ I47 12023 241 1060047975(ll, dated 24.Or.2O24 and the consequential notice under Section 148, dated 30.O3.2023 vide DIN.No.ITBA/AST/S/ 148-1 12022- 2311051686650(1) issued by the JAO (lst respondent) instead of FAO (3'd respondent) as void, illegai ald contraq/ to the provisions of Income Tax Act, and contraqr to the Principles of Natural Justice and pass such other orders." 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 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 -v7 '"/ t--\

2 \ .2- PSK,J & MTR,J W.P.No.3669 of 2024 assessee. As per the amended provision of law, the proceedings to be drawn are a_lso 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 Ofhcer. 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 aJoresaid batch of Writ Petitions. However, he further contended that apart from the aforesajd 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 t' I I PSK,J& MTR,J W.P.No.3669 oJ 2024 the same at paragraph Nos.37 & 38 which are reproduced herein under: "37. The preliminary objection roised by tle petittoner is sustained and alt these uit petitions stands alloued on this uery juisdictional issue. Since the impugned notices and orders are getting quo.shed on the point of juisdiction, u)e are not inclined to proceed further and decide the other issues raised bg the petitioner u-thich stands reserved to be raised and contended in an ap propiate pro ce e ding s. " "38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the case of Ashish Agaru.tal, supra, as a one-time medsure exercising the pouters under Article 142 of the Constihttion of India, pennitted the Reuenue to proceed under the substituted prouisions, and this Court allotuing tle petitions only on the procedural flaut' the right conferred on the Reuenue uould remain resented ti proceed further if theg so utont from the stage of the order of the Supreme Court in tle case of Ashish Aga naal, 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 arnended 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 PSK,J & MTR,J W.P.No.3669 oJ 2O24 envisaged at paragraph Nos.37 & 38 of the said order passed in the batch of writ petitions. No order as to costs. 8. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. 1-) //TRUE COPY// SD/. G. SIREESHA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 11 -- SECTIdN OFFICER To 1 2 lncome Tax Officer, Assistant Commissioner Of lncome Tax Circle 1, Karimnaga r. The Principal Chief Commissioner of lncome Tax Ap and TS, 1Oth Floor, C- Block, I T. Towers, '10-2-3, A.C. Guards, Hyderabad-500004. The Assessment Unit, lncome Tax Department, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, Ir/inistry of Finance, Room No. 4O1 , 2nd Floor, E- Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, Delhi-1 10003 One CC to SRI THANNERII 9.tlAlIAllYA KUMAR, Advocate tOpUCl One CC to SRI SUNDARI R PISUPATI, Sr SC for lncome Tax'Dept tOpUCl Two CD Copies 4 ^6 PSK- GJP 6

HlGH COURT DATED:1310212024 ORDER WP.No.3669 of 2024 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS. R 1HE S14 ( ,o4i r;i-t'i-i' -;:::-' 7o ?', 30 Hn, lyt @ c"1tu Av- w

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →