Mr. Shaik Ahmed Ali vs. Assessment Unit

PDF · subscribers
WP/3762/2024HC TelanganaHBHC01007233202414 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, rendering them unsustainable. The Court referred to its previous order in a batch of writ petitions (WP.No.25903 of 2022 & batch), specifically paragraphs 37 and 38. Paragraph 37 stated that the preliminary objection was sustained, and the writ petitions were allowed on the jurisdictional issue, reserving other issues for appropriate proceedings. Paragraph 38 noted that the Supreme Court, in Ashish Agarwal, permitted the Revenue to proceed under substituted provisions as a one-time measure, and since the petitions were allowed only on procedural flaws, the Revenue's right to proceed from the stage of the Supreme Court's order was reserved. Consequently, the present writ petition was allowed on similar terms, with the rights of the parties reserved as envisaged in the aforementioned paragraphs of the previous order.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Mr. Shaik Ahmed Ali, filed a writ petition challenging an order passed by the Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre, under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2015-16. The petitioner contended that the reopening was initiated by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, which is contrary to the amended provisions of the Act effective from April 1, 2021, requiring notices under Section 148A and an opportunity of hearing in a faceless manner. The respondents acknowledged the petitioner's objection but also raised other grounds. The High Court had previously dealt with similar objections in a batch of writ petitions.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the order passed by the 1st Respondent under Section 147 read with Section 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 and 149 of the Act, and contrary to CBDT circulars and Section 151A of the Act? Assessee's Contention: The reopening was initiated by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, which is not in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act (effective from 01.04.2021) that mandate issuing a notice under Section 148A and providing an opportunity of hearing in a faceless manner. Reliance was placed on a previous judgment of the same Bench in WP.No.25903 of 2022 & batch. Revenue's Contention: While not disputing the objection regarding the procedure, the revenue 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 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) WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH 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:3762 OF 2024 Between l AND 1 Mr Shaik Ahmed Ali, S/o. Mr. Mohd Ghouse, aged about 68 years, B_16_30/3, Road No.7, lVlythri N.agar, Sowbhagya fvagai Coiony, CnintarikJnia -i.el Nagar, Hyderabad - 500074. ...PETITIONER Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre, lncome Tax P"pgd.glt .Yinistry of Finance, Room N_o. 4O1 ,2"d ftoor, flijmp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, Delhi -1.10 003. The lncgme Tax Officer, Ward 9(.1), Hyderabad, l.T. Towers, A.C. Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad ...RESPONDENTS 2 Petition under Article 226 ot 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, especialry one in the nature of wRlr oF MANDAMUS holding that the order passed by .1"1 Respondent u/s. 147 r.w.s. 1448 of the Act, dt.01 .02.2024 with DtN No.|rBA/AST/S t147t2o2s- 2411060404770( 1 ) for the Ay.2O15-16, as arbitrary, iilegal, bad in taw, void ab initio, apart from being violative of provisions of section 1 4gA and section .149 of the Act and also contrary to the circular issued by GBDT and provisions of section 151A of the Act, and consequently set aside the same.

lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under sectron i 5'r 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, incruding any recovery, pursuant to the order passed by the '1't Respondent u/s. 147 r.w.s. 1448 of the Act, dt.o1 .o2.2o24with DIN No. ITBA/AST/S/1 47 12O23-24t 1 060404Tt O(1 ) for the Ay.201 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

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJT WRIT PETITION No.3762 OF 2024 ORDER:lper Hon'ble Sri Justice P.SAM KOSHtt) The instant Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for the following relief: "to pass an ord.er or direction especiallg one tn the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS holding that the order possed by 1st Respondent u/s 147 r u s 1448 of the Act dt 01 02 2024 Luith DIN No ITBA/AST/S/ 147/202324/ 1O604047701 for the Ay 2015 16 as arbitrary illegal bod in lanu uoid ab initto opart from being uiolatiue of prouisions of section 148A and section 149 of the Act and also contrary to the circular issued bg CBDT and prouisions of section 151A of the Act and consequentlA set aside the same". 2. One of the contentions that the petitioner has raised in the present Writ Petition is that under the arnended provisions of the Act which came 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 opportunit5r of hearing to the

2 PSK,J & MTR,J W.P.No.3762 oJ 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 Jurisdictioual Assessing Officer. In support of his contention, he relied upon the recent judgment rendered by this very Bench in WP.No.259O3 of 2022 &' batch, dated 14.O9.2023 rvherein this Court disposed of the batch of writ petitions to the limited extent. 4. On the other hand, leamed 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 concemed, this Bench, while disposing of said batch of writ petitions, had taker-r note of t

3 PSK,J & NTR,J W.P.No.3762 oJ 2024 the same at paragraph Nos.37 & 38 which are reproduced herein under: "37. The preliminary objection raised bg the petitioner is sustained and all these utrit petitions stands allowed on this uery juisdictional issue. Since the impugned notices and orders are getting quashed on the point of juisdiction, u)e are not inclined to proceed further and decide the other issues roised bg ttte petitioner which stands reserued to be raised and contended in an approp riate proceeding s. " "38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the cose of Ashish AgaruLa| supra, as a one-time measure exercising the pouters under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, permitted tle Reuenue to proceed under the substituted prouisions, and this Court allotuing the petitions onlg on the procedural flaut, the ight confered on the Reuenue would remain reserued to proceed further if theg so u.tant from the stage of the order of the Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Agarutal, supra." 6. In view of the same, we are inclined to a-llow 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 stald reserved as is I I

4 @ .\( PSI(,J & MTE,J W.P.No.3762 oJ 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/. P. PADMANABHA REDDY GISTRAR ,TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT RE SECTI* OFFICER To, TJ GJP 1. Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre, lncome Tax ' ij;;;,fi";i, r,rrini.t.v of Finance, Room No 4o1 ,znd Floor, E-Ramp' Jawaharlal Nehru Siadium, Delhi -1 10 003' z. ln"ln.or" iax Officer, Ward 9(1), Hyderabad, l T Towers, A C Guards' Masab Tank, HYderabad a. in" rn"om" fai Otticer, Ward - 9(1), l.T. Towers, A C Guards, Masabtank' Hvderabad - 500001 . a. Ohe CC to Sri A. V Raghu Ram Advocate to?gql -. 5. O;; Cc to sri J V Prasa,-d (SC for lncome Tax) [OPUC] 6. Two CD CoPies 6

HIGH COURT DATED:1410212024 ORDER WP.No.3762 ot 2024 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS. fl1 o 14, I4 ilE S k o^. .).\c J Uo 2 B nAB 2024 C, -l * O5, DATC\IEC @ c"li 6N LI ^K

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →