Sri Ravinder Reddy Danda vs. Assessment Unit

PDF · subscribers
WP/4246/2024HC TelanganaHBHC01008261202419 February 2024Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,N.TUKARAMJI6 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 judgment in W.P. No. 25903 of 2022 & batch, dated September 14, 2023, where it had sustained similar preliminary objections regarding jurisdictional issues and quashed impugned notices and orders. The Court noted that in that batch of cases, it had not proceeded to decide other issues raised by the petitioner, reserving them for appropriate proceedings. The Court also acknowledged the Supreme Court's order in Ashish Agarwal, which permitted the Revenue to proceed under substituted provisions as a one-time measure. Consequently, the present writ petition was allowed on similar terms, with the rights of the parties reserved as envisaged in paragraphs 37 and 38 of the previous order. The operative direction was to allow the writ petition and set aside the impugned order.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Sri Ravinder Reddy Danda, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad 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 19, 2024, for Assessment Year 2016-17. The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to set aside this order, alleging it was arbitrary, illegal, bad in law, void ab initio, and violative of Sections 148A, 149, and 151A of the Act, as well as CBDT circulars. The petitioner also sought a stay on further proceedings and recovery pursuant to the impugned order. The respondents were the Assessment Unit and the Income Tax Officer.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the order passed by the respondent under Section 147 read with Sections 144 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2016-17, is arbitrary, illegal, bad in law, void ab initio, and violative of Sections 148A, 149, and 151A of the Act and CBDT circulars? (Question of law and mixed fact and law, turning on Sections 147, 144, 144B, 148A, 149, and 151A). Assessee's contentions: The petitioner argued that under the amended provisions of the Act effective from April 1, 2021, proceedings under Section 148 require issuing a notice under Section 148A and providing an opportunity of hearing. Furthermore, proceedings should be conducted in a faceless manner. The petitioner contended that the reopening in this case was initiated by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, which is contrary to the amended provisions. The petitioner relied on a previous judgment by the same Bench in W.P. No. 25903 of 2022 & batch, dated September 14, 2023. Revenue's contentions: The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Department did not dispute that the objection regarding the procedural law was decided in the aforesaid batch of writ petitions. However, the counsel pointed out that the petitioner had raised other objections as well.

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

I I [ 337e 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE NINETEENTH 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: 4246 OF 2024 Between: AND 1 Sri Ravinder^Reddy Danda, S/o. Sri Thirupathi Reddy Danda, aged about 63 years, GD-127, Ganga Cotony, Ramakrishnapur, Adit;bad - a0llr0Ji,r,O*a* Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre, lncome Tax Department,_Ministry of Finance, Room No. 4O1 ,2nd Floor, E-Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, Delhi - I 10 003_ The lncome Tax Officer, Ward - 1, 2nd Floor, Ravindra Hospital, Bellampally Road, Mancherial - 504209. 2 ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 ot lhe Constitulion of lndia praying ihat in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fitect 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 u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s 1448 of the Act, dt.19.O1 .2024 with DIN No: |TBA/ASTlsl147t2O23- 2411059945231(1) for the Ay.2016-1 7, as arbitrary, illegal, bad in taw, void ab initio, apart from being violative of provisions of section 148A & section 149 of the Act and also contrary to the circular issued by CBDT and provisions of section '1 5'lA of the Act, and consequently set aside the same. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 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, including any recovery, pursuanl to the order passed by the 1'r Respondent uls. 147 r.w.s. 144 r-w.s 1448 of the Act, dt-1g.O1 .2024 with Dl N No. ITBA/AST/S I 1 47 /2023-241 1059945231 ( 1 ) for the Ay.2O 1 6-17 . Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI A.V. RAGHU RAM Counsel for the Respondents: M/s. SUNDARI R. PISUPATI (Sr. SC FoR INCoME TAX DEPARTMENT) The Court made the following: ORDER

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITIoN No.4246 oF 2024 ORDER: (per Hon'bte Si Justice P,SAM KOSHY) The instant Writ Petition has been frled by the petitioner under Articl e 226 of the Constitution of lndia seeking for the following relief: "to pass an order or d'irection especioltg one in the noture of il{i or uexoAMUS holding thot tle order passed bg lst Respondent u/s 147 r ut s 14q r u s 7448 of the Act dL 19 'ot-boz+ t.,)ith DIN No. ITBA / ASr / s / 147 / 202324 / TossSqszsl (1)for the AA 201617 as arbttrary illegal bad in i"* t"ia au tnitio aport irom being uiolatiue of prouisiorts of section laBA and siction 149 of the Act ond also conlrory to ti .irorto, issued bg CBDT and prouisions of section 1514 of lhe Act and consequentlg set aside the some an.d poss such other order s as the Honble Courl deem's JII and prop"r in the tnterest of lustice" . 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 came into eflect from Ol .O4.2021 , the respondents, while proceeding under Section 148 of the Act, were required to issue notice under Section 148,,\ and provide an opportunity of hearir-rg to the ! ,. . ..

ll 2 PSr,J & lflrR J W.P.No.4246 of 2024 assessee. As per the amended provision of law, the proceedings to be drawn are also in a faceless mernner. 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.259O3 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, this Bench, while disposing of said batch of u,rit petitions, had taken note of t:. \ll \l, \\ \

PSK,J & NTR,J W.P.No.4246 o;f 2O24 the same at paragraph Nos.37 & 38 which are reproduced herein under "37. The preliminary objection raised by tLte petitioner is sustained and all these utrit petitions stands allou-ted on this uery juisdictional issue. Since the impugned notices and orders ore getting quoshed on the point of juisdiction, LUe are not inclined to proceed further and decide the other issues raised bg tlrc petitioner uhich stands reserued to be raised and contended in an approp riate proceeding s. " "38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court tnd, in the case of Ashish Agarual, supra, as a one-time measure exercising the powers under Article 142 of the Constitutiort of India, permitted the Reuenue to proceed under the substituted prouisions, and this Court allotoing the petitions onlg on the procedural Jlaw, the ight confered on the Reuenue utould remain reserued to proceed further if theg so uont from the stage of the order of the Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Aga ru.taL, supra." 6. In vie',1, of the same, we are inclined to allow the present writ petition a-lso 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 & MrR,J W.P.No,4246 of 2024 envrsaged at paragraph Nos.37 & 3g of the said order passed in the batch of writ petitions. No order as to costs Consequently, miscellaneous petitions shall stand closed. SD/. K.SREERAMA MURTHY //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT REGI AR SECTION OFFICER \k :\ pending, if any, To, 1 AsSeSSment Unit. National Faceless Assessment Centre, lncome Tax Department, Ministrv of Finance,. noorn -f.io. +OJ,'Z"ni"if oor, E_Ramp, Jawahartat Nehru Sladium, o"ti_ iici ooS. -" " '"" ' A:: jlffi#:#tpi?,?l}l[i" _ 1, 2nd Froor, Ravindra Hospitar, Belampaly 9nu 99 to SRt A.V. RAGHU RAM, Advocate IOPUCI ffS 33 3ffi t'*oont n crSUpiiiisi sEFdH'rrvcor\4E rAX) [opuc1 2 3 4 5 BN GJP

I HIGH COURT DATE D : 1 910212024 ORDER WP.No.4246 of 2024 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS t\E STATE 1 oA ( r(' -).) l-) 0 2 rPf, E2[ ? "l- \\ e- .,'+ t 0 6,, )A

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →