Mr. Prabhakar Rao Balmuri vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

PDF · subscribers
WP/4669/2024HC TelanganaHBHC01008760202422 February 2024Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,N.TUKARAMJI7 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the present writ petition on similar terms as the batch of writ petitions decided earlier (WP.No.25903 of 2022 & batch, dated 14.09.2023). The Court held that the proceedings were not drawn in accordance with the amended provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, but under the un-amended provision, which was not sustainable. The Court explicitly referred to paragraphs 37 and 38 of its previous order, which stated that the preliminary objection raised by the petitioner was sustained and the writ petitions were allowed on the jurisdictional issue. The Court noted that since the impugned notices and orders were being quashed on the point of jurisdiction, it was not inclined to decide other issues raised by the petitioner, which were reserved to be raised in appropriate proceedings. The Court also acknowledged that the Supreme Court, in the case of Ashish Agarwal, had permitted the Revenue to proceed under substituted provisions as a one-time measure, but since this Court was allowing the petitions solely on procedural flaws, the right of the Revenue to proceed further from the stage of the Supreme Court's order remained preserved if they so desired. Consequently, the present Writ Petition was allowed, and the rights of the parties were reserved as envisaged in the previous order.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Mr. Prabhakar Rao Ba, filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging an order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 07.04.2022, and a consequential notice issued under Section 148 of the Act, dated 07.04.2022, both pertaining to Assessment Year 2015-16. The petitioner sought to declare these actions as arbitrary, illegal, barred by limitation, void-ab-initio, and violative of natural justice and constitutional provisions. The petitioner also sought a stay on further proceedings and recovery. The respondents were the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax and other income tax authorities. The petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the order passed under Section 148A(d) and the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2015-16 are void, illegal, and contrary to the provisions of the Act and principles of natural justice, specifically concerning the amended provisions that require notice under Section 148A and an opportunity of hearing in a faceless manner. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the reopening under Section 148 was initiated by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, and the proceedings were not conducted in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act which came into effect from 01.04.2021, specifically the requirement to issue notice under Section 148A and provide an opportunity of hearing. The petitioner relied on a previous judgment by the same High Court Bench in WP.No.25903 of 2022 & batch, dated 14.09.2023. Revenue's Contention: The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Department did not dispute that the objection regarding the procedural flaw was decided in the aforesaid batch of Writ Petitions. However, the Department contended that there were other objections raised by the petitioner.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

HIGH COURT FOR TI AT H' (s p e c i a, ., iE,:'iiJ,[fl :;'";^ " "^ - ^ THURSDAY,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY TWo THoUSAND AND rweNiv p-oj*-",. PRESENT WRIT PETITION NO:46690F2o24 lmuri. S/o. Bhupathip [ 337e ] ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENTS THE HONOURABLE SRI . ,". "o"o,^;; ; ;A,{{:Iff I illxiJ] Between: Mr. Prabhakar Rao Ba 56'.{i'3.:ff;?E?,*" #l 3,; :Elfli 3iL"i,T$,' l"r.ifi l?#"_ AND 1. 2 3 #il?lii:1"9;#H:;:::"^i"3.'"^[il]?i.?,,il"to[%r,:,R3]J?,i,T; The_ _Principal Chief Commissioner of lncome Tax i:J:l'"11?#,[?3:,,.ff r,yr*irix":1":j'q:'$,31?,.,iiixl^?;[,it1 ffi rlHihi;*tr-23,ti:.*e**fl ;ii:::ffi ffii"t:ffi u:Ilf{; petition under Articre 226 0f the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or Direction' decrarrnq a' the order passed by the 1 st Respondent, u/s .r 4BA(d) of the lncome Tax Act, 1961. dated Ot.O4.2O22, bearing DIN and Notice No.. rrBNASTrF114BAr2022'23r1042604771(1), for rhe Assessment year 2015 _ 16, and b' the notice issued by the 1st Respondent, uls 148 of the rncome Tax Act, 1961' dated 07.04.2022. bearing DrN and Notice No.. I'BA/AST/S/14 B_1t2022_ 2311042615048(1), for the Assessment year 2015 - .16, as arbitrary, iregar, barred by rimitation, bad in raw, void-ab-initio, viorative of the principres of naturar justice, apart from being violatrve of Artrcles 1a, 19(1)(g) and 265 of the

Constitution of lndia and Sec 148A ot the lncome Tax Act, 1961, and to consequently set aside the same in the interests of justice lA NO: 'f 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, pursuant to the notice issued by the 1"t Respondent, u/s l48 of the lncome Tax Act, 196 1, dated 07.04.2022, bearing DIN and Notice No.. trBA/AST/s/i4B_1t2022-23t1042615048(1), for the Assessment Year 2015 - 16, pending disposal of the above Writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. A. V. A. SIVA KARTIKEYA Counsel for the Respondents: SRI SUNDARI R PISUPATI (Sr SC for lncome Tax Dept) The Court made the following: ORDER

- THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TI'I(ARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.4669 OF 2024 ORDER:/per Hon'ble Si Justice P.SAM KOSIfl) The instant Writ Petition has been frled by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for the following relief: "to i,ssue a Wit of Mondamus or ang other appropiate Writ Order or Direction declaing the impugned order dated O7.O4.2O22 ./or assessme nt Aear 2015-16 passed u/s 148A(d) of the Act uide DIN and Notice No.ITBA/ AST/ F/ 148A/2022-23/ 104260477(1) and the con sequential notice u/ s.748 of the Iname Tax Act, 1961, dated O2.O4.2O22 uide DIN and Notice No.ITBA/ AST/ S/ 148_1/ 2022-23/ 1042615048 (1), issued by respondent No.1, as uoid, iltegal, and contrary to the prouisions of lncome Tox Act and cantrary to tlrc principles of natural justice and prrss otller orders os this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper". 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 effect from OL.O4.2O2l, the respondents, while proceeding under Section 148 of the Act, were required to issue notice under Section 1484, 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.

2 PSr(,J & M[A,J W.P.No.4669 of 2O24 3. Whereas, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, in the instant case, reopening has been initiated by the Jurisdictional Assessing Ofl-rcer. ln support of his contention, he relied upon the recent judgment rendered by this very Bench in WP.No.259O3 of 2022 &' batch, dated 14.09.2023 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-Departrnent does not dispute that the said objection was decided in the aforesaid batch of Writ Petitions. However, he further contended that apart frort the aforesaid objection, there have been other various objcctions also which the petitioner has raised in the writ petition. 5. So far as this contention of the learned counsel lbr the respondent-Department is concerned, this Bench, r,r'hile disposing of said batch of writ petitions, had taken note of the same at paragraph Nos.37 & 38 which are reproduced herein under:

3 PSI(,J& JYTR,J W.P.No.4669 ol: 2024 ?7. fLE preliminary objection raised by tLrc petitioner is sustained and all these u.tit petifions srands allowed. on this uery jurbdictional issue. Since the impugned. ?ot!n-? and orders are getting quashed on th-e point of juisdiction, u)e ore not inclined to proceed further and. decide tle other issues raised bg the petitioner tahich stand.s reserued to be rai-sed and contend.ed in an appropiate pro ce e ding s. " "38. S,nce the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the case of Ashish Aganua| supra, as a one-time measure exercising the pouters under Article 142 of tle Constitutioru of India, permitted the Reuenue to pioeed. under the substituted prouisions, and thii Court allouing the petitions onlg on the procedural flaw, the right anfened on the Reuenue utould remain resented. to proceed furtler if theg so uant from the stage of the o_yder of tlrc Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Agarua| supra." 1 6. In view of the sarne, 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-arnended provision which is otherwise not sustainable. 7. As has been held by this Bench in rhe aforesaid batch matters, the rights of the parties would stand reserved as is envisaged at paragraph Nos.37 & 3g of the said order passed in the batch of writ petitions. No order as to costs. -./

4 PSK,J & NTR,J W.P.No'4669 oJ2024 ConsequentlY, miscellaneous shall stand closed. petitions Pending, if anY, I SD/. G. SIREESHA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER 1- The Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax, Circle 1, Karimnagar, lncome Tax Office, Aaykar Bhawan, Near Natraj Theatre - 505 001, Karimnagar, Telangana 2. The Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, Hyderabad Room No..922,9th Floor, ''13'Block, l.T.Towers, 10- 2-3, AC Guards, Hyderabad - 500 004, Telangana 3. The Assessment Unit, lncome Tax Department, National e-Assessment Center, New Delhi, Room No.. 401, 2nd Floor, E-Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, New Delhi - 1 10 003. 4. One CC to SRl. A. V. A. SIVA KARTIKEYA, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to SRl. SUNDARI R PISUPATI (Sr SC for lncome Tax Dept) [OPUC] 6. Two CD Copies fr ?I e I 1 To, BtM KKS \v

HIGH COURT DATED:2210212024 ORDER WP.No.4669 of 2024 ALLOWING THE WRITPETITION WITHOUT COSTS (+1 o ( o 22 tttt,l :tr:t: (I t) (( {' .t. * * PAICHEO {

More judgments on Section 148A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →