Mr. Bhaskar Anthati, vs. Assessment Unit,

PDF · subscribers
WP/4788/2024HC TelanganaHBHC01009271202423 February 2024Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU8 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the writ petition on the preliminary objection raised by the petitioner concerning the procedural lapse. 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 provisions, which is unsustainable. The Court relied on its previous judgment in WP.No.25903 of 2022 & batch, which had quashed similar notices and orders on jurisdictional grounds. The Court reiterated that the impugned notices and orders were being quashed on the point of jurisdiction. As a consequence, the Court did not proceed to decide other issues raised by the petitioner, stating that they stand reserved to be raised in appropriate proceedings. The rights of the parties were reserved as envisaged in paragraphs 37 and 38 of the previous order, allowing the Revenue to proceed further from the stage of the Supreme Court's order in the case of Ashish Agarwal, if they so wished.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Mr. Bhaskar Anthati, filed a writ petition before the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad challenging orders passed by the Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department. The assessment year in question is 2018-19. The orders challenged were passed under Section 147 read with Sections 144 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 28.09.2023; under Section 271AAC(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 30.12.2023; and under Section 272A(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 29.12.2023. The petitioner sought to declare these orders as arbitrary, illegal, and violative of natural justice and constitutional provisions. The petitioner also sought a stay on recovery proceedings.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the proceedings initiated under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, after the amended provisions came into effect from 01.04.2021, were required to be in accordance with Section 148A, including providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee and being conducted in a faceless manner? (Question of law and fact, turning on Section 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's contention: The reopening was initiated by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, which is contrary to the amended provisions requiring faceless proceedings and a notice under Section 148A. Reliance was placed on a previous judgment by the same Bench in WP.No.25903 of 2022 & batch. Revenue's contention: While not disputing the objection regarding the procedure, the Revenue argued that there were other 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 148A,Section 148,Section 271AAC(1),Section 272A(1)(d)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

[ 3399 ] HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERAAAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU WRIT PETITION NO:4788 0F 2024 Between: Mr- . Bhaskar Anthati, S/o. Mr_ N_arasimha Anthati, aged 45 years, Occ Qygiaess, H.No. 1-100, tnamguda V, Batasingaram, Ringireddy Distiici'_ 50i 527, Telangana ...PETITIONER AND 1. Assessment Unit, lncom_e. Tax Department, National e-Assessment Center, New Delhi, Room No. 4O1, 2nd Floor, E-Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, New Delhi - 'l 10 003. 2. The lncome Tax Officer Ward 9(1), Hyderabad, lT Towers, 10_2_3, A.C. Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad - 500 004, Telangana 3 Th^e Principal -Commissione.r. Of lncome Tax 4, Hyierabad,lT Towers, 10_2_3, A.C. Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad - 500 004, Telangana ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of rhe constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, declaring a .the order passed by the 1st Respofldent, u/s 147 rtw Sec. 144 rlw Sec. 1448 of the lncome Tax Act, 1961, dated 28.09.2029, bearing DIN and Notice No.ITBAiAST/F 114712023-2411056634 j 66(1),for the Assessment Year 2018 - 19 a nid b.the order passed by the 1 st Respondent, u/s 271 AAC(1 ) of the lncome Tax Act, 1961, dated 30.12.2023, bearing DIN and Notice No. ITBA/PNL/F 127 1 AAC(1)12O23-241 105921 866 1 (1 ), for the Assessment year 2018 -19 and c.the order passed by the 1st Respondent, uls 272A(1)(d) ot the lncome Tax Act, 1961, dated 29.12.2023, bearing DIN and Notice No. lTBAlPNLlFl2T2A(1)(d)12O23-2411059230791(1), for the Assessment year 2018-

19 and as arbitrary, illegal, bad in law, void-ab-initio, violative of the principles of natural justice, apart from being violative of Articles 1a,19(1)(g) and 265 of the Constitution of lndia and Sec .14gA of the lncome Tax Act, 1g61, and consequently set aside the same in the interests of justice 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, pursuant to the order passed by the 1st Respondent, uls 142 r/w sec. 144 rlw sec. 1448 of the lncome Tax Act, 1961, dated 28.O9.2023, bearing DIN and Notice No.: |rBA/AST/F/14712023-24r1os6634166(1), for the Assessment year 20i8 - 19, pending disposal of the above Writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. A. V. A. SIVA KARTIKEYA Counsel forthe Respondents: SRI J. V. PRASAD (Sr. SC FOR TNCOME TAX) The Court made the following: ORDER

THE HONOURAALE SRI JUSTTCE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI WSTICE SAMBASTVA RAO NAIDU WRIT PETITION No.4788 OF 2024 ORDER:per EIo n'ble Si Justice P.SAM KOS,HE) The instant Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner under Articl e 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for the following reliet "to issue Wit of Mandamus or anA other appropiate Writ, Order or Dtrection, declaing th.e orders po.ssed_ bg respondent No.1, u/s.147 r/u.t Section 1448 of the Inmme Tox Act, 196j dated 2a.O9.2O23, beaing DIN and" Notice No.:ITBA/AST/F/147/2023-24/ 1056634166(1), -fo, the assessmen, gear 2O18-19; u/s.271AAC(1) of the Iname Tax Act, 1961, dated 30.12.2023 bearing DIN and Notice No. ITBA/ PNL/ F/ 2 7 1 AAC( 1 ) / 2 02 s -24/ 1 os 92 1 866 1 ( 1 ) for the assessmenf gear 2O18-19 and tLLe order u/ s.2T2A(1)(d) of the Income Tox Act, 1961, d.ated 29.12.2O23, beaing DIN and. Notice No.ITBA/ PNL/ F/ 272A(1)(d)/ 2o2s-24/ 1059230791(1) for the assessment year 2018-19, as arbitrary, illegol, bad in lau-t, uoid. ab initio, uiolatiue of principles of nohtral justice and_ consequentlg to set a-side the same and. pass such oth.er ord.ers as this Hon'ble Court mag 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 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 ,7 r-,

2 PSK,J & SSR^I,J W.P.No.4788 of 2O24 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 Jurisdictiona-l Assessing Offrcer. In support of his contention, he relied upon the recent judgment rendered by this very Bench in WP.No.259O3 of 2022 & batch, dated 14.09.2023 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-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 writ petitions, had taten note of the same at paragraph Nos.37 & 38 which are reproduced herein under: ''-

/ 3 PSK,J & SSR]V,J W.P.No.4788 o;f 2O24 "37. The preliminary objection raised bA the petitioner is sustained and all these uit petifions stonds allouted on this uery juri.sdictional issue. Since the impugned noties and orders are getting qtashed on the point of jurisdiction, we are not indined to proceed further and decide the other issues rai.sed by the petitioner uhich stc:nds reseraed to be raised and contended in an appropiate p roeeding s. " "38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in tle ca.se of Ashish Aganaal, supra, as a one-time measure exercising the pouers under Article 142 of tle Constitution of India, permitted the Reuenue to proceed under the substituted prourlsions, and this Court allowing the petitions onlg on the procedurol Jlau, the right anferred on tlrc Reuenue uould remain reserued to proceed furtlrcr if theg so utant from the stage of tlrc order of the Supreme Court in tlrc case of Ashish Agarutal, supra." 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-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 envisaged at paragraph Nos.37 & 38 of the said order passed in the batch of writ petitions. No order as to costs. \

4 4 PSK,J & SSRIV,J W.P.No.4788 oJ 2O24 Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/. G. SIREESHA ASSISTANT REGIS R //TRUE COPY// To, sEcTloN oFF|CER '1 . The Assessment Unit, lncome Tax Department, National e_Assessment Center, New Delhi, Room No. 401 , 2ni Floor, E-Ramp, LawaniiAf fleniu Stadium, New Dethi - 110 003. 2. The lncome Tax Officer. Ward g(.1 ), Hyderabad, lT Towers, 10_2_3, A.C. Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderabab'- 5d0 004, Telangana 3. Th-e Principal commissioner of lncome Tax 4, Hvd"erabad.lr rowers 10-2-l A.C. Guards. I\rasab Tank, Hydelqbad - 500 004; feringiiia 4. one CC to sRt A v.n.s_!y^ ry4RlrfEyA, Advbcate 1b,eUc1 5. one CC to SRT J V PRASAD (Sr SC FoR TNCOME tnxi idpUCt 6. Two CD Copies BM GJP / r.[(l- V'

p 1-.9

HIGH COURT DATED:2310212024 ORDER WP.No.4788 of 2024 ALLOWING THE WRITPETITION WITHOUT COSTS I oR 1HE SI^q 16: ( o 0 $ f,P,fl Jffi * TCi{f.O &,*t*rrV +

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →