DARAM VEERNATH vs. OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2

AND 1 2 [ 337s ] HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) IVONDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH 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.4926 OF 2024 Between: Daram Veernath, S/o Chandra l\,4ohan, aged about 59 years, Occupation: Business, H.No. 1-10-201, Near Bus Stand, Main Road t\,4etpally, Jagtial 505325, Telangana, lndia PAN. AAKPD94l7C Assessment Year: 2O14-15 ...PETITIONER Office of the lncome Tax Officer Ward-2, Karimnagar Telangana State. The Principal Chief Commissioner of lncome Tax, Telangana and A. P, Hyderabad, lT Towers, AC Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad 500 028, Telangana. 3. The Central Board of Direct Taxes, Represented by its Chairman, Department of Revenue, IVinistry of Finance, Government of lndia, Secretariat Buildings, New Delhi - 1 10 001 . 4. The National Faceless Assessment Center, lncome Tax Department, New Delhi. 5. The Union of lndia, Represented by its Secretary to the Government, Department of Revenue, [rlinistry of Finance, New Delhi - 1'10 001 . ...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 [/landamus or any other appropriate declaring the order passed by the lncome Tax Authorities (National Faceless E-Assessment Centre completed the assessment U/S '147 r/w Section 144-8 of the lncome Tax Act,

1961 vide DIN and Notice No. dated 25-02-2023 in |TBA/ASfN147|2O22- 2311050131267(1) for the assessment year 2014-15 determining the total income of Rs.3,27,27,054/- as arbitrary, illegal, bad in law, without jurisdiction, void-ab- initio, violative of the principles of natural justice apart from being violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(9) and 265 of the Constitution of lndia and Sec. 14BA of the lncome Tax Act, 1961 , and consequently set aside the same in the interests of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI THANNERU CHATTANYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4: M/s. SUNDARI R PlSUpATl, SENIOR S.C. FOR INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA The Court made the following: ORDER

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTTCE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.4926 OF 2024 ORDER:(per Hon'ble Si Justice P.SAM KOSHY) The instant Writ Petition has been filed bv the petitioner under Articl e 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for the following relief: 'to issue an appropiate u-tit order or direction more particularlg one in the noture of Writ of Mandamus or ana other appropiale declaing the order passed bg the Income Tox Authoities National Faceless D Assessment Centre completed the assessment U/S 147 r/ u.t Section 1448 of the Income Tox Act 1961 uide DIN and Notice No dated 25022023 in ITBA/ AS'l'/ S/ 147/202223/ 10501312671 for fhe assessment year 201415 determining the totol income of Rs 3,27,27,054/ as arbitrory iltegal bad in Laut utithout juisdtction uoid ab initio uiolattue of the pinciples of natural justice apart from being uioLotiue of Articles 1a 19(1)(9) and 265 of the Constitution of India and Sec 1481' of the Income Tax Act 1961 and consequently set aside the same in the interests of justice". 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 .2027 , the respondents, while proceeding under Section 148 of the Act, were required to issue notice under

\i=r..r%& 2 PSK,J & IVTR,J W,P.No.4926 of 2O24 Section 14BA 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. 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 74.O9.2023 r,vherein 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 taken note of

3 PSK,J & NTR,J W.P,No.4926 of 2O24 the same at paragraph Nos.37 & 38 which are reproduced herein under: 1,. rl t I I I I ?7 Tru preliminary objection raised. by the petitioner is sustained and all these writ petitions itands allotued on thi-s uery jurisdictional issue. Sincr- the impugned ?ot:ce? and orders are getting quashed on the point of jurbdiction, u)e are not inclined to proceed. furth-er and decide the other issues raised bg the petitioner uhich stands reserued to be raked and contended, irt on approp riote p ro cee ding s.', "38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the case of Ashish Agarual, supra, as a one-time measure exerci.sing the potters under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, permitted the Reuenue to proceed under the substituted prouisions, and this Court allotting the petitions onlg on the procedural flau,t, the right conferced on the Reuenue uould remain reserued. to proceed further if theg so utant from the stage of the order of the Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Aganaa| supra. " t 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 accordalce with the amended provision but under the un-amended provision which is otherwise not sustainabie. 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 & JVTR,J W.P.No.4926 of 2024 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, shali stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/-K.AMMAJI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR c.-- SECTITN OFFICER \ To, MP '1 . The Office of the lncome Tax Officer Ward-2, Karimnagar, Telangana State' 2. The Principal Chief Commissioner of lncome Tax, Telangana 9E {i' - Uyo"iaorol-rr iowers, AC Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad 500 028' Telangana. 3'TheChairman,DepartmentofRevenue'MinistryofFinance,CentralBoardof - oiiect iir"i GorernrnJni ot tnaia, S6cretariai Buildings, New Delhi - 110 001. 4. The National Faceless Assessment center, lncome Tax Department, New Delhi 5. The Secretary to the Government, De,partment of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Unioh of lndia, New Delhi - 110 001' 6. One CC to SRI THANNERU CHAITANYA KUMAR, Advocate [OPUC] 7. One CC to M/s. SUNDARI R PISUPATI, Senior S C' for lncome Tax Department [OPUC] B. One CC to SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, Deputy Solicitor General of lndia loPUCl 9. Two CD CoPies &

I , I HIGH COURT PSK,J & NTR,J DATED:2610212024 WP.No.4926 o12024 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ( 4 2 fl c) c T E t- TA S 6 02 E r t P A 5 1 .) i-) I '.. ,)_ \.? \... I\ o .li+ ORDER * \ C' CoPl'9