RAMA TRADING COMPANY vs. Office Of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

[ 337e ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH 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: 5159 OF 2024 Between RAIMA TRADING COIMPANY, Rep. by its partner, Avunoori Ravikumar S/o Avunoori Venkatesham aged about 48 years, Occ. Business 3-1-105, MAIN ROAD PEDDAPALLY, KARIA/INAGAR DIST, 505172, Telangana, lndia PAN. AAGFR7989F Assessment Y ear. 201 B-1 9 ..PETITIONER AND 1 2 3 Office of the Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax, Circle 1, KARIIVNAGAR Telangana State. The Principal Chief Commissioner Of lncome Tax Telangana And Ap Hyderabad, lT Towers, AC Guards, l/asab Tank, Hyderabad-500028. The Central Board of Direct Taxes, Represented by its Chairman, Department of Revenue N/inistry of Finance Government of lndia Secretariat Buildings New Delhi - .1 10 00'1 . 4. The National Faceless Assessment Centre, lncome Tax Department New Delhi 5. The Union Of lndia, Represented By lts Secretary To The Government, Department of Revenue, lVlinistry of Finance New Delhi ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the 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 f\landamus declaring the order passed by the lncome Tax Authorities (National Faceless E- Assessment Centre completed the assessment UIS 147 r/w Section 144-8 of the lncome Tax Act, 1961 vide DIN and Notice No.dated 24-01-2024 in ITBA/AST/S/147/2023-2411060062176(1) for the . t I I I I I

assessment year 2018-19 determrning the totar income ot Rs. 1,16,50,501^as arbitrary, illegal, bad in law, without jurisdiction, void, ab- initio, violative of the principles of natural justice apart from being violative of Articles 1 , i 9(1 Xg) and 265 of the Constitution of lndia and Sec. 14gA of the tncome Tax Act, 196.1 , and consequenfly set aside the same. Counsel for the petitioner :SRt THANNERU CHAITANyA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: S_Rl SUNDART R plSUpATl, (Sr SC for lncome Tax Dept) The Court made the following: ORDER i I 't I , l I t' i I 1 I I ;

THE HONOURABLE SRT JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJT WRIT PETITION No.5159 OF 2024 ORDER:(per Hon'ble Si Justice P.SAM KOSHY) Heard Mr.T.Chaitanya Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.sundari R. Pasupati, Iearned Senior Standing Counsel for the lncome Tax Department for respondents. Perused the materia,l available on record' 2. The instant Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner under Articl e 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for the following relief: "to issue an appropiote uit order or direction more particutarlg one tn the nature of Writ of Mondamtts declaring -the order passed by the Income Tox Authoities National Faceless.& Assessment Centre completed the assessment U/S 147 r/tu Section 1448 of the Income Tax Act 1961 uide DIN and Notice No dated 24/01/2024 in ITBA/ AST/ S/ 147/202324/ 1060062176(1) fo' the assessment geor 2O 1819 determining the total income of Rs.1,16,5O,501/- as arbitrory illegal bad in lanu utithout pisdtction uoid ab initio uioLatiue of the principles -of nahtral justice apart from being uiolatiue of Articles 14 19(1)(g) and -265 of the Constitution of India and Sec 148A of the Income Tox Act 1961 and consequentlA set oside the some in the interests of justice".

2 PSI(,J dz, MR,J W.P.No.S759 of 2024 3. 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 .O4.2O21, 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 assessee. As per the amended provision of las,, the proceedings to be drawn are also in a faceless manner. 4. Whereas, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, in the instalt 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. 5. 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

3 PSK,J & NTR,J W.P.No.S759 o.f 2024 objections also which the petitioner has raised in the writ petition. 6. 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 the same at paragaph Nos.37 & 38 which are reproduced herein under: "37. The preliminary objection raised by tLrc petitioner is sustained and all these writ petifions stands allowed on this uery juisdictional issue. Since the impugned notices and orders are getting quashed on tlte point of juisdiction, u)e ore not inclined to proceed further and decide tte other issues raised by the petitioner uhich stands reserued to be raised and contended in an ap p ro p riate p ro ceeding s. " "38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the case of Ashish Aganaal, supra, as a one-time measure exercbing the powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, permitted tLe Reuenue to proceed under the substituted prouisions, and this Court allouLing the petitions only on the procedural flotu, the right confered on the Reuenue toould 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 Agaru.rul, supra." 7. 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

4 To, PSr(,J & MrR,J W.P.No.S759 oJ 2024 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. B. 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. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. / SD/. MOHD. SANAULLAH ANSARI ASSISTANT REGISTAAR //rRUE coPY/' S, SECTION OFFICER 1. The Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax, Circle 1, KARIIvINAGAR Telangana State. 2. The Principal Chief Commissioner Of lncome Tax Telangana And Ap Hyderabad, lT Towers, AC Guards, lt/asab Tank, Hyderabad-500028. 3. The Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes, Department of Revenue A/inistry of Finance Government of lndia Secretariat Buildings New Delhi - .1 10 001 . 4. The National Faceless Assessment Centre, lncome Tax Department New Delhi 5. The Secretary To The Government, Union Of lndia, Department of Revenue, tr/inistry of Finance New Delhi 6. One CC to SRI THANNERU CHAITANYA KUIvIAR, Advocate. [OPUC] 7. One CC to SRI SUNDARI R PISUPATI, (Sr SC for lncome Tax Dept).[OPUC] 8. Two CD Copies. BSK GJP CVW

HIGH COURT DATED:2810212024 ORDER WP.No.5159 of 2024 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ,k iY\E STAr€ I 6c-cpt.Tc,i 0? r+e mt c: cj, \Lh .i 0