Smt. Kairamkonda Vimala vs. Assessment Unit

PDF · subscribers
WP/534/2024HC TelanganaHBHC01000898202409 January 2024Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,N.TUKARAMJI7 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the writ petition on the preliminary objection raised by the petitioner regarding the procedural flaw. The Court held that the proceedings were not drawn in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act but under the un-amended provisions, which is not sustainable. The Court relied on its previous decision in a batch of writ petitions decided on 14.09.2023, specifically paragraphs 37 and 38. Paragraph 37 stated that the preliminary objection was sustained and the writ petitions were allowed on the jurisdictional issue, and other issues raised by the petitioner were not decided and stood reserved. Paragraph 38 noted that the Supreme Court, in Ashish Agarwal, permitted the Revenue to proceed under the substituted provisions as a one-time measure, and this Court allowing petitions only on procedural flaws would reserve the right conferred on the Revenue to proceed further from the stage of the Supreme Court's order. Consequently, the present writ petition was allowed on similar terms, with the rights of the parties reserved as envisaged in the previous order. No order as to costs was made.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Smt. Kairamkonda Vimala, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated 28.12.2023 passed by the Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre (Respondent No. 1) under Section 147 read with Sections 144 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for Assessment Year 2015-16. The petitioner contended that the reopening proceedings were initiated under the un-amended provisions of the Act, failing to comply with the amended provisions that came into effect from 01.04.2021, which mandate issuing a notice under Section 148A and providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The petitioner also argued that the proceedings should have been conducted in a faceless manner, whereas the reopening was initiated by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessment order passed under Section 147 read with Sections 144 and 144B of the Act for AY 2015-16 is illegal and void ab initio for non-compliance with the amended provisions of the Act, specifically concerning the requirement of issuing a notice under Section 148A and providing an opportunity of hearing, as mandated by amendments effective from 01.04.2021? (Question of law and mixed fact and law, concerning Sections 147, 148, 148A, 144, 144B, and 151A of the Act). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the reopening was initiated under the un-amended provisions of the Act, failing to adhere to the mandatory procedural requirements of issuing a notice under Section 148A and providing an opportunity of hearing, as required by the amended provisions effective from 01.04.2021. The petitioner relied on a batch of writ petitions decided by the same Bench on 14.09.2023. Revenue's Contention: The learned counsel for the Department did not dispute that the objection regarding the procedural flaw had been decided in the aforesaid batch of writ petitions. However, the counsel submitted that there were other objections raised by the petitioner.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 148A,Section 151A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

[ 337e ] HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION NO. 5340F 2024 Between: Smt. Kairamkonda Vimala,.W/o. Sri .K.papaiah, Aged about 65 years, H.No.SRT 288, Jahawarnagar, Chikkadpaily, Hyderabid - 500070. ...PETITIONER AND 1. Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre, lncome Tax Department,. Ministry of Finance, Room No. 4O1, 2nd Ftoor, E-namp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, Dethi-1 10003. 2. The lncome Tax Officer, Ward - 4(1), t.T. Towers, A.C. Guards, Masabtank, Hyderabad - 500004. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 ol the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fited 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 .t'r Respondent uts.147 t.w. 144 r.w.s. 1448 of the Act, dt.2811212023 with DtN No.ITBtuAST/St14712023- 2411059159948(1 ) for the Ay.2015-16, as arbrtrary, iilegal, bad in law, void ab initio, apart from being violative of provisions of section 14BA and section 14g of the Act and also contrary to the circutar issued by CBDT and provisions of section 151A of the Act, and consequently set aside the same. i I i I i ;

- lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under -section '1 51 CPC praying that in lhe circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings, including any recover pursuant to the order passed by the Respondent u/s.147 t.w. 144 r.w.s. 1448 of the Act, d1.2811212O23 with Dl N No. ITBA/AST I S I 1 47 12023-24 I 1 O59 1 59948( 1 ) for the Av. 20 1 5-1 6. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI A. V. RAGHU RAM Counsel for the Respondents: SRI J. V. PRASAO, SENIOR S.C. FOR INCOME TAX The Court made the following: ORDER

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSITY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAIVIJI WRIT PETITION l{o.534 OF 2o24 OR.DPR: lper Ho n'bte Sn Justice P.SAM KOSHII) Heard Mr. A.V.Raghu Ram, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. J.V.Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for Income Tax appearing for the respondents. Perused the entire record. 2. The instant Writ Petition has been filed challenging the Assessment Order passed by respondent No.l under Section L47 read with Sections 1 44 and 1448 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") dated 28.12.2O23 for the Assessment Year 20 15- 16. 3. One of the contentions that the petitioner has raised in the present Writ Petition is that under the amended provisions of the Act u'hich cuune into effect from Ol.O4.2O2l, the respondents, rvhile proceeding under Section 148 of the Act, were required to issue notice under Section 148A and provide arr opportuni-ty of hearing to the assessee. As per the amended provision of !tw, the

TEli 2 proceedings to be drawn are also in a faceless manner. Whereas, it has been contended by the petitioner that in the instant case, reopening has been initiated by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. In respect of the said objection that the petitioner had raised, he relied upon the recent batch of writ petitions decided by this very Bench on 14.09.2023 vide W.p.No.259O3 of 2022 and, batch to the limited extent. 4. Learned coulsel for the Department would not dispute of having decided the said objection in the aforesaid batch matters. However, learned counsel submits 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, rvhile disposing of said batch of writ petitions, had taken note of the same at paragraph Nos.37 & 3g which are reproduced herein under: I I I i I L

3 "37. Tfie preliminary objection raised by tLe petitioner is sustizined and all tlese uit petitions stands alloued on this uery jurisdictional issue. Sirrce tLe impugned noties ond orders are getting qtoshed on th'e point of jurisdiction, ue are not inclined to proceed further ond decide the other issues raised by the petitioner ulhich stands reserved to be raised and contended in an app ropriate p roee ding s. " "38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the case of Ashish Agarutal, stpra, as o one-time meosure exercising the pouers under Article 142 of the Constitution of Indio, pertnitted the Reuenue to proceed under tle stbstituted prouisions, and this Court allouing the petitions only on the procedural flaut, the ight conferred on tle Reuenue would remain reserued to proceed further if tteg so taant from the stage of the order of the Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Agarua\ supro." 6. In view of the same, we are inclined to aliow 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 draw'n in accordance wit]l the amended provision but under the un-amended provision which is otherwise not sustainable' 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 1 9-g- c"ia batch of writ petitions. No order as to J.-j i * i, Ii a i

4 costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/. P.Ch. NAGABHUSHAMBA ASSISTANTJtEGISTRAR |.,,4/ SECTION OFFICER To, MP GJP 1. The Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre' lncone Tax ' ;;;;tffi;i"rtiini.lrv'oi-Finance, Room No' 401 , 2nd Floor' E-Ramp' Jatahadal Nehru Stidium' DelhFl 10003' 2. The lncome Tax Officer, Ward - a(1)' l'T' Towers, A'C' Guards' Masabtank' Hyderabad - 500004. 3. One CC to SRI A. V. RAGHU RAM, Advocate IOPUCI 4. One CC to SRI J. V. PRASAD, Senior Standing Counsel for lncome Tax loPUCl 5. Two CD CoPies w I I I I j I i I { I I l

HIGH COURT DATED:0910112024 7 '.<of. e 1 5 Ft8 2021 ) \\? + ORDER WP.No.S34 of 2024 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS - cf'&A {\ Fr-- ;6'{ i iE r) r,.\ 7.C

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →