Mr. Tulluri Brahmaiah, vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1,

PDF · subscribers
WP/5349/2024HC TelanganaHBHC01010429202429 February 2024Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,N.TUKARAMJI6 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the writ petition. The Court noted that one of the primary contentions of the petitioner was that the reopening proceedings were initiated under the un-amended provisions of the Act, whereas the amended provisions, which came into effect from 01.04.2021, mandate issuing a notice under Section 148A and providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The Court acknowledged that the respondent-Department's counsel did not dispute that this specific objection had been decided in a previous batch of writ petitions by the same Bench (W.P.No.25903 of 2022, batch, dated 14.09.2023). The Court held that the reopening proceedings were not in accordance with the amended provisions but under the un-amended provisions, which is unsustainable. The Court reserved the rights of the parties as envisaged in paragraphs 37 & 38 of the aforementioned order in the batch of writ petitions. No order as to costs was made. Consequently, any pending miscellaneous petitions were closed.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Mr. Tulluri Brahmaiah, filed a writ petition before the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad challenging an order dated 28.03.2023 and a notice dated 03.03.2023 issued by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kothagudem. The petitioner contended that these proceedings were without jurisdiction, violated principles of natural justice, and were arbitrary and illegal, infringing Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. The core of the challenge revolved around the procedure followed for reopening the assessment. The petitioner argued that the amended provisions of Section 148A of the Income Tax Act, effective from 01.04.2021, which mandate issuing a notice under Section 148A and providing an opportunity of hearing in a faceless manner, were not followed. Instead, the reopening was initiated by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer under the un-amended provisions.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the reopening of assessment proceedings initiated by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, by issuing a notice dated 03.03.2023 and an order dated 28.03.2023, is without jurisdiction and in violation of the amended provisions of Section 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the principles of natural justice? Assessee's Contentions: - The petitioner argued that the amended provisions of the Income Tax Act, effective from 01.04.2021, require the issuance of a notice under Section 148A and an opportunity of hearing to the assessee before reopening an assessment. - The proceedings were required to be conducted in a faceless manner. - The reopening in this case was initiated by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, which is contrary to the amended provisions. - Relied on a recent judgment by the same Bench in W.P.No.25903 of 2022, batch, dated 14.09.2023. Revenue's Contentions: - The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Department did not dispute that the objection regarding the procedure under Section 148A was decided in the aforesaid batch of Writ Petitions. - However, the revenue contended that apart from the objection concerning Section 148A, there were other various objections raised by the petitioner in the writ petition.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

t 337s I HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRl JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION NO: 5349 OF 2024 Between: Mr- Tulluri Brahmaiah, S/o Pullaiah, Age 58 years, Occ; D.No.2-103, Main Road, Aswapuram, Hwp Aswapur Colony, 507116. Agriculture, Residing at Khammam, Telangana- .....PETITIONER AND 1 . The lncome Tax Officer, Ward-1 , lncome Tax Office, Kothagudem 5071 17 Bhadradri Kothagudem District Telangana. 2. The Pr- Chief Commissioner, lncome Tax Department, 1Oth Floor, lncome Tax Towers, AC Guards, Hyderabad - 500 004. 3. Union of lndia, Represented by its Secretary to the Government Ministry of Finance, New Delhi. .....RESPONDENTS Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitdtion of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other applicable writ declaring and setting aside the impugned order dated 28.03.2023 with DIN and Notice No.|TBA/AST/FI 1 48N2O22-2311051 455902(1 ) issued by Respondent No1, the lmpugned Notice dated 03.03.2023 with DIN and Notice No.lTBA/AST/Fi148A(SCNy2022-231l05039755611) and proceedings in furtherance to it as being without jurisdiction and in violation of principles of

natural justice, patently illegal, arbitrary, violative of Article 14 and Article 19(1 Xg) of the Constitution of lndia. |.A.NO:1 OF m24 Petition under section 1s1 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the impugned order dated 28-03'2023 with DIN and Notice No.rrBtuAST/Ft14}N2o22-23t 105145s902 ( j) issued by Respondent No.1 , the rmpugned Notice dated 03.03.2023 with DrN and Notice No.ITBA/AST/Ft14BA(SCN)t2O22-23t 1050397556(1) and proceedings in furtherance to it pending disposal of the main writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI KARAN TALWAR Co-unsel for the Respondent Nos..t&2:SRl J.V.PRASAD (Sr. SC FOR INCOME rAx) !9r11_s9]!o_r lhe Respondent No.3 : SRI cAOt PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEpUTy SOL]CITOR GENERAL OF INDIA The Court made the foHowing ORDER

r?1 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSIIY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TI'I{ARAMJI WRIT PETITION N0.5349 0F 2024 ORDER:(per Hon'bte Si Justice P.SAM KOSHfl) Heard Mr. Karan Talwar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.J.V.Prasad, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Income Tax DeparLment for respondents. Perused the material available on record. 2. The instant Writ petition has been frled by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief; "...to issue a writ, order, or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus or any other applicable writ declaring and setting aside the impugned order, dated 28.03.2023 with DIN and Notice No.lTB A / ASr / F / r48 A / 2022 -23 / I OS r 4S59O2 (1) issued by Respondent No. l, the Impug:ned Notice, dated O3.03.2023 with DIN and Notic; No.ITBA/ AST/F/ l48A(scNl /2o22-23l 1oso397ss6(1) and proceedings in furtherance to it as being w.ithout jurisdiction and in violation of principles Jf natural justice, patently illegal, arbitrary, violitive of Articles 14 and Article 19(1)(9) of the Constitution of India and to pass..." 3. One of the contentions that the petitioner has raised in the present Writ Petition is that under the amended -7

2 PSK,J & NTR,J W.P.No.5349 oJ 2O24 prot/isions of the Act which carne into effect from Ol.O4.2O2I, the respondents, while proceeding under Section 148 of the Act, were required to issue notice under Section l48A and provide arr opportunit5r of hearing to the assessee. As per the amended provision of law, the proceedings to be drawn are also in a faceless m€rnner. 4. Whereas, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, in the instant case, reopening has been initiated by the Jurisdictional Assessing OfIicer. In support of his contention, he relied upon the recent judgment rendered by this very Bench in Wp.No.25903 of 2022 e, batch, dated L4.O9.2O23 wherein this Court disposed of the batch of writ petitions to the limited extent. 5. On the other hald, leamed 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 ttre petitioner has raised in the writ petition.

4 PSK,J &, NTR,J w.P.No.5349 of 2024 accordance with the amended provision but under the un-amended provision which is otherwise not sustainable. 8. As has been held by this Bench in the a-foresaid batch matters, the right 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. 9. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any shall stand closed. Sd/. T. JAYASREE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER 1. The lncome Tax Officer, Ward-'l, lncome Tax Office, Kothagudem 5071 17 Bhadradri Kothagudem District Telang€na. 2. The Pr. Chief Cornmissioner, lncome Tax Department, 1oth Floor, lncome Tax Towers, AC Guards, Hyderabad - 500 004. 3. The Secretary to the Government, Union of lndia, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi-1'10O01. 4. One CC to Sri Karan Talwar, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to Sri J.V.Prasad (Sr. SC FOR INCOM€ TAX)lOPUCl 6. One CC to Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA (OPUC) z. Two CD Copies a' To SA cu(t-

HIGH COURT PSK,J & NTR,J DATED:29102t2024 ORDER WP.No.5349 of 2024 ALLOWING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. 1 HE STal ( 'r Jc i-) D E urn 2924 2o -L a

More judgments on Section 148A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →