Ms. Koride Anitha Rani vs. The Income Tax Officer - Ward 9(1),

PDF · subscribers
WP/6285/2024HC TelanganaHBHC01012145202411 March 2024Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,N.TUKARAMJI7 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the writ petition on the objection raised by the petitioner 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 referred to its previous decision in WP.No.25903 of 2022 & batch, dated September 1, 2023, specifically paragraphs 37 and 38. In paragraph 37, the Court had stated that preliminary objections regarding jurisdictional issues were allowed, and since the impugned notices and orders were being quashed on jurisdictional grounds, it was not inclined to proceed further on other issues raised by the petitioner, reserving them to be raised in appropriate proceedings. Paragraph 38 noted that the Supreme Court in "Ashish Agrawal" permitted the Revenue to proceed under substituted provisions as a one-time measure, and the High Court's decision in writ petitions was based solely on procedural flaws, reserving the Revenue's rights to proceed further if they wished from the stage of substituted provisions. 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.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Ms. Koride Anitha Rani, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad challenging an order passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 9(1), Hyderabad, under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated March 22, 2023, and a consequential notice under Section 148 of the Act, dated March 25, 2023, both pertaining to Assessment Year 2016-17. The petitioner sought to declare these orders as arbitrary, illegal, bad in law, void-ab-initio, and violative of principles of natural justice and constitutional provisions. The petition also sought a stay on further proceedings. The petitioner argued that the reopening was initiated by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, contrary to amended provisions requiring faceless proceedings and an opportunity of hearing.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the order passed by the 1st Respondent under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the consequential notice under Section 148 of the Act for Assessment Year 2016-17 are arbitrary, illegal, bad in law, void-ab-initio, and violative of the principles of natural justice, Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 265 of the Constitution of India, and Section 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that under the amended provisions of the Act effective from April 1, 2021, proceedings under Section 148 require the issuance of a notice under Section 148A and an opportunity of hearing. Furthermore, the petitioner contended that the reopening was initiated by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, which is contrary to the faceless manner mandated by the amended provisions. The petitioner relied on a previous judgment by the same Bench in WP.No.25903 of 2022 & batch, dated September 1, 2023. Revenue's Contention: The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Department did not dispute that the objection regarding the procedural flaw was decided in the aforesaid batch of writ petitions. However, the counsel contended that there were other objections raised by the petitioner apart from the procedural one.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

[ 337e ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION NO:6285 OF 2024 Between: Ms. Koride Anitha Rani, D/o I\/r. Om Prakash Miryala, aged 54 years, occ.State Government Employee, H.No.. 23-5-987, Ram Singh Bagh, Gowlipura, Shalibanda - 500 053, Telangana. ...PETITIONER AND 1 The lncome Tax Officer - Ward 9('1), Hyderabad, l.T.Towers, 10-2-3, AC Guards, Hyderabad - 500 004, Telangana. The Principal Chief Commissioner Of lncome Tax, Andhra Pradesh And Telangana, Hyderabad, Room No. 922,91h Floor, B Block, l.T.Towers, '10-2- 3, AC Guards, Hyderabad - 500 004, Telangana 3. Assessment Unit, lncome Tax Department, National Faceless Assessment Center, New Delhi, Room No. 401, 2nd Floor, E-Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, New Delhi - 110 003 ...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 a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, declaring. a- the order passed by the 1st Respondent, u/s 148A(d) of the lncome Tax Act, 1961, dated 22.03.2023, bearing DIN and Notice No.. l TBA/AST/F/148A12022-2311051096773(1), for the Assessment Year 2016 - 17 and b.the consequential notice issued by the 1st Respondent, u/s 148 of the lncome Tax Act, 1961, dated 25.O3.2023, bearing DIN and Notice No.. ITBA/AST/S/148.112022-2311051307952(1), for the Assessment Year 2016 - 17 as arbitrary, illegal, bad in law, void-ab-initio, violative of the principles of natural 2

justice, apart from being violative of Articles 14, 1g(l )(g) and 265 Constitution of lndia and Sec 148A of the Income Tax Act. 196.1 , consequently set asjde the same. of the and to 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 notice issued by the Lst Respondent, u/s 148 of the lncome Tax Act, 1961 , dated 25.03.2023, bearing DIN and Notice No.. rrBA/AST/s/'t4B 1t2022- 23t1os13otgs2(1), for the Assessment Y ear 2016 - 17 . Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI A.V.A.SIVA KARTIKEYA Counsel for the Respondents: SRI J.V.PRASAD, SR.S.C FOR lT The Court made the following: ORDER

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTTCE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.6285 OF 2024 ORDER:(per Hon'ble Si Justice P.SAM KOSHY) Heard Mr.A.V.A.Siva Kartikeya, Iearned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.J.V.Prasad, learned Senior Standing Counsel for respondents. Perused the material available on record. 2. The instant Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for the following relief: "to issue o writ of Mondomus or ony other dppropriote writ order or Direction decloring o the order possed by the 1st Respondent u/s 748Ad ol the lncome Tox Act 7961 dated 22 03 2023 beorinq DIN ond Notice No ITBA/AST/F/148A/202223/10510967731 for the Assessment Yeor 2016 -77 ond b the consequentiol notice issued by the 1st Respondent u/s 148 ol the lncome Tox Act 1967 ddted 25 03 202i beoring DIN ond Notice No ITBA/AST/S/148 1/202223/10513079521 for the Assessment Yeor 2076 77 os orbitrory illegal bod in low void o binitio violotive of the principles of noturoljustice oport from beinq violotive ol Articles 14 1919 ond 265 of the Constitution oJ lndia ond Sec 148A of the lncome fox Act 1961 ond to consequently set oside the same in the intercsts of justice". 3. One of the contentions that the petitioner has raised in the present Writ Petition is that under the amended

2 PSI(,J & MTR,J W.P.No.6285 of 2024 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 law, the proceedings to be drawn are a_lso in a faceless manner. 4. 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.25903 of 2022 & batch, dated 1.4.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 objections also which the petitioner has raised in the writ petition.

3 PSK,J & NTR,J W.P.No.6285 oJ2O24 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 paragraph Nos'37 & 38 which are reproduced herein under: "37. The preliminory objection raised bg the petitioner i" "r"toii.a and atltheie tttit petitions stands allouted ";; t;;; ,"ra jurisdictional issue Since the impugned notices and orders ore getting quashed' on- the point of i"itii"iit"", LUe are not-incliiei to proceed further and ';;;;;"r";;'"ihl. i..r." raised bs the petitioner uthich "t""a" reser-ued to be raised and contended in an appropiate Proceedings " "38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had' in the case oJ e"ni"n Aganual, supra, as a one-time -measure Jxercising the powers under Article 142 of the Constitufion of India, permitted' the Reuenue to proceed i"ALr' t}e iubstituted' prouisions' and this Court Zi6-i"i n -p",tition" onlg on the procedural flaut' tle lii "i*.ia on the Rel.enue utould remain reserued tl ir.r"Ji irther if they so utant from the stage -of the ".r'i, if tne supieme Court in the case of Ashish Agarutal, suPra." I I 7 . In view of the same, we are inclined to allow the present writ petition also on simiiar 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' I

.,:.I11: 4 PSI(,J & JurR,J W.P.No.6285 of 2O24 8. As has been heid 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 shall stand closed. petitions pending, if any, SD/. K. AMMAJI //rRUE coPYtt ASSlsrANr REGI'tRAR t.l / ro, sEcIONbFFtCER 1. The lncome Tax Offic^er ---Wqd 9(1), Hyderabad, l.T.Towers, 1O_2_3, AC - Guards, Hyderabad - 500 004. fetanbana '-- - 2 r he Principar chief commissioner "of rncome Tax, Andhra pradesh And IulTn:,l:j r9:llo-,9, f oql-No s2z, gin Fioor, B bro;k-, i.i.r;il,iiJ,' r b:z_ ^ j: AU uuards, Hyderabad _ 500 004, Telanqana J. tne Assessment Unit, lncome Tax -bepartment. National Faceless Assessment Center, ..New. Dethi, Room -fV5" +Oi, 'Zn,i-iiil;, 'E:R;;; _ Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, New Delhi _ i lO OOI 4. One CC Io SRI A.V A.SIVA KARTIKEYA: novocate. IoPUCI 5. One CC roSRt JV'RASAD, S"nior'SiinOiig iouniei for tncome Tax Department. [OpUCl 6. Two CD Copies. BSK GJP V \

i HIGH COURT DATED:1110312024 ORDER WP.No.6285 of 2024 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS o ( 61ttE S7O FATcHEc 10 APfr 2021 14 * l- r9 > 6 ,+ * *1

More judgments on Section 148A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →