Sri Naveen Kumar Mudhalkar vs. Assessment Unit

PDF · subscribers
WP/734/2024HC TelanganaHBHC01001164202410 January 2024Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,N.TUKARAMJI6 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the writ petition, stating that the proceedings were not drawn in accordance with the amended provisions but under the unamended provisions, which is unsustainable. The Court relied on its previous decision in W.P.No.25903 of 2022 and batch, where it had sustained a preliminary objection on jurisdictional grounds and quashed the impugned orders. The Court reiterated that the rights of the parties would stand reserved as envisaged in paragraphs 37 and 38 of the said previous order. These paragraphs indicated that the petitions were allowed solely on procedural flaws, and the Revenue's right to proceed further from the stage of the Supreme Court's order in Ashish Agarwal would remain reserved. The Court directed no order as to costs.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Sri Naveen Kumar Itludhalkar, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated 02-01-2024, passed by the Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre (Respondent No. 1) under Section 143(3) read with Sections 147 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2015-16. The petitioner contended that the reopening of assessment was initiated by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, contrary to the amended provisions of the Act which came into effect from 01.04.2021. These amended provisions mandate the issuance of a notice under Section 148A and an opportunity of hearing to the assessee, with proceedings to be conducted in a faceless manner. The petitioner relied on a previous batch of writ petitions decided by the same Bench on 14.09.2023.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) read with Sections 147 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2015-16 is arbitrary, illegal, and void ab initio for being violative of the amended provisions of Section 148A and Section 149 of the Act, and contrary to CBDT circulars and Section 151A of the Act. Assessee's Contention: The reopening of assessment was initiated by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, which is contrary to the amended provisions of the Act effective from 01.04.2021. These amendments require a notice under Section 148A and an opportunity of hearing, with proceedings to be conducted facelessly. The petitioner relied on a previous decision of this Bench in W.P.No.25903 of 2022 and batch. Revenue's Contention: The learned counsel for the Department did not dispute that the said objection was decided in the aforesaid batch matters. However, the counsel submitted that apart from this objection, there were other various objections raised by the petitioner.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 144B,Section 148A,Section 149,Section 151A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

[ 337e I HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH 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: 734 OF 2024 Between: Sri Naveen Kumar lt/udhalkar, S/o. Sri Manohar Rao [Vludhalkar, aged about 45 years,49-41'l-516, Bapu Nagar, Chintal, Hyderabad - 500055. .....PETITIONER AND 1. Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre, lncome Tax Department, Ivlinistry of Finance, Room No. 4O1 ,2nd Floor, E-Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, Delhi - 110 003. 2. The lncome Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Hyderabad, Signature Towers, Botanical Gardens, Kondapur, Hyderabad. .....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 pass an order or direction, especially one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS holding that the order passed by 'l "t Respondent u/s.1 43(3) r.w.s 147 r.w.s. 1448 of the Act, dated O2-O1-.2O24 with OIN No .ITBA/AST/S/1 4712023-2411059283350(1) for the Ay.201 5-'16, as arbitrary, illegal,,bad in law, void ab initio, apart from being violative of provisions of section '148A and section 149 of the Act and also contrary to the circular issued by CBDT and provisions of section 1 5 l A of the Act, and consequently set aside the same. |.A.NO:1 OF 2024 Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated an 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 order passed by the 1St Respondent u/s.143(3) r.w.s 147 r.w.s. 1448 of the Act, d1.02-O1 .2024 with Dl N No. ITBA/ASTiS I 1 47 I 2023-241 1059283350( 1 ) for the Ay.201 5-'1 6. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI A.V.RAGHU RAM Counsel for the Respondents : Ms. SUNDARI R.PiSUPATI (Sr SC for lncome Tax Dept) The Court made the following ORDER

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.734 oF 2024 ORDER:/per Hon'bte Si Justice P.SAM KOSHfl) Heard Mr. A.V. Raghu Ram, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Sundari R. pisupati, 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 143 (3) read with Sections 147 and. I44B of the Income Tax Act, 196 I (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") dated O1.O2.2024 for the Assessment year 20lS_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 which carne into effect from . Ol.O4.2O2l, the respondents, while proceeding under Section 148 of the Act, were required to issue notice under Section 1484, and provide an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. As per the amended provision of law, the

2 proceedings to be drawn are also in a faceless ma_nner. 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.O9.2023 vide W.p.No.25903 of 2022 and batch to the limited extent. 4. Learned counsel 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 aforesajd 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 the same at paragraph Nos.37 & 3g which are reproduced herein under:

3 '.37 The. preliminary objection raised bg the petitioner rs susfarned and all tLese writ petitions stand.Z allowed on this uery juri.sdictional issie. Since the impugned_ :?:r:? ::d orders are g.etting quoshed on the point ot Junsdrctrcn, u)e are not inclined to proceed furtiter and decide tlrc ofher issues raised_ bg ine petitioier-utnfcn stands reserued to be raised ind clntend_ed. in an app ropriate pro cc e ding s. " '38. Since the Hon,ble Supreme Court had, in the case of As.hish Agaruta\ supra, as a one_time meesure Terdsng the pou.ters under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, permitted the Reuenue io pio".a under the substituted prouisions, and thi{ court allotaing the petitions onlg on the procedural ftaut, the ight confened on the Reuenue uiuld. remain reserued t,o yyocee.a.{urther if theg so want from the stage of the o.rd_er oJ the Supreme Courl in the case oJ e"ni"n Aganaal, supra." 6. In view of the sarne, we are inclined to a-llow 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 accordance with the amended provision but under the un-arnended 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 & 3g of the sajd order passed in the said batch of writ petitions. No order as to

4 To SA GJP costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ASSS?I',11ittT"ffit //rRUE coPY/' 67 SECTION OFFICER 1. The Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre, lncome Tax Depa(ment, Ministry of Finance, Room No. 401 , 2nd Floor, E-Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, Delhi - 110 003. 2. The lncome Tax Officer, Ward 2(1). Hyderabad, Signature Towers, Botanical Gardens, Kondapur, Hyderabad. 3. The lnmme Tax Officer, Ward - 2(1), Signature Towers, Opp. Botanical Gardens, Kondapur, Hyderabad - 500084. 4. The lncome Tax Officer, Ward - 2(1), Signature Towers, Opp. Botanical Gardens, Kondapur, Hyderabad - 500084. 5. One CC to Sri A.V.Raghu Ram, Advocate IOPUCI 6. One CC to Ms. Sundari R Pisupati (Sr SC for lncome Tax Dept) tOpUCl 7. Two CD Copies \2t-

HIGH COURT DATED:1010112024 ORDER WP.No.734 of 2024 ALLOWING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. \l)o STAT F Op 2t1[ 1[t?t :- rt ., , :f .;: .i ',' ,i + ->+

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →