Smt. BorlakuntaAnanthaLaxmi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Between: Smt. Borlakunta Anantha Laxmi, Employees, Flat No. 302, Ace Hyderabad- 500036. [ 337s ] Rajam, Aged about 42 years, Occ ; Apts, Road No. 10A, New Nagole, HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND 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: 7469 OF 2024 D/o D. Classic .....PETITIONER AND 1. Assrstant Commissioner of lncome Tax, Circle 9(1), Hyderabad, lncome Tax Towers, AC Guards, I\/asab Tank,Hyderabad- 500004. 2. Principal Chief Commissioner of lncome Tax lncome Tax Towers, AC Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad- 500004. 3. The Assessment Unit, lncome Tax Department National Faceless Assessment Centre Room No 401 , 2nd Floor ERamp Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium Delhi 110003. .....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 a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the impugned Order dated 09-02-2024 passed u/s 147 oI the Act vide DIN No. ITBA/AST/Si 14712023- 2411060711036(1), bv the 3'd respondent for A. Y. 2015- 16, pursuant to the order u/s 148A(d)dt 07 ' 04 2022 and notice rssued u/s 148 dated 11-o4-2O22 by the JAO instead of FAO, as void, illegal, and contrary to the Provisions of lncome- tax Act and contrary to the Principles of natural justice.

|.A.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 rnay be pleased to stay all the further proceedings initiated by the 3rdRespondent against the Petitioner. pursuant to the impugned order passed under section 147 of the Act, vide DIN and order no, ITBA/AST/S/14712023- 241106071'1036(i), dated OglO2l2O24 for the Assessment Year 2015- 1. 6 in PAN AGOPL7847J till final disposal this writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI VENKATRAM REDDY MANTUR Counsel for the Respondents : M/s B.SAPNA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR sRr J.V.PRASAD (SC FOR TNCOME TAX) The Court made the following ORDER

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSI{Y AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PEIIITION No.7469 OF 2024 ORDER (per Hon'ble Si Justice P.SAM KOSHY) Heard Sri M.Venkatram Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. B.Sapna Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri J.V. Prasad, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department for the respondents. Perused the material on record. 2. TLre instant Writ Petition has been filed 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 declaring the impugned Order dt.O9.O2.2O24 passed u/s 147 of the Act vide DIN No.ITBA/AST/S/I47/2023-24/ 1060711036(1), by the 3rd respondent for A.Y. 2015- 16, pursnant to the order u/s 148A(d) dt.O7 -O4.2O22 and notice issued u/s 148 dt. I L.O4.2O22 by the JAO instead of FAO, as void, illegal and contrary to the Prowisions of lncome-tax Act and contrary to the Principles of Natural Justice and pass such ottrer orders as this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case..." 3. One of the contentions that the petitioner has raised in the present Writ Petition is that under the amended

2 PSK,J & l\rrR,J W.P.No.7469 of 2024 provisions of the Act which came into effect from O1.O4.2021, 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 proceedings to be drawn are also 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 e 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 objections also which the petitioner has raised in the writ

3 ) l PSK,J & NTR,J W.P.No.7469 o:f 2024 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 preliminary objection raised bg the petitioner is sustained and all tlrcse utrit petitions stands allowed on this uery juisdictional issue. Since the impugned notices and orders are getting quashed on the point of jurisdiction, we are not inclined to proceed further and decide the otlrcr issues raised bg the petitioner whtch stands reserued to be raised and contended in an ap p rop riate p roce e ding s.' "38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in tLe case of Ashish Agaru.tal, supra, as a one-time measure exercising the powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, pennitted the Reuenue to proceed under the substituted prouisions, and this Court allowing the petitions onlg on tLrc procedural Jlaw, the right conferced on tLe Reuenue would remain reserued to proceed further if th.eg so utant from the stage of tLrc order of the Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Agartua| supra." 7. In 'riew of the sarne, 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 petitioner that the proceedings have not been drawn in

4 PSI(,J & IYTR,J W.P.No.7469 oJ 2O24 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 aJoresaid 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/- C, PRAVEEN KUM ASSISTANT REGIS R //TRUE COPY// SECTION O ICER To SA KKS 1. The Assistant commissioner of lncome Tax, Circle 9(1), Hyderabad, lncome Tax Towers, AC Guards, Masab Tank,Hyderabad- 500004' z. fn" pii".iput Chief Comhissioner of lncome Tax lncome Tax Towers' AC Guards,Masab Tank, Hyderabad- 500CC4. 3. ihe Assessment Unit, lhcome Tax De?artment National Faceless - ' Assessment Centre Room No 4O1 , 2"d Floor ERamp Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium Delhi 1 10003. 4. One CC to Sri Venkatram Reddy Mantur, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to Sri J.V.Prasad (SC FOR INCOIME TAX) IOPUCI 6 Two CD Copies a_id ,. ,tY

l HIGH COURT DATED:2210312024 ORDER WP.No.7469 of 2024 ALLOWING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. 1 ll i,l' (.- @rqtn\ q0j- ^L\ 'v