Radha Rani Battini vs. Income Tax Officer

[ 337s ] HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELAhIGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY ,THE T\A/ENTY SECOND DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION NO:7568 OF 2024 Between: Radha Rani Battini, Wo B Radha Kishan, Age - 56 years, Occupation - Housewife, H.No.2-10-848/504, Avasa Apartment, Flat No. 504, Opp. A to Z Medical shop, SBH Colony, Subedari, Hanamkonda, Telangana - 506001. ...PETITIONER AND 1. lncome Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Warangal, lncome Tax Office, D.No. l-6-810, 3rd Floor, Mayuri Complex, OPP.TSNPDCL Bhawan, Nakkalagutta, Hanamkonda, Warangal, Telangana - 506001. 2. Ttre Principal Chief Commissioner of lrrcome Tax, AP and TS,10th Floor, C- Block, LT. Towers, 10-2-3, A.C. Guards, Hyderabad-500004. 3- The Assessment Unit, lncome Tax Department, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, Ministry of Finance, Room No. 4O1 ,2nd Floor, E- Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, Delhi-1 10003. ...RES'ONDENTS 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 an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the Assessment Order dt. 14.03.2024 passed by the 3rd respondent u/s 147 r.w.s 1448 of the lncome-tax Act for A.Y. 2015-16 vide DIN No. lTBtuASTlSl14712023- 2411062666287(1), which rs passed as a consequence of the order passed uis 14BA(d) dt.22 04.2022 vide DIN No. ITBA/AST/F/148A12022-2311042811479(1) and the notice u/s 148 dt.2204.2022 vide DIN No. ITBA/AST|S|148_112022- 231104281954 1(1), issued by rhe JA0{1st respondent) instead of FAO(3rd respondent),that too contrary to provisions of section 149 of the Act, as void, illegal, and contrary to the provisions of Income{ax Act and contrary to the Principles of Natural Justice,

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 pursuant to the Assessment Order dt. 14.03.?024 passed by the 3rd respondent uls 147 r.w.s'1a4B of the lncome-tax Act for A.y. 20 1 5 - 1 6 vide D I N No ITBA/AST/S I 1 47 t2023- 24 I 1 062666287 (1) Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. DUNDU MANMOHAN Counsel for the Respondents: SRI VtJHAy K PUNNA (SENIOR SC FOR ITD) The Court made the following: ORDER 4 I i Ij i . i i : ii I I:

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAIVI KOSITY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TIIKARAMJI WRIT PETITION I{o.7568 OF 2o24 ORDER:1per Ho n'ble Si Justice P.SAM KOSHY) Heard Sri Dundu Manmohan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vrjay K. Punna, learned Senior Stalding Counsel for the Income Tax Department for the respondents. Perused the material on record. 2. The instant Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief; "... to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Assessment Order dt.14.O3.2O24 passed by the 3'd respondent tuls 147 r.w.s 144E} of the lncome-tax Act for A.Y. 2015-16 vide DIN No. ITBA/ ASri S/ L 47 / 2023-24 / LO62ffi6287 (r), which is passed as a consequence of the order passed u/s 148A(d) dt. 22.04.2022 vide DIN No. IrBA/AST/ F/ laa{ I 2022-23 I LO428t r47 9( 1) and the notice u/s 148 dt.22.O4.2O22 vide DIN No. ITBA/AST/ S/ va _I I 2022-23 I rM2Al954 1 ( 1 ), issued by the JAO (1"1 respondent) instead of FAO 13'a respondent), that too contraqr to provisions of Section 149 of the Act as void, illegal, and contrary to the provisions of Income-tax Act and contrary to the Principles of Natural Justice and pass.. ."

2 PSI(,J&.MrR J V/.P.No.7558 oJ 2O24 3. One of the contentions that the petitioner has raised in the present Writ Petition is that under ttre amended provisions of the Act which c€une into effect from Ol.O4.2O2l, 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 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 Offrcer. In support of his contention, he relied upon the recent judgment rendered by this very Bench in Wp.No.25903 of 2022 & batch, dated L4 .O9.2023 wherein this Court disposed of the batch of writ petitions to the limited extent. 5. On the other hand, Iearned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Department does not dispute that the said objection was decided in the a-foresaid batch of Writ Petitions. Hou'ever, he further contended that apart from the aforesaid objection, there have been othei- iibrious

-j ,/ 3 PSrr,J& IyrR,J W.P.No.7558 of 2024 objections also which the petitioner has raised in the writ petition. 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. Tte prelimtnary objection raised bg the petitioner is sustained and all these writ petitinns stands allowed on this uery juridictional issue. Stnce the impugned rwtices and orders are getting quashed on the point of juisdiction, ute are not inclined to proceed further and deci.de tle other issues raised bg the petittoner which stands reserued to be raised and contended in an ap p ro p riate p roce eding s. " "38. Since tle Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in th.e case of Ashish Aganual, supra, a.s a one-time measure exercising the powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, permitted the Reuenue to proceed under tle substituted prouisions, and this Court allouing the petitions onlg on the procedural flaut, tlrc nght confeted on th.e Reuenue would remain reserued to proceed furttter if theg so u)ant from the stage of the order of the Suprem.e Court in the case of Ashish Agarual, supra." 7. In view of the same, we are inclined to allow the present writ petition also on similar terms. Accordingly, the

4 PSr,J & ArrR,J W.P.No.7568 oJ 2024 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. 8. As has been held by this Bench in the aforesaid 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 //TRUE COPY// SD/-N. SRIHAR] ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTI FICER To, 1. The lncome Tax Officer, Ward - 1' !va1a1-g.a-l,.l19olle Tax Office' D'No 16- '' ai'o'C"iFroor, Mavuri Complex. OPP TSNPDCL Bhawan' Nakkalagutta' Hanamkonda, Warangal. Telangana - 506001' 2. il;-i;i;;ip;I'cn'eic6m.iision"er of lncome rax, AP and TS'1Oth Floor' C- - Bi;;i, i.i.%wers, 10-2-3 AC Guards Hvderabad-sooOM S. iir;Asse..ment Unit, lncome Tax Department,llational Faceless - il;;a;il;t Centie oelr,i n/|rnisirv of 'Finance' Room No 401'znd Floor' E- Ramo. Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, Delhr-1 10003' +. cin6edto Snt ouNou MANMoHAN Advoca-te-[^oPUc] --. ^. d. o;; cc i. shi vtJHAY K PUNNA (sENloR sc FoR lrD) [oPUc] 6. Two CD CoPies BM BS w

HIGH COURT DATED:2210312024 ORDER WP.No.7568 of 2024 ALLOWING THE WRITPETITION WITHOUT COSTS I i4 1 rrE 5 l,i i'4- t) ( o L) 0 3 ilN Zt[l .t t * j\-- or_5rE at+ W fiiftl