Centenary Baptist Church vs. Income Tax Officer

PDF · subscribers
WP/7622/2024HC TelanganaHBHC01014838202422 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 preliminary objection raised by 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. The Court referred to its earlier decision in W.P.No.25903 of 2022 & batch, dated 14.09.2023, where similar writ petitions were allowed on the jurisdictional issue. In that batch of petitions, the Court had sustained the preliminary objection and quashed the impugned notices and orders on the point of jurisdiction, stating that it was not inclined to proceed further and decide other issues raised by the petitioner, which were reserved to be raised in appropriate proceedings. The Court also noted that the Supreme Court, in the case of Ashish Agrawal, had permitted the Revenue to proceed under the substituted provisions as a one-time measure. Therefore, the High Court held that the right of the parties would stand reserved as envisaged in paragraphs 37 and 38 of its earlier order. Consequently, the assessment order and consequential notice were quashed on the procedural ground. No order as to costs was made.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Centenary Baptist Church, filed a writ petition before the High Court for the State of Telangana challenging an assessment order dated 12.12.2023 passed under Section 147 read with Sections 144 and 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2018-19. The petitioner also challenged a consequential notice under Section 148 dated 26.04.2022. The petitioner contended that the assessment order and notice were void, illegal, and contrary to the Income-tax Act and principles of natural justice. Specifically, the petitioner argued that the reopening was initiated by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of the Faceless Assessment Unit (FAO), and that the proceedings were not conducted in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act, which require a notice under Section 148A and an opportunity of hearing in a faceless manner. The respondents, represented by the Income Tax Department, did not dispute the petitioner's objection regarding the procedure but raised other objections.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessment order dated 12.12.2023 and the consequential notice dated 26.04.2022 are void, illegal, and contrary to the Income-tax Act and principles of natural justice, specifically concerning the initiation of proceedings by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of the Faceless Assessment Unit and the non-compliance with the amended provisions of Section 148A requiring a notice and opportunity of hearing? Assessee's Contentions: - The reopening was initiated by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of the Faceless Assessment Unit (FAO). - Proceedings were not conducted in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act, which came into effect from 01.04.2021, requiring issuance of notice under Section 148A and providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. - Proceedings should have been conducted in a faceless manner as per the amended provisions. - Relied on the judgment of this very Bench in W.P.No.25903 of 2022 & batch, dated 14.09.2023. Revenue's Contentions: - The respondent-Department does not dispute that the objection regarding the procedure was decided in the aforesaid batch of Writ Petitions. - Apart from the aforesaid objection, there have been other various objections which the petitioner has raised in the writ petition.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 148,Section 148A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

[ 3s7s l J I i I t I I ti I I, I, I I IIII l il Between: Cenlenary Baptist Church, Rep. by President, ,?.lul'f1 ,!giq"Xi,:/" Rathnam'Polepaka, aged about 60 y9q1s.,^ R/o 11-5-1 ' Chrrstran uorony Laxmipur PO, Warangal, Telangana - 506013' ...PETITIONER lncome Tax Officer. Ward 1. D No l-8S10' 3rd Floor' Iritavuri Complex' Opp' TsNPDCL Bhawan. r.rakjrr"g,iii, "uitii'i*o'' warahsal' Telansana ANO 1 2 HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY. THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION NO:7 6220F 2024 506001 ...RESPONDENTS The Principal Commisstoner of lncome -T-lx^: .1' 10th Floor' C-Block' l T il-ii"t..'idI-s]A C cuaras, Hvderabad-500004 The Assessment Unit, lncome Tax Department' nJ!".l,il]iite-niie' -oetr'L r'tiiniti'v of Financd' Room N A:ffi :ffiffi;iii r'j"ni' stadium''Derhi-1 10003 National Faceless o- 401.2nd Floor, E- Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith' the High "t:* ':]^:: pleased to issue an appropriate writ' order or direction more particularly one tn the nature of Writ of Mandamus' declaring the Assessment Order dI 12 12'2023 passed by the 3rd respondent u/s 147 r'w s 144 t 1448 of the lncome-tax Act for A Y. 2018-19 vide DIN No' ITBA/AST/S/147t2O23-24t1O58673394(1)' consequent to tne oroer passed u/s 14BA(d) dt.25.04'2o22 vide DIN No ITBA/AST/F/14 BAt2O22-23t1042843613(1) and the consequential notice u/s 148 dl 26 -O4 2222vide D I N No ITBAiAST I Sl 1 48-1 12022- 23 t 1042851921 ( 1 )' issued by the JAO(1st respondent) instead of FAO(3rd respondent)' as void' illegal' and

contrary to the provisions of lncome-tax Act and contrary to the principles of Natural Justice lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under section I 51 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. 12.12.2023 passed by the 3rd respondent uis 147 r.w.s 144 I '1448 of the lncome-tax Act for AY 201B-19 vide DrN No |rBA/ASTtst147r2o23-24/'r058673394(1), and may pass such other orde(s) as the Hon'bre court deems fit and proper in the interests of substantiar justice, as otherwise the petitioner wourd be put to irreparable loss and severe in;ury. Counsel for the petitioner: SRI DUNDU MANMOHAN counsel for the Respondents: SRr vrJHAy K.puNNA, sr. sc FoR rr The Court made the following: ORDER

i I THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTTCE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TIIXARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.7622 OF 2o24 ORDER:(per Hon'ble Si Justice P.SAIW KOSHtt) Heard Sri Dundu Manmohan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vij ay K. Punna, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department for the respondents. Perused the material on record' 2. The instant Writ Petition has been frled by the petitioner und.er Articl e 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the follor'ving relief; "...to issue an appropriate writ order or dire-c-tion more p#;i;ti;". i" ir'' nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the Assessment Order dt'- 12 '12 '2023 ;;.;J^"by tn. a'n ""pot'atttt :uls 147 r'w's 144 I l44B of the tncome-taiAct for A'Y' 2018-19 vide DIN -; " "' - -neAlasr/v r47I2o23'24./ Ios86733e4(1) consequent to the 'o;de; passed -Yl:^,148A(d) dt.2s.o 4 -2022 vide o lN No'ITBi / AST/ F / r48 A I 2022- 2311o428436f3(fl ana iht "ot'""q"tntia1 notice u/s 148 atzo o+'zoiz vide - ^?lT" No' rrBA/ Asr/ s / vt ) I t6zz-23 I to428s rs21 ( 1) issued trl ii'. --,Io !t': iT;;;d;i;;'fl;fT. ltil respondent) as voto' tt'"8:'1. T-] ^^.r."." to th. ^"'.llt"i."= '"r Income-tax Act and contrary "#;.;;';;'i *atural J ustice and pass"'" 3. One of the contentions that the petitioner has raised in the present Writ Petition is that undsl the amended i i I i I . i

2 PSK,J & NTR,J W.P.No.7622 oJ 2024 provlsions of the Act r,",hich came into effect from OI.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 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.259O3 of 2022 & batch, dated 14.Og.2023 wherein this Court disposed of the batch of writ petitions to the limited extent. 5. On the other hand, responden t_Departmen t learned Standing Counsel for the does not dispute that the said objection was decided in the aforesaid batch of Writ Petitions. However, he further the aforesaid objection, there objections also wh ich the petition. contended that apart from have been other various petirioner has rarsed in the writ

J 1 I I PSK,J & NTR,J W.P.No.7622 oJ 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 tLe petitioner is sustained and all these wit petitions stands allotued on this uery juisdictional issue. Since the impugned notices and orders are getting quashed on the point of juisdiction, we are rlot inclined to proceed further and decide the other issues raise d by the petitioner u-thich stands reserued to be raised and contended in an appropriate proceeding s.' "38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the case of Ashish Agaruta[ supra, as a one-time measure exercising the pouters under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, pennitted the Reuenue to proceed under the substituted prouisions, and this Court allouLing the petitions onlg on the procedural Jlaw, the ight conferred on th.e Reuenue would remain reserued to proceed further if tteg so want from the stage of the order of the Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Agarutal, suPra.' 7. In view of the same, 'ffe are inclined to allow the present writ petition a-lso on similar terms. Accordingly, the present Writ Petition stands allowed on the objection of the petitioner that the proceedings have not been drawn in 1

4 To, BSR PSI(,J & MTR,J W.P.No.7622 of 2O24 accordance with the amended provision but under the un-amended provision which is otheru,ise 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 & 3g of the said order passed in the batch of writ petitions. No order as to costs. 9 Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if aly shall stard closed SD/.K. AMM ASSISTANT REGI R //TRUE COPY// SECTION OF ER 1. The lncome Tax Officer, Ward 1, D.No. 1-8-610, 3rd Floor, Mayurr Complex, Opp. TSNPDCL Bhawan, Nakkalagutta, Hanamkonda, Warangal. Telangana - 506001 2. The Principal Commissioner of lncome Tax - 1, 1Oth Floor, C-Block, LT. Towers,'t0-2-3, A.C. Guards, Hyderabad-500004. 3. The Assessment Unit, lncome Tax Department, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, Ministry of Finance, Room No. 401.2nd Floor, E- Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, Delhi-110003 4 One CC to SRI DUNDU MANMOHAN, Advocare IOPUC] 5 One CC to SRI VIJHAY K.PUNNA, Sr SC FOR tT [OPUC] 6. Two CD Copies BS VY- J

I HIGH COURT DATED: 2210312024 ORDER WP.No.7622 ot 2024 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS ( l tlE sTA ,4: 1 4 llAY 2021 O5SPATCH + 5o() or () ,\ at * g cq,{tA Y.^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 →