Allowed

Narender Reddy Racharla v. The Income Tax Officer

Telangana HC3 Nov 2023WP/12685/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging an assessment order u/s 148A(d) and notice u/s 148 of Income-tax Act. Bench allowed petition on procedural grounds regarding failure to follow amended provisions, citing recent precedents, while reserving rights of respondents.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is allowed on the objection that proceedings were not drawn in accordance with amended provisions of the Act.

Narender Reddy Racharla Vs The Income Tax Officer — Income Tax | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^337e 1

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

FRIDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 12685 OF 2023

¶7

Between:

¶8

Narender Reddy Racharla, S/o. R. Mahiyal Reddy, Age 53 years, H.No. C1213, C Block, SBSV lnfra Avatar, R.C. Puram, Hyderabad - 5O2O32.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The lncome Tax Officer, Ward 1, Veerabhadra Nagar, New Bus Stand, Sangareddy, Telangana.

¶12

The Principal Chief Commissioner of lncome Tax, AP and TS, 1Oth Floor, C- Block, l.T. Towers, 10-2-3, A.C. Guards, Hyderabad-500004.

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

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 may be pleased to amend to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the impugned Order U/s. 148A (d) of the Act, dated 30.03.2023, passed by the 1st respondent for A.Y. 2016-17, vide Document ldentification No. (DlN) ITBA/AST/F/148N2O22-231'1O51684767(1), as well as lhe notice issued U/s. 148 of the Act, vide Document ldentification No. (DlN) ITBA/ASTlsl148_112022-2311051685123(1), as void, illegal, and contrary to the Provisions of lncome-tax Act and contrary to the Principles of Natural Justice, and consequently set-aside/quash the same.

¶15

(Prayer is amended as per Court Order dated 03.11.2023 Vide lA.No.2 of 2O23 in WP.No.12685 oI 2023\

¶16

¶17

IA NO: 1 0F 2023

¶18

Petition under section^{151 CPC prayingthat an the circumstancesstated in} the affidavit^{filed in supportof the petition, the High court maybe pleased to stay} all further^{proceedingspursuant to the impugnedorder u/s 14BA(d)of the Act, dt.} 30.03.2023,^{passedby the 1st respondent for A'Y' 2016-17,videDocument} tdentification No.(DlN)^{ITBA/AST/F/148A12022-2311O51684767(1),and may pass} such other orde(s)^{as the Hon'ble court deemsfit and proper in the irlterests of} substantial .iustice,^{as otherwise the Petitioner wouldbe put to irreparableloss and} severe rnlury

¶19

lA NO: 3 OF 2023

¶20

Between:

¶21

The lncome Tax Officer,^{Ward1, Veerabhadra Nagar,NewBus Stand,} Sangareddy, Telangana.

¶22

r irtpFrincin'jl Chief-Commissioner of lncome^{Tax, AP and TS, Hyderabad} - iOtt fboilC-Block, l.T. Towers, 10-2-3, A.C. Guards' Hyderabad-tioo0o4'

¶23

...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS^{1 & 2}

¶24

AND

¶25

Narender Reddy^{Racharla, S/o. R MahiyalRedd.y, Agq 5-3 ye'ars' H'No'} CniC, c Block, SBSV^{lnfra Avatar, R.C. Puram, Hyderabad - 502ct32'}

¶26

...RESPONDENT/WRIT^PETITlONER

¶27

Petition under section^{151 CPC praying that in the circumslancesstated in} the affidavit filed^{in support of the petition,the High court may be pleasedto} vacate the interim^{order passedin w.P. No. 12685of 2023,dated28.04.2023and} dismiss the writ^{petition filed by the writPetitioner in the interest of Justice.}

¶28

Counsel for the Petitioner:^{SRI DUNDU MANMOHAN} counsel forthe Respondents:^{M/s. SUNDARI R PISUPATI, SR.SC FORINCOME} TAX OEPARTMENT

¶29

The Court made the^{following:ORDER}

¶30

THE HON'BLE^{SRI JUSTICE P'SAMKOSHY} AND

¶31

THE^{HON,BLESRI JI'STICEN'TUKARAMJI}

¶32

W.P. N^{o. L2685of 2023}

¶33

ORDER:1pet^{ao n'bleSi JustrceP'sAlIKosElI)}

¶34

FleardMr.DunduManmohan,learnedcounselforthepetitioner and^{Ms. Sundari R' Pisupathi' learned Senior Standing Counselfor} Income^{Tax appearingfor the respondents'Perusedthe entirerecord'}

¶35

The instant^{petitionhas beenhled challengingthe Assessment} Order^{passed by respondent No'1 undersection 148A(d)of the Income} Tax Act,^{1961 (hereinafterreferredto as "the Act") dated 30'O3 '2023} for the^{AssessmentYear 2016'17'}

¶36

¶37

One of^{the contentions that the petitioner has raised in the} present^{writ petition is that under the amended provisions of the Act} which^{came into effectfrom 01'04'2021' the respondents while} 148 of^{the Act were requiredto issue notice} proceeding^underSection provide^{an opportunity of hearing to the} under^{Secdon148A and} nded^{provision of law, the proceedings to be} assessee.^As Per^{the ame} drawn^{are also in a faceless manner'Whereas'it has been contended} by the^{petitioner that in the instantcase' reopeninghas beeninitiated} by the^{Juridictional Assessing Offrcer'In respect of the said objection} that the^{petitioner had raised' he relied upon the recent batch of writ} 14.O9.2Cl23^vide very^Benchon petitions^{decided bYthis} tch to^{the limited extent} W.P.No.259O3^{of 2022an}

t:'

4 Learned counsel for the^{Departmcntu'ouldnot disl:uteof} having decided the said objection in thc^{aforesaidbatch rnatters-} However, Iearnecl counsel submits^{that apart from the albresaid} objection, there have been other^{variousobjectionsalso which the} peLitioner has raised in the writ petition.

¶42

So far as this contention of the learned counsel for^the Department is concerned, this Bench, while disposing^of W.P.No.259O3 of 2022 and batch had taken note of the siameⁱⁿ paragraph Nos.37 & 38 which is reproduced herein under:

¶43

"37. The preliminary objection raised by the Petitioner^is sustained and all these writ^{petrtions stands allowed} on this^very jurisdictiorurl issue. Since the impugned notices and orders are getting quashed on the point o[jurisdiction, we are not inclined to proceed further and decide the other issucs raised by the petitioner which stands reserved to be raised and contended in an appropriate proceedings."

¶44

Since the Honble Supreme Court^had, in^{the case} of^Ashish Agarwal, supral as a one-time measure exercising the^powers under Article 142 of lhe Constitution of India,^{permitted the} Revenue to proceed under the substituted provisions, and this, Court allowrng the petitions only on the^procedural flaw, the righl conferred on the Revenue ilould remain resened to^proceed further if they so n'ant from the stage of tlle order of the Supremt' Court in lhc case of Ashish Agaru,al, supra.

¶45

In view of the same, 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 pror:eedings have not been drawn in accordance with the amended provi:;ion but under the unamended provision which is otherwise not susl.ainable^. As has been held by this Bench in the aloresaid batch^{matr]ers, the}

¶46

¶47

¶48

right of the respondcnts would stand reserved as is envisaged in

¶49

paragraph Nos.3T & 38 ol thc said batch, No order as to costs.

¶50

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall

¶51

stand closed.

¶52

SD/.MOHD.SANAULLAH ANFARI ./ ASSISTANT REGITRAR / //TRUE COPYT, .rY'

¶53

SECTION OFFICER

¶54

¶55

The lncome Tax Officer, Ward 1, Veerabhadra Nagar, New Bus Stand, Sangareddy, Telangana.

¶56

The Principal Chief Commissioner of lncome Tax, AP and TS, 1Oth Floor, C- Block, l.T. Towers, 10-2-3, A.C. Guards, Hyderabad-500004.

¶57

One CC to SRI DUNDU AiIANMOHAN, Advocale IOPUCI

¶58

One CC to M/s. SUNDARI R PISUPATI, SR.SC FOR INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT [OPUC]

¶59

Two CD Copies

PSK.

HIGH COURT

DATED:0311112023

ORDER

WP.No.12685 of²⁰²³

1 \46 srA 16,
(
e
v
o
coJ 0 6 I]E[ 2023
*
Og s p41CB s$ *

¶67

ALLOWING THE WRIT^PETITION WITHOUT COSTS.

¶68

¶69

ttrp(s.\

¶70

A.v

Narender Reddy Racharla v. The Income Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narender Reddy Racharla v. The Income Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Shriram Chits Private Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - Exemptions Vs M/s. Institute for Development and Research in Banking Technology

Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Hyderabad. Vs Sri Narender Kumar Goel

M/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Smt. Swetha Kedia

Reliance Cellulose Products Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise

M/s.New India Assurance Company Vs Byndla Jyothi