Allowed

Mr. Sathyanarayana Pandula v. The Income Tax Officer

Telangana HC4 Dec 2023WP/24320/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Telangana High Court allowed a writ petition challenging an income tax reopening order dated 06.04.2022. The court held that proceedings were initiated under un-amended provisions of Section 148 without complying with the amended Section 14BA, rendering the action arbitrary and illegal. The writ was allowed on this jurisdictional ground alone.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was allowed setting aside the impugned order dated 06.04.2022 and the notice dated 06.04.2022 under Section 148 as arbitrary and illegal.

Mr. Sathyanarayana Pandula Vs The… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

I I

¶2

[³³⁷⁹ ]

¶3

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

¶4

MONDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF DECEN/BER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

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

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 24320 OF 2022

¶8

Between:

¶9

lV1r. Sathyanarayana Pandula, S/o Mr. P,Edaiah, Aged 31 years, 0cc. Software Engineer, No 2-73, Thenepally Village, Gurrampode Mandal, Nalgonda District - 508 256, Telangana

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The lncome Tax Officer, Ward 1, Khammam, Income Tax Office, Rajeev Gunt, Rajeev Chowk, Near Kinnersani Theatre, Khammam - 507 001, Telangana.

¶13

The Principal Commissioner of lncome Tax - 4, Hyderabad, Aayakar Bhavan, LB Stadium Road, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad - 500 004, Telangana.

¶14

The Principal Chief Commissioner of lncome Tax, Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, Hyderabad, Room No.922,91h Floor, B Block, lTTowers, 10-2-3, A.C. Guards, Hyderabad - 500 004, Telangana

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

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 of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, declaring a. the order dated 06.04.2022, passed u/s^'l4BA(d) of the Act, vide DIN and Notice No. ITBA/AST/F/148A12022-2311042589054(1), by the 1st Respondent, for the Assessment Year 2015-16 and b. the notice dated 06.04.2022, issued by the 1st Respondent, u/s 148 of the lncome Tax Act, 1961, vide DIN and Notice ITBA/AST/S/148 112022- 2311042589724(1), for the Assessment Year 2015 - 16 as arbitrary, illegal, bad in law, void-ab-initio, violative of the principles of natural justice apart from being violative of Articles

¶17

¶18

14, 19(1)(g) an 265 of the Constitution of lndia and Sec. 148A of the lncome Tax Act, 1961 , and consequently set aside the same in the interests of justice lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶19

Petition under Section 15'1 CPC praying that in the circumstanced stated in 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 notice dated 06.04.2022, issued by the 1st Respondent, u/s 148 of the lncome Tax Act, 1961, vide DIN & Notice: ITBA/AST/S/148 112022- 2311042589724(1 ), for the Assessment Year 2015 - 16, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition lA NO: 2 OF 2022

¶20

Between:

¶21

The lncome Tax Officer, Ward 1, Khammam, lncome Tax Office, Rajeev Gunt, Rajeev Chowk, Near Kinnersani Theatre, Khammam - 507 001, Telangana.

¶22

The Principal Commissioner of lncome Tax - 4, Hyderabad, Aayakar Bhavan, LB Stadium Road, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad - 500 004, Telangana.

¶23

The Principal Chief Commissioner of lncome Tax, Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, Hyderabad, Room No. 922,9th Floor, B Block, l1' Towers, 10-2-3, A.C. Guards, Hyderabad - 500 004, Telangana

¶24

...PETITIONER/RESPONDENTS

¶25

AND

¶26

Mr. Sathyanarayana Pandula, S/o Mr. P.Edaiah, Aged 31 years, Occ. Software Engineer, No 2-73, Thenepally Village, Gurrampode Mandal, Nalgonda District^- 508 256, Telangana

¶27

...RESPONDENTSMRIT PETITIONER

¶28

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 vacate the orders date 2010612022 and subsequent orders extending the directions issued vide order dated 2010612022 in W.P.No. 24320 of 2022 in the interest of^justice

¶29

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. A. V. A. SIVA KARTIKEYA

¶30

Counsel for the Respondents: M/s. B. SAPNA REDDY, SC FOR INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

¶31

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶32

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND

¶33

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI

¶34

Writ Petition No.2432O of 2022

¶35

ORDER: (pe.r I loi'ble Sn Jrstice P,SAM KosHY)

¶36

Heard Mr. A.V.A. Siva Kartikeya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. B. Sapna Reddy, Iearned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department, for the rcspondents. Perused the entire record.

¶37

The instant petition has been filed challenging the Assessment Order passed by respondent No. 1 under section 148A(d) ol the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") dated 06.04.2022 for the Assessment Year 2015-1,6.

¶38

One of the contentions that the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised in the present writ petition is that under the amended provisions of the Act which came into effect from 01.O4'.2O21, the respondents while proceeding under Section 148 of the Act were required to issue notice under Section 14BA and provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner / assessee. As per the amended provision of law, the proceedings to be drawn are also in a faceless manner. Whereas, it has been contended by the learned counsei for the petitioner that in the instant case, reopening has been initiated by the Juridictional Assessing Officer. In respect of the said

¶39

objection that the learned counsel for the petitioner had raised, he relied upon a recent batch ol writ petitions decided by this very Bench on 14.O9.2023 vide W.P.No.25903 of 2022 and batch to the limited extent.

¶40

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondentDepartment would not dispute of having decided the said objection in the aforesaid batch matters. However, learned counsel submits that apart from the aforesaid objection, there have been other various objections aiso u,hich the petitioner has raised in the writ petition.

¶41

So far as this contention of the learned counsel for the Department is concerned, this Bench, while disposing of W.P.No.25903 ol 2022 and batch had taken note of the same in paragraph Nos.37 & 38 which is reproduced herein under:

¶42

"37. The preliminary objection raised by the petitroner is sustained and all these writ petitions stands allowecl on this very jurisdictional issue. Since the impugned notices and orders are getting quashed on the point ofjurisdiction, we are not in,:lined to proceed further and decide the other issues raised by the petitioner^q'hich stands reserved to be raised and contend--d in an appropriate proceedings."

¶43

Since the Hontrle Supreme Court had, in the case of Ashish Agarwal, supra, as a one-tirne measure exercising the powers under Article 142 of tt]e Constitution of India, permilted the Revenue to proceed under the substituted provisions, and this Court allowing the petitions only on the procedural flaw, the right conferred on the Revenue would remain reserved to proceed further if they so want from the stage of the order of the S upreme Court in the case of Ashish Agarwal, supra.

¶44

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 ol the petitioner that the proceedings

¶45

¶46

¶47

have not been drawn in accordance with the amended provision but under the un-amended provision which is otherwise unsustainable. As has been held by this Bench in the aforesaid batch matters, the right of the respondents would stand reserved as is envisaged in

¶48

paragraph Nos.37 & 38 of the said batch. No order as to costs.

¶49

7 Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall

¶50

stand closed.

¶51

,TRUE COPY'

¶52

SD/. P.Ch. NAGABHUSHAMBA ASSISTANT REGIS 8/

¶53

SECTION OFFICER

¶54

To,

¶55

The lncome Tax Officer, Ward 1, Khammam, lncome Tax Office, Rajeev Gunt, Rajeev Chowk, Near Kinnersani Theatre, Khammam - 507 001 , Telangana.

¶56

The Principal Commissioner of lncome f ax - 4, Hyderabad, Aayakar Bhavan, LB Stadium Road, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad - 500 004, Telangana.

¶57

The Principal Chief Commissioner of lncome Tax, Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, Hyderabad, Room No. S22,9th Floor, B Block, lTTowers, 10-2-3, A.C. Guards, Hyderabad - 500 004, Telangana

¶58

One CC to SRl. A. V. A. SIVA KARTIKEYA ,Advocate [OPUC]

¶59

One CC to M/s. B. SAPNA REDDY, SC FOR INCOME TAX DEPARTMENTTOPUC]

¶60

Two CD Copies BM GJP

l I'

HIGH COURT

DATED:0 411212023

e S T T€
1
(
)7
ao 21 0E[ ?0?x f,)

o:spArc

¶66

ORDER

¶67

WP.No.24320 ot 2022

¶68

ALLOWING THE WRITPETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶69

__-.2 r**, <br>brl ,. r
"' L3 lt4oa'L <br>

Mr. Sathyanarayana Pandula v. The Income Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Sathyanarayana Pandula 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.Ar Life Sciences Private Limited Vs The Joint Commissioner (St)

M/S Deccan Phyto Chemicals, Patancheru Vs State of Ap, Rep. by Its State Representative, Stat, Hyd

M/S. Vybra Automat Ltd. Hyderabad District Vs the Commercial Tax Officer, Sec. and Another

Kallam Subba Rao Vs The Commissioner of Income Tax (Tds), And Another

M/s. Colors Out door advertising Vs The Assistant commissioner of Central Tax

The National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Smt. Naazia Khan