Allowed

Sri Thirupathi Rao Saineni v. Income Tax Officer

Telangana HC6 Nov 2023WP/25978/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Telangana High Court allowed a writ petition challenging a reopening notice under Section 148 and assessment order under Section 148A for AY 2015-16. The court held that the department proceeded without following amended mandatory steps like a Section 148A notice, setting aside the order on jurisdictional grounds.

What did the court decide?

The notice dated 22.04.2022 and the order dated 22.04.2022 pursuant thereto are set aside.

Sri Thirupathi Rao Saineni Vs Income Tax Officer — Income Tax | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^337e ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT^{FOR THE STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

MONDAY, THE SIXTH 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: 25978 OF 2022

¶7

Between:

¶8

Sri Thirupathi Rao Saineni, S/o. Sri S. Yeshwant Rao, 1-4-1741G4,^Shirisha Apartment, Layola College Road, Old^{Alwal, Secunderabad -500011,} Telangana

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

lncome Tax Officer, Ward -15(1), l.T. Towers, A.C. Gurads,^Masabtank, Hyderabad -500004.

¶12

...RESPONDENTS

¶13

Petition under Article 226 ot the Constitution of^{lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the^{High Court may be} pleased to pass an order or direction, especially one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS holding that the order^passed by respondent^{u/s.148A(d)of the Act,} dt.22.O4.2022 with DIN:|TBAlASTlFl148A12022-2311042821063(1)^{and the notice} dated 22.04.2022 issued under section 148 of the Act^{withDIN:ITBfuAST/S/148} 112022-2311042821451(1) for the assessment^{year 2015-16, as being illegaland} passed in gross violation of principles of natural^justice without application of mind and consequently set aside the same.

¶14

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶15

Petition under Section 15'l CPC^{praying that in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the^{petition,the HighCourt may be pleased to} suspend the operation of the notice issued^{by the respondent u/s.148 of the Act,} dt.22.O4.2022 for the assessment^{yeat 2015-16with DINATBA/AST/S/148} 1 12022-2311042821 451(1) and all consequential^{proceedingsthereto.}

¶16

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶17

PetitionUnderSectionl5lCPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstated in the affidavit^{filed in support of the petition, the High Courtmay be pleasedto} plirit tn" F"titioner to^{raiie the above AdditionalAffidavit legal contentionin the} writ^{petitionin the interestof justice'}

¶18

Counsel for^{the Petitioner:SRI A.V.RAGHU RAM}

¶19

CounselfortheRespondent:Ms.B.SWAPNAREDDY(Jr.scFoRlNcoMETAx) The Court made^{the following:ORDER}

¶20

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY

¶21

AND

¶22

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶23

W.P. No. 2597a of 2o22

¶24

ORDER (per Hon'ble Si Justtce P.SAM KOSHY)

¶25

Heard Mr. A.V. Raghu Ram, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. B. Sapna Reddy, learned Junior Standing Counsel for Income Tax appearing for the respondents. Perused the entire record.

¶26

The instant petition has been hled challenging the Assessment Order passed by respondent No. 1 under section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 196I (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") dated 22.04.2022 for the Assessment Year 2015- 16.

¶27

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 effect from 01.04.2021, 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. Whereas, it has been contended by the petitioner that in the instant case, reopening has been initiated by the Juridictional Assessing Officer. In respect of the said objection that the petitioner had raised, he relied upon the recent batch of writ petitions decided by this very Bench on 14.09 .2023 vide W.P.No.259O3 of 2022 and batch to the limited extent.

¶28

Etffi
<br>\ ':;
,/

¶29

)

¶30

Learned counsel for^{the Departmentwould not dispute of} having decided the^{said objection in the aforesaidbatchmatters'} However, Iearned^{counsel submits that apartfrom the aforesaid} objection, there^{have been other various objections also whichthe} petitioner has raised^{in the writ petition'}

¶31

So far as this^{contentionof the learned counselfor the} Department 1S concerned, this^{Bench, while disposingof} W.P.No.25903 of 2022^{and batch had taken note of the sametn} paragraph Nos.37^{& 38 whichis reproducedherein under:}

¶32

"37. Tint'. preliminary^{objectionraised by thepetitionerrs} sustaine(l and^{all these writ petitionsstands allowedon this very} jurisdictional issue. Since the impugned^{notices and ordersane} "getting quashed on the point ofjurisdiction, we are not inclined to f,.o..""a^{' further and decidethe otherissues raisedbythe} petitioner which stands^{reservedto be raised and contendedin an} appropriate Proceedings."

¶33

Since the^{Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the caseof Ashish} Agarwal, supra, as a^{one-time measure exercisingthe powers} uider Article 142^{of the Constitutionof India, Permitte'lthe} Revenue to^{proceed under the substitutedprovisions,andthis} Court allowing the^{petitions only on the procedural flaw, the right} conferred on the^{Revenuewould remain resewedtoproceed} further if they^{so want from thestage of the order of theSupremc} Court in the case^{oI Ashish Agarwal, supra'}

¶34

In view of the same,^{we are inclinedto allow the present writ} petition also on similar terms.^{Accordingiy,the present Writ Petition} stands allowed^{on the objection of the petitioner that the proceedings} have not been drawn^{in accordance with the amended provisionbut} under the unamended^{provision which is otherwisenot sustainable'} AshasbeenheldbythisBenchintheaforesaidbatchmatters,the

t- 7

right of the respondents would^{stand reserved as is envisaged in} paragraph Nos.37 & 38 of the said batch. No^{order as to costs.}

¶40