Allowed

Mr. Narahari Angarekula v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Telangana HC11 Dec 2023WP/33436/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana allowed this Writ Petition allowing proceedings u/s 148 and 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act challenged, as an identical petition was already disposed of allowing the matter on the jurisdictional issue regarding procedural flaws.

What did the court decide?

The present Writ Petition stands allowed in terms of the order passed in W.P. No. 30153 of 2023 decided on 30.10.2023; miscellaneous applications pending stand closed.

Mr. Narahari Angarekula Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income… — Income Tax | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^337e ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT^{FOR THE STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYOERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

MONDAY, THE ELEVENTH^{DAY OF DECEMBER} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTY THREE}

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI^{JUSTICEP. SAM KOSHY} AND THE HONOURABLE SRI^{JUSTICEN. TUKARAMJI}

¶7

WRIT PETITI ON^{NO: 33436 OF 2023}

¶8

Between:

¶9

lVIr. Narahari Angarekula,^{S/o Ntlr.A-Sayanna, aged69 ysjlrl,^Occ-,PY:h?=} H- ttto.- 4-70l8li, Venkateshwar^{Colony, Armoor -503 224' Nizamabad} District, Telangana

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1 The Assistant Commissioner^{of lncome Tax, Circle1, Nizamabad, lncome} fai Office, 6-2-15613, Subash^{Nagar, Nizamabad - 503 002,Telangana'}

¶13

2 The Principal Commissioner^{of lncome Tax - 2, Hyderabad,l T Towers,10-2-} 3, AC Guards, Hyderabad^{- 500 004' Telangana.}

¶14

J Assessment Unit, lncome^{Tax Department, National e-Assessment Centre'} r.fe* b"ir'i, nooni ruo.- 4O1,2nd^{Floor, E-Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium,} New Delhi - 110 003.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of^{lhe constitution of lndia prayingthat 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, orderor} Direction, declaring a. the^{order passed by the 1st Respondent,u/s 14BA(d) of} the lncome^{Tax Act, '1961,dated 21 .O4.2O22,bearing DIN and NoticeNo -} ITBAJAST/F/148At2O22-23t1O428O4110(1),^{for the Assessment Year 2018 - 19} andb.thenoticeissuedbythelStRespondent,u/sl4SofthelncomeTaxAct, .t961, dated 21.O4.2022, bearing DIN and Notice No.- ITBA/AST/S/14811202223t10428042g5(1),^{for the Assessment Year 2018 . 19 arbitrary, illegal, bad in} law, void-ab-initio,^{violative of the principles of naturaljustice apart frombeing} violative of^{Articlesr 4, 19(1Xg) and 265 of the constitution of lndiaand Sec.}

¶17

148A of the lncome Tax Act,¹⁹⁶¹ ,^{and consequently set aside the same in the} interests of^justice.

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶19

Petition under Section 151^{cPC praying that in the circumstances stated} in the affidavit filed in support^{of the petition, the Highcourt may be pleasedto} stay all further^{proceedings, including any recovery, pursuantto the noticeissued} u/s 148 of the lncome^{Tax Act, 1961, dated21 .04.2022, bearing DIN andNotice} No.: |TBA/AST tst148-1t2O22-2311042804235(',l ),^{for the Assessment Year20',l8-} 19, pending disposal of^{the aboveWrit Petition;}

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner:^{SRIA.V.A' SIVAKARTIKEYA}

¶21

Counsel forthe Respondents:^{Ms. SUNDARI R. PISUPATI} (Sr SC for lncome Tax DePt)

¶22

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶23

¶24

THE HON'BLE SRI^{JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY}

¶25

AND

¶26

TIIE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI}

¶27

U/RIT PETITION No.33436^of2023

¶28

ORDER: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice^P.SAMKOSHtf)

¶29

Today, when the matter is^{taken up for hearing, it has} been informed by the^{parties that an identical writ petition i'e',} W.P.No.3O153 of 2023^{has already been allowed and disposed} of uide order dated^{30 .lO .2023-}

¶30

In view of the fact^{that the identicalmatter has already} been allowed by this Court,^{this Writ Petitionalso stands} allowed in terms of^{the order passed in W'P'No'3O153 of 2023} decided on 30. 10.2O23.

¶31

{s^{a sequel, miscellaneousapplications pending, if any, in}

¶32

this writ petition,^{sha,ll stand closed.No order as to costs'}

SD/. K.AMMAJI

ASSISTANT GI

//TRUE COPY//

SECTIO OFFICER

To, 1. ' i; The Assistant Commissioner iji'i;;, 6-2-iso/a, suuasrr Nagar, Nizamabad - 503^{of lncome Tax, Circle1, Nizamatad'} 002, Telangana'.^lncome ^ ^ 2 i[; F;i;;;it^{-commissioneiottn"]o," rax - 2. Hvderabad,l T'Towers'10-2-} 3. AC Guards,^{Hyderabad - 500004' Telangana'}

¶38

3 X'.;'.#;;iil"it1 r"""."^{rax Department,\ationale-Assessment Centre'} " itffiilii,i; nooni rlo.- qol'ind iloor, E-Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium' New Delhi - 110 003.

¶39

O;; cCio cCio Snr^{n"v-q.SIVA KARTIKEYA, AdvocateIoPUCI}

¶40

O;; cCio cCio Snr^{n"v-q.SIVA KARTIKEYA, AdvocateIoPUCI} 5. One CC to^{Ms. suNDAiiii'pisupAiiidistioiinior" rix Dept) [oPUC]}

¶41

(Along with the order^{copy dated30j02023in W'P' No'30153of 2O231}

¶42

b. Two CD Copies BN GJ \ F

HIGH COURT

DATED:1111212023

ORDER

WP.No.33436 of 2023

.T $E ST4r4'
coJ 2 I JAN 2024 a=
*
O6sPAic.\ Ft')

¶48

ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶49

rQ(

¶50

TrIE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY

¶51

AND

¶52

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

¶53

W.P. No.3O153 of 2023

¶54

ORDER: (per Hctn'ltle S,i .,ILsrice P.Sl{]t' KOSIIy,

¶55

Heard Mr. A.V.A. Siva Kartikeya, learned counsel for the pctitioner and Ms. B. Sapna Reddy, learned Junior Standing Counsel fo,- Income Tax appearing for the respondents. Perused the entire re :ord.

¶56

The instant petition has been hled challenging the Assessment O der passed by respondent No.1 under section 148A(d) of the Income Tr x Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") dated 25.04.2022 fo,' the Assessment Year 2Ol8-79.

¶57

3- One of the contentions that the petitioner has raised in the pr 3sent writ petition is that under the amended provisions of the Act w rich came into effect frorn 01 .O4 .2021 , the respondents while pr,rceeding under Section 148 of the Act were required to issue notice ur der Section 148A and provide an opportunity of hearing to the as sessee. As per the amended provision of law, the proceedings to be dt awn are also in a faceless manner. Whereas, it has been contended bl the petitioner that in the instant case, reopening has been initiated b1 the Juridictional Assessing Officer. In respect of the said objection that the petitioner had raised, he relied upon the recent batch of writ

¶58

¶59

petitions decided by this^{very Bench on14 'O9} '2023^virle W.P.No.25903 of 2022 and^{batchto the limited extent.}

¶60

Learned counsel for the^{Departmentwould not dispute of} having decid.ed the said^{objectionin the aforesaidbatchmatte:s} However, learned counsel submits^that apart from the aforese^id objection, there have^{been other various} otrjections also which^t:re petitioner has raisedⁱⁿ the^{writ petition.}

¶61

So far as this contention^ofthe learned counsel for t.le Department 1S concerned, thls Bench,^{whiledisposing of} W.P.No.259O3 of 2022 and^{batch had takennote of the same in} paragraph Nos.37 & 38 which^{is reproducedherein under:}

¶62

"37. The preliminary objection^{raised by thepetitioner is} sustained and all^{these writ petiLionsstands allowedon this very} jurisdictional issue. Since the impugned notices and^ordersare getting quashed on the point of .lurisdiction,^{we are notrnclined to} proceed further and decide the other^{issues raised bythe} petitioner which stands reserved to^{be raised and contendedin an} appropriate^{proceedings."}

¶63

Since the Hon'ble^{Supreme Court had, in the case of Ashish} Agarwal, supra, as a one-time^{measure exercisingthe powers} under Article 142 of the Constitution^{of India, permittedthe} Revenue to proceed under the^{substitutedprovisions,and this} Court allowing the^petitions only^{on the procedural flaw, the right} conferred on the Revenue^{would remainreservedtoproceed} further if they so want from the^{stage of the order of theSupreme} Cotrrt in the case ofAshish^{Agarwal, supra.}

¶64

In view of the same, we are^{inclinedto a11owthe presentw it} petition also on similar terms.^{Accordingly,the present Writ Petiti'rn} stands allowed on the^{objectionof the petitioner that the proceedin'3s} have not been drawn in^{accordancewith the amendedprovision b rt} under the unamended^{provistonu'hich is otherwisenot sustainabre'}

¶65

¶66

A: has been^{heid by this Bench in the aforesaid batch matters' the} ri1 ht of the^{respondentswould stand reselved as is envisagedin} pi ragraph Nos.37^{& 38 of the said batch No orderas to costs'}

¶67