Allowed

Agiru Santhosh Kumar v. Income Tax Officer

Telangana HC21 Sept 2024WP/25703/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging an assessment order under Sections 147 and 144B for AY 2016-17 and a Section 148 notice. Following consensus that the issue was settled by the Court's common order dated 14.09.2023 in W.P.No.25903 of 2022, the notice and consequential orders were set aside and the writ allowed.

What did the court decide?

Impugned show cause notice and consequential orders set aside; writ allowed without costs; pending interlocutory applications closed.

Agiru Santhosh Kumar Vs Income Tax Officer — Income Tax | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³⁴¹¹ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original J urisdiction)

¶4

SATURDAY. THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF SEPTEN/BER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR^RAO

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 25703 OF 2024

¶8

Between:

¶9

Agiru Santhosh Kumar, S/o. Agiru Narender, Aged about 43years, Occ;^Business, Rl/o. 1 1.9-1 1 5, Lakshmi Colony Nagar Telangana^- 500060.

¶10

.....PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

lncome Tax Officer, Ward 9(1), Hyderabad, Aaykar Bhawan,^{Opp. LB} Stadium, Basheerbagh Hyderabad- 500004, Telangana.

¶13

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.

¶14

Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessmenl^{Centre, lncomeTax} Department, Ministry of Finance Room No.⁴⁰¹ ,^{Znd Floor, E-Ramp,} Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, Delhi-^{1 10003.}

¶15

....-RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition Under Arlicle 226 of the Constitution of lndia^praying thatⁱⁿ the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed^{therewith, the HighCourt may be} pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the Assessment Order^{dated18.02.2024 passedby} the 3rd Respondent u/s 147 rlw section 144 B of the lncome^{Tax Act for A.Y.} 2016-17 vide DIN No. ITBA/AST/5114712023-24/1061079578(1)^{and the notice} u/s 148 dated 24.03.2023 vide DIN No. ITBA/AST/S/148-112022' 2311051224444(1), issued by the JAO^{(1st Respondent) insteadof FAO (3rd} Respondent) as void, illegal and contrary to the^{Principles of Natural Justice.}

¶17

¶18

|.A.NO:1 OF 2024

¶19

Petition Under Section 15'1 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 dated 18.02.2024 passed by the 3rd Respondent u/s 147 rlw section 144 B of the lncome Tax Act for A.Y. 2016-1 7 vide DIN No. ITBA/AST/SI1 47 12023-241 1 061 079578(1 ).

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI PARIKSHITH KUTUR

¶21

Counsel forthe Respondents : Ms BOKARO SAPNA REDDY (Jr. SC FOR tNcoME TAX)

¶22

The Court made the following ORDER

¶23

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL} AND THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWARRAO}

¶24

ONN 25703 F2

¶25

ORDER:^(per Hon'ble^{JusticeSujogPaul)}

¶26

Heard Sri K.Parikshith^{Kutur, Iearned counselfor the} petitioner(s) and Ms.B.Sapna^{Reddy, learnedJunior Standing} Counsel for Income^{Tax Department for the respondents'}

¶27

The^{groundtaken by the learned counselfor the} petitioner(s) is that in^{furtheranceof FinanceAct, 2027're'} assessment^{process stood modifiedbut the respondents have} not taken care of it^{and therefore, notice issuedunder} Section 148 of the^{Income Tax Act, 1961 cannotsustain} judicial scrutiny. Since notice^{isbad inlaw, the} consequential orders^{are a-lso bad in law'}

¶28

During the^{course of hearing, learned counselfor the} parties agreed that curtains^{on this issue are finally drawn by} this Court in a^{batch of writ petitions, W'P'No'25903 of 2022} and other connected^{matters,decidedby common order} dated 14.09.2023.^{The partiesagreed that this mattermay be} disposed of in^{terms of the CommonOrderdated14 'O9 '2023 '}

¶29

¶30

This Court in the said order dated 14.09,2Q23 in

¶31

W.P.No.25903 of 2022, held as under:

¶32

"35.^{In vlew of the aforeaeid discuasions,it16 by now very} clear that the procedure to be followed by the respondentDepartment upon treating the notices i6sued for reassessme!t being under Section 148A, the subaequent proceedings was mandatorily required to be undertaken under the substituted provi6ion6 as [ald down under the Finance Act,2021. In the absence of which, we are constrained to hold that the procedure idopted by the .espondent-Department is in contravention to the statute l.e. the Finance Act,2O21, at the first instance. Secondly, lt is also ln dlrect contravertior to the directiv€s lssued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the ca6€ ofAshish Agarwal, supra.

¶33

For all the aforesaid reasoDs, the impugned notices issued and the proceedings drawn by the respondent-Department is neither tenable, no! sustainable. The notices so issued and the procedure adopted being per se illegal, deservea to be and are accordingly set aside/quashed. As a consequence, all the lmpugned orders getting quaahed, the cons€quential orders passed by the respondent Department pur6uant to the notices ia6ued undcr Section 147 and 148 would alEo get quashed and it is ordercd accordingly, The reaaon we are quashing the consequential order is on the principles that when the lnltiation c,f the proceedlngs itself was procedulally wtong, the aubsequent orders also BetE nullllied automatically.

¶34

The preliminary objection ralsed by the petitioner is sustained and all these writ petitions stands allowed on this very jurisdictional issue. Since the impugned notices and orders are getting quashed on the poiat ofjurisdictior, s'e are not inclined to proceed further and declde the other iasues rai6ed by the petitioner whlch stands reserved to be raised aud contended ia an {pproprlate proceedlngs.

¶35

Since the Hor'ble Supreme Court hqd, in the case of Ashlsh Agarwal, supra, as a one-time measure exercising the powers under Arttcle 142 of the Constitutlon of ltrdla, pcrmitted the Revenue to proceed under the substltuted provislons, end this Court alloslng the petitlons only on the procedural naw, the right conferr€d on the Reveru€ would temain reserved to paoceed further if they so want from the

¶36

!--i

¶37

¶38

stag€ of the order of the Supreme Court in the^{ceseof Ashish} Agerwal, supra.

¶39

No order aE to costs."

¶40

In view of the consensus arrived, the impugned^Show Cause notice and consequential orders^passed in this^writ petition are set aside. Liberty is reserved to both the^parties to take respective stand and to^proceed in^{accordancewith} law as per paragraph No.38 of the order dated^14.O9.2023in W.P.No.25903 ol 2022.

¶41

The writ petition is allowed. No costs.^{Interlocutory}

¶42

applications, if any^pending, shall^{a-lsostand closed.}

¶43

¶44

SD/. P. PADMANABHA^REDDY ASSISTAN REGISTRAR

¶45

,TRUE COPY//

¶46

S ION OFFICER

¶47

To' " 1. Th" lncome Tax Officer, Ward 9(1 ),- Hy-derabad' Aaykar Bhawan' Opp^LB Stadium, Basheerbagh^{Hvderabad-500004' I elanoena'}

¶48

1. The Principar^{cnier comil]Jst"liorl"tonitij*'"np andTS' l oth Floor'C-} - eioir, i.f.iowers, 1o-2-3, A.C Guards, Hyde^rabad -500004' o. ir'," i"""""ment'unif -rtiriion,r i"gt"si Assessment Centre' lncorne Tax Deoartment, [,4inistry^{oi-Fln'nt"Room No 401 2nd Floor'E-Ramp'} Jawaharlal Nehru^{Strdium,Delhi- 110003'}

¶49

+. b.J Cc to^{sRl PARIKSHITH KUTUR, Advo-cale.} -REDDV^[oPUCl (Jr 'SC FOR lNCOtvE 5. one cc^{to Ms. BbjiARO''EA-F'NA} TAX) [OPUC]

¶50

1. Two CD^CoPies .,

¶51

SA t,/ /

HIGH COURT

DATED:21 10912024

ORDER

WP.No.25703 <tf 2024

HES
(
r{
oo 14 rtB 2m 2
t *
cts
^T

¶57

ALLOWING THE W.P

¶58

WITHOUT COSTS.

¶59

g
b
U.
+

Agiru Santhosh Kumar v. Income Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Agiru Santhosh Kumar v. Income Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society v v Palem Vs The Income tax officer ward 1, Khammam

Primary Agriculture Co. Operative Societygarikapadu Rep. By Its Secretary Vs The income tax officer ward 1

The Commissioner of Customs, Cestat, Hyderabad Vs M/S. a.P.Tourism Development Corp., Ltd.

The Commissioner Vs M/s.Pravesha

Shyam Kumar Nallella Vs Assessment Unit

The Prl Commr Customs, Cest, Hyderabad Vs M/S Rama Spinners [P] Ltd., Medak Dist