WP/35044/2023 of Rajeswari Mopur Vs Assessment Unit, on 29 December 2023

1. Assessment Unit, lncome Tax Department, [National Faceless ][Assessment]Centre Government of lndia, Jawaharlal [Nehru Marg, Block ][B, ][Press ][Enclave,]Savitri Nagar, New Delhi t 10002Centre Government of lndia, Jawaharlal [Nehru Marg, Block ][B, ][Press ][Enclave,]Savitri Nagar, New Delhi t 10002

2. lncome Tax Officer, Ward-6(1), Hyderabad [Income ][Tax Tower ][A.C.Guards,]Masab tank, Hyderabad - 500004Masab tank, Hyderabad - 500004

3. Union of lndia, Rep. by its Secretary, [Department ][of ][Revenue, Ministry ][of]Finance, North Block New Delhi- [11O001]Finance, North Block New Delhi- [11O001]

...RESPONDENTS

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 writ order or Direction more [particularly ][in ]the [nature ][of ][writ ][of]Certiorari quashing the impugned [Assessment ][Order ][having ][DIN]No.ITBA/AST/S114712023-2411058842546(1) dated [18-12-2023 ][issued ][by]respondent for A.Y.2016-1 7 [pursuant ][to the ][impugned ][order ][dated ]['16-03-2023]passed u/s 148A (d) and impugned notice dated 24-03-2023 [u/s ][148 passed ][by]

2nd respondent as being arbitrary, iflegar, unjust, without jurisdiction and viorativeof Articles 14, 19 (1) g and 265 of Constitution of lndia.

lA NO: I OF 2023

Petition under Section I 51 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated inthe affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to staythe disputed demand of tax, interest and penarty and a, further proceedingsinitiated pursuant to impugned Assessment OrderhavingDINNo ITBA/AST/S I 1 4Z t2O23-241 1058842546( 1 ) dated 1 8_1 2_2023issued by1"trespondent tor A.y.2016-17.

Counsel for the [petitioner: ]Mr. MOHD. MUKHAIRUDDINMr. MOHD. MUKHAIRUDDIN

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: SRI J. V. PRASAD, S.C. FOR INCOME TAX

Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

The Court made the following: ORDER

\

To,

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSI{YAND

THE HON,BLE SRI WSTICE [N.TUKARAMJI]

WRIT PE{ITION Ho.35O44 of 2o23

OR.EIER:lper Hon'ble Si Justice P.SAM [KOSHY)]

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 3O.1O.2O23.

2. In view of the fact that the [identical ][matter ][has ][already]been allowed by this Court, this [Writ ][Petition also ][stands]allowed in terms of the order [passed ][in ][W.P.No.30153 ][of ][2O23]decided on 30.10.2023.

As a sequel, miscellaneous [applications ][pending, ][if ][any, ][in]this writ petition, shall stand [closed. ][No ][order as ][to costs.]

SD/. N. CHANDRA SEKHAR RAOASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECOFFICER

1. The Assessment Unit, lncome Tax Department, National FacelessAssessment Centre Government of lndia, Jawahadal Nehru Marg, Block B,Press Enclave, Savitri Nagar, New Delhi 110002Assessment Centre Government of lndia, Jawahadal Nehru Marg, Block B,Press Enclave, Savitri Nagar, New Delhi 110002

2. The lncome Tax Officer, Ward-6(1), Hyderabad lncome Tax TowerA.C.Guards, Masab tank, Hyderabad - 500004A.C.Guards, Masab tank, Hyderabad - 500004

3. The Secretary, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Union of lndia,North Block, New Delhi- ['l ]10001North Block, New Delhi- ['l ]10001

4. One CC to Mr. MOHD. MUKHAIRUDDIN, Advocate IOPUC]

5. One CC to SRt J. V. PRASAD, S.C. for INCOME TAX [OPUC]

6. One CC to SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, Deputy [Solicitor ][General ][of ][lndia]toPUCltoPUCl

7. Two CD Copies

Along with a copy of the order dated 30.1O.2O23 in W.p.No.3O.l 5 3 of 2023

iMPIGJP

\t5

\I

HIGH COURT

DATED:2911212023

-n:'' [.']/"tit',''/; [<]t O(t5i';'. [1]ORDER

WP.No.35044 of 2023

ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITIONWITHOUT COSTS

I

THE HON'BLE SRI WSTICE P.SAM KOSHYAND

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTYW.P. No. 3O153 of 2o23

ORDER:trce. rio n'ble Sri Justice P.SAM KOSHfi)

Heard Mr. A.V.A. Siva Kartikeya, learned counsel for thepetitioner and Ms. B. Sapna Reddy, learned Junior Standing Counselfor Income Tax appearing for the respondents. perused the entirerecord.for Income Tax appearing for the respondents. perused the entirerecord.

2. The instant petition has been filed chatlenging the AssessmentOrdcr passed by respondent No. I under section l48A(d) of the IncomeTax Act, 196 1 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act,,) dated 25.04.2022lor the Assessment Year 20 18- lg.

3. One of the contentions that the petitioner has raised in rhepresen t writ petition is that under the amended provisions of the Actwhich came into effect from O1.O4.2O2 l, the respondents whileproceeding under Section 148 of the Act were required to issue noticeunder Section 148A and provide an opportunity of hearing to theassessee. As per the amended provision of law, the proceedings to bedrawn are also in a faceless manner. Whereas, it has been contendedby the petitioner that in the instant case, reopening has been initiatedby the .Iuridictional Assessing Officer. In respect of the said objectionthat the petitioner had raised, he relied upon the recent batch o[ writ pe titions decided by this vcry Bench on L4 .O9.2023 videW.P.No.259O3 of 2022 and batch to the limited extent.

Learned counsei for the Department for the Department Department would not dispute ofdispute ofof

4. Learned counsei for the Department for the Department Department would not dispute ofdispute ofofhaving decided the said objection in the aforesaid batch matters.However, learned counsel submits that apart from the aforesaidobjection, there have been other various objections also which thepetitioner has raiscd in the u,rit petition.

So far as this contention far as this contention contention of the learned counsel learned counsel for the

5. So far as this contention far as this contention contention of the learned counsel learned counsel for theDepartment is concerncd, this Bench, while disposing ofW.P.No.25903 of 2022 and batch had taken note of the same inparagraph Nos.37 & 38 which is reproduced herein under:

"37. The preliminarv objection raised by the petitioner issustained and all these u,rit petitions stands allowed on this veryjurisdictional issue. Since the impugned notices and orders aregettrng quashed on the point o[jurisdiction, we are not inclined toproceed further and decide the other issues raisetl by thepetitioner which stands reserved to be raised and contended in anappropriate procecdings. ["]

38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the case of AshishAgarwal, supra, as a one time measure exercising the powersunder Article 142 of the Constitution of India, permitted theRevenue to procecd undcr the substituted provisions, and thisCourt allowing the petitions only on the procedural flarv, the rightconferred on the Revenue would remain reserved to proceedfurther if they so lvant from the stage of the order of the SupremeCourt in the casc of Ashish Agarwal, supra.

6. [n view o[ the same, we are inclined to allow the present writpetition also on similar [erms. Accordingly, the present Writ Petitionstands allowed on the objection of the petitioner that the proceedingshave not been drawn in accordance with the amended provision butunder the unamended provision which is otherwise not sustainable.

As has been held by this Bench in the aforesaid batch [matters, ][the]right of the respondents would stand [reserved ][as ][is ][envisaged ][in]paragraph Nos.37 & 38 of the said batch. No order [as ][to ][costs.]

7. Consequently, miscellaneous [petitions ][pending, ]if [any, ][shall]stand closed.

P.SAM KOSHY, J

Dated: 30.10.2O23aqs

LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J