Back
2025 Supreme(Telangana) 306
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
P.SAM KOSHY, NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA, JJ.
Vijender Kedia - Appellant
Versus
The Income Tax Officer - Respondent
Writ Petition No.31254 Of 2024
Decided On : 01-05-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : HIMANGINI SANGHI
For the Respondent: BOKARO SAPNA REDDY Jr. SC FOR INCOME TAX
Procedural irregularities in issuing tax notices do not uphold judicial precedents, necessitating quashing of notices and subsequent orders.
Headnote:(A) INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 - Sections 148 A and 148 - The petitioner's challenge to notices issued under Sections 148 A and 148 for not being in a faceless manner as mandated by the Finance Act, 2021 - The Court ruled issuing proceedings in violation of the Act, reaffirming similar decisions made in prior cases and quashed the notices and consequent orders. (Paras 4, 36, 37, 38)
(B) Writ Jurisdiction - The High Court's power to quash notices and orders when procedural irregularities are established - The necessity of adherence to judicial precedents demonstrated through the consequences of non-compliance by the authorities. (Paras 12, 14, 18)
Facts of the case:
A writ petition was filed challenging notices under Sections 148 A and 148 of the Income Tax Act. The petitioner argued that the notices violated the faceless proceedings requirement established by the Finance Act, 2021, as dealt with in previous judgments.
Findings of Court:
The notices and orders were found invalid as they violated procedural requirements and established norms. The matter was directed to be quashed and allowed in favor of the petitioner.
Issues: Did the Income Tax Department violate procedural laws by issuing notices under Sections 148 A and 148 outside the faceless framework mandated by recent amendments?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that procedural flaws in the issuance of the notices warranted their quashing and emphasized that the Income Tax Department must adhere to established judicial norms and prior court decisions, particularly in light of increased litigation stemming from their actions.
Result: Writ petition allowed; notices set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to assessment notices issued under income tax act. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. judicial compliance is pivotal to limit disputes and enhance administrative efficiency in tax assessments. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. court emphasizes urgency to address continuous violations affecting judicial workload. (Para 8 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. writ petition allowed on jurisdictional flaws, with directions on future proceedings. (Para 17 , 18) |
ORDER :
P.Sam Koshy, J.
Heard Ms. Himangini Sanghi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.B.Sapna Reddy, learned Junior Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department for the respondents.
Perused the record.
2. This is a writ petition where the proceedings are either challenged to the notices which were issued under Section 148 A and 148 of the INCOME TAX ACT , 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) or the assessment orders those have been passed under Section 147 of the Act which have been assailed.
3. This writ petition is being taken up today only on one of the grounds, that the notices issued under Section 148 A of the Act and the subsequent initiation of proceedings under Section 148 of the Act by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, whereas in terms of the amendment that was brought to the INCOME TAX ACT by way of Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f., 01.04.2021 onwards, proceedings under Section 148 A of the Act as also under Section 148 of the Act ought to have also been issued and proceeded in a faceless manner.
4. The contention of the petitioner is that the issue of proceedings being in violation of the Finance Act, 2021 i.e., the impugned notices under Section 148 A and Section 148 of the Act not being issued in a faceless manner, have already been dealt with and decided by this Court in the case of KANKANALA RAVINDRA REDDY vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER , [[(2023) 156 taxmann.com 178 (Telangana)]] decided on 14.09.2023 whereby a batch of writ petitions were allowed and the proceedings initiated under Section 148 A as also under Section 148 of the Act were held to be bad with consequential reliefs on the ground of it being in violation of the provisions of Section 151A of the Act read with Notification 18/2022 dated 29.03.2022. The said judgment passed by this Court has also been subsequently followed in a large number of writ petitions which were allowed on similar terms.
5. Down the line, we find that the same issue has also been decided against the Revenue by various High Courts i.e., by the Bombay High Court in the case of HEXAWARE TECHNOLOGIES LTD., vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & OTHERS, [[2024] 464 ITR 430 (Bom)], Gauhati High Court in the case of RAM NARAYAN SAH vs. UNION OF INDIA , [[(2024) 156 taxmann.com 478 (Gauhati)]], Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of JATINDER SINGH BANGU vs. UNION OF INDIA, [[(2024) 165 taxmann.com 115 (Punjab & Haryana)]], and Telangana High Court in the case of SRI VENKATARAMANA REDDY PATLOOLA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, [[2024) 167 taxmann.com 411 (Telangana)]] where the issue was in respect of international taxation, Bombay High Court in the case of ABHIN ANILKUMAR SHAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION , [[2024) 166 taxmann.com 679 (Bombay)]] which is again on international taxation and central circle, High Court of Himachal Pradesh in the case of GOVIND SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , [[2024) 165 taxmann.com 113 (Himachal Pradesh)]], Gujarat High Court in the case of MANSUKHBHAI DAHYABHAI RADADIYA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3)(5), [2024 SCC OnLine Guj 4012], Jharkand High Court in the case of SHYAM SUNDAR SAW vs. UNION OF INDIA , [2025 SCC OnLine Jhar 287], Rajasthan High Court in the case of SHARDA DEVI CHHAJER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER & ANOTHER and batch of writ petitions, [2023: RJ-JD:4984-DB]] which stood decided on 19.03.2024. Similar views have also been taken by the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in the case of GIRDHAR GOPAL DALMIA vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS (M.A.T 1690 of 2023), decided on 25.09.2024.
6. Even though the same issue
