Back
2025 Supreme(Telangana) 506
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
P.SAM KOSHY, NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA, JJ.
Mr. Gopichand Eeragani - Appellant
Vs.
The Income Tax Officer - Respondent
Writ Petition No.31711 of 2024
Decided on : 29-04-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : A V A SIVA KARTIKEYA
For the Respondent: BOKARO SAPNA REDDY Jr. SC FOR INCOME TAX
The Income Tax Department's failure to issue notices in the prescribed faceless manner under the amended Income Tax Act results in their invalidation, reinforcing the necessity to follow procedural law and judicial precedents.
Headnote:(A) Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 148, 148 A, and 147 - Writ petition challenging notices issued and assessment orders under the Act on grounds of non-compliance with faceless proceedings mandated by recent amendments - Court found that notices were issued in violation of procedural requirements per Finance Act, 2021. (Paras 3, 12, 17)
(B) Judicial discipline - Court emphasized the necessity for lower authorities to comply with higher court rulings and protect the rights of assesses - Persistent disregard for established legal principles by the Income Tax Department leads to increased litigation burden on the judicial system. (Paras 10, 14, 15)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged notices under Sections 148 A and 148 issued by the Income Tax Department which were not in faceless manner as required after amendments. The same issue was already resolved in favor of petitioners in preceding cases by this Court.
Findings of Court:
The impugned notices and orders were quashed as they were procedurally incorrect, thus confirming the protective rights granted to assessee.
Issues: The primary issue was the non-compliance with the faceless proceedings requirement as per the amended Income Tax Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reaffirmed that proceedings initiated not in faceless manner are invalid under the amended provisions; it criticized the Income Tax Department for ignoring prior judicial rulings which underscored the necessity of following legal precedents.
Result: Writ petition allowed, impugned notices and consequential orders quashed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ petition challenging notices under income tax act. (Para 2) |
| 2. violation of faceless assessment procedures under amendments. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. various high courts ruled against revenue's approach. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. ongoing litigation despite clear precedents and issues. (Para 8 , 11) |
| 5. concerns over backlog of similar writ petitions. (Para 9 , 10 , 12) |
| 6. revenue must respect judicial hierarchy and orders. (Para 14) |
| 7. decision to quash notices based on jurisdiction. (Para 15 , 17 , 18) |
| 8. writ petition allowed in favor of the assessee. (Para 19) |
ORDER :
P.Sam Koshy, J.
Heard Mr. A.V.A.Siva Kartikeya, 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
