Cyberabad Citizens Health Services Private Limited v. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTTCE G.N{.IVICHILIDDIN

Order

I{ea:d It,[r. T. Suryanarayana, learned Senior Counsei representing Ms. K. Srilatha, learned counsel for petitioner and Ms. Bokaro Sapna Reddy, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department appearing for respondents

2. Notice under Section 148 of the lncome-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') dated 22.04.2024 and order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act also dated 22.04.2024, are under challenge in the instant Writ Petition.

3. The matter relates to the Assessment Year 2017-18. An Assessment Order in respect of the petitioner's return of income was passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(l), Hyderabad, on 20.L2.2019 making additions under Section 68 of the Act. Thereafter, the Income Tax Officer passed an order dated 23.12.2019 under Section 154 of the Act read with Section 143(3) of the Act rectifying a typographica[ eror in the Assessment Order wherein an adjustment of 2 ilCJ (.{KrS. .J) & G}l\1, J W.P.No.25l21of 202+ \r Rs'40,00,00,000/- rvas erroneousry mentioned as Rs.40,00,0c0/-. Subsequently, another notice under Section 154 of'ttre Acr dated 20.01.2022 was issued by respondenr No.l for rectification of the order dated 23.r2.20r9 for correctio, of' a mistake apparent on record. The mistake proposed to be rectified was Rs.40.00 lac as against Rs.40.00 crore in the computation of total inconre. Therefore, there r,vas short addition of Rs.39,60,00,000i-. The Assessment officer had ,ot made disailowance of Rs.6,3 5,g4gr- under Sectio, 36(lxva) of the Act with respect to no,-payment of contributio, to the provident Fund within tlie due dates prescriberl under the Act. The Assessment oflicer had not verified the genuineness of the additions to the block of assets. Therefore, the depreciation claim of Rs.7g ,26,4[2/- was not allor'ved. It was to be added to the total income of the petitione. The petitioner filed its objections on 22.02.2022. A notice dated 12.t2.2022 was further issued cailing upon the petitioner to furnish the details of the invoices wherein the amounts \vere exceeded Rs.r,00,000/- towards additions made to the fixed assets for the Assessment year z0t7-rg. 3 HCJ w (AKrS, J) & GMM, J .P.No.25l2l of 2O2a According to it, the petitioner filed its response on 15.12.20)2 providing the details of the fixed assets wherein the amount exceeds Rs.1.00 lac towards addition made in respect thereof. According to the petitioner, no further proceedings took place and no further orders have been passed in the proceedings under Section 154 of the Act, thereby, the proceedings are deemed to be dropped.

4. On 26.03 .2024, notice under Section l48A(b) of the Act was issued on the following points: a) that during the course of audit review, it was found that the petitioner had not paid the employees contribution to the Provident Fund amounting to Rs.6,35,949/- within the due dates. Therefore, the same is to be disallowed under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act, and b) that the petitioner had not given details and supporting evidences about the additions to the block of assets.

5. It also stated that the Assessing Officer had not verified the genuineness of the additions to the block of assets. Therefore, the depreciation of Rs.78,26,4121- was not allowed. 4 HCJ (AKrS, J) & GMM, J W.P.No.25121of 2024 i'i The petitioner filed its response on 18.04.2024 objecting to the initiation of re-assessment proceedings. Respondent No.1 proceeded to pass an order under Section 148A(d) of the Act on 22.04.2024 holding it to be a fit case for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act since there was audit objection. Consequenl.ly, the notice under Section 148 of the Act proposing to re-assess the petitioner's income for the Assessrnent Year 2017-18 was issued on 22.04.2024. 'Iherefbre, the irnpugned order under Section 148A(d) and

notice under Section 148 of the Act have been challenged in the instant Writ Petition.

6. According to the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, notice under Section 148 of the Act is barred by limitation. As per the first proviso to the amended Section 149 of the Act, the irnpugned notice is beyond the period of six years frorn the Assessment Year 2017-18. The reopening of assessment proceedings have also been challenged on the ground that during pendency of the proceedings under Section 154 of the Act on the same issue, it cannot be made. The 5 HCJ w (AKrS, J) & GIVIM, J .P.No.25 I2 I of 2024 attention of this Court has been drawn to the notice dated

20.01.2022 issued for rectification of mistake and the order under Section l48A(d) of the Act passed on 22.04.2024. Reliance has been placed on the following decisions rendered by the Apex Court in Union of India v. Rajiv Bansalr; High Court of Delhi in Sheetal lnternational (P) Ltd v. Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Central-2z; High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in . Tarish Investment and Trading Company (P) Ltd., v. Union of India3; High Court of Rajasthan in Shree Cement Ltd., v. Assistant Commissioner of fncome- taxa; High Court of Bombay in Godrej Industries Ltd., v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 14(1X2), Mumbais, and by a coordinate Bench of this Court in M/s. Sri Sai Dhurga Balaji Health and Educational Welfare Society v. the Income Tax Officer6. All these decisions relate to the Assessment Year 2017-18 except the case of Godrej Industries Ltd., (supra) which relates to the Assessment Year 2014-15. 2 'pOZq 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC) lzOZ+1168 taxmann.com 308 (Delhi) 3 writ Petition No.17389 of 2024 (T-IQ a 1ZOZS1l77 taxmann.com 538 (Rajasthan) 5 Writ Petition No.450 of 2023 6 Writ Petition No. 160 l4 of 2024 6 HCJ (AKrS, J) & GMM, J W.l'.No.25121 of 2024

7. On the second issue, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Apex court in the case of s.M. overseas (p) Ltd., v. commissioner of Income-tax7. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has distinguished the decision rendered by the High court of Patna in Chandra Shekhar r,. principal commissioner of Income-tax8 as it relates to the Assessment Year 2020-21 where the application of the first proviso to the amended Section 149 of the Act introduced with effect from

01.04.2021 cannot be applied. Based on the said submissions, the learned Senior Counset for the petitioner has prayed that the impugr-red notice under Section 148 of the Act may be quashed and the order passed under Section l48A(d) of the Act may also be set aside.

8. on behalf of the Revenue, learned Senior counsel for the Departrnent has taken us to the chronology of dates and events as referred to hereinabove and thereby drawn the attention of this court to the notice under Section la8A@) of the Act dated 26.03.2024. rt is submitted that the instant notice ' 1ZOZZ1l45 raxrnann.com 375 (SC) t 1ZoZs1l7i taxrnann.com 59I (eutnuy 7 HCJ (AKrS, J) & GMM, J W.P.No.2512l of 2024 was issued prior to the expiry of six years period for reopening the assessment proceedings under the un-amended Section 149 of the Act for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The order under Section 148A(d) of the Act was passed on 22.04.2024. Further, the petitioner took time to file its reply on the date fixed as 10.04.2024. It is submitted that therefore, the benefit of the fifth and sixth provisos to amended Section 149 of the Act come into play. Therefore, the impugned notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 22.04.2024 is not barred by limitation.

9. Upon consideration of the rival submissions and the materials referred to hereinabove placed on record, we are of the considered view that the impugned notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 22.04.2024 relating to the Assessment Year 2017-18 is barred by limitation as per the first proviso to Section 149 of the Act brought into effect from 01.04.2021. The relevant part of amended Section 149 and the first, fifth and sixth provisos are extracted in the footnotee. ' 149. Time limit for notice.-(l) No notice under section 148 shall be issued for the relevant assessment year, - B HCJ (AKrS, J) & cMM, J W.P.No.25l21of 2024 4

10. This, we say so for the following reasons: In the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra), the position of law stands clear as regards the operation of amended Section 149(l) of the Act. The relevant paragraphs 49 and 53 thereof are extracted hereunder: "4\). The first proviso to Section 149(lxb) requires the detcnrination of w,hether the tirne limit prescribed urrder Section 149( I Xb) of the old regirne continues to exist fcrr thc assessment year 202t-2022 and before. Resultarrtly, a noticc under Section 148 of the new reginre cannot tre issued if the period of six years from the end of the relevant assessment year has expired at thc time of issuance ol'the (a) ifthree years have elapsed from the end ofthe relevant assessment year, unless the case falls under clause (b); (b) if three years, but not more than ten years, have elapsed from the errd of the relevant assessment year ttnless thc Assessing Officer has in his possession books of account or other documents or evidence which reveal that the income chargeable to tax, reprcsented in the form of* (i) an asset; (ii) expenditure in respect ola transction or in relation to an event or occasion; or (iii) an entry or entries in the books ofaccount, Which has escapcd assessntent amounts to or in likely to amount to fifty lakh rupees or more: Provided that no notice under section 148 shall be issued at any time in a case for the relevant assessment year beginning on or before I't day of April, 2021 ,if a notice under section 148 or section l53A or section l53C could not have been issued at that time on account ofbeing beyond the time limit specified under the provisions of clause (b) of sub-scction (l) of thii section or section I53A or section I53C, as the case may be, as they stood immediately before the commencernent of the Finance Act,202l: Provided also that for the purposes of computing the period of limitation as per this section, the time or extended time allowed to the assessee, as per show-cause notice issued under clause (b) ofsection l48A or the period during which the proceeding under section l48A is stayed by an order or injunction ofany court, shall be excludid: Provided also that where immediately after the exclusion of the period referred to in the immediately preceding proviso, the period of limitation available to ihe Assessing officer for passing an ordet'under clause (d) ofsection l48A does not exceed seven days, suJh remaining period shall be cxtended to seven days and the period of limitation under this sub-section shall be deemed to be extended accordingiy 9 HCJ (AKrS, J) & GMM, J W.P.No.25l2l of 2024 notice. This also ensures that the new time limit of tert years prescribed under Section 149(lXb) of the new regime applies prospectively. For example, for the assessment year 2012-2013, the ten year period would have expired orr 3l March 2023, while the six year period expired on 3l March 2019. Without the proviso to Section la9(l)(b) of the new regime, the Revenue could have had the power to reopen assessments for the year 2012-2013 if ihe escaped assessment amounted to Rupees fifty lakhs or more. The proviso limits the retrospective operation of Section 149(lXb) to protect the interests ofthe assessees." "53, The position of law which can be derived based on lhc above discussion may be summarized thus: (i) Scction 149(l) of the nerv regime is not prospective. It also applies to past assessment years; (ii) The time limit of four years is norv reduced to three years for all situations. The Revenue can issue notices under Section 148 of the new regime only if three years or less have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year; (iii) the proviso to Section 149(lXb) of the new regime stipulates that the Revenue can issue reassessment notices for past assessment years only if the time limit survives according to Section la9(l)(b) of the old regime, that is, six years from the end of the relevant assessment year; and (iv) all notices issued invoking the tirne limit under Section 149(lXb) of the old regime will have to be dropped if the income chargeable to tax rvhich has escaped assessment is less than Rupees fifty lakhs." I 1. The first proviso to the amended Section 149 of the Act prescribes that no notice under Section 148 of the Act shall be I issued at any time in a case for the relevant assessment year beginning on or before 01.04.2021, if a notice under Section 10 HCJ (AKrS, J) & CMM, J W.l'.No.25121of 2024 148 of the Act could not have been issued at that time on account of being beyond the time limit specified under the provisions of clause (b) of sub-section (l) of Section 149 of the Act or as they stood immediately before the commencenrent of the Finance Act, 2021. For the purposes of appreciating the first proviso, the un-amended Section 149 of the Act is also extracted in the foot noter0. 'o Time limit for notice. 149' (l) No notice undcr section 148 shall be issued for the relevant assessln,int year,- (a) if four years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless the case falls under clause (b) or clause (c); (b) if four years, but not nlore than six years, have elapsed lrom thc end of the relcvant assessment year unless the incorne chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment amounts to r.rr is likely to amount to one lakh rupees or more for that year. (ct if four years, but not more than sixteen years, have elapsed from the end ofthe relevant assessment year unless the inconre in relation to any asset (including financial interest in any entity) located outside lndia, chargeable to tax, has escapcd assessment. Explanation.- In determining income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment for the purposes of this sub-section. the provisions of Explanation 2 of section 147 shall apply as they apply for the purposes ofthat section. (2) The provisions of sub-section (l) as to the issue of notice shall be subject to the provisions of section l5 l. (3) If the person on whom a notice under section I48 is to be served is a person treated as the agent ofa non-resident under section 163 and the assessmenl, reassessment or recomputation to be made in pursuance of the notice is to be made on him as the agent of such non-resident' the notice shall not be issued after the expiry of a period of six yeirs from the end ofthe relevant assessment year. Explanation.- For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the provisions of sub- sections (l) and (3), as arnended by the Finance Act, 2012, shall also be applicable for any assessment year beginning on or before the I't day of April,2012. 11 HCJ w (AKrs, J) & .P.No.25121 GMM, J of 2024

12. Apparently, the fifth and sixth provisos of the amended Section 149 of the Act extracted hereinabove provide for excluding certain periods while computing the period of limitation as per the amended Section. It prescribes the time or extended time allowed to the assessee as per the show cause notice under clause (b) of Section 148 of the Act or the period during which the proceeding under Section 148A of the Act is stayed shall be excluded. The sixth proviso to the amended Section 149 of the Act also deals with exclusion of the period referred to in the fifth proviso i.e., the period of limitation available to the Assessing Officer for passing an order under clause (d) of Section l48A of the Act if it does not exceed seven days. [n that event, such remaining period shall be extended to seven days and the period of limitation under this sub-section shall be deemed to be extended. Accordingly, both the fifth and sixth provisos in the first place do not amount to clarification of the first proviso. These two provisos qualiff the substantive amended Section 149 of the Act and do not relate to the un-amended Section 149 of the Act for which the I nI 72 HCJ (AKrS, J) & GMIvl, J W.P.No.25l21of 2O24 first proviso takes care of. The contention of the learned counsel for the Revenue that the time spent from the issuance of notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act up to rhe passing of the order under Section t48A(d) of the Act in terms of the fifth and sixth provisos stands excluded for reckoning the limitation period for issuance of notice under Section l4g of the Act is not worth acceptance. Section l48A of the Act lays down the procedure lbr issuance of notice under Section l4 g of the Act whereas Section 149 of the Act prescribes strict time lirnit within which notice under Section 149 of the Act can be issued in the prescribed circumstances. The Revenue is therefore obliged to adhere to the timeline prescribed under Section 149 of the Act for issuance of such notice and undertake the procedure before issuance of notice under Section 148A of the Act.

13. In this regard, it is apposite to refer to opinion of the 'I Delhi High court. Paragraphs 15 and 16 of Godrej Industries Ltd., (supra) are extracted hereunder: "15. The validity of a notice must be judged on the hasis of the law existing as on the date on which the notice is 13 HCJ (AKrS, J) & cMM, J W.P.No.25127 of 2OZ4 issued under Section I48 of the Act, which in the present case is 3 l't Jul.v 2022, by which time the Finance Act,202l is already on the statute and in terms thereof no notice under Section 148 of the Act for Ay 2014-15 could be issued on or after l't April 2021 based on the first proviso to Section 149 of the Act. Therefore, the fifth proviso cannot apply in a case where the first proviso applies because, if a notice under Section 148 of the Aci could not be issued beyond the time period provided in the first proviso, then the fifth proViso could not save such notices. The fifth proviso can only apply where one has to determine whether the time limit of three years and ten years in Section 149(l) of the Act are breached.

16. The sixth proviso to Section 149 of the Act has no impact as it only provides a situation where alter exclusion of the time period referred to in the fifth proviso, tlre time available with the Assessing Officer fbr passing arr order under Section la8A(d) of the Act is less than 7 days, then the remaining time frame shall be extended to 7 days and limitation also stands extended by 7 days."

14. Paragraph L2 of Shree cement Ltd., (supra) is also extracted hereunder. I * 12. In this case, as it pertains to Assessme nt y ear 2017 - I 8, six years period would have expired on 3 l.' Marcl.t 2024 whereas notice under Section 148 of the Act itself carne to be issued on I't May 2024. Mr. Siddharth Bapna, counsel for Revenue, made an attempt to argue that fifth and sixth provisos to Section 149(lxb) of the Act would save the period of limitation for isSuing notice under Section l4g of the Act. We are afraid we do not agree with him. Same argument was raised in l{exaware Technologies Ltd. (supra) and was rejected. The Court held, with respect to t4 llCJ {AI(rS, J) & GMIU, J \Y .P.i,lo.25l2l of 2O24 appticability of fifth and sixth provisos to Section 149(1Xb) of the Act for extension of limitation for issuing noticc under Section 148 of the Act, fifth and sixth provisos are only applicable with respect to the period of limitation prescribed under Section 149(l) of the Act i.e., three years or len years, as the case may be. The Court also held lhat fifth and sixth provisos extend limitation for issu[ng norice uncler Section 149 of the Act, however, first proviso is arr exception to the period of limitation and provides for. a restriction on the notices under Section 148 of the Act being issued for assessment years up to 2021-22 (in this case, it is Assessment Year 201 7- 18) beyond a ceftain d:rte . 'fherefore, the way the section rvould operatc, is to tlrst decide r.vhether a notice issued under Section 148 of tlrc ,\ct is within the period of lirnitation under Section 149(l)(at,rr (b) of the Act. To decide whether the notice is rvitlrin thc period of limitation under Section la9(l)(a) or (b) of the Act, the extension of time as prescribed in fifth and/or sirth proviso would be considered. The Court further held ouce, thr: notice is otherwise within'the period of linritation, thereafter one has to see whether the said limit is within the prescribed restriction provided in first proviso or rrot. If the notice is beyond the restriction period, the notice is invalid, and the fifth and/or the sixth proviso cannot appl1, at this stage to extend the period of restriction as per first proviso. I{ence, if a notice is not within the time prescribed trnrler first proviso to Section 149(l) of the Act, then such pcriod cannot be extended by fifth or sixth proviso. ln Hexav,ure Technologies Ltd. (supra), the Court had relied upon artother judgment of Bombay High Court in Godrej htdustries Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tar [2024] 160 taxmann.com 13 (Bombay)/(2024) 338 C'fR (llom) 25, which was also authored by one of us (the Chief Justice), where paragraph No.l5 reads as under: '-1: 15 HCJ (AKrS, J) & GMM, J W.P.No.25l2l of 2024 *15. The validity of a notice must be judged on the basis of the law existing as on the date on which the notice is issued under Section 148 of the Act, which in the present case is 3l" July 2022,by which time the Finance Act,202l is already on the statute and in tenns thereof, no notice under Section !48 of the Act for AY 2014-15 could be issued on or after l't April 2021 based on the first proviso to Section 149 of the Act. Therefore, the fifth proviso cannot apply in a case where the first proviso applies because, if a notice under Section 148 of the Act could not be issued beyond the tirne period provided in the first proviso, then the filth proviso could not save such uotices. The fifth proviso can only apply where one has to determine whether the tirne limit of three years and ten years in Section 149(l) of the Act are breached."

15. The reliance placed by the Revenue on the decision rendered by Patna High Court in the case of Chandra Shekhar (supra) is distinguishable as it relates to the Assessment Year 2020-21 in respect of which the notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act was issued on 28.03.2024. The petitioner therein had assailed the notice on' the ground that the Assessing Officer had no jurisdiction to undertake the assessment for the / Assessment Year 2020-21 after 3L.03.2024 with reference to the second notice issued on 22.04.2024 as it was beyond the time limit stipulated under Section 149(l)(a) of the Act. In the 16 HCJ (AKrS, J) & GMM, J W I,.l,Io.25l2l of 2024 , aforesaid facts, the learned Court held that the combined reading of the fifth and sixth provisos meant thar the first notice dated 28.03.2024 was issued well within thc time limit stipulated. 'lherefore, the Assessment officer has jtrrisdictio..

16. [n view of the above discussion, the initiation ol. reopening of assessment by the impugned notice dated

22.04.2024 is barred by limitation being beyond the period ol. six (6) years reckoned from the relevant Assessment year 2017-18 as per the un-amended Section 149 of the Act read with the Iirst proviso thereof brought into effect from 0t .04.202r.

17. we are also in agreement with the submission made b.v the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner that the grounds on which the notice under Section 14g of the Act and the order under Section l48A(d) of the Act have been issued are already taken up in the rectification proceedings vide notice dated

20.01.2022" It is pertinent to refer to the grounds taken in the rectification notice under Section 154 of the Act which are ,',,' L7 HCJ (AKrS, J) & cMM, J w.P.No.25l2l of 2024 "1. On perusal of the assessment order r-r/s.143(3), it is seen that addition made of Rs.40,00,00,000/- on unexplained cash credits with regard to shares allotment to M/s. Cancer Treatment Services Hyderabad Pvt. Ltd. However, AO added only Rs.40,00,000/- instead of Rs.40,00,00,000/- in the computation of total income. This arnounts to short addition made of Rs.39,60,00,000/- having rax effect of Rs.30,59,10,000/- excluding interest.

2. From the tax audit report in Farm 3CD, it is observed that the assessee's company has not paid employees contribution to PF within the due dates prescribed under the acts. In view of the same, the same has to be disallowed u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act. The AO has not made any disallowance u/s 35(1)(va). Hence, an amount of Rs.6,35,9491- shall be disallowed u/s 36(1)(va). Tax effect (excluding interest) of disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) is Rs.2,20,089/-.

3. As verified from 3CD report, assessee was shown the an amount of Rs.78,26 ,4121- additions to the block of assets. During the assessment proceedings, assessee has not -qiven details and supporting evidences about additions to the block of assets. Hence, the AO has not verified the genuineness of the additions to the block of assets. Hence, the depreciation claimed of Rs. 78,26,4121- is not allowable and the same has to be added to the total inoome of the assessee. The tax effect of disallowing depreciation is Rs.27,08,565/-."

18. The reasons mentioned in the order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act are also extracted hereunder: t 1B HCJ (AKrS, J) & cMM, J W.P.No.25121of 2024 "5. l. The assessee requested that the claim of thc assossee is found to be in order towards belated payment:; of trsI/EPF amounting to Rs.6,35,949l_. However, in recent judgement passed by Apex court in the case of M/s Chcckrnate Services (p) Lrd Vs CIT (791 SC 2022) hekl thd it is an essential condition for the deduction of clnployees'contribution that such amounts are deposited on or bcf<rre the due dates defined by the respective statucs. Therefore contention of the assessee is not in order.

5.2. Further, the assessee furnished partial bills / vouclrers towards additions made to fixed assets for the [r.\, 2016-17 relevant to A.y 20t7_lg. Since the volumes of the inftrnnation lurnished the same needs to be verified further r.r,itlr third party confirmations. Therefore, the depreciation claimed by the assessee amounting to Rs.7g,26,412l_ is still stand unexplained with proper evidence.,,

19. The Ilevenue has not discrosed as to whether the proceedings under Section r54 of the Act had e,ded up in passing of an order. Even then, the reopening of assessment proceedings under Section l4g of the Act would anlount to a change i. opinion which is not permissible in law. Reliance has also been placed upon the decision of the Apex court in s'M' overseas (p.) Ltd., (supra) on the proposition that parallel proceedings cannot be initiated for reopening of the assessment during pendency of the proceedings under Section !:' I I 19 HCJ (AKrS, J) & CMM, J W.P.No.25I21 ot 2024 154 of the Act. Paras 4 and 5 of the said decision are ;lso quoted hereunder. "4. Having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties and having gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the l{igh Court, we are of the opinion that the High Court has committed serious error in observing and holding that the notice under section 154 was invalid as the same was beyond the period of limitation as prescribediprovided under section 154(7) of the Act. It is required to be noted that the proceedings under section 154 of the Act were not the subject-matter before the High Court. Nothing was on record thar, in fact, the notice under section 154 of the Act was withdrawn on the ground that the same was beyond the period of limitation prescribed under section 154(7) of the Act. In the absence of any specific order of withdrawal of the proceedings under section 154 of the Act, the proceedings initiated under section 154 of the Act can be said to have been pending.

5. In that view of the matter, during ttre penderrcy of tlre proceedings under section 154 of the Act, it was not permissible on the part of the Revenue to initiate the proceedings under section l47ll4B of the Act pending the proceedings under section 154 of the Act. The High Court has erred in presuming and observing that the proceedings under section 154 were invalid because the same were beyond the period of limitatiorr.,'

20. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are satisfied that the second issue raised by the petitioner is also required to be answered in the affirmative. 20 HCJ (AKrS, J) & GMM, J W.P.No.25l2l of 2024 2L Therefore, for the reasons recorded hereinabove, the proceedings initiated under Section 148 of the Act for reopening of the assessment relating to the Assessment year 2011-18 are barred by limitation and accordingly, set aside. The instant Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. There shalI be no <lrder as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. To, /TRUE COPYII D/-P.C. SULEKHh DEVI ISTANT REg!!_rE*n- SECTION OFFICER 1 The Deputy Commissioner of lncome Tax, Circle 2 lMasab Tank. Telangana - 500004 The Principal Chief Commissioner of lncome tax, Towers, AC Guards, Hyderabad - 500 004 3. One CC to Ms. K SRILATHA Advocate [OPUC] 4. ONC CC tO [/S. BOKARO SAPNA REDDY (Jr. SC FOR INCOT\XE TAX) 5. Two CD Copies loPUCl ,h Floor, lncome Tax 1 ) lT Tower, AC, Guards, BIM GJP ! I HIGH COURT DATED i1711112025 ORDER WP.No.25121 of 2024 -;ilE ST;q (' q(r 01 rEr ztE * r,!.<l * o r. -r C, ,.it-O ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS \,\qt d-