N. Asharani, vs The Principal Commissioner Of ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 428 AP

        HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

       THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH

                                 AND

           THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE B. S. BHANUMATHI

                  WRIT PETITION No.1390 OF 2022

N. Asharani, W/o. Anand Rao,
Aged 55 years, Occ: House wife,
R/o. Nehru Nagar, M.G. Road,
Jeypore, Orissa.                       ...         Petitioner

                                     Versus

The Principal Commissioner of Income
Tax (Central), Direct Taxes Building,
MVP Colony,
Visakhapatnam-17.                     ...          Respondent

Counsel for the petitioner : Mr. P. Rama Sharana Sharma, Advocate

Counsel for the respondent : Mrs. M. Kiranmayee, Senior Standing Counsel

ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 28.01.2022

(Per Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah)

Heard Mr. P. Rama Sharana Sharma, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Mrs. M. Kiranmayee, learned Senior Standing

Counsel, Income Tax, for the respondent.

2. The petitioner has moved the Court for the following relief:

"....to pass an order or direction or writ in the nature of Mandamus duly, declaring the impugned orders passed by the respondent herein under Section 263 of Income Tax Act, vide F.No. Pr.CIT (C)/263/NR/2020-21 dated 15.03.2021, for the assessment year 2011-12 as illegal, arbitrary and void-ab-initio and against the principles of natural justice and consequently struck down the same in the interest of justice and to pass such other and further orders ...."

3. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted

that identical matter though relating to a different assessment year

was the subject matter of Writ Petition No.18021 of 2021 which

was disposed of by common order by a Division Bench of this

Court on 13.09.2021. It was submitted that the writ petition was

allowed and the order impugned was set aside and the matter was

remanded to the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central),

Visakhapatnam, who is the respondent herein and the authority

was directed to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and

pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and further, for

completion of the exercise, a time limit of three months from the

date of communication of the order was fixed.

4. Learned Senior Standing Counsel, Income Tax, does not

dispute the position.

5. Having regard to the aforesaid, the writ petition stands

disposed of in similar terms.

6. The impugned order is set aside and the matter is

remanded to the respondent, who is directed to give an opportunity

of hearing to the petitioner, and pass appropriate orders in

accordance with law. Such exercise shall be concluded within

three months from the date of communication of the order and the

petitioner shall not seek unnecessary adjournments in the matter.

No order as to costs.

7. The Court would observe that it has not expressed any

opinion with regard to the merits of the matter.

8. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, also stand disposed

of.

_______________________________ (AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J)

_______________________________ (B. S. BHANUMATHI, J)

Dsh