JYOTHI LAGISETTI Vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri A.V.Raghu Ram, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Ms.J.Sunitha, learned Counsel representing Ms.Sundari R Pisupati, learned Standing Counsel for Income Tax, appearing on behalf of the respondents in W.P.Nos.8564 of 2024 and 8643 of 2024; Sri P.Soma Shekar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt.B.Kavitha, learned counsel representing Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 and Ms.J.Sunitha, learned Counsel representing Ms.Sundari R Pisupati, learned Standing Counsel for Income Tax, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 4 in W.P.No.8583 of 2024; Sri A.V.A.Siva Kartikeya, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.8594 of 2024 and Ms.T.Ramadevi, learned counsel representing Sri Manmohan Dundu, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.8689 of 2024 and Ms.J.Sunitha, learned Counsel representing Ms.Sundari R Pisupati, learned Standing Counsel for Income Tax, appearing on behalf of the respondents in W.P.Nos.8594 and 8689 of 2024; Ms.T.Ramadevi, learned counsel representing Sri Manmohan Dundu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vijhay K Punna, learned Standing Counsel for Income Tax appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3 in W.P.No.8739 of 2024.

(2.) Regard being had to the similarity of the question involved, on the joint request of the parties, the matters are analogously heard and decided by this common order.

(3.) It is common ground taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner(s) that in furtherance of Finance Act, 2021, re-assessment process stood modified but the respondents have not taken care of it and therefore notices issued under Sec. 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot sustain judicial scrutiny. Since notices are bad in law, the consequential orders are also bad in law.