> And Decided By This Court['In ] The Case Of Kankanala Ravindra Reddy v. Income-Tax Officert Decided On 14.09.2023 Whereby A Bltch Of Writ Petitions Were Allowed And

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF APRILTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYAND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSIICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION NO: 9568 OF 2025 Between: Khan, aged about 50 years,461, Bhkaram, Musheerabad Vazira Banu, W/o. Mohammed MahmoodOccupation- Business. R/o- 1-5-457 ToHyderabad 500020. Telangana, lndia. ...PETITIONER AND 1Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre, lncome TaxDepartment, Ministry of Finance. Room No. 4O1 ,2nd Floor, E-Ramp.Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, Delhi - ['1 ]10 003.Department, Ministry of Finance. Room No. 4O1 ,2nd Floor, E-Ramp.Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, Delhi - ['1 ]10 003. 2The lncome Tax Officer, Ward 11(1), Hyderabad Signature Towers,Sy.No.6(P) of Kondapur, Sy.37(P) of Kothaguda, Opp. Botanical Gardens,Serlingampally (lV)T Ranga Reddy, TelanganaSy.No.6(P) of Kondapur, Sy.37(P) of Kothaguda, Opp. Botanical Gardens,Serlingampally (lV)T Ranga Reddy, Telangana 3- Union of lndia, Represent by Secretary Ministry of Finance North Block, NewDelhi-1 10 001Delhi-1 10 001 ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 ot lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may bepleased to pass an order or drrection, especially one in the nature of WRIT OFMANDAMUS holding that the order passed by 1st Respondent uls. 147 read withsection l44B of the lT Ac1. dt.27.02.2025 with DIN No ITBA/AST/S/14712O24-2511073789320(1) for the Ay. 2020-21 , as arbitrary, illegal, bad in law, void abinitio, violation of principles of natural [justice ]apart from violation of Articles 14, [19](1)(g) and 265 of constitution of lndia apart from being violative of provisions ofsection 148A and section 149 of the Act and also contrary to the circular issued [by]CBDT and [provisions ]of section ['1 ]5'lA of the Act, and consequently set [aside ][the] order [passed ][by ][1st ][Respondent ][u/s ][147 ][read ][with section ][14'+B ][of ][the ][lT ][Act' ][dt']27.O2.2}25with [NoITBA/AST/S ][t147t2O24-2511073789320(1) ][for ][the ][Av ][2020-]21 and all [consequential proceedings pursuant thereto'] IA NO: 10F [2025] PetitionUndersectionl5lCPcprayingthatintheCrcumstancesstatedintheaffidavitfiledinsupportofthewritpetition'theHighCourtmaybepleasedtostay all [further proceedlngs, including ][any ][recovery' pursuant ][to the order ][passed]by the 1st [Respondent ][uts ][147 ][read ][with ][section. 1448 ][of ][the ][lT ][Act' dl'27 ][02'2025]with Dl N No- [Sl ][1 ][47 ][t ][2024' ][25t ][1 ][07 ][37 ][89320( ][1 ][) ][for ][trre Av' ][2O2O-21'] COUNSEI [fOT ][thE ][PEtitiONET: ][MS. ][AISHIi/ARYA ] SRI THANNEERU -'Counsel for [the ][ResPondent ][1 ][: ] counser ror [the ][Respont"rt"rliSil';JF"'; ]i# iltsME rAx DE,ARTMENT Counsel [forthe ][Respondent'No'3: ] DePutY Solicitor [General ][of ][lndia] The Court made [the ][following: ] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTTCE P.SAM I(OSHY ANDTHE HoNoURABLE sRr JUsrrcE NansrNb naoNANDIKONDA W.P.No.9568 OF 2025 ORDER, (per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy) Heard Ms. Aishwarya Sunil, leamed counsel representingMr. Thaneeru Chaitanya Kumar, learned counsel for the petitionerand Ms. J.Sunitha, leamed Junior Standing Counsel for theMr. Thaneeru Chaitanya Kumar, learned counsel for the petitionerand Ms. J.Sunitha, leamed Junior Standing Counsel for theIncome Tax Department for respondent No.2. Perused the record. 2. This is a writ petitibn where the proceedings are eitherchallenged to the notic0s which were issued under Section 148,{and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') or theassessment orders those have been passed under Section 147 ofthe Act which have been assailed ANDTHE HoNoURABLE sRr JUsrrcE NansrNb naoNANDIKONDA W.P.No.9568 OF 2025 ORDER, (per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy) Heard Ms. Aishwarya Sunil, leamed counsel representingMr. Thaneeru Chaitanya Kumar, learned counsel for the petitionerand Ms. J.Sunitha, leamed Junior Standing Counsel for theMr. Thaneeru Chaitanya Kumar, learned counsel for the petitionerand Ms. J.Sunitha, leamed Junior Standing Counsel for theIncome Tax Department for respondent No.2. Perused the record. 2. This is a writ petitibn where the proceedings are eitherchallenged to the notic0s which were issued under Section 148,{and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') or theassessment orders those have been passed under Section 147 ofthe Act which have been assailed 3. This writ petition is being taken up today only on one of thegrounds, that the notices issued under Section 148A of the Actand the s$ggrent initiation of proceedings under Section 148 ofthe Act by the [jurisdictional ]Assessing Officer, whereas in termsof the amendment that was brought to the Income Tax Act by wayof Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f., 01.04.2021 onwards, proceedings under Section l48A of the Act as also under Sectron 148 of theAct ought to have also been issued and proceeded in a facelessmanner.4. The contention contention of the petitioner the petitioner petitioner is that the issue that the issue the issue issue ofproceedings being in violation of the Finance Act. 2021 i.e., theimpugned notices under Section l48A and Section l4g of the ActAct ought to have also been issued and proceeded in a facelessmanner.4. The contention contention of the petitioner the petitioner petitioner is that the issue that the issue the issue issue ofproceedings being in violation of the Finance Act. 2021 i.e., theimpugned notices under Section l48A and Section l4g of the Actnot being issued in a faceless manner, have already been dealt withand decided by this Court ['in ]the case of KANKANALARAVINDRA REDDY vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICERT decidedon 14.09.2023 whereby a bltch of writ petitions were allowed andRAVINDRA REDDY vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICERT decidedon 14.09.2023 whereby a bltch of writ petitions were allowed andthe proceedings initiated under Section l4gA as also under Section148 of the Act were held to be bad with consequentiar reliefs on theground of it being in violation of the provisions of Section 15lA ofthe Act read with Notification l8l2\22 dated,29.03.2t122. The saidjudgment passed by this Court has also been subsequentty followedin a large number of writ petitions which were allor.r.ed on similarterms.the Act read with Notification l8l2\22 dated,29.03.2t122. The saidjudgment passed by this Court has also been subsequentty followedin a large number of writ petitions which were allor.r.ed on similarterms. The contention contention of the petitioner the petitioner petitioner is that the issue that the issue the issue issue of 'l(2023) [156 ]taxmann.com 178 (Telangana)l -' 5. Down the line, we find that the same issue has also beenline, we find that the same issue has also beenwe find that the same issue has also beenthat the same issue has also beensame issue has also beenissue has also beenhas also beenalso beenbeendecided against the Revenue by various High Courts i.e.,by the Bombay High Courl in the case of HEXAWARETECHNOLOGIES LTD., vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX & OTHERS2, Gauhati High Court in the caseof RAM NARAYAN SAH vs..UNION OF INDIA3, punjab andHaryana High Courr in the case of JATINDER SINGII BANGUvs. UNION OF INDIA4, and Telangana High Court in the case ofSRI VENKATARAMANA.REDDY PATLOOLA vs. DEPUTYCOMMISSIONER OF'INCOME TAX5 where the issue was inrespect of intemational taxation, Bombay High Court in the case ofABHIN ANTLKUMAR SHAH vs. INCoME TAx OFFICE&INTERNATIONAL TAXATION6 which is again on internationaltaxation and central circle, High Court of Himachal pradesh in thecase of GOVIND SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERT,Gujarat High Court in the case of MANSUKHBHAI Down the line, we find that the same issue has also beenline, we find that the same issue has also beenwe find that the same issue has also beenthat the same issue has also beensame issue has also beenissue has also beenhas also beenalso beenbeen 'lzoz+1464 [rrR ][430 ][(Bom)]'[(2024) [156 ]taxmann.com 478 (Gauhati)]^ [(2024) [165 ]taxmann.com I I 5 (punjab & Haryana)]'12024) [167 ]taxmann.com 41 1 (Telangana)l" 12024) [166 ]taxmann.com 679 (Bombay)l'12024) [165 ]taxmann.com I 13 (Himachal [pradesh)l] DAIIYABHAT RADADIYA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 3(3X5)8, Jharkand High Court in the case of SHYAMSUNDAR SAW vs. UNION OF INDIAe, Rajasthan High Court inthe case of SHARDA DE!'I CHHAJER vs. INCOME TAXOFFICER & ANOTHER and batch.of writ petitionsro whichWARD 3(3X5)8, Jharkand High Court in the case of SHYAMSUNDAR SAW vs. UNION OF INDIAe, Rajasthan High Court inthe case of SHARDA DE!'I CHHAJER vs. INCOME TAXOFFICER & ANOTHER and batch.of writ petitionsro whichstood decided on 19.03.2024. Similar views have also been takenby the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in the case ofby the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in the case ofGIRDHAR GOPAL DALMIA vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS(M.A.T 1690 of 2023),dec'rded on25.09.20246. Even though the same issue having been decided by a largenumber of High Courts, we are still confronted with iarge hling ofidentical matters on daily basis ranging between 5 to 10 writ(M.A.T 1690 of 2023),dec'rded on25.09.20246. Even though the same issue having been decided by a largenumber of High Courts, we are still confronted with iarge hling ofidentical matters on daily basis ranging between 5 to 10 writpetitions. That upon the instructions being sought from theDepartment, they have been taking a solitary ground that thedecision of the Bombay High Court in the case of HerawareTechnologies Ltd., (2 supra) as also the one which has beendecision of the Bombay High Court in the case of HerawareTechnologies Ltd., (2 supra) as also the one which has beendecided by this Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy tz\zq SCC Online Guj 401 2'2025 SCC Online Jhar287l0[2023: [RI-JD:498] (1 supra) has been subjected to challenge in a Special LeavePetition i.e., SLP No.3574 of 2024 before the Hon'ble SupremeCourt and the Hon'ble Supreme Court is seized of the matter.In addition, there are about 1200 SLps also filed arising out ofthesame issue being decided by various High Courts. 7. To a query being put to the learned counsel for the Revenue,they have categorically accepted the fact that there is no interimorder granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in any of thesematters pending before it. Meanwhile, fresh writ petitions ofidentical nature are being piled up before this Bench on daily basisand the pendency is getting increased on matter which otherwisehas already been dealt and decided by this very High Court itself. 8. On the one hand, even though the order of this Court thatwas passed as early as on 14.09.2023 and more 16 months havelapsed, till date, we do not hnd any remedial steps having beentaken by the Income Tax Department to take appropriate steps toeither hold back issuance of notice under Section l4gA and underSection 148 of the Act by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer,rather the authorities concemed in the teeth of series of decisions E by all the major High Courts in India are continuously stillinitiating proceedings under Section l48A of the Act and alsoinitiating proceedings under Section 148 ol' the Act incontravention to the amendments brought into the Income Tax Actpursuant to the Finance Act,2020 as also the Finance Act202l. 8. On the one hand, even though the order of this Court thatwas passed as early as on 14.09.2023 and more 16 months havelapsed, till date, we do not hnd any remedial steps having beentaken by the Income Tax Department to take appropriate steps toeither hold back issuance of notice under Section l4gA and underSection 148 of the Act by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer,rather the authorities concemed in the teeth of series of decisions E by all the major High Courts in India are continuously stillinitiating proceedings under Section l48A of the Act and alsoinitiating proceedings under Section 148 ol' the Act incontravention to the amendments brought into the Income Tax Actpursuant to the Finance Act,2020 as also the Finance Act202l. 9. Upon a query being put as to why. can,t this writ petition bedisposed of in the teeth of the decision rendered by this Court inthe case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra), leamed StandingCounsel for the Income Tax Department contends that those wouldunnecessarily burden the.,lncome Tax Department where theywould be required to file equal number of SLps before theHon'ble Supreme Court and it would be further burdening theexchequer of the Union of India. It was also the contention of theleamed Standing Counsel that no prejudice would be caused to theinterest of the petitioners in case if this writ petition is kept pendingtill the finalization of the SLps pending before the Hon,bleSupreme Court and the fact that the petitioner is already enjoyingthe benefit of interim protection. Nonetheless, on the earlier queryof this Court as to why the Income Tax Department have not comeout with a mech4qism to issue appropriate instructions or to take ! - .../ appropriate steps in ensuring that proceedings under Section 14gAof the Act as also the assessment orders under Section l4g of theAct are kept in a hold in the light ofthe decisions dedcided by thevarious High Courts, it was submitted by the leamed StandingCounsel that the said steps can only be taken at the level of CBDTas any such steps would have to be taken pan India and cannot belimited to any of these jurisdictional High Courts. l0As a result of which, what we are facing is steep increase oflitigation day in and day oui even though various orders have beenpassed by this High Court allowing writ petitions on the very sameissue. The Income Tax authorities concemed are still even now in2025 also initiating proceedings in contravention to the provisionsof Section 15lA of the Act and as a result by now, more than 600to 700 petitions have been already got piled up before this HighCourt on an issue which otherwise stands squarely covered by thejudgment of this Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy(l supra). What is also surprising is the fact that though whileallowing the writ petitions in the case of Kanukara RavindraReddy (l supra), the Division Bench while reserving the right ofthe Revenue, has also protected the interest of the petitioners insofar as the iiberty which was granted to the Revenue forinitiating fresh proceedings strictly in accordance with the amendedprovisions of the Act, as amended by the Finance Ac| 2020 andthe Finance Act,202l. The petitioner assessee would be entitled tochallenge or raise the other legal objections if the Revenue initiatesfresh proceedings. The Department has made no endeavour inavailing the said liberty that was reserved for the Revenue. On thecontrary, they have been still sticking on to the stand, which thisHigh Court as well as rfilany other High Courts already held to bebad. insofar as the iiberty which was granted to the Revenue forinitiating fresh proceedings strictly in accordance with the amendedprovisions of the Act, as amended by the Finance Ac| 2020 andthe Finance Act,202l. The petitioner assessee would be entitled tochallenge or raise the other legal objections if the Revenue initiatesfresh proceedings. The Department has made no endeavour inavailing the said liberty that was reserved for the Revenue. On thecontrary, they have been still sticking on to the stand, which thisHigh Court as well as rfilany other High Courts already held to bebad. I l. It appears that because ofthe aforesaid liberty that this HighCourt had granted permitting the Revenue for initiating fieshproceedings as a one-time measure in a faceless manner, theIncome Tax Department wants to take advantage of the same byprotracting these proceedings which would enable them to meet thelimitation that would otherwise come in the way. Likewise, if thewrit petition is kept pending for a considerable long period of timeand finally at a later stage if the Hon'ble Supreme Court confirmsthe decision taken by this High Court as also by the other HighCourts in which the SLPs are still pending, the Income Tax Department would get the advantage of the liberty that is otherwiseprotected in favour of the Revenue for initiation of freshproceedings from the disposal ofthese matters at a much later stagewhich would be advantageous and beneficial to the Revenue andwould be equally disadvantageous and detrimental so far as interestof the assesses are concemed. As a consequence, the Income TaxDepartment gets an extended period of time for initiation of lieshproceedings.which would be advantageous and beneficial to the Revenue andwould be equally disadvantageous and detrimental so far as interestof the assesses are concemed. As a consequence, the Income TaxDepartment gets an extended period of time for initiation of lieshproceedings. 12. The alarming trend of docket explosion in this Court, despitethe clear precedent setin Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra), is amatter of grave concern. The Income Tax Department's persistentinitiation of fresh proceedings, disregarding the established judicialpronouncements, has led to an unprecedented surge in litigationwith over 600-700 petitions piling up on the same issue. Thisdeliberate approach not only undermines the principle ofjudicialprecedent but also strains the judicial resources unnecessarily. TheDepartment's strategy of awaiting the Supreme Court's decision onpending SLPs while continuing to initiate fresh proceedingsappears to be a calculated move to buy time and circumventlimitation periods, rather than adhering to the established legal position. Such conduct raises serious questions about theadministrative efficiency and the respect lor judicialpronouncements, particularly when this Court has already provideda balanced approach by preserving both the Revenue's rights andassesses lnterests 13. Another aspect which noeds to be considered is that in fact itshould have been realized by the Income Tax Department itself andshould have lound out via media in ensuring that proceedingsunder Sections 148-4 and 148 should not have been issued in afaceless manner, at least till the Hon'ble Supreme [(lourt ]decide thetwelve hundred (1200) odd SLPs which it is alreadl, seized of or, atleast the Income Tax Department should have found out someremedial steps to ensure that wherever the authorities intend toinitiate proceedings under Sections 148-A and 148, other than in afaceless manner, the proceedings should have been defenedwithout precipitating the matter further intimating the assessee thatthey shall initiate appropriate proceedings only after the SLP's aredecided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the verl' same issue.This again, the Income Tax Department, has not been able to give aconvincing reply, except for the fact that such a decision if at all has to [be ][taken, ][has ][to ][be ][taken ][for ][the whole ][of India' ][and ][which]otherwise [has ][to be ][by way ][of ][a ][policy ][decision and that ][too ][at ][the]level of [Central ][Board ][of ][Direct ][Taxes' ][Though ][the ][learned]Standing [Counsel ][for ][the Income ][Tax ][Department ][contended ][that]the Dethi [High ][Court ][dismissed ][a ][writ ][petition ][of ][similar ][nature' on]the one [hand when ][the ][High ][Court ][is ][struggling ][to ][reduce ][its]pendency, [such notices ][which ][are ][under ][challenge ][in ][this ][writ]petition [are ][forcing the ][assessee ][to ][knock the ][doors ][of ][this High]Court [resulting ][in ][flling ][of ][hundreds ][of ][new ][writ ][petitions ][which ][in]the long [run not ][only ][affects the disposal ][of ][the ][writ ][petitions but]also consumes [substantial ][time ][of ][the ][Bench ][in ][hearing ][these]matters [again and again ][on ][daily ][basis' Admittedly' in ][spite ][of ][the]matter [before the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Court having ][been taken ][on]many occasions, [the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Court ][which ][is ][seized ][of ][the]matter [has ][been ][reluctant ][in ][granting any ][interim ][protection ][to ][the]Income Tax [lfepartment' Yet' ][the ][authorities ][concerned ][at ][the]State [level ][are ][not ][ready ][to ][accept ][the ][verdict ][passed ][by ][a ][majority]of High [Courts ][of ][different ][States ][on the ][same issue; and ][to ][make]things [further ][worse, ][the ][Income ][Tax ][Department ][is ][showing]audacity [by ][issuing notices ][continuously ][under Sections ][148-4 ][and] 148 through the [jurisdictional ]Assessing Officer rvhereas it [ought]to have been only in the faceless manner. 14. In the case of BANK OF INDIA vs. ASSISTANTCOMMISSIONER, INCOME TAXrr, on an issue whether it wasjustiflable on the parl of the Income Tax Department in notfollowing an order passed by the adjudicating authority only on theground that the appeals are pending, the Division Bench of theHigh Court of Bombay held at paragraph No.25 as under, viz., [:] "25. Mr. Paridwalla has rightly drawn out attention to thedecision of this Couh in Commissioner of lncome Tax vs. Smt.Godavaridevi Sarafl2 as also the recent decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Samp Furniture [(P) ]Ltd. v. lTOl3of which one of us (Justice G.S. Kulkarni) was a member, whereinthe Court categorically observed that the Revenue having nol"accepted" the judgment of the High Court would not mean that tillthe same is set aside in a manner known to law, it would loose itsbinding force. Referring to the decision of the Supreme Court inUnion of lndia vs. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd.14, theCourt observed that the approach of the officials of Revenue oftreating decisions being ["not ]acceptable" was criticized by theSupreme Court. ln such decision, following are the relevantobservations made by the Supreme Court. tt 170 taxmann.com 422 (Bombay)l170 taxmann.com 422 (Bombay)l71z}zs1 t2 1t9t81l 13 rrR 589 (Bombay)1t9t81l 13 rrR 589 (Bombay) " [1ZOZI7165 ][taxmann.com ][581/300 ][Taxman ][452 ][(Bombay)] ro ll.ggZ taxmann.coq !6/55 ELT 433 (SC) tt 170 taxmann.com 422 (Bombay)l170 taxmann.com 422 (Bombay)l71z}zs1 t2 1t9t81l 13 rrR 589 (Bombay)1t9t81l 13 rrR 589 (Bombay) " [1ZOZI7165 ][taxmann.com ][581/300 ][Taxman ][452 ][(Bombay)] ro ll.ggZ taxmann.coq !6/55 ELT 433 (SC) "6. Sri Reddy is [perhaps ][right ]in saying that [the]officers [were ][not ][actuated ][by ][any ][mala fides ][in]passing the [impugned ][orders. ][They ][perhaps]genuinely felt [that ][lhe ][claim of the ][assessee ][was ][not]tenable [and ][that, ][if ][it ][was ][accepted, ][the ][Revenue]would suffer. [But ][what Sri Reddy overlooks is ][that ][we]are not [concerned ][here ][with ][the ][correctness ][or]otheMise [of ][their ][conclusion ][or ][of ][any ][factual]malafides [but with the fact that the officers, in reaching]in their [conclusion, by-pgssed two appellate ][orders ][in]regard [to the ][same issue ][which were ][placed ][before]them, [one ][of ][the ][Collector (Appeals) ][and the ][other ][of]the Tribunal. [The ][High Court ][has, ][in ][our view, ][rightly]criticized [this ][conduct of the Assistant ][Collectors and]the harassment [to ][the ][assessee caused by ][the ][failure]of these [officArs ][to ][give effect ][to ][the ][orders ][of]authorities [higher to ][them ][in ][the ][appellate ][hierarchy. ][lt]cannot [be too ][vehemently emphasized ][that ][it is ][of]utmost [importance ][that, ][in ][disposing ][of ][the]quasijudicial [issues before ][them, ][revenue ][oflicers ][are]bound [by the ][decisions ][of ][the ][appellate ][authorities.]The order [of ][the Appellte Collector ][is ][binding on ][the]Assistant [Collectors working ][within ][his ]iurisdiction [and]the order [of ][the Tribunal is binding upon ][the ][Assistant]Collectors [and ][the Appellate ][Collectors ][who ][function]under [the ]iurisdiction [of the ][Tribunal. ][The principles ][of]judicial discipline [require ]that the [orders ]of the [higher]appellate [authorities should be followed ][unreservedly]by the [subordinate ][authorities. The ][mere ][fact ][that the]order of [lhe ][appellate ][authority ][is ][not ]["acceptable" ][to]the [department ]- [in ][itself ][an ][objectionable phrase ]-and [is ][the ][subject matter ][of an ][appeal can ][furnish ][no]ground for not [following ][it ][unless ][its ][operation ][has]been [suspended by ][a ][competent ][court. ][lf ][this ][healthy] rule is not followed, the result will only be undueharassment to assesses and chaos in administrationof tax laws. 12. We have dealt with this aspect at some length,because it has been suggested by the learnedAdditional Solicitor General that the observationsmade by the High Court, have been harsh on theofficers. lt is clear that the observations of the HighCourt, seemingly vehement, and apparenflyunpalatable to the Reveniie, are only intended to curba tendency in revenue matters which, if allowed tobecome widespread, could resull in considerableharassmenl to the assesses-public without any benefitto the Revenue. We would like to say that thedepartment should take these observations in theproper spirit. the observations of the High Courtshould be kept in mind in future and the utmost regardshould be paid by the adjudicating authorities and theappellate authorities to lhe requirements of judicialdiscipline and the need for giving elfect to the ordersof the higher appellate authorities which are bindingon them." 15. What is worrying this Bench more is the fact that an endeavour is being made whole hearledly to ensure not to generatefurther litigation on issues which have been laid to rest by a largenumber of High courts all of whom have taken a consistent standfurther litigation on issues which have been laid to rest by a largenumber of High courts all of whom have taken a consistent standthat the action of the Income Tax Department being violative of the 15. What is worrying this Bench more is the fact that an endeavour is being made whole hearledly to ensure not to generatefurther litigation on issues which have been laid to rest by a largenumber of High courts all of whom have taken a consistent standfurther litigation on issues which have been laid to rest by a largenumber of High courts all of whom have taken a consistent standthat the action of the Income Tax Department being violative of the Finance Act,2020 and Finance /,:ct,202l. Now, in order to protectthe interest ofthe Revenue as also that ofthe assessee, it would betrite at this juncture, if we dispose of the writ perition with anobservation/direction that the disposal of the instant writ petition inthe interest ofthe Revenue as also that ofthe assessee, it would betrite at this juncture, if we dispose of the writ perition with anobservation/direction that the disposal of the instant writ petition interms of the judgment rendered'by this.High Court in the case ofKankanala Ravindra Reddy (L supra) shall however be subject toKankanala Ravindra Reddy (L supra) shall however be subject tothe outcome of the SLPs which were f,rled by the Income TaxDepartment and which is pending consideration before the Hon'bleSupreme Court.Department and which is pending consideration before the Hon'bleSupreme Court. 16. In the given facts and circumstances, this Bench is of theconsidered opinion that unless and until we do not timely disposeof matters which are squarely covered by the decision of this Courtand which stands fortified by the decisions of the various otherHigh Courts on the very same issue, the pendency of this HighCourt would further be burdened which otherwise can be decidedand disposed of as a covered matter. 17. So far as the interest of the Revenue is concerned, we are ofthe considered opinion that the interest of the Revenue has alreadybeen considered and protected, as has been observed in paragraphs 36,37 and 38 ofthe order which, for ready reference, is reproduced hereunder: 36. For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned noticesissued and the proceedings drawn by the responden!Department is neither tenable, nor sustainable.The notices so issued and the procedure adopted beingper se illegal, deserves to be and are accordingly setaside/quashed. As a consequence, all the irnpugnedorders getting quashed, the consequential orders passedby the respondent-Department pursuant to the noticesissued under Section 147 and 148 would atso getquashed and it is ordered accordingly. The reason weare quashing the consequential order is on the principlesthat when the initdtion of the proceedings itself wasprocedurally wrong,the subsequent orders also getsnullified automatically 37. The preliminary objection raised by the petitioner issustained and all these writ petitions stands allowed onthis very jurisdictional issue. Since the impugned noticesand orders are gefting quashed on the ooint ofjurisdiction, we are not inclined to proceed further anddecide the other issues raised by the petitioner whichstands reserved to be raised and contended in anappropriate proceedings. 38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in ihe caseof Ashish Agarwal, supra, as a one{ime measureexercising the powers under Article 142 of theConstitution of lndia, permitted the Revenue to proceedunder the substituted provisions, and this Court altowingthe petitions only on the procedural flaw, the right \ tI conferred on the Revenue would remain reserved toproceed further if they so want from lhe stage of theorder of the Supreme Court in the case of AshishAgarwal, supra. 38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in ihe caseof Ashish Agarwal, supra, as a one{ime measureexercising the powers under Article 142 of theConstitution of lndia, permitted the Revenue to proceedunder the substituted provisions, and this Court altowingthe petitions only on the procedural flaw, the right \ tI conferred on the Revenue would remain reserved toproceed further if they so want from lhe stage of theorder of the Supreme Court in the case of AshishAgarwal, supra. 18. We would only further like to make observations that sincewe are inclined to dispose of the instant writ petition, conscious ofthe fact that the earlier order of this High Court in the case ofKanakala Ravindra Reddy (1 supra) is subjected to challengebefore the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No.3574 of 2024,preferred by the Income Tax Department, we make it clear thatallowing of the instanl writ petition is subject to outcome of theaforesaid SLP preferred by the Revenue against the decision ofthisHigh Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra).This, in other words, would mean that either of the parties, if theyso want, may move an appropriate petition seeking revival of thiswrit petition in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble SupremeCourt in the pending SLP on the very same issue. 19. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands allowed infavour of the assessee so far as the issue of [jurisdiction]1Sconcerned. As a consequence, the impugned notice underchallenge under Sections 148-A and 148 stands set as$euashed. I t The consequential [orders, ][if ][any, also ][stand ][set ][aside/quashed ][in] similar terms [as ][have ][been passed ][by ][this ][High ][Coun ][in ][the ][case ][of] Kankanala [Ravindra ][Reddy ][(l ][supra)' ][There shall ][be ][no order ][as] to costs. Consequently, [miscellaneous ][petitions ][pending, ][il ][any' shatl] stand closed. SD/. L. VIJAYA ASSISTANT //rRUE coPY/' h4.SECfION OFFICER To,IAssessment [Unit, National ][fl""t"" ][Assessment ][Centre' ][lncome Tax]il;;;;;i: ilii"l.i"v oi Finance [Room ][No' ][401' 2nd ][Floor' ][E-Ramp']Jrriininit Nehru [S[adium, Delhi - ][110 ][003']IAssessment [Unit, National ][fl""t"" ][Assessment ][Centre' ][lncome Tax]il;;;;;i: ilii"l.i"v oi Finance [Room ][No' ][401' 2nd ][Floor' ][E-Ramp']Jrriininit Nehru [S[adium, Delhi - ][110 ][003']2fi;];l;;il i;i-omi"r, [W"io ][1'1(1), ][Hvderabad Sisnature ][rowers']i"lr.rf ."oii;i"i ii;;d;pr;, [si.ezip) ][ot ][r'itrasuoa' ][o[p ][Botanical Gardens']S6dingahpally [(M)T ][Rang-aReddy' ] [elangana]i"lr.rf ."oii;i"i ii;;d;pr;, [si.ezip) ][ot ][r'itrasuoa' ][o[p ][Botanical Gardens']S6dingahpally [(M)T ][Rang-aReddy' ] [elangana]3The Secretary [Mlnistry ot ][rLnriJti ]['ftfo|.tf' ][dlock' ][Unlon ][of ][lrdia' ][New ][Delhi-1 ][10]00100146""L cc to Sri [Thanneru Chaitanya ][Kumar, ][Advocate ][IoPUC] ]- .66;; CC io sti croi [praueen ][xum?i, ][oeputy solicitor ][General of lndia]TOPUCI66;; CC io sti croi [praueen ][xum?i, ][oeputy solicitor ][General of lndia]TOPUCI65;""Ct to Ms. [J. Sunitha, Jr. ] [for the lncome ][Tax ][Department ]7Two CD CoPies7Two CD CoPies 7 k TJGJPr HIGH COURT DATED:2410412025 ORDERWP.No.9568 of 2025 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITIONWITHOUT COSTS Ft-4 ,a/",i-I [0:r ][sEP ]aEI'!11{\'-c\