And Sec 148A Of The Lncome Tax Act, 196.1 , And To Consequen,Y Set Aside Thesame In The Interests Of Justicela No: 1 Of 2025Same In The Interests Of Justicela N v. A. Siva Kartkeyasrl. A. V. A. Siva Kartkeya

HIGH COURT AT HYDERABAD(SPecial [Original Jurisdiction)] MONDAY '"" [.TWO ],THE THOUSAND PRESENT THE HONOURABLE [P'SAM ] ANDTHE HONOURABLE [JUSTiL.iNARSING ] WRIT [P] [ NNO:1][ 970 ][0] [2025] Between: I\,4r. Suman [Samavedam' ][S/o ][NIr' ][S' ][Krishna-trilohan' ][aqed ][41 ][years ][O-cc']Emplovee. [w. ][r ][u-oYdz]'si'J"t' ][r'io ][i ][' ][H;;durai;jil;s'"'' ][l-lvo"i'uud ][- ][soo]017' Telangana "PETlrloNER AND 1The lncome [Tax ][officer, ][Ward ][12(1). ][Hv9:1,b39, ][|-,]:I,, ][Bhawan, ][opp. ][L.B.]Stadium. [Basheerbagh,Hyderabail- ][503 ][002' Telangana-Assessment ][Center']Stadium. [Basheerbagh,Hyderabail- ][503 ][002' Telangana-Assessment ][Center']2ft '.tr';$f; I.:3||,',lll';,]alr'EtsxTTHlililil';;i"*;n'-'st'oi"New Delhi [- 110 003. ].-_,^-er of lncome Tax - 1 . 1O-Z-3. lT [Towers, ] ft '.tr';$f; I.:3||,',lll';,]alr'EtsxTTHlililil';;i"*;n'-'st'oi"New Delhi [- 110 003. ].-_,^-er of lncome Tax - 1 . 1O-Z-3. lT [Towers, ] JlX",,.5J:"fi ['13jr"."#[i'r8!;u#oi's"ooob+'reransana]lX",,.5J:"fi ['13jr"."#[i'r8!;u#oi's"ooob+'reransana] ...RESPONDENTS Petition [under ][Article ][226 ][ot ][lhe ][Constitution ][of ][lndia ][praying that ][in ][the]circumstances [stated ][in ][the ][affidavit ][filed ][therewith' ][the ][High Court ][may ][be]to [issue ][a ][Writ ][of ][lvlandamus ][or ][any other appropriate ][Writ' ][Order ][or]pleased Direction, [declaring ][that ][a ][the ][order ][u/s ][148A(d) ][of ][the ][lncome ][Tax ][Act' ][1961']dated [14.03.2024, passed ][by ][the ][1st ][Respondent' bearing DIN ][and ][Notice ][No']+dxtzozz-2att062594591(1)' [for ][the ][Assessment ][Year 2o2o ][- ][21']""rotriirt and b. the [notice ][u/s ][148 of ][the ][lncome Tax ][Act' ][1961' ][dated ][14 ][03'2024' ][issued]bythe'lstRespondent,bearingDlNITBA/ASTlsl148-112023-24/1062594698(1)'respectively, [for ][the ][Assessment ][Year ][2O2o ][- ][21' ][as ][arbitrary' illegal' ][bad ][in ][law']barred [by ][time, ][void_ab-initio, viorative ][of the ][principres ][of ][naturar ][justice, ][apart]from being [violative ][of ][Articles 1+' ][19(f Xg) ][and ][265 ][of the ][Constitution ][of ][lndia] and Sec 148A of the lncome Tax Act, 196.1 , and to consequen,y set aside thesame in the interests of justicelA NO: 1 oF 2025same in the interests of justicelA NO: 1 oF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated inthe affidavit filed irr support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to stayall further proceedrngs, including any lncome Tax Act, .1 1161, dated 14.03.2024, recovery, pursuant the notice u/s 14g issued by the 1,t Respondent. bearingof theDrN r.BA/ASTrsrl4B-1t2023-24r1062594698(1) respectivery, for the AssessmentYear 2020 - 21, pending disposal of the above Writ petition Counsel for the petitioner: SRl. A. V. A. SIVA KART|KEYASRl. A. V. A. SIVA KART|KEYA Counsel for the Respondents: Ms. BOKARO SAPNA REDDy (Jr. SC FOR INCOME TAX) The Court made the following: ORDER a TIIE [JUSTICE P'SAM ] ANDTHE NANDIKONDA WRIT PETIT [ No.19][700] ORDER, [(per ][Hon'ble ][Sri ][Justice Narsing ][Rao ][Nandikonda)] Heard [Mr' ][A'V'A'Siva ][Kartikeya' ][leamed counsel ][for ][the]petitioner[and ][Ms. ][B. ][SaPna ][ReddY'][ learned ][Junior ][Standing]Counsel[for ][the ][Income ][Tax ][Deparlment ][for ][the ][respondents']Perused [the ][record] This is is [[a ][writ ][petition where the ][proceedings ]][[writ ][petition where the ][proceedings ]][[petition where the ][proceedings ]][[proceedings ]][[are ][either]][[either]] Counsel for the Respondents: Ms. BOKARO SAPNA REDDy (Jr. SC FOR INCOME TAX) The Court made the following: ORDER a TIIE [JUSTICE P'SAM ] ANDTHE NANDIKONDA WRIT PETIT [ No.19][700] ORDER, [(per ][Hon'ble ][Sri ][Justice Narsing ][Rao ][Nandikonda)] Heard [Mr' ][A'V'A'Siva ][Kartikeya' ][leamed counsel ][for ][the]petitioner[and ][Ms. ][B. ][SaPna ][ReddY'][ learned ][Junior ][Standing]Counsel[for ][the ][Income ][Tax ][Deparlment ][for ][the ][respondents']Perused [the ][record] This is is [[a ][writ ][petition where the ][proceedings ]][[writ ][petition where the ][proceedings ]][[petition where the ][proceedings ]][[proceedings ]][[are ][either]][[either]] 2. This is is [[a ][writ ][petition where the ][proceedings ]][[writ ][petition where the ][proceedings ]][[petition where the ][proceedings ]][[proceedings ]][[are ][either]][[either]]challenged [to the ][notices ][which were ][issued ][under Section 148A]and 148 [of ][the ][Income ][Tax ][Act' ][1961 ][(for ][shorl'the Act') ][or ][the]assessment [orders ][those ][have been ][passed ][under ][Section ][147 ][of]the Act [which ][have ][been assaiied'] This writ writ [[petition ]][[is being taken ][up ][today ][only ][on one ][of ][the]][[up ][today ][only ][on one ][of ][the]][[today ][only ][on one ][of ][the]][[only ][on one ][of ][the]][[on one ][of ][the]][[of ][the]][[the]] 3. This writ writ [[petition ]][[is being taken ][up ][today ][only ][on one ][of ][the]][[up ][today ][only ][on one ][of ][the]][[today ][only ][on one ][of ][the]][[only ][on one ][of ][the]][[on one ][of ][the]][[of ][the]][[the]]grounds, [that ][the ][notices ][issued ][under ][Section ][1484 of the ][Act]aild the [subsequent ][initiation ][ofproceedings ][under ][Section ][148 ][of]the Act [by ][the ][jurisdictional ][Assessing ][Offrcer' ][whereas ][in ][terms]of the [amendment ][that ][was brought ][to ][the ][Income ][Tax ][Act by way]of Finance [Lct, ][2021 ][w'e'f', ][01'04'2021 ][onwards' ][proceedings] under Section I4gA of the Act as also under Section 14g of theAct ought to have also been issued and proceeded in a facelessmanner4. The contention contention of the petitioner the petitioner petitioner is that the issue that the issue issue ofproceedings being in violation of the Finance Act, 2021 i.e., theimpugned n,rtices under Section l4gA and Section l4g of the Actnot being issued in a faceless manner, have already been dealt withand decidecl by this Court in the case of I(ANKANALARAVINDRA REDDY vs. INCOME_I.AX OFFICERT decidedon 14.09.2023 rvhereby a batch of writ petitions were allowed andthe proceedings initiated under Section 14gA as also under Section148 of ttre Act were held to be bad with consequential reliefs on theground of it being in violation of the provisions of Section i5lA ofthe Act read wirh Notification lgl2L22 dated 29.03.2022. The saidjudgment passed by this court has also been subsequentry folrowedin a large number of writ petitions which were allowed on similarterms. The contention contention of the petitioner the petitioner petitioner is that the issue that the issue issue of 'l(2023) 156 taxmann.com l7g (Telangana)l a The contention contention of the petitioner the petitioner petitioner is that the issue that the issue issue of 'l(2023) 156 taxmann.com l7g (Telangana)l a 5. [Down the line, ][we find ][that ][the ][same ][issue has also ][been]decided [against ][the ][Revenue ][by ][various ][High ][Courts ][i'e'']the [Bombay ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ] by TECIINOLOGIES [LTD., ][VS. ] OF INCOME [TAX & ][OTHERS2' ][Gauhati ][High ][Court in the ][case]of RAM [vs' ] [OF INDIA3' ][Punjab ][and]Haryana [High ][Court in the ][case ][of JATINDER ][SINGI{ ] vs. uNION [oF ][INDIA4, ][and ][Telangana ][High ][court ][in ][the ][case ][of]SRI VENKATARAMANA [VS. ] COMMISSIONER [Ol'INCOME ] [where ][the ][issue ][was ][in]respect [of ][interrrational ][taxation, Bombay ][High court ][in ][the case ][of]ABHIN [vs' INCOME ] [OFFICER']INTERNATIONAL [which is ][again on ][international]taxation [and ][central ][circle' ][High Court of Himachal ][Pradesh ][in ][the]case of [vs' ] [OFFICER?']Gujarat [High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ] 'lzoz+1464 [430 ][(Bom)]' tY"- [irzozil ]'' -- [1 ][56 ][taxmann'com ][478 ][(Gauhati)l]I 15 [(Punjab ][& ][Haryana)l]" [(2024) [165 ][taxmann.com]'i)ozql' [,fi ][taxmann.com ][411 ][(Telangana)l]"izoz+\ [166 ][taxmann.com 679 ][(Bombay)l]'i;i;;l [iZ;;;;;; ][;"'" ][r ][r ][3 ][(H ][iqachar ][Pradesh)l] I DAHYABHAI RADADIYA .rAX vs. INCOME OFFICER,WARD 3(3X5)8, Jharkand High Courr in the case of SHyAMvs. INCOME OFFICER,WARD 3(3X5)8, Jharkand High Courr in the case of SHyAMSUNDAR SAW vs. UNION OF INDIAe, Rajasthan High Courr inthe case o1- SHARDA DEVI CHHAJER vs. TNCOME TAXOFFICER & ANOTIIER and barch of writ petitionsro whichthe case o1- SHARDA DEVI CHHAJER vs. TNCOME TAXOFFICER & ANOTIIER and barch of writ petitionsro whichstood decided on 19.03.2024. Similar views have also been takenby the Division Bench of Calcutta High Couft in the case ofGIRDHAR by the Division Bench of Calcutta High Couft in the case ofGIRDHAR GOPAL DALMIA vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS(M.A.T 1690 of 2023), decided on25.09.2024.vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS(M.A.T 1690 of 2023), decided on25.09.2024. 6. Even though the same issue having been decided by a largenumber of High Courts, we are still confronted with large filing ofidentical matters on daily basis ranging between 5 to l0 writpetitions. That upon the instructions being sought liom theDepartment, lhey have been taking a solitary ground that thedecision of the Bombay High Court in the case of l{exawqreTechnologies Ltd., (2 supra) as also the one which has beendecided by this Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddyt2O2+ SCC online Guj 4012' [2025 ]SCC Online Jhar 2g7'o7zo23 [: ]RI-JD :4984-DBl n 6. Even though the same issue having been decided by a largenumber of High Courts, we are still confronted with large filing ofidentical matters on daily basis ranging between 5 to l0 writpetitions. That upon the instructions being sought liom theDepartment, lhey have been taking a solitary ground that thedecision of the Bombay High Court in the case of l{exawqreTechnologies Ltd., (2 supra) as also the one which has beendecided by this Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddyt2O2+ SCC online Guj 4012' [2025 ]SCC Online Jhar 2g7'o7zo23 [: ]RI-JD :4984-DBl n (1 supra) [has ][boen ][subjected ][to ][challenge ][in ][a ][Special ][Leave]Petition [i.e., ] [No'3574 ][of ][2024 ][before the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme]Court [and the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Court ][is ][seized ][of ][the ][matter']In addition, [there are ][about ][1200 SLPs also ][frled arising out ][ofthe]same [issue ][being ][decided ][by ][various High Coutts']7. To a [query being ][put ][to ][the learned counsel ][for ][the Revenue']they have [categorically ][accepted ][the ][fact ][that ][there ][is ][no ][interim]order [granted ][by ][the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Court ][in ][any ][of ][these]matters [pending ][befbre ][it' ][Meanwhile' fresh ][writ ][petitions ][of]identical [nature are ][being piled ][up before ][this ][Bench ][on ][daily ][basis]and the [pendency ][is ][getting ][increased ][on matter ][which ][otherwise]hasalreadybeendealtanddecidedbythisveryHighCourtitself.8. On the [one hand, even though the ][order ][of ][this ][Court ][that]was [passed ][as ][early ][as ][on ][14'09'2023 and ][more ][16 months ][have]till [date, ][we ][do ][not find ][any remedial ][steps ][having ][been]lapsed, taken [by ][the Income 1'ax Department ][to ][take ][appropriate steps ][to]either [hold ][back issuance ][of ][notice ][under Section ][148,{ ][and ][under]Section [148 ][of ][the ][Act ][by ][the ][jurisdictional ][Assessing ][Offrcer']rather th[e ][authorities ][concerned ][in ][the teeth ][of ][series ][of ][decisions] by all the major High courts in India are continuousry still initiating proceedings under Section 14gA of the Act and alsoinitiating proceedings under Section 14g of the Act incontravention to the amendments brought into the Income Tax Actpursuant to the Finance Act,2O2O as also the Finance Act202l.9' upon a query being put as to why can,t this wr.it petition bedisposed of rn the teeth of the decision rendered by this Court inthe case of lt-anakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra), leamed StandingCounsel for the Income Tax Department contends that those wouldunnecessarily burden the Income Tax Department where theywould be required to fire 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 Courl and the fact that the petitioner is already enjoyingthe beneht of interim protection. Nonetheless, on the earlier queryof this Court as to why the Income Tax Department have not comeout with a mechanism to issueappropriate instructions or to take appropriate [steps ][in ][ensuring that proceedings ][under Section ][148,{]of the [Act ][as ][also the ][assessment ][orders ][under Section ][148 ][of ][the]Act are [kept ][in ][a ][hold ][in the ][light ][ofthe ][decisions dedcided ][by ][the]various [High ][Courts, ][it ][was ][submitted ][by ][the ][learned ][Standing]Counsel [that ][the said ][steps can ][only ][be ][taken ][at ][the ][level ][of ] as any [such ][steps ][would ][have ][to ][be ][taken ][Pan India and ][cannot ][be]limited [to ][any ][of ][these ][jurisdictional ][High Courts'] appropriate [steps ][in ][ensuring that proceedings ][under Section ][148,{]of the [Act ][as ][also the ][assessment ][orders ][under Section ][148 ][of ][the]Act are [kept ][in ][a ][hold ][in the ][light ][ofthe ][decisions dedcided ][by ][the]various [High ][Courts, ][it ][was ][submitted ][by ][the ][learned ][Standing]Counsel [that ][the said ][steps can ][only ][be ][taken ][at ][the ][level ][of ] as any [such ][steps ][would ][have ][to ][be ][taken ][Pan India and ][cannot ][be]limited [to ][any ][of ][these ][jurisdictional ][High Courts'] 10. [As ][a ][result ][of ][which' ][what ][we ][are ][facing ][is ][steep increase ][of]litigation [day ][in ][and ][day ][out ][even ][though various ][orders ][have been]passed [by ][this ][High ][Court ][allowing ][writ ][petitions ][on ][the very ][same]issue. [The ][Income Tax authorities concemed ][are ][still ][even ][now ][in]2025 [also ][initiating ][proceedings ][in ][contravention ][to ][the provisions]of Section [1514. ][of ][the ][Act ][and ][as a ][result ][by now' ][more ][than 600]to 700 [petitions ][have been already ][got ][piled ][up ][before this ][High]Court on [an issue ][which ][otherwise ][stands ][squarely ][covered ][by ][the]judgment of this Court [in ][the ][case ][of ][Kanakala Ravindra ][Reddy](1 supra). [What ][is ][also surprising ][is ][the fact that ][though ][while]allowing [the ][writ ][petitions ][in ][the ][case ][of ][Kanakala ][Ravindra]Reddy (l supra), [the ][Division ][Bench ][while ][reseruing the ][right ][of]the Revenue, [has ][also protected ][the ][interest ][of ][the ][petitioners] insofar as the liberty which was granted to the Revenue forinitiating fr,:sh proceedings strictly in accordance with the amendedprovisions of the Act, as amended by the Financ e Act,2020 and,the 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, thev hays been still sticking on to the stand, which thisHigh Court ar; well as many other High Courts already held to bebad. 11. It appears that because ofthe aforesaid liberty that this HighCourt had gra.nted permitting the Revenue for initiating tieshproceedings as a one_time measure in a faceless rnanner, theIncome Tax Department wants to take advantage of the same byprotracting thesr: proceedings which would enable them to meet thelimitation that would otherwise come in the way. Likewise, if thewrit petition is l,:ept 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 ][otherwrse]protected [in ][favour ][of ][the ][Revenue ][for ][initiation ][of ][fiesh]proceedings [from ][the ][disposal of ][these ][matters ][at ][a ][much ][later ][stage]which [would ][be ][advantageous and ][beneficial ][to ][the ][Revenue ][and]would [be ][equally ][disadvantageous and ][detrimental ][so ][far ][as ][interest]of the [assesses ][are ][concemed' As ][a ][consequence' ][the Income Tax]Department [gets ][an ][extended ][period ][of ][time ][for ][initiation ][of ][fresh]proceedings. Department [would ][get ][the advantage ][of ][the ][liberty ][that is ][otherwrse]protected [in ][favour ][of ][the ][Revenue ][for ][initiation ][of ][fiesh]proceedings [from ][the ][disposal of ][these ][matters ][at ][a ][much ][later ][stage]which [would ][be ][advantageous and ][beneficial ][to ][the ][Revenue ][and]would [be ][equally ][disadvantageous and ][detrimental ][so ][far ][as ][interest]of the [assesses ][are ][concemed' As ][a ][consequence' ][the Income Tax]Department [gets ][an ][extended ][period ][of ][time ][for ][initiation ][of ][fresh]proceedings. 12. [The alarming ][trend ][of ][docket ][explosion ][in ][this Court' ][despite]the clear [precedent ][set\n ][Kanakala ][Ravinilru ][Reddy ][1l ][supra)' ][is ][a]matter [of ][grave ][concern' ][The ][Income Tax Department's ][persistent]initiarion [of ][fresh ][proceedings, disregarding ][the ][estabtished ][judicial]pronouncements, [has led ][to ][an unprecedented surge ][in ][litigation]with over [600-700 ][petitions ][piling up on ][the ][same ][issue' This]deliberate [approach ][not ][only ][undermines ][the ][principle ][ofjudicial]precedent [but ][also strains ][the ][judicial ][resources ][unnecessarily' ][The]Department's [strategy ][of ][awaiting ][the ][Supreme ][Court's decision ][on]SLPs [while ][continuing ][to ][initiate fresh ][proceedings]pending appears [to ][be ][a ][calculated ][move ][to ][buy ][time ][and ][circumvent]limitation [periods, rather ][than ][adhering ][to ][the ][established legal] position. Such conduct raises serious questions about theadministratrve efficiency and the respect for judicialpronouncements, particularly when this Court has already provideda balanced ,rpproach by preserving both the Revenue,s rights andassesses interests. i3.Another aspect which needs to be considered is that in fact itshould have been realized by the Income Tax Department itself andshould have found out via media in ensuring that proceedingsunder Sections l4g_A and l4g should not have been issued in al-aceless rnanrrer' at reast tiil the Hon'ble Supreme court decide thetwelve hundred (1200) odd SLps which it is already seized ofor, atleast the Incc,me Tax Department should have fbund out someremedial steps to ensure that wherever the authorities intend toinitiate proceedings under Sections l4g_A and l4g, other than in afaceless manner, the proceedings shourd have been deferredwithout 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 very same issue.This again, the [ncome Tax Department, has not been able to give aconvincing reply, except for the fact that such a decision if at all l! i , lii .,] l! i , lii .,] 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 Delhi [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]Courl [resulting ][in ][filing ][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 ][Department' ][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 bylssulncontinuously [under ][Sections ][148-A ][and] 148 through the jurisdictional Assessing Officer whereas it oughtto have been only in the faceless manner. 14. In the case of BANK OF INDIA vs. ASSISTANTCOMMISSIONER, INCOME TAXI r, on an issue whether it wasjustifiable on the paft of the Income Tax Deparlment 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 tr4r. [paridwara ]has righry drawn out attention to thedecision cf this Court in Commissioner of lncome Tax vs. Smt.Godavaridevi Sarafr2 as also the recent decision of the co_ordinate Bench of this Court in Samp Furniture (p) Ltd. v. lTOr3of which one of us (Justice G.S. Kulkarni) was a membel whereinthe cou( categoricary observed that the Revenue having not"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 forr;e. Referring to the decision of the Supreme Court inUnion of lndia vs. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd.1a, theCourt observed lhat the approach of the officials of Revenue oftreating de()isions being,,not acceptable', was criticized by theSupreme Oourt. ln such decision, following are the relevantobservations made by the Supreme Court. t,t,1y2}.21) I70 ra,<mann.com 422 (Bombay)lI70 ra,<mann.com 422 (Bombay)l '' | 19781 I l3 ITt{ 589 lBombay) " L20241 165 taxmann.com 5g l/300 Taxman452(Bomb 'o llgeZl taxmann.com 16/55ELT 433 (SC) -_-l i '1 t,t,1y2}.21) I70 ra,<mann.com 422 (Bombay)lI70 ra,<mann.com 422 (Bombay)l '' | 19781 I l3 ITt{ 589 lBombay) " L20241 165 taxmann.com 5g l/300 Taxman452(Bomb 'o llgeZl taxmann.com 16/55ELT 433 (SC) -_-l i '1 "6. Sri Reddy [is ][perhaps ][right ][in ][saying ][that ][the]officers [were ][not ][actuated ][by ][any mala fides ][in]the [impugned ][orders' ][They ][perhaps]passing felt [that ][the ][claim ][of the ][assessee ][was not]genuinely 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 ][correetness ][or]otherwise [of ][their ][conclusion ][or ][of ][any ][factual]malafides [but with the fact ][that ][the officers' ][in reaching]in their [conclusion, by-passed ][two ][appellate orders ][in]regard to [the ][same issue ][which ][were placed ][before]tnem, 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 [officers ][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]quasiiudicial [issues before ][them' ][revenue officers 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 ][jurisdiction ][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 the [appellate ][authority ][is ][not ]["acceptable" to]the department - [in ][itself ][an ][obiectionable 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] I rule is not followed, the result will only be undueharassment to assesses and chaos in administrationof tax laws.of tax laws. 12We have dealt with this aspect at some length,because it has been suggested bythe learnedAdditional Solicitor General that theobservationsmade by the High Court, have been harsh on theofficers. It is clear that the observations of the HighCo.rrt, seemingly vehement, and apparenflymade by the High Court, have been harsh on theofficers. It is clear that the observations of the HighCo.rrt, seemingly vehement, and apparenflyunpalatable to the Revenue, are only intended to curba t-.ndency in revenue matters which, if allowed tobecome widespread, could result in considerableharassment to the assesses-public without any benefltto the Revenue. We would like to say that thea t-.ndency in revenue matters which, if allowed tobecome widespread, could result in considerableharassment to the assesses-public without any benefltto 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 kept in mind in future and the utmost regardshoLrld be paid by the adjudicating authorities and theappr:llate authorities to the requirements of judicialdiscipline and the need for giving effect to the ordersof the higher appellate authorities which are bindingon them."of the higher appellate authorities which are bindingon them." 15. What is worrying this Bench more is the fact that anendeavour is being made whole heartedly 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 standthat the action of the Income Tax Department being violative of the a Finance [Act,2020and Finance ][Act'2021' Now' ][in order ][to protect]the interest [of ][the Revenue ][as also ][that ][of the ][assessee' ][it ][would ][be]trite at [this juncture, ][if ][we ][dispose ][of ][the ][writ ][petition ][with ][an]observation/direction [that ][the ][disposal ][of ][the ][instant ][writ ][petition ][in]terms [of ][the ][judgment ][rendered ][by this High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]Kankanala [Ravindra ][Reddy ][(l ][supra) shall ][however ][be ][subject ][to]the outcome [of ][the ][SLPs ][which were ][f,rled ][by ][the ][Income Tax]Department [and ][which ][is ][pending consideration before ][the ][Hon'ble]Supreme [Court'] 16. In [the ][given tacts and ][circumstances' ][this ][Bench ][is ][of ][the]considered [opinion ][that ][unless ][and ][until ][we ][do ][not ][timely ][dispose]of matters [which ][are ][squarely covered ][by ][the decision ][of ][this ][Court]and which [stands ][fortitied ][by ][the ][decisions ][of ][the various ][other]Courts [on ][the very ][same ][issue' ][the pendency ][of ][this High]High Court [would ][further ][be burdened ][which ][otherwise ][can ][be ][decided]and disposed [of ][as ][a ][covered matter'] So far far [[as ][the ][interest ]][[the ][interest ]][[interest ]][[of ][the ][Revenue ][is ][concerned' we are ][of]][[the ][Revenue ][is ][concerned' we are ][of]][[Revenue ][is ][concerned' we are ][of]][[is ][concerned' we are ][of]][[concerned' we are ][of]] 17 . So far far [[as ][the ][interest ]][[the ][interest ]][[interest ]][[of ][the ][Revenue ][is ][concerned' we are ][of]][[the ][Revenue ][is ][concerned' we are ][of]][[Revenue ][is ][concerned' we are ][of]][[is ][concerned' we are ][of]][[concerned' we are ][of]]the considered [opinion ][that ][the interest of ][the Revenue ][has ][already]been considered [and ][protected, ][as ][has been ][observed ][in ][paragraphs] 36,37 and -18 ofthe order which, for ready reference, is reproducedhereunder: 36r. For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned notlcesissued and the proceedings drawn by the respondent_D(,partment 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 impugnedorders getting quashed, the consequential orders passedby the respondent-Department pursuant to lhe noticesissued under Section [.147 ]and 14g would also getquashed and it is ordered accordingly. The reason weare quashing the consequential order is on the principlesthal when the initiation of the proceedings itself wasprocedurally wrong, lhe subsequent orders also getsnull fied 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 getting quashed on the point ofjurisrJiction, we are not inclined to proceed further anddecirje the other issues raised by the petitioner whichstands reserved to be raisedand contended in anappr,:priate proceedings. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the caseof AshishAgarwal, supra, as a one{imemeasureexercisingthe powers under Article 142of theConstitution of lndia, permitted the Revenue to proceedunder the substituted provisions, and this Court allowingthe petitions only on the procedural flaw, the right conferred [on ][the ][Revenue ][would ][remain ][reserved ][to]further [if ][they ][so want from ][the ][stage ][of ][the]proceed order of [the ][Supreme ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ][Ashish]Agarwal, [suPra.] Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the caseof AshishAgarwal, supra, as a one{imemeasureexercisingthe powers under Article 142of theConstitution of lndia, permitted the Revenue to proceedunder the substituted provisions, and this Court allowingthe petitions only on the procedural flaw, the right conferred [on ][the ][Revenue ][would ][remain ][reserved ][to]further [if ][they ][so want from ][the ][stage ][of ][the]proceed order of [the ][Supreme ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ][Ashish]Agarwal, [suPra.] 18.We would [only ][fufther ][like ][to ][make ][observations that ][since]we are [inclined ][to ][dispose ][of ][the instant ][writ ][petition' ][conscious ][of]the fact [that ][the ][earlier order ][of ][this High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]Kanakala [Rsvindr(t ][Reddy ][(l ][supra) ][is ][subjected ][to ][challenge]before [the Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Court ][in ] [No ][3574 ][of ][2024']preferred [by ][the ][tncome ][Tax Department' ][we ][make ][it ][clear that]allowing [of ][the ][instant ][writ ][petition ][is ][subj ][ect ][to ][outcome ][of ][the]aforesaid [SLP preferred ][by ][the Revenue ][against ][the decision ][of ][this]Court [in ][the ][case ][of ][Kanakala Ravindru ][Reddy ][(l ][sltpta)']High This, [in ][other words, ][would ][mean ][that ][either ][of ][the ][parties' ][if ][they]so want, [may move an ][appropriate ][petition ][seeking ][revival of ][this]writ [petition in ][the ][light ][of ][the ][decision ][of ][the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme]Court [in ][the ][pending SLP on the very ][same issue'] 19.Accordingly, [the ][instant ][writ ][petition ][stands ][allowed ][in]favour of [the ][assessee ][so][ far ][as ][the ][issue ][of ][jurisdiction ][is]concemed. [As ][a ][consequence, ][the ][impugned ][notice ][under]challenge [under Sections ][148-4 ][and ][148 stands ][set aside/quashed'] i The conse,quential orders, if any, also stand set aside/quashed insimilar tenns as have been passed by this High Court in the case of Kankanqro. Ravindra Reddy (r supra). There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closecl DEpuwsD/RtG:SlffiH / & //TRUE COPY// To, sEcTtoN OFFICER'l . The lncome Iax OffirB h a wa n o p p L s, :l::'y* "',1 [:ffiiHfltiifiH,iJ{{:1.1$'ffi ][l: ][izi; ][f,?#:' ]r. ^ [xiw ]r ne [g"1'f ]Principal comn [l'TI; ][& ][y1: %:,,' ].[i ][x,'fi ][ts3lt ][3I; ][il; ][I::;},f, ][j;l ][",i:T,".i ] [g:ilil:]';, pJ{^3,Li: [{t'rx;n+iffi'F;*1fl.'e,,, ]l Hil ff :6. Two CD Copi,:sBIVbJP sEcTtoN OFFICER q HIGH COURT DATED:28104t2025 /,:1::.:,:,]....\-/.,.1- ,' ,: -,i -/a'' .:''- -. ' JL-ii. '1-.-,, '.,.:,,,/.': '.)2 0 sEP 2025,<-,\-_:ORDER WP.No.1970 of 2025 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS