And Sec 14Ba Of The Income Tax Act, 'R G61, And To Consequenry Set Aside Thesame In The Interests Of Justiceiano:1O F 2024 v. A. Siva Kartikeya

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF APRILTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDAWRIT PETITION NO: 30063 OF 2024 Between: lt/r Venkatesham Survi, S/o. Mr. Ramulu Survi, aged 49 years, Occ..Business, R/o.4-9-37'1, RTC Colony, Hayathnagar, Rangareddy - 501 505 ...PETITIONER AND 1. Assessment Unit, lncome Tax.Department, National e-Assessment Center,New Delhi, Room No.. 401,2n" Floor, E-Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium,New Delhi - 1 10 003.New Delhi, Room No.. 401,2n" Floor, E-Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium,New Delhi - 1 10 003. 2. The lncome Tax Officer, Ward 9(1), Hyderabad, l.T. Tower, AC Guards,Masab Tank, Hyderabad - 500 004, TelanganaMasab Tank, Hyderabad - 500 004, Telangana 3. The Principal Chief Commissioner of lncome Tax, Andhra Pradesh andTelangana, Hyderabad, Room No. 922, 9th Floor, 'B' Block, l.T.Towers,10-2-3, AC Guards, Hyderabad - 500 004, Telangana. Telangana, Hyderabad, Room No. 922, 9th Floor, 'B' Block, l.T.Towers,10-2-3, AC Guards, Hyderabad - 500 004, Telangana. ...RES,ONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court rnay becircumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court rnay bepleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order orDirection, declaring that. a. the order passed by the ['lst ]Respondent, uls 147 rlwSec. 144 riw Sec. 1448 of the lncome Tax Act, 1961, dated 1910212024 bearingDIN and Notice No.. ITBA/AST/S/14712023-2411061 108155(1), for theAssessment Year 2016-17 and b. consequential penalty orders passed by the 1"tRespondent, levying penalties u/s 271(1 )(c) and 271F ol the lncome Tax Act,1961,dated 2710812024 and 2710812024, bearing DlN.Sec. 144 riw Sec. 1448 of the lncome Tax Act, 1961, dated 1910212024 bearingDIN and Notice No.. ITBA/AST/S/14712023-2411061 108155(1), for theAssessment Year 2016-17 and b. consequential penalty orders passed by the 1"tRespondent, levying penalties u/s 271(1 )(c) and 271F ol the lncome Tax Act,1961,dated 2710812024 and 2710812024, bearing DlN.|TBNPNLIFt2Tl(1)(c)t2o2a-25l1068035838(l) & ITBA/PNLtFt271Ft2O24-2511068063040(1), respectively, for the Assessment Year 2016 - 17 as arbitrary,illegal, bad in law, void-ab-initio, violative of the principles of natural justice, apartillegal, bad in law, void-ab-initio, violative of the principles of natural justice, apartfrom being violative of Articles 14, 19(1Xg) and 265 of the Constitution of lndia and sec 14BA of the Income Tax Act, 'r g61, and to consequenry set aside thesame in the interests of justiceIANO:1O F 2024 Petition under section i 5i cpc praying that in the circumstances statedin the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased tostay all further proceedings, incruding any recovery, pursuant to u/s .r4g of theAct, dated 28.03.2023, issued by the 2nd Respondent, vide DIN & Notice.lrBA/AST/s/1 48 -1 /2o22-23r 10s14486 i 6(1 ), for the Assessment year 20 16-1r,pending disposal of the above Writ petition Counsel for the petitioner: SRl. A. V. A. SIVA KARTIKEYA Counsel for the Respondents: Ms.BOKARO SAPNA REDDy (Jr. SC FoR tNcOME TAx) The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE [SRI JUSTICE P.SAM ] ANDTHE HONOURABLE NANDIKONDA WRTT PETITION No.3[ OO63 ][of2024] SBDEB' [(per ][Hon'ble ][Sri ][Justice ][P.Sam ][Koshv)] Heard Mr. A.V.A.Siva [Karlikeya, ][leamed counsel ][for ][the]petitioner and Ms. [B.Sapna ][Reddy, ][learned ][Junior ][Standing]Counsel for the [Income ][Tax ][Department ][for ][the ][respondents']Perused the record. Counsel for the petitioner: SRl. A. V. A. SIVA KARTIKEYA Counsel for the Respondents: Ms.BOKARO SAPNA REDDy (Jr. SC FoR tNcOME TAx) The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE [SRI JUSTICE P.SAM ] ANDTHE HONOURABLE NANDIKONDA WRTT PETITION No.3[ OO63 ][of2024] SBDEB' [(per ][Hon'ble ][Sri ][Justice ][P.Sam ][Koshv)] Heard Mr. A.V.A.Siva [Karlikeya, ][leamed counsel ][for ][the]petitioner and Ms. [B.Sapna ][Reddy, ][learned ][Junior ][Standing]Counsel for the [Income ][Tax ][Department ][for ][the ][respondents']Perused the record. 2. This is a writ [petition ][where ][the ][proceedings ][are ][either]challenged to the [notices ][which ][were ][issued ][under ][Section ][148,4.]and 148 of the [Income Tax ][Act, ][1961 ][(for ][short ]['the ][Act') ][or the]assessment orders [those have ][been ][passed ][under Section ][147 ][o1']the Act which have [been assailed.] i. i. This writ petition [is ][being taken ][up ][today ][only ][on one of the]grounds, that the notices issued [under Section ][148,{ ][of ][the ][Act]and the subsequent initiation [of ][proceedings ][under Section ][148 ][of]the Act by the [jurisdictional ][Assessing ][Officer, ][whereas ][in ][terms]of the amendment that [was ][brought to ][the ][Income ][Tax ][Act ][by ][way]of Finance Act, [2021 ][w.e.f., ][01.04'2021 onwards, ][proceedings] under Section 148,{ of the Act as also under Section 14g of theAct ought to have also been issued and proceeded in a facelessmanner.4. The contention of the petitioner is that the issue olproceedings being in violation of the Financ e Act, 2021 i.e., theimpugned notices under Section 148A and Section 14g 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 decideclon 14.09.2023 whereby a batch o1. writ petitions were allowed andthe proceedings initiated under Section 14gA as also under Section148 of the,,\ct were held to be bad with consequential reliefs on theground of it being in violation of the provisions of Section l5 1A ofthe Act read with Notification lB/2022 dated,29.03.2022. The saidjudgment passed by this Court has also been subsequently followedin a large number of writ petitions which were allowed on similarterms. ' [(2023) [56 ]taxmann.com 178 (Telangana)] 5. Down the [line, we ][find ][that ][the ][same ][issue has ][also ][been]decided against [the ][Revenue ][by ][various ][High ][Courts i'e'']by the Bombay [High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ] TECHNOLOGIES [LTD', ][VS. ] OF INCOME [& ][OTHERS2, ][Gauhati ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case]of RAM NARAYAN [vs' UNION ] [INDIA3' ][Punjab ][and]Haryana High [Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ] vs. UNION OF [INDIA4, ][and ][Telangana ][High Courl in ][the ][case ][of]SRI VENKATARAMANA [VS. ] COMMISSIONER [where the ][issue ][was ][in]respect of international [taxation, Bombay ][High ][Court in the ][case ][of]ABHIN ANILKUMAR [VS. ] [OFFICER,]INTERNATIONAL [which ][is ][again on ][international]taxation and [central circle, ][High ][Court ][of ][Himachal ][Pradesh ][in ][the]case of GOVIND [vs' ] [OFFICERT']Gujarat High [Courl ][in ][the ][case ][of ] 'lzoz+1464 [430 ][(Bom)]' iQOzq [156 ][taxmann.com ][478 ][(Gauhati)l]^l(2024) [165 ][taxmann.com ][115 ][@unjab ][& ][Haryana)l]'12024) [167 ][taxmann.com ][41 ][1 ][(Telangana)l]" [2024) [166 ][taxmann.com ][679 ][(Bombay)] ]. . .-'izoaqi [165 ][taxmann'corn ][113 ][(Himachal ][Pradesh)l] DAHYABHAT RADADIYA vs. INCoME TAx OFFICER,WARD 3(3X5)8, Jharkand High Court in the case of SHyAMSUNDAR SAW vs. UNION OF INDIAe. Rajasthan High Courl inOFFICER,WARD 3(3X5)8, Jharkand High Court in the case of SHyAMSUNDAR SAW vs. UNION OF INDIAe. Rajasthan High Courl inthe case of SHARDA DEVI 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 ofGIRDHAR GOPAL DALMIA vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS(M.A.T 1690 of 2023), decided on 25.09.2024.6. Even though the same issue having been decided by a large(M.A.T 1690 of 2023), decided on 25.09.2024.6. 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 10 writpetitions. ['Ihat ]upon the instructions being sought from theidentical matters on daily basis ranging between 5 to 10 writpetitions. ['Ihat ]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 HexawareTechnologies Ltd., (2 supra) as also the one u,hich has beendecided by this Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddv 8202+ SCC Online Guj 4012'2025 Online lhar287'o [p2oz3 ][t ] [:49 ][84-DBl] (1 supra) has been [subjected ][to ][challenge ][in ][a ][Special ][Leave]Petition i.e., SLP [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 ][filed ][arising ][out ][ofthe]same issue being [decided ][by ][various ][High ][Coutts]7 . To a query being [put ][to the ][leamed 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 [before ][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]has alreatly been [dealt ][and ][decided ][by ][this ][very ][High ][Court itself']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]lapsed, till date, [we do not ][hnd ][any ][remedial ][steps ][having ][been]taken by the Income [Tax ][Department ][to ][take appropriate ][steps ][to]either hold back [issuance ][of ][notice under Section ][148,4. ][and ][under]Section 148 of [the ][Act ][by ][the jurisdictional ][Assessing ][Officer']rather the authorities concerned [in ][the teeth ][of ][series ][of ][decisions] by all the major High Courts in India are continuousiy stillinitiating proceedings under Section 148A of the Act and alsoinitiating proceedings under Section 148 of 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 Kantkala Ravindra Reddy (l supra), learned StandingCounsel fol the Income Tax Depaftment contends that those wouldunnecessarily burden the Income Tax Department where theywould be required to file equal number of SLPs before theHon'ble Suprerne Courl and it would be further burdening theexchequer of the Union of India. It was aiso 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 Coud 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 mechanism to issue appropriate instructions or to take appropriate steps in ensuring that [proceedings ][under Section ][i48A]of the Act as also the assessment [orders under ][Section ][148 ][of ][the]Act are kept in a hold in the [light ]ofthe [decisions ][decided by ][the]varlousHigh Courts, it was submitted by [the ][leamed ][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]timited 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 Couft allowing [writ ][petitions ][on the ][very ][same]issue. The Income Tax authorities [concerned are ][still ][even ][now in]2025 also initiating [proceedings ][in ][contravention ][to ][the provisions]of Section I 5 1A 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 Courl in the case of Kanakala Ravindra [Reddy](l 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 ][reserving ][the right ][of]the Revenue, has also protected the [interest ][of ][the ][petitioners] insofar as the liberty which was granted to the Revenue forinitiating liesh proceedings strictly in accordance rvith the amendedprovisions of the Act, as amended by the Financ e Act, 2020 andthe Finance Act, 2021. The petitioner assessee would be entitled tochallenge or raise the other legal objections if the Revenue initiatesfresh proceedings. The Departrnent has made no endeavour inavailing the said liberty that was reserwed for the Revenue. On thecontrary, they have been still sticking on to the stand, which thisHigh Cour-t as well as many other High Courls already held to bebad. 11. It appears that because ofthe aforesaid liberty that this HighCourt had granted permitting the Revenue for initiating freshproceedings as a one-time measure in a faceless manner, theIncome Tax Depaftment wants to take advantage of the same byprotracting these proceedings which would enable them to meet thelimitation that would otherwise cnme in the way. Likewise, if thewrit petition is kept pending for a considerable long period of timeand finally at a later stage if the Flon,ble Supreme Court confirmsthe decision taken by this High Court as also by the other HighCourtsin which the SLPs are still pending, the Income Tax 1\-1 would [get ][the ][advantage ][of the ][libefty ][that ][is ][otherwise]Department in favour' of [the ][Revenue ][for ][initiation ][of ][fresh]protected proceedings from the [disposal ][ofthese ][matters ][at ][a ][much ][later ][stage]which would be [advantageous ][and ][beneficial ][to ][Jhe ][Revenue ][and]wouldbeequallydisadvantageousanddetrimentalsofaraSinterestof the assesses are [concerned. ][As ][a consequence, ][the Income Tax]Department [gets ][an extended ][period ][of ][time ][for initiation ][of ][fresh]ploceedings. 1\-1 would [get ][the ][advantage ][of the ][libefty ][that ][is ][otherwise]Department in favour' of [the ][Revenue ][for ][initiation ][of ][fresh]protected proceedings from the [disposal ][ofthese ][matters ][at ][a ][much ][later ][stage]which would be [advantageous ][and ][beneficial ][to ][Jhe ][Revenue ][and]wouldbeequallydisadvantageousanddetrimentalsofaraSinterestof the assesses are [concerned. ][As ][a consequence, ][the Income Tax]Department [gets ][an extended ][period ][of ][time ][for initiation ][of ][fresh]ploceedings. 12. The alarming [trend of ][docket ][explosion in ][this ][Court, ][despite]the clear precedent [set ][in ][Kanskala Ruvindra ][Reddy ][(l ][supra), ][is ][a]matter of grave concern. [The Income ][Tax ][Department's persistent]initiation of fresh [proceedings, ][disregarding ][the ][established ][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 of judicial]precedent but also [strains ][the ][judicial ][resources ][unnebessarily' The]Department's strategy [of ][awaiting the ][Supreme ][Court's decision ][on]pending SLPs while [continuing ][to ][initiate fresh ][proceedings]appears to be a'calculated [move ][to ][buy ][time ][and ][circumvent]limitation periods, rathel than [adhering ][to ][the ][established ][legal] position. Such conduct raises serious questions about theadministrative efficiency and the respect for judicialpronouncements, particularly when this Court has already provideda balanced approach by preserving both the Revenue's rights andassesses lnterests. 13. Another aspect which needs to be considered is that in fact itshould have been realized by the Income Tax Deparlment itself andshould have found 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 Court decide thetwelve hundred (1200) odd SLps which it is alreadl, seized ofor, atleast the Income Tax Department should have fbund out someremedial steps to ensure that wherever the authorities intend toinitiate proceedings under Sections 14g-A and l4g, other than in afaceless manner, the proceedings should 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 Income Tax Department, has not been able to give aconvincing reply, except for the fact that such a decision if at allI 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 ][leamed]Standing Counsel [for ][the ][Income ][Tax ][Department ][contended that]the Delhi High [Courl ][dismissed ][a ][writ ][petition ][of ][similar nature' ][on]the one hand [when ][the ][High ][Court ][is ][struggling ][to ][reduce ][its]such [notices ][which ][are under ][challenge ][in ][this ][writ]pendency, are [forcing the ][assessee ][to ][knock ][the doors ][of ][this ][High]petition Court 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 ][Couft ][having ][been taken ][on]many occasions, [the ][Hon'ble ][Suprerne ][Court ][which ][is seized ][of ][the]matter has been [reluctant ][in ][granting any ][interim ][protection to ][the]Income Tax [Deparlment. ][Yet, ][the ][authorities ][concemed ][at ][the]State level [are ][not ][ready ][to ][accept ][the ][verdict ][passed ][by ][a ][majority]Courts [of ][different ][States ][on ][the ][same ][issue; and ][to ][make]of High 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 whereas it oughtto have been only in the faceless tnanner. 14. In the case of BANK OF INDIA vs. ASSISTANTCOMMISSIONER, INCOME TAXrl, on an issuc whether it wasjustifiable on the part 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. Itilr. Paridwalla has righfly drawn out attention to thedecision of this Court 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. lTOr3of which one of us (Justice G.S. Kulkarni) was a member, whereinthe Court categorically 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 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. ',t,1120251 [170 raxmann.co ]m 422 (Bornbay)l ',t,1120251 " 119781 l3 ITR 589 (Bombay)" 119781 l3 ITR 589 (Bombay) " 1202+116-5 [taxmann.com ]5gl/300 l-axman 452 (Bombay) Ia TtOlZltaxmann.com 16i55 ELT 433 (SC)TtOlZltaxmann.com 16i55 ELT 433 (SC) ',t,1120251 [170 raxmann.co ]m 422 (Bornbay)l ',t,1120251 " 119781 l3 ITR 589 (Bombay)" 119781 l3 ITR 589 (Bombay) " 1202+116-5 [taxmann.com ]5gl/300 l-axman 452 (Bombay) Ia TtOlZltaxmann.com 16i55 ELT 433 (SC)TtOlZltaxmann.com 16i55 ELT 433 (SC) "6. Sri Reddy is [perhaps ][right ][in ][saying ][that ][the]officers were [not ][acluated ][by any ][mala ][fides ][in]passing the impugned [orders. ][They ][perhaps]genuinely felt that the [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]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]them, one of [the Collector ][(Appeals) and ][the other ][of]the Tribunal. [The ][High ][Court ][has, ][in our ][view' ][rightly]criticized this [conduci 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]quasijudicial 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 ][jurisdiction ][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 ][ob.iectionable ][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. 12We have dealt with this aspect at some length,because it has been suggested bythb learnedAdditionat Solicitor General that theobservationsmade by the High Court, have been harsh on themade by the High Court, have been harsh on theofficers. lt is clear that the observations of the HighCourt, seemingly vehement, and apparen yunpalalable to the Revenue, are only intended to curba tendency in revenue matters which, if allowed tounpalalable to the Revenue, are only intended to curba tendency in revenue matters which, if allowed tobecome widespread, could result in considerableharassment to the assesses_public without any benefitto the Revenue. We would like to say that theto 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 theshould be kept in mind in future and the utmost regardshould be paid by the adjudicating authorities and theappellate authorities to the requirements of judicialdiscipline and the need for giving effect to the ordersof the higher appellate authorities which are bindingon them."discipline and the need for giving effect to the ordersof the higher appellate authorities which are bindingon them." 1 5 ' 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 largefurther litigation on issues which have been laid to rest by a largenumber of High Courts all of whorn have taken a consistent standthat the action of the Income Tax Department being violative of thewhorn have taken a consistent standthat the action of the Income Tax Department being violative of the ,) Finance Acr,2020 [and ][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 disposat ][of the ][instant ][writ ][petition ][in]terms of the [judgment ][rendered ][by ][this ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]Ktnkanala Ravindra [Redcly ][(l ][supra) ][shall however ][be subject ][to]the outcome of [the ][SLPs ][which were ][hled ][by the ][Income ][Tax]Deparlment and [which ][is ][pending consideration ][before ][the ][Hon'ble]Supreme Court. 16. In the [given ][facts ][and ][circumstances, ][this ][Rench ][is ][of ][the]considered opinion [that ][unless and ][until we ][do ][not ][timely ][dispose]ol tnatters which [are ][squarely covered ][by the decision of this Court]and which stands [fortified ][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'] 11. So far as the [interest ][of ][the Revenue ][is ][concemed, ][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 ancl38 ofthe order which. for ready reference, is reproducedhereunder: 36. For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned noticesissued and the proceedings drawn by the respondent_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 impugnedorders getting quashed, the consequential orders passedby the respondent-Department pursuant to the noticesissued under Section 147 and 14g would also getquashed and tt is ordered accordingly. The reason weare quashing the consequential order is on the principlesthat when the initiation 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 getting quashed on the point ofjurisdiction, we are not inclined to proceed further anddecide the other issues raised by the petitioner whichstands reserved to be raisedand contended rn anappropriate proceedings. 38. Since the Hon,ble Supreme Court had, in the caseof Ashish Agarwal, supra, as a one-time measureexercising the powers under Article 142 of theConstitution of tndia, 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]proceed further if they [so ][want ][from the ][stage ][of ][the]order of the [Supreme ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of Ashish]Agarwal, suPra. 38. Since the Hon,ble Supreme Court had, in the caseof Ashish Agarwal, supra, as a one-time measureexercising the powers under Article 142 of theConstitution of tndia, 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]proceed further if they [so ][want ][from the ][stage ][of ][the]order of the [Supreme ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of Ashish]Agarwal, suPra. 18. We [would only ][further ][like to ][make obserwations ][that ][since]we are inclined [to ][dispose ][of ][the ][instant ][writ ][petition' ][conscious ][of]the fact that [the ][earlier order ][of ][this ][High Courl ][in ][the ][case ][of]Kanakula [Ravindra Reddy ][(l ][supra) ][is ][subjected ][to ][challenge]betbre the [Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Courl ][in ][SLP No'3574 ][of ][2024']preferred by the [Income ][Tax Department, we ][make ][it ][clear ][that]of [the ][instant ][writ ][petition ][is ][subject ][to ][outcome ][of ][the]atlowing aforesaid SLP [preferred by ][the ][Revenue against the decision ][ofthis]HighCourtinthecaseofKanakalaRavindraReddy(|supra).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"] tnlg. Accordingly, [the ][instant ][writ ][petition ][stands ][allowed]favouroftheassesseesofarastheissueofjurisdictionISconcemed. [As' ][a ][consequence, ][the ][impugned ][notice ][under]challenge [under Sections ][148-4 and ][148 ][stands set ][aside/quashed'] tI \I To, The consequential orders, if an1., also stand set aside/quashed insimilar tenrs as have been passed by this High Court in the case of Kankanakt Ravintlra Redtty (l supra). There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/.K.BHAVANI ASSISTANT seG)dilorrrcen //TRUE COPY// 1. The Assessment [Unit. ][lncome ][Tax ][Department' ][National ][e-Assessment]Center. New Dethi, [noom'"ltlt'"aO1"Z"n ][-'f ][toor' E-Ramp' ][Jawaharlal ][Nehru]Stadium, New [[Delhi ][- ][110 ]][[- ][110 ]][[110 ]][[003.]][ [Guards']][[Guards']]Center. New Dethi, [noom'"ltlt'"aO1"Z"n ][-'f ][toor' E-Ramp' ][Jawaharlal ][Nehru]Stadium, New [[Delhi ][- ][110 ]][[- ][110 ]][[110 ]][[003.]][ [Guards']][[Guards']] Stadium, New [[Delhi ][- ][110 ]][[- ][110 ]][[110 ]][[003.]]2 The lncome [Tax ][Officei,-ifTira ][O(!, ][Hyderabad' ] [T' ][Tower' ][ [Guards']][[Guards']]- Masab Tank, Hyderabad - 500 004, Telangana- Masab Tank, Hyderabad - 500 004, Telangana3. The Principal [Chief ][comir-lisoner ][of ][licome-Tax' ][Andhra ][Pradesh ][and]Telanoana. HvOeraoaa]' [Roorn ][-flo ][g22' ],glh [Floor' ]['B' ][Block ][l ][T Towers']10-2-i, AC [[Gu-ards, ]][[Hyderabad ]][- 500 ][004 ][l ][elangana']Telanoana. HvOeraoaa]' [Roorn ][-flo ][g22' ],glh [Floor' ]['B' ][Block ][l ][T Towers']10-2-i, AC [[Gu-ards, ]][[Hyderabad ]][- 500 ][004 ][l ][elangana'] 10-2-i, AC [[Gu-ards, ]][[Hyderabad ]][[l ][elangana']][[elangana']]4 o;; cc i" [snl ][n-'v. ][p,. ][SrvA-rnarlKEYA, ][Advbcate ][toPUCl]5. one cc [to ] [eoKAn'ii" ][sni'ilA ][nEoov ][(Jr' ][sc'FoR ][iNCoME ][TAx)]toPUCl5. one cc [to ] [eoKAn'ii" ][sni'ilA ][nEoov ][(Jr' ][sc'FoR ][iNCoME ][TAx)]toPUCl 6. Two CD [CoPies] BMfl&BSrl ) HIGH COURT DATED:2910412025 ORDER WP.No.30063 of 2024 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITIONWITHOUT COSTS fle-t[>\]60 '-i I \^1 I-,/.,J2 5 AUE 2025)(oC.rp".,-,.;-n [1-]