> And The Subsequent Initiation Of Proceedings Under Section L4G Of v. Income-Tax Offi(]Er Decided On 14.09.2023 Whereby A Batch Of Writ Petitions Wele Allowed And The Proceedings Initiated Under Sect

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF APRILTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION NO: 33503 OF 2024 Between: PRIMARY AGRICUTURAL CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIIVIITED,GUDIHATHNOOR, Rep. by the CEO KENDRE PANDARI, S/o- RATANHARIKENDARE, Aged about 44 years, Occupation- Business, R/o-GUDIHATHNOOR P, GUDIHATHNOOR IU, GUDIHATHNOOR, ADILABAD504001, Telangana, lndia. PAN- , Assessment Year- 2O19-2O ...PETITIONER AND 1The lncome Tax Officer Ward 1, Adilabad/, Adilabad, Hyderabad, Adilabad,Hyderabad, Hyderabad 504106, Telangana.Hyderabad, Hyderabad 504106, Telangana. 2The Principal Chief Commissioner of lncome Tax, Telangana and A.P,Hyderabad, lT Towers, AC Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad [- ]500028,Telangana.Hyderabad, lT Towers, AC Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad [- ]500028,Telangana. The Central Board of Direct Taxes, Represented by [its ]Chairman, Departmentof Revenue, tvlinistry of Finance, Government of lndia, Secretariat Buildings,New Delhi - 1 10 001 .of Revenue, tvlinistry of Finance, Government of lndia, Secretariat Buildings,New Delhi - 1 10 001 . 4. The National Faceless Assessment Center, lncome Tax Department, NewDelhi.Delhi. 5. The Union of lndia, Represented by its Secretary to the Government,Department of Revenue, Ivlinistry of Finance, New Delhi [- ]110 001.Department of Revenue, Ivlinistry of Finance, New Delhi [- ]110 001. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia [praying ]that [in ][the]circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be [pleased]to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more [particularly ]one in the [nature ][of]Writ of Mandamus, declaring the order [passed ]by the lncome Tax Authorities(National Faceless E-Assessment Centre) completed the assessment U/S 147r.w.s 144 read with section 1448 of the Income-tax Act Date of 17-02-2024, ITBA/AST/S/14712023-2411061063862(1) for the Assessment Year 2019-20determining the total income of Rs. 3,06,43,206/-. as arbitrary, [illegal, bad ][in ][law,]without [jurisdiction, ]void-ab-initio, violative of the [principles ]of natural [justice ]apart from being violative of Articles 1a, t9(iXg) and 265 of the ()onstitution of lndia andSec. ['148A ]of the lncome Tax Act, 1961, and consequenfly set aside the same inthe interests of justice lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the c ircumstances stated rnthe affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased tosuspend the order Under section 147r.w.s 144 read with section t i+B or tnelncome{ax Act Date of 17-02-2024, DtN ITBAiAST/st14712023-24/1061063862(i)for the Assessment Year 2019-20 determining the total incorne of Rs 3,06 43,206i-and Demand notice u/s 156 of the lncome Tax act 196i, ride DIN & Notice No-|rBA/AST/5/15612023- 24t106106387s(j) Dt- 17-o2-2o24lo.the assessment year2019-20 pendinlt disposal of the above Writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRt. THANNERU CHA|TANYA t(UMAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: Ms. J SUNITHA counsel for the Respondent No.5: sRr B. MUKHERJEE RE.PRESENTING FoRSRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR DY. SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRT JUSTICE NARSING RAONANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION No.33503 OF 2024 OBDEB, (per Hon'ble Sri Justice [p.Sam ]Koshy) Heard Mr.Thanneru Chaitanya Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms.J.Sunitha, leamed Junior Standing Counselfor the Income Tax Department for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 andMr. B. Mukherjee, leamed counsel representing the Union of Indiafor respondent No.5. Perused the record. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRt. THANNERU CHA|TANYA t(UMAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: Ms. J SUNITHA counsel for the Respondent No.5: sRr B. MUKHERJEE RE.PRESENTING FoRSRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR DY. SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRT JUSTICE NARSING RAONANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION No.33503 OF 2024 OBDEB, (per Hon'ble Sri Justice [p.Sam ]Koshy) Heard Mr.Thanneru Chaitanya Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms.J.Sunitha, leamed Junior Standing Counselfor the Income Tax Department for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 andMr. B. Mukherjee, leamed counsel representing the Union of Indiafor respondent No.5. Perused the record. 2. This is a writ petition where the proceedings are eitherchallenged to the notices which were issued under Section l4gAand 148 of the Income Tax Act, 196l (for short [.the ]Act,) or theassessment orders those have been passed under Section 147 ofthe Act which have been assailed. 3This writ petition is being taken up today only on one of thegrounds, that the notices issued under Section l48A of the Actgrounds, that the notices issued under Section l48A of the Actand the subsequent initiation of proceedings under Section l4g ofthe Act by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, whereas in rermsof the amendment that was brought to the Income Tax Act by wayof the amendment that was brought to the Income Tax Act by way of Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f., 01.04.2021 onwards, proceedingsunder Section l48A of the Act as also under Sectirn 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 ofthat the issue ofissue ofofproceedings being in violation of the Finance Act,2021 i.e., theimpugned notices under Section 148,{ and Section 148 of the Actnot being issued in a faceless manner, have already treen dealt withand decided by this Court in the case of KANKANALARAVINDRA REDDY vs. INCOME-TAX OFFI(]ER| decidedon 14.09.2023 whereby a batch of writ petitions wele allowed andthe proceedings initiated under Section 148A as also under Section148 of the Act were held to be bad with consequential reliefs on theground of it being in violation of the provisions of Section l51A ofthe Act read with Notification 1812022 dated29.O3.2t)22. The saidjudgment passed by this Court has also been subsequt:ntly followedin a large number of writ petitions which were allov,ed on similarterms. The contention contention of the petitioner the petitioner petitioner is that the issue ofthat the issue ofissue ofof '[(2023) 56 taxruann.com [178 ][(Telangana)]] 5. Down the [ine, we find that the same issue has also beendecided against the Revenue by various High Courts i.e.,by the Bombay High Court in the case of HEXAWARETECI{NOLOGIES LTD., vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX & OTHERS2, Gauhati High Court in the caseof RAM NARAYAN SAH vs. UNION OF INDIA3, Punjab andHaryana High Court in the case of JATINDER SINGH BANGUvs. UNION OF INDIA4, and Telangana High Court in the case olSRJ VENKATARAMANA REDDY PATLOOLA [VS. ]DEPUTYCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX5 where the [issue ][was ][in]respect of international taxation, Bombay High Court [in ]the [case ]ofABHIN ANTLKUMAR SHAH VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER,INTERNATIONAL TAXATION6 which is again on [intemational]taxation and central circle, High Court of Himachal [Pradesh ][in ][the]case of GOVIND SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERT,Gujarat High Court in the case of MANSUKHBHAI '1zoz+1464 [430 ][(Bom)]'[(2024) [156 ][taxmann.com 478 ][(Gauhati)]]'[(2024) [156 ][taxmann.com 478 ][(Gauhati)]] ' [(2024) [165 ][taxmann.com ][1 ] [5 ][(Punjab ][& ][Haryana)]] ' 12024) [167 ][taxmann.com ][4l ] [(Telangana)l] " [2024) [166 ][taxmann.com ][679 ][(Bombay)]] '12024) [165 ][taxmann.com ] [l3 ][(Himachal ][Pradesh)l] '1zoz+1464 [430 ][(Bom)]'[(2024) [156 ][taxmann.com 478 ][(Gauhati)]]'[(2024) [156 ][taxmann.com 478 ][(Gauhati)]] ' [(2024) [165 ][taxmann.com ][1 ] [5 ][(Punjab ][& ][Haryana)]] ' 12024) [167 ][taxmann.com ][4l ] [(Telangana)l] " [2024) [166 ][taxmann.com ][679 ][(Bombay)]] '12024) [165 ][taxmann.com ] [l3 ][(Himachal ][Pradesh)l] DAHYARHAI RADADIYA vS. INCOME TAK OFFICE&WARD 3(3X5)8, Jharkand High Court in the case of SIIYAMSUNDAR SAW vs. UNION OF INDIAe, Rajasthar lligh Court inthe case [,cf ]SHARDA DEVI CHHAJER vs. INICOME TAXOFFICER & ANOTHER and batch of writ pe,itionsro 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 III{DIA & ORS(M.A.T 1690 o12023), 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 rnatters on daily basis ranging between 5 to 10 writpetitions. That upon the instructions being sought fiom theDepartment, they have been taking a solitary grrund that thedecision of the Bombay High Court in the case of HexawareTechnologies Ltd., (2 supra) as also the one wtrich has beendecided by this Court in the case of Kunakala Ravindra Reddy szozq scc online Guj 40 I 2'2025 [Online ][Jhar287]' o 72023 [: ] [-JD ][: ][4984-DB ]l (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 leamed 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, fiesh 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 1484, and underSection 148 of the Act by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer,rather the authorities concemed in the teeth of series of decisions by all the major High Courts in India are corrtinuously stillinitiating proceedings under Section l48A of the Act and alsoinitiating proceedings under Section t48 of the Act incontravention to the amendments brought into the Income Tax Actpursuant tc the Finance Act,2020 as also the Financr: Act202l . 9. Upon a query being put as to why can't this rvrit petition bedisposed of in the teeth of the decision rendered br this Court inthe case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra), leirmed StandingCounsel for the Income Tax Department contends that those wouldunnecessarily burden the Income Tax Department where theywould be required to file equal number of SL Ps belore theHon'ble Suprerne Court and it would be further burdening theexchequer of the Union of India. It was also the co rtention of theleamed Standing Counsel that no prejudiee would bt: caused to theinterest of the petitioners in case ilthis writ petition is kept pendingtill the finalization of the SLPs pending before the Hon'bleSupreme [(lourt ]and the fact that the petitioner is already enjoyingthe benefit of interim protection. Nonetheless, on th: earlier queryof this Court as to why the Income Tax Department rave not comeout with a mechanism to issue appropriate instructicns or to take l.l l.l appropriate steps in ensuring that proceedings under Section l48Aof the Act as also the assessment orders under Section 148 of theAct are kept in a hold in the light of the decisions dedcidedbythevarious 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. 10. As a result of which, what we are facing is steep increase oflitigation day in and day out 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 l5lA 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(1 supra). What is also surprising is the fact that though whileallowing the writ petitions in the case of Kanakala RavindraReddy (l supra), the Division Bench while reserving the right ofthe Revenue, has also protected the interest of the petitionersI) insofar as the liberty which was granted to th: Revenue forinitiating fresh proceedings strictly in accordance with the amendedprovisions of the Act, as amended by the Finance Act, 2020 andthe Finance Act,202l. The petitioner assessee wou d be entitled tochallenge or raise the other tegal objections if the R:r'cnue initiatesinitiating fresh proceedings strictly in accordance with the amendedprovisions of the Act, as amended by the Finance Act, 2020 andthe Finance Act,202l. The petitioner assessee wou d be entitled tochallenge or raise the other tegal objections if the R:r'cnue initiatesfresh proceedings. The Department has made no endeavour inavailing the said liberty that was reserved for the Rr:venue. On thecontrary, they have been still sticking on to the st;rncl, which thisHigh Court as well as many other High Courts alrr:ady held to bebad.availing the said liberty that was reserved for the Rr:venue. On thecontrary, they have been still sticking on to the st;rncl, which thisHigh Court as well as many other High Courts alrr:ady held to bebad. 1 l. It appears that because of the aforesaid libert'y that this HighCourt had granted permitting the Revenue for initiating freshCourt had granted permitting the Revenue for initiating freshproceedings as a one-time measure in a facele:rs manner, theIncome T'ax Department wants to take advantage tf thc same byprotracting these proceedings which would enable them to meet thelimitation that would otherwise come in the way. l-ikewise, if thewrit petition is kept pending for a considerable lon€ 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 rvhich the SLPs are still pending, the Income TaxIncome T'ax Department wants to take advantage tf thc same byprotracting these proceedings which would enable them to meet thelimitation that would otherwise come in the way. l-ikewise, if thewrit petition is kept pending for a considerable lon€ 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 rvhich the SLPs are still pending, the Income Tax Deparlment would get the advantage of the liberfy that is otheruriseprotected in favour of the Revenue for initiation of freshprotected in favour of the Revenue for initiation of freshproceedings fiom the disposal ofthese matters at a much later stagestagewhich would be advantageous and beneficial to the Revenue andwould be equally disadvantageous and detrimentar so far as interestof the assesses are concemed. As a consequence, the Income TaxDepartment gets an extended period of time for initiation of freshproceedings.would be equally disadvantageous and detrimentar so far as interestof the assesses are concemed. As a consequence, the Income TaxDepartment gets an extended period of time for initiation of freshproceedings. 12. The alarming trend of docket explosion in this Court, despite the clear precedent set in Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (1 supra), is amatter of grave concem. 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 appioach 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 questiorLs about theadministrative efficiency and the respect for judicialpronouncements, parlicularly when this Court has already provideda balanced approach by preserving both the RevenrLe's rights andassesses lnterests. 13. Another aspect which needs to be considered il; that in fact itshould have been realized by the Income Tax Departrtent itselfandshould ha"'e found out via media in ensuring tha. proceedingsunder Sections 148-4 and 148 should not have been issued in afaceless manner, at least till the Hon'ble Supreme Court decide thetwelve hunrlred (1200) odd SLPs which it is already s:ized of or, atleast the Income Tax Department should have found out someremedial steps to ensure that wherever the authorilies intend toinitiate proceedings under Sections 148-A and 148, other than in afaceless manner, the proceedings should have b:en 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 aconvrnclng reply, except for the fact that such a decision if at all has to be taken, has to be taken for the whole oflndia, and whichotherwise has to be by way of a policy decision and that too at thelevel of Central Board of Direct Taxes. Though the leamedStanding Counsel for the Income Tax Department contended thatthe Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition of similar nature, onthe one hand when the High Court is struggling to reduce itspendency, such notices which are under challenge in this writpetition are forcing the assessee to knock the doors of this HighCourt resulting in filing of hundreds of new wrir petitions which inthe long run not only affects the disposal of the writ petitions butalso consumes substantial time of the Bench in hearing thesematters again and again on daily basis. Admittedly, in spite of thematter before the Hon,ble Supreme Court having been taken onmany occasions, the Hon,bre Supreme court which is seized of thematter has been reluctant in granting any interim protection to theIncome Tax Department. yet, the authorities concerned at theState level are not ready to accept the verdict passed by a majorityof High Courts of different States on the same issue; and to makethings further worse, the Income Tax Department is showingaudacity by issuing notices continuously under Sections I4g-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. .{SSISTANTCOMMISSIONER, INCOME TAXIr, on an issue rvhether it wasjustifiable on the part of the Income Tax Deprrrtrnent in notfollowing an order passed by the adjudicating authority only on theground that the appeals are pending, the DivisiorL Bench of theHigh Court of Bornbay held at paragraph No.25 as under, r.iz., : "25. Mr. Paridwalla has rightly drawn out atter tion 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) ttd. v. lTO13of 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 rtean that tillthe same is set aside in a manner known to law, it world loose itsbinding force. Referring to the decision of the Suprene Court inUnion of lndia vs. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd.'4, theCourt observed that the approach of the officials of Revenue oftreating decisions being "not acceptable" was criticzed by theSupreme Courl. ln such decision, following are lhe relevantobservations made'by the Supreme Court. " 1i:0zs; [[70 ][taxmann.com 422 ][(Bornbay)]]12 1t0781 I 13 ITR 589 (Bombay) t1 lztlz+1 I 65 taxmann.com 581/300 Taxman 452 (Bomba-,-) 'o llOgZl [taxmann.com ][16155 ] [433 (SC)] " 1i:0zs; [[70 ][taxmann.com 422 ][(Bornbay)]]12 1t0781 I 13 ITR 589 (Bombay) t1 lztlz+1 I 65 taxmann.com 581/300 Taxman 452 (Bomba-,-) 'o llOgZl [taxmann.com ][16155 ] [433 (SC)] "6. Sri Reddy is perhaps right in saying that theofficers were not actuated by any mala fides inpassing the impugned orders. They perhapsgenuinely felt that the claim of the assessee was nottenable and that, if it was accepted, the Revenueofficers were not actuated by any mala fides inpassing the impugned orders. They perhapsgenuinely felt that the claim of the assessee was nottenable and that, if it was accepted, the Revenuewould suffer. But what Sri Reddy overlooks is that weare not concerned here with the correctness orotherwise of their conclusion or of any factualmalafides but with the fact that the officers, in reachingin their conclusion, by-passed two appellate orders inregard to the same issue which were placed beforethem, one of the Collector (Appeals) and the other ofthe Tribunal. The High Court has, in our view, rightlycriticized this conduct o{ the Assistant Collectors andthe harassment to the assessee caused by the failureof these officers to give effect to the orders ofauthorities higher to them in the appellate hierarchy. ltcannol be too vehemently emphasized that it is ofutmost importance that, in disposing of thequasijudicial issues before them, revenue officers arebound by the decisions of the appellate authorities.The order of the Appellte Collector is binding on theAssistant Collectors working within his [jurisdiction ]andthe order of the Tribunal is binding upon the AssistantCollectors and the Appellate Collectors who functionunder the iurisdiction of the Tribunal. The [principles ]ofjudicial discipline require that the orders of the higherare not concerned here with the correctness orotherwise of their conclusion or of any factualmalafides but with the fact that the officers, in reachingin their conclusion, by-passed two appellate orders inregard to the same issue which were placed beforethem, one of the Collector (Appeals) and the other ofthe Tribunal. The High Court has, in our view, rightlycriticized this conduct o{ the Assistant Collectors andthe harassment to the assessee caused by the failureof these officers to give effect to the orders ofauthorities higher to them in the appellate hierarchy. ltcannol be too vehemently emphasized that it is ofutmost importance that, in disposing of thequasijudicial issues before them, revenue officers arebound by the decisions of the appellate authorities.The order of the Appellte Collector is binding on theAssistant Collectors working within his [jurisdiction ]andthe order of the Tribunal is binding upon the AssistantCollectors and the Appellate Collectors who functionunder the iurisdiction of the Tribunal. The [principles ]ofjudicial discipline require that the orders of the higherappellate authorities should be followed unreservedlyby the subordinate authorities. The mere fact that theorder of the appellate authority is not ["acceptable" ]tothe department - in itself an objectionable [phrase ]-and is the subject matter of an appeal can furnish noground for not following it unless its operation hasbeen suspended by a competent court. [lf ]this healthyby the subordinate authorities. The mere fact that theorder of the appellate authority is not ["acceptable" ]tothe department - in itself an objectionable [phrase ]-and is the subject matter of an appeal can furnish noground for not following it unless its operation hasbeen suspended by a competent court. [lf ]this healthy rule is not followed, the result will only be :ndueharassment [o assesses and chaos in adminis rationof tax laws. rule is not followed, the result will only be :ndueharassment [o assesses and chaos in adminis rationof tax laws. 12 We have dealt with this aspect at some |,rngth,because it has been suggested by the le arnedAdditional Solicitor General that the observationsmade by the High Court, have been harsh cn theofficers. lt is clear that the observations of th€ HighCourt, seemingly vehement, and app€ rentlyunpalatable to the Revenue, are only intended tr curba tendency in revenue matters which, if allor,r ed tobecome widespread, could result in considr:rableharassment to the assesses-public without any t enefltto the Revenue. We would like to say that thedepartmenI should take these observations i1 theproper spirit. The observations of the High Courtshould be kept in mind in future and the utmosl regardshould be paid by the adjudicating authorities and theappellate authorities to the requirements of jUdicialdiscrpline and the need for giving effect to the ordersof the higher appellate authorities which are b ndingon them." 15. What is worrying this Bench more is thr: lact that an endeavour is being made whole heartedly to ensure not to generatelurther litrgation on issues which have been laid to rest by a largenumber oi Hiqh Courts all of whom have taken a consistent standlurther litrgation on issues which have been laid to rest by a largenumber oi Hiqh Courts all of whom have taken a consistent standthat the ac,tion of the Income Tax Department being violative of the l Finance Act,2020 and Finance Act,202l. Now, in order to proteclthe interest of the Revenue as also that of the assessee, it would betrite at this juncture, if we dispose of the writ petition 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 tothe outcome of the SLPs which were filed by the Income TaxDepartment 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 fortifled 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 concemed, we are ofthe considered opinion that the interest of the Revenue has alreadybeen considered and protected, as has been observed in paragraphs 36,37 anc 38 ofthe order which, for ready reference, is reproducedhereunder 36. For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugnec noticesissued and the proceedings drawn by the rest)ondent-Depadment rs neither tenable, nor susiarnableThe notrces so issued and the procedure adopterd beingoer se illegal, deserves to be and are accordilgly setaside/quashed. As a consequence, all the inrpugnedcrders getting quashed, the consequential orders passedby the respondent-Department pursuant to the noticesssued under Section 147 and 148 would also getquashed and it is ordered accordingly. The reeson we,are quashing the consequential order is on the principles:hat when the initiation of the proceedings itself wasorocedurally wrong, the subsequent orders atso getsnullified automatically. 37. The preliminary objection raised by the peti:ioner is:;ustained and all these writ petitions stands allcwed onlhis very .iurisdictional issue. Since the impugned noticesand orders are getting quashed on the point ofjurisdiction, we are not inclined to ilroceed fu(her anddecide the other issues raised by the petitioner whichr;tands reserved to be raised and contendec in anappropriate proceedings. 37. The preliminary objection raised by the peti:ioner is:;ustained and all these writ petitions stands allcwed onlhis very .iurisdictional issue. Since the impugned noticesand orders are getting quashed on the point ofjurisdiction, we are not inclined to ilroceed fu(her anddecide the other issues raised by the petitioner whichr;tands reserved to be raised and contendec in anappropriate proceedings. 38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in fl.re caseof Ashish Agarwal, supra, as a one-time nteasureexercising the powers under Article 142 of the()onstitution of lndia, permitted the Revenue lo proceedunder the substituted provisions, and this Court rrllowingthe petitions only on the procedural flaw, the right l\ ..1 confered on the Revenue would remain reserved toproceed furlher if they so want from the stage of theorder of the Supreme Court in the case of AshishAgarwal, supra.order 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 earrier order of this High court in the case ofKanakala Ravindra Reddy (l 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 instant 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. I9. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands allowed infavour of the assessee so far as the issue of jurisdictionlsconcemed. As a consequence, the impugned notice underchallenge under Sections 148-A and 14g stands set aside/quashed t I I t I The consrquential orders, if any, also stand set aside/quashed in similar terms as have been passed by this High Court in the case ofKankanalu Ravindra Reddy (l supra). There shall be no order asto costs Consequcntly, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed ,,=ilHSREERAMA SD/. K SREERAMA MURTHYGISTRAR,,=ilHSREERAMA OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, '1 . The lncome Tax Officer Ward 1, Adilabad/, Adilabad, l-lyderabad, Adilabad,Hyderabad, Hyderabad 5041 06, Telangana.Hyderabad, Hyderabad 5041 06, Telangana. 2. The Principal Chief Commissioner of lncome Tax, Telzngana and [A.P,]Hyderabad, lT Towers, AC Guards, l\rlasab Tank, Hyderabad - 500028,Telangana.Hyderabad, lT Towers, AC Guards, l\rlasab Tank, Hyderabad - 500028,Telangana. 3. The Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes, Departntent of Revenue,Ministry cf Finance, Government of lndia, Secretariat Eiuildings, New Delhi [-]110001.Ministry cf Finance, Government of lndia, Secretariat Eiuildings, New Delhi [-]110001. 4. The National Faceless Assessment Center, lncome Tu x Department, NewDelhi.Delhi. 5. The Secretary to the Government, Department of Revt:nue, Ministry ofFinance, New Delhi - 110 00'1 .Finance, New Delhi - 110 00'1 . 6. One CC to SRI. THANNERU CHAITANYA KUIVIAR Alvocate 7. One CC to lr/s. J SUNITHA Advocate 8. One CC to Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar, Deputy Solicitor [(ieneral ]of lndia ITwo CD [,3opres]KKS GJP I .l HIGH COURT DATED:2810412025 ORDERWP.No.33503 of 2024 c1r'fHE [s]i4la.-,,.')ra11 st? 20fi],rl-,:/,o ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITIONWITHOUT COSTS@)riollq