Counsel For The Petlitioner: Sri A v. A. Siva Kartikeya

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENry FOURTH DAY OF APRILTWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION NO: 7051 OF 2025 Between: Mt. Satyanarayana ReddyPedapothu, S1o Mr Malla Reddy pedapothu, aged99 [years,.Occ. ][Retired'Goverhment Emptoyee, ][Rlo. ][2d-28, ][e'Oula ]butj,Miryalaguda, Nalgonda - 508 2OT,Telangana' ...PETITIONER AND 1The Incgme Tax Officer, Ward - 15(1), Hyderabad, IT Towers, AC Guards,Masab Tank, Hyderabad - S00 004, ielairganaMasab Tank, Hyderabad - S00 004, ielairgana 2Assessment Unit, lncome Tax Department, National e-Assessment Center,New Delhi, Rqo-n1 !o. 401,2nd Flbor, E-Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium,New Delhi - 110 003New Delhi, Rqo-n1 !o. 401,2nd Flbor, E-Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium,New Delhi - 110 003 JThePrincipal Commissioner of lncome Tax - 4, Hyderabad, l.T.Towers, -[.10-2-]3, AC Guards, Hyderabad - 500 004, Telangana 3, AC Guards, Hyderabad - 500 004, Telangana ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may bepleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order orDirection, declaring a. the order passed u/s 14BA(d) of the lncome Tax Act, 1961,dated 05.04.2G23, bearing DtN and Notice No. |TBA/AST/F/148N2023-2411051884570(1), by the 1st Respondent, for the Assessment year 2O1g - 20 b.the notice issued u/s 148 of the lncome Tax Act, 1961, dated 06.04.2023, bearingDIN and Notice No ITBA/AST/S/148_1I2023- 24t1O51909O46(i), by the 1stRespondent, for the Assessment Year 2019 - ZO as arbitrary, illegal, bad in law,void-ab-initio, violative of the principles of natural justice apart from being violativeof Articles 1a, 19(1)(g) and 265 of the Constitution of lndia and Sec. 14BA of the lncome Tax Act, 11161 , and consequently set aside the samr: in the interests [of]justice. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition uncer Section 151 CPC praying that in the circtmslances stated inthe affidavit filec ir :;trpport of the [petition, ]the High Court ma)/ be [pleased ]to stayall further proceeclings, including any recovery, [pursuant ]to the nrtice issued u/s'148 of the lnconre far Act, '1961, dated 06.04.2023, bearing I)lN ,and Notice No.:ITBA/AST/S/148_ll2(t?-3- 2411051909046(1), by the ['1st ]Respr ndent, for theAssessment Yearr 2'l1t) - 20, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petlitioner: SRI A. V. A. SIVA KARTIKEYA Counsel for the Restr,ondents: MS. BOKARO SAPNA REDDY(Jr. Sc FOR INGOME TAX) The Court made the lbllowing: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAONANDIKONDA W.P.No.705l OF 2025 ORDER, [(per ]Hon'ble Sri Jusrice P.Sam Koshy) Heard Mr. A.V.A.Siva Kartikeya, leamed counsel for the petitioner and Ms. B.Sapna Reddy, learned Junior StandingCounsel for the Income Tax Department for respondent Nos.land 3. Perused the record.and 3. Perused the record. 2. This is a writ petition where the proceedings are eitherchallenged to the notices which were issued under Section 148,4.and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') or theassessment orders those have been passed under Section 147 ofthe Act which have been assailed. 3. This virit petition is being taken up today only on one ofthegrounds, that the notices issued under Section 148,4' of the Actand the subsequent initiation ofproceedings under Section 148 ofthe Act by the jurisdictional Assessing Ofhcer, whereas in termsof the amendment that was brought to the Income Tax Act by wayof Finance Act,202l w.e.f., 01.04.2021 onwards, proceedings 2. This is a writ petition where the proceedings are eitherchallenged to the notices which were issued under Section 148,4.and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') or theassessment orders those have been passed under Section 147 ofthe Act which have been assailed. 3. This virit petition is being taken up today only on one ofthegrounds, that the notices issued under Section 148,4' of the Actand the subsequent initiation ofproceedings under Section 148 ofthe Act by the jurisdictional Assessing Ofhcer, whereas in termsof the amendment that was brought to the Income Tax Act by wayof Finance Act,202l w.e.f., 01.04.2021 onwards, proceedings under Seclicn [l48A ][of ][the ][Act ][as ][also ][under Section ][148 ][of ][the]Act ought [to ][ltiure ][also been issued and proceederl ][in ][a ][fli.ceiess]manner.4. The [,;ontt:ntion ]of [the ][petitioner ][is ][thal ][the ][irsue ][of]proceedinlls [tr,: ][ng ]['n ][violation ][of ][the Finance AcL ][202 ][t ][i'e', ][the]impugned [n,tlices under ][Section ][l48A ][and ][Section ][l4tJ ][of ][the ][Act]notbeingjssu<xlinafacelessmanner,havealreadybeendealtwithand decide,l [lry ][this ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ][KANKII'NALA]RAVINDR,\ [VS. ][INCOME.TAX ] RI ][dCCidCd]on 14.09.?102 [i ][,r'hereby ][a ][batch ][of ][writ ][petitions were allo'ved ][and]the [proceedinSl: ][initiated ][under Section ][l48A ][as ][also ][utrder ][Section]148 of the [.A, ][ct ]['.r ][ere ][held ][to ][be ][bad ][with ][consequential ][reliels ][on the]ground of it [L,t:irLg ][in ][violation ][of ][the ][provisions ][of ][Section ][l51A ][of]the Act [reaci ]['.r,ith ][Notification ][1812022 ][dated ][29'03'2022' ]['lhe ][said]judgment ptLsse c, by this Court [has ][also been ][subsequentlS' ][l ][cllowed]in a large [nlrrll3r ][of ][writ ][petitions ][which ][were allowed ][o| ][similar]terms. 5. Down the line, 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 HEXAWARETECHNOLOGIES LTD., vS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX & OTHERS2, Gauhati High Court in the caseof RAM NARAYAN SAH vs. UNION OF INDIA3, [Punjab ][and]Haryana High Court in the case of JATINDER SINGII BANGUvs. UNION OF INDIA4, and Telangana High Court in the case ofSRI YENKATARAMANA REDDY PATLOOLA [VS. ] COMI\ISSIONER OF INCOME TAX5 [where the issue was ][in]respect of international taxation, Bombay High Court [in ][the ][case ]ofABHIN ANILKUMAR SHAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE&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 2 lzoz+1464ITR 430 (Bom)'[(2024) [156 ][taxmann.com 478 (Gauhati)]]'[(2024) [165 ][taxmann.com ][115 ][(Punjab ][& ][Haryana)]]' [2024) [167 ][taxmann.com ][4 ] [(Telangana)]]" [2024) [166 ][taxmarur.com ][679 ][(Bombay)]]'12024) [165 ][taxmann.com ][113 ][(Himachal ][Pradesh)l] DAIfYABH,\I RADADIYA vs. TNCOME TAX OITFICER,WARD l(3)(r;)8, Jharkand High Court in the case of [(iHYAM]SUNDAR S.\'W vs. UNION OF INDIAe, Rajasthan lligh Court inthe case ol SIIARDA DEVI CHHAJER vs. INCOME TAXOFFICER ,3r ANOTHER and batch of writ petitions [0 ]whichstood decidec cn 19.03.2024. Similar views have also be,:n takenby the Diri:;ron Bench of Calcutta High Court in the case ofGIRDHAR [(;OPAL ]DALMIA vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS(M.A.T 11190 rf 2023), decided on25.09.2024.6. Eve'n ttrLrgh the same issue having been decided b...a largenumber ot'II1l r Courts, we are still confronted wirh large tiling ofidentical mllters on daily basis ranging between 5 to l0 writpetitions. t hat upon the instructions being sought fr,rm theDepartment. the.y have been taking a solitary ground [.hat ]thedecision c,f tlLt: Bombay High court in the case of. HexawareTechnologies i,td., (2 supra) as also the one whicr hiLs beendecided b.z lli:s Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy '2ozq [SCc ][oni,ire ][Guj ][4012]" [2025 ] [Onl,ine ]Ihar 287'072023: [RJ..[),1,)84-DB]]" [2025 ] [Onl,ine ]Ihar 287'072023: [RJ..[),1,)84-DB]] J (1 supra) has been subjected to challenge in a Special LeavePetition i.e., SLP No.3574 of 2024 before the Hon'ble SupremeCourt and the Hon'ble Supreme Court is seized of the matter.In addition, there are about 1200 SLPs also filed arising out ofthesame issue being decided by various High Courts. 7. To a query being put to the learned counsel for the Revenue,they have categorically accepted the fact that there is no interimorder granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in any of thesematters pending before it. Meanwhile, fresh writ petitions ofidentical nature are being piled up before this Bench on daily basisand the pendency is getting increased on matter which otherwisehas already been dealt and decided by this very High Court itself. 8. On the one hand, even though the order of this Court thatwas passed as early as on 14.09.2023 ar,d more 16 months havelapsed, till date, we do not find any remedial steps having beentaken by the Income Tax Department to take appropriate steps toeither hold back issuance ofnotice under Section 148A 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 rnajor High Courts in India are continuor rsly stillinitiating F,rr)ceedings under Section 148,4. of the Act ,tnd alsoinitiating proceedings under Section 148 of the Act incontraventir::t -o the amendments brought into the Incrtme Tax Actpursuant to tlre .rinance Act,2020 as also the Finance l\ct1).0219. Uptr .r query being put as to why can't this writ pe,tition bedisposed cl n rhe teeth ofthe decision rendered by this Court inthe case r'f A-onukala Ravindra Reddy (l supra), )eanred ttitandingCounsel f tr ttrr: Income Tax Department contends that thorre wouldunnecessaril1' burden the Income Tax Department whr.:re theywould be rt'rl.rired to file equal number of SLPs belbre theHon'ble liuprenre Court and it would be further br,rdening theexchequer c,f .ltr: Union of India. It was also the contenticn of theleamed StarLcir.lr Counsel that no prejudice would be caust:d to theinterest of ttLe petitioners in case if this writ petition is k.ept ,rendingtill the fin;rlization of the SLPs pending before the llon'bleSupreme [(lcur1 ]lnd the fact that the petitioner is already e,njoyingthe benefit c f rrterim protection. Nonetheless, on the earlir.:r queryof this Cour rls to why the Income Tax Department ha\/e n,)t comeout with a r,rr:chanism to issue appropriate instructions or to take appropriate steps in ensuring that [proceedings under ][Section ][148A]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 ][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]limited to any of these [jurisdictional ][High ][Courts.] appropriate steps in ensuring that [proceedings under ][Section ][148A]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 ][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]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 [1 ]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 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]the [Division ][Bench ][while ][reserving ][the ][right ][of]Reddy (l supra), the Revenue, has also [protected ][the ][interest ][of ][the ][petitioners] insofar irs r ir r liberty which was granted to :he Re'r enue forinitiating fiest oroceedings strictly in accordance with the amendedinitiating fiest oroceedings strictly in accordance with the amendedprovisions ol the Act, as amended by the Finance Act, 1,i020 andthe Financr' [tr':,1., ]2021. The petitioner assessee would be entitled tochallenge or I a ise the other legal objections if the Revenur, initiatesfresh proce,ectings. The Department has made;ro enderrvour inavailing t1e, :iit [(l ]liberty that was reserved for the Revenue On thecontrary, thel have been still sticking on to the stand, w rich thisHigh Court el; rvell as many other High Courts already held to bebadthe Financr' [tr':,1., ]2021. The petitioner assessee would be entitled tochallenge or I a ise the other legal objections if the Revenur, initiatesfresh proce,ectings. The Department has made;ro enderrvour inavailing t1e, :iit [(l ]liberty that was reserved for the Revenue On thecontrary, thel have been still sticking on to the stand, w rich thisHigh Court el; rvell as many other High Courts already held to bebad 11. [t a1tp,e215 that because of the aforesaid liberty that ttris HighCourt ha<l granted permitting the Revenue for initiatir g fieshproceedings I s a one-time measure in a faceless mantrer, theIncome Tirx l-lr:partment wants to take advantage of the same byprotractinp, t[1rs3 proceedings which would enable them to rrreet thelimitation Lhat rvould otherwise come in the way. Like,wis,,:, if thewrit petitic,n i; l<r:pt pending for a considerable long period of timeand finally at rr later stage if the Hon,ble Supreme Court confirmsthe decision t,rle:n by this High Court as also by the othe,r HighCourts in uhich the SLPs are still pending, the Ir,con:e Tax ! Department would get the advantage [of ][the ][liberty ][that ][is otherwise]protected in favour of the Revenue for [initiation ][of ][fresh]proceedings from the disposal of [these ][matters at ][a ][much later ][stage]which would be advantageous [and ][benehcial ][to ][the ][Revenue ][and]would be equally disadvantageous [and ][detrimental ][so ][far ][as ][interest]of the assesses are concerned. [As ][a ][consequence, ][the ][Income ][Tax]an extended [period ][of ][time ][for initiation ][of ][fresh]Department [gets ]proceedings. ! Department would get the advantage [of ][the ][liberty ][that ][is otherwise]protected in favour of the Revenue for [initiation ][of ][fresh]proceedings from the disposal of [these ][matters at ][a ][much later ][stage]which would be advantageous [and ][benehcial ][to ][the ][Revenue ][and]would be equally disadvantageous [and ][detrimental ][so ][far ][as ][interest]of the assesses are concerned. [As ][a ][consequence, ][the ][Income ][Tax]an extended [period ][of ][time ][for initiation ][of ][fresh]Department [gets ]proceedings. 12. The alarming trend [of ][docket explosion ][in ][this ][Court, ][despite]the clear [precedent ]set [in ][Kanakala Ravindra ][Reddy ][(1 ][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 ][ofjudicial]precedent but also strains [the ][judicial ][resources ][unnecessarily' 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, rather [than ][adhering ][to ][the ][established legal] ,@; position. Suurlr conduct raises serious quesr:ionsr a)out theadministlar i,.,e efficiency and the respect lor judicialpronounc ern€,r( s, particularly when this Court has already provideda balanct:d zqt:roach by preserving both the Revenut:'s rghts andassesses lnlerests. 13. Anothe r aspect which needs to be considered is that in fact itshould havt: le e,n realized by the Income Tax Departm:nt jtself andshould hin,e lound out via media in ensuring r.hat pror:eedingsunder Ser:tiors i48-A and 148 should not have been issued in afaceless nlanne r, at least till the Hon'ble Supreme Courl dr:,cide thetwelve huncrLrec (1200) odd SLPs which it is already serzed of or, atleast the Incc,rne Tax Department should have found out someremedial ;t()pri r.o ensure that wherever the authoritit:s it.Ltend toinitiate pr'oceridiogs under Sections 148-A and 148. other than in afaceless rnzlr n,r-, the proceedings should have bet:n ,leferredwithout prec ilti'.zLting the matter further intimating the assessee thatthey shall initiatr: appropriate proceedings only after the SLp,s aredecided blr itrr: Hon'ble Supreme Court on the very sam,.) issue.This again tlrr: lncome Tax Department, has not been able tr.r give aconvincinp re:ly. except for the fact that such a decision f at all :l:u*ialr! ir:- [i&'tat ]t ,; :r.i.:i!.tltttt: :l:u*ialr! ir:- [i&'tat ]t ,; :r.i.:i!.tltttt: has to be taken, has to be taken [for ][the ][whol'e ][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 ][lncome ][Tax ][Department contended ][that]the Dethi High Court dismissed [a ][writ ][petition ][of ][similar ][nature, on]the one hand [when ][the ][High ][Court ][is ][struggling ][to ][reduce ][its]pendency, such notices which are [under ][challenge ][in ][this ][writ]petition are forcing the assessee to [knock the ][doors ][of ][this ][High]Court resulting [in hling ][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 by issuing [notices ][continuously under Sections ][148-,4' ][and] 148 througr lh': [jurisdictional ]Assessing Officer whereas it oughtto have br:en ,rnlv in the faceless manner. 14. In tlir: [r)ase ]of BANK OF INDIA vs. ASSIISTANTCOMMISSIIITNER, INCOME TAXrr, on an issue whether it was'justifiable cr::he part of the lncome Tax Depart"nen:. in notfollowing an,)r(ler passed by the adjudicating authorit./ on)y on theground ttia the appeals are pending, the Division Bench of theHigh Court o1' B,ombay held at paragraph No.25 as under. r iz., : "25. \1r. Paridwalla has rightly drawn out attention to thedecis orr rf this Court in Commissioner of lncome Tax vs. t;mt.Godavarirlevi Sarafl2 as also the recent decision of the co-ordinat€' lSench of this Court in Samp Furniture (P) Ltd. v. 11 O13of whictr r;ne of us [(Justice ]G.S. Kulkarni) was a member, whe'einthe C.orrrt :ategorically observed that the Revenue having not"accecteci' :lre judgment of the High Court would not mean thert tillthe sane s [:;et ]aside in a manner known to law, it wculd loosr,) itsbinding forr e. Referring to the decision of the Supreme Cou't inUnion of lndia vs. Kamlakshi Finance Gorporation Ltd.'4, theCourt orlri,:1,ed that the approach of the officials of Rerrenur,r oftreatirrg c|:,;isions being "not acceptable" was criticizec by theSupreme C;ourt. ln such decision, following are the relevantobser'r'ations made by the Supreme Court. " 11ZOZS1 . 7r.) taxmann.com 422 (Bombay)l'2 7t91811 [l3 ][I-t ] [589 ][(Bombay)]'2 7t91811 [l3 ][I-t ] [589 ][(Bombay)] " 720241 [r55 ][ta ][> ][rnann.com 581/300 Taxman ][452 ][(Bombayl] 'o ltggZl [taxrnarr.com ][16155ELT 433 (SC)] " 11ZOZS1 . 7r.) taxmann.com 422 (Bombay)l'2 7t91811 [l3 ][I-t ] [589 ][(Bombay)]'2 7t91811 [l3 ][I-t ] [589 ][(Bombay)] " 720241 [r55 ][ta ][> ][rnann.com 581/300 Taxman ][452 ][(Bombayl] 'o ltggZl [taxrnarr.com ][16155ELT 433 (SC)] "6. Sri Reddy is perhaps .right in saying that theofficers were not actuated by any mala fides inofficers 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 intenable 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 conducl of 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. Itcannot 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 [jurisdiction ]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 objeclionable [phrase ]-and is the subject matter of an appeal can furnish noground for not following it unless its operalion hasbeen suspended by a [competent ]court. [lf ]this healthythem, one of the Collector (Appeals) and the other ofthe Tribunal. The High Court has, in our view, rightlycriticized this conducl of 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. Itcannot 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 [jurisdiction ]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 objeclionable [phrase ]-and is the subject matter of an appeal can furnish noground for not following it unless its operalion hasbeen suspended by a [competent ]court. [lf ]this healthy rui€) is not followed, the result will only be unduefarassment to assesses and chaos in administrationcf t:r laws.cf t:r laws. rui€) is not followed, the result will only be unduefarassment to assesses and chaos in administrationcf t:r laws.cf t:r laws. 12 lVe have dealt with this aspect at some lenEth,belause it has been suggested by the learredF,dc irir>nal Solicitor General that the observaticnsmade by the High Court, have been harsh on theofflcr€)rs. lt is clear that the observations of lhe HighC.oL r:, seemingly vehement, and apparelflyu rpalatable to the Revenue, are only intendec to curba te,r clency in revenue mafters which, if allowed tob,:c;r: re widespread, could result in considerableh;ar;rs s ment to the assesses-public without any benefittc tt 3 Revenue. We would like to say that thedepirt'nent should take these observations tn theproc € r spirit. The observations of the High Cc udslrculJ be kept in mind in future and the utmost regitrdsloull be paid by the adjudicating authorities and rheappel arte authorities to the requirements of judioialdi,;t;iplire and the need for giving effect to the ordersof tre higher appellate aulhorities which are bindingor) I hem." 15. Wh,at is worrying this Bench more is the lacr that anendeavoul i:,i bt:ing made whole heartedly to ensurc not to .ileneratefurther litigiLti,:n on issues which have been laid kr res,t b1 a largenumber o1 IIi11h courts all of whom have taken a consisterlt standthat the acri.r c,1'the Income Tax Department being violatir,.e of the Finance Act,2020 and Finance Act,202l. Now, in order [to protect]the interest of the Revenue [as ][also ][that ][of ][the ][assessee, ][it ][wouldbe]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 ][filed ]by [the ][Income ][Tax]Department and which is [pending consideration before the ][Hon'ble]Supreme Court. 16. In the given facts 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 fortified by [the ][decisions ][of ][the ][various ][other]High Courts on the very same [issue, ][the ][pendency ][of ][this ][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 far as the interest of the as the interest of the the interest of the of the the [[Revenue ]][[is concemed, we ][are ][of]][[are ][of]][[of]]the considered opinion that the [interest ][ofthe ][Revenue has ][already]been considered and [protected, ][as ][has ][been observed ][in ][paragraphs] So far as the interest of the far as the interest of the as the interest of the the interest of the of the the [[Revenue ]][[is concemed, we ][are ][of]][[are ][of]][[of]] 35. -<-i :"rr,:: li li -trc ';ld*,. ,vhich, i..: i;ady reference, is ri.producedhereunde,r' :tC. =or all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned noticr>si,;..;ur:d and the proceedings drawn by the respc nder rt-[)el)i]r1ment is neither tenable, nor sustainab:.l'ho notices so issued and the procedure adoptec beirrgFer [s,? ][illegal, ]deserves to be and are accordinqty s:tes deiquashed. As a consequence, all the impugnr;dc rd,-. [-sr ]getting quashed, the consequenti?l orders p,a556;dby tlr6) respondent-Department pursuant to rhe rroticcsis,sre.c under Section 147 and 148 would ats() g::tqur:shed and it is ordered accordingly. The reas,)n \^,eare,cuashing the consequential order is on the prirciplerstlrat [rlhen ]the initiation of the proceedings itself wz sp'c cxrrlurally wrong, the subsequent orders alsc ge sn rlrified automatically. :tC. =or all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned noticr>si,;..;ur:d and the proceedings drawn by the respc nder rt-[)el)i]r1ment is neither tenable, nor sustainab:.l'ho notices so issued and the procedure adoptec beirrgFer [s,? ][illegal, ]deserves to be and are accordinqty s:tes deiquashed. As a consequence, all the impugnr;dc rd,-. [-sr ]getting quashed, the consequenti?l orders p,a556;dby tlr6) respondent-Department pursuant to rhe rroticcsis,sre.c under Section 147 and 148 would ats() g::tqur:shed and it is ordered accordingly. The reas,)n \^,eare,cuashing the consequential order is on the prirciplerstlrat [rlhen ]the initiation of the proceedings itself wz sp'c cxrrlurally wrong, the subsequent orders alsc ge sn rlrified automatically. 37 l he preliminary objection raised by the petiticner j;slrslained and all these writ petitions stands allow_.d o,lthis very jurisdictional issue. Since the impugned n,lticerjanc crders are getting quashed on the poirt c,fju.isJ ction, we are not inclined to.proceed further anrldr,rcirl .. the other issues raised by the petitioneluhichstitnJ; reserved to be raised and contended in aaprpropriate proceedings. 3t). Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the cast;cf As;lrish Agarwal, supra, as a one-time meitsur(i3xerois;ng the powers under Article 142 of therlons,t tution of lndia, permitted the Revenue to proceecrnder tie substituted provisions, and this Court allcwingth(.) l ?:iiicns only on the procedural flaw, the right confened on the Rev-enue wo.uld remain [reserved ][tQ]. proceed further if they so want from the stage of theorder of the Supreme Court in [the ][case ][of ][Ashish]Agarwal, supra. 18. We would only further [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 Ravindra Reddy (l supra) [is ][subjected ][to ][challenge]before the Hon'ble Supreme Court [in ] [No.3574 ][of ][2024,]preferred by the Income Tax Department, [we ][make ][it ][clear ][that]allowing of the instant writ [petition ][is ][subject ][to ][outcome ][of ][the]aforesaid SLP preferred by the [Revenue against the ][decision ][ofthis]High Court in the case of Kanakala [Ravindra ][Reddy ][(l ][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.] 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-A and ][148 stands set ][aside/quashed.] The conse,que rrtial orders, if any, also stand set asirleiq.rashed insimilar t()nns r i have been passed by this High crurt in tl Le case of Kankanala' Fltvindra Reddy (l supra). There shall be no order asto costs. Cons,ec3rontly, miscellaneous petitions pending, il arLy, shall stand closer'l SD,I.MOHD. ISMAILEPLITY REGISTRARP//TRUE COPY//.lSEI:]TION OFFICER To, 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-A and ][148 stands set ][aside/quashed.] The conse,que rrtial orders, if any, also stand set asirleiq.rashed insimilar t()nns r i have been passed by this High crurt in tl Le case of Kankanala' Fltvindra Reddy (l supra). There shall be no order asto costs. Cons,ec3rontly, miscellaneous petitions pending, il arLy, shall stand closer'l SD,I.MOHD. ISMAILEPLITY REGISTRARP//TRUE COPY//.lSEI:]TION OFFICER To, I"1 [. ][The lncorne ][I'irx ][Officer, ][Ward ][- ][15(1), ][Hyderabad, ][l\tTcwer:.;, ] [Guards,]lt/lasab Tank llvderabad - 500 004, Telanganalt/lasab Tank llvderabad - 500 004, Telangana2. Assessmert tJnit, lncome Tax Department, National e-Assesi;ment Center,New Dell-ri, Fl()lm No. 401 ,znd Floor, E-Ramp, Jawaharlal N,::hru Stadium,New Deliri I 1C 003New Dell-ri, Fl()lm No. 401 ,znd Floor, E-Ramp, Jawaharlal N,::hru Stadium,New Deliri I 1C 0033. The Principal Oommissioner of lncome Tax - 4, Hyderabad, I LTowers, 10-2-3, AC Guard,s, l-lyderabad - 500 004, Telangana3, AC Guard,s, l-lyderabad - 500 004, Telangana4. One CC 1o [i'i r\ V. A. Siva Kartikeya, Advocate 5. One CC to Mr; 3okaro Sapna Reddy (Jr. SC for lncome lax) 6. Two CD [()c,p ]i,: s5. One CC to Mr; 3okaro Sapna Reddy (Jr. SC for lncome lax) 6. Two CD [()c,p ]i,: s TJBS rrrLAWL/' HIGH COURT DATED:24104,t2025 \.'r'o,-'/,.1..\I,-". ).26 [JUil ]ilM :rit.t-, i.t..' ,'/ORDERtD'.',,.,.-1 ,; i,l-).:-,,-/, WP.No.7051 of 2025 ALLOWING TII-IE WRIT PETITIONWITHOUT CO$TS -4 r'ttr