Dent v. Income-Tax Officert Decidedon 14.09.2023 Whereby A Batch Of Writ Petitions W Jre Allowed Andravindra Reddy Vs. Income-Tax Officert Decidedon 14.09.2023 Whereby

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF APRILTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONOAWRIT PETITION NO: 9621 OF 2025 Between THE PRIMARY AGRICULTURE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIIVITEDBEJJANKI, Rep. by Secretary l\,4anchala Srinivas Sio. Manchala Shankaraiahaged about 57 years, Occupation. Business, Rl/o. H.No.1-1 Bejjanki [- ]Village,Near Govt Jr College Bejjanki, Karimnagar 505528 Telangana, lndiaAssessment Year. 2020-21...PETITIONER AND 1. Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Income TaxDepartment, Ministry of Finance, Room No. 401 , 2nd Floor, E-Ramp,Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, Delhi - ['1 ]10 003.Department, Ministry of Finance, Room No. 401 , 2nd Floor, E-Ramp,Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, Delhi - ['1 ]10 003.2. The Assistant Commissioner of lncome tax, Circle 1, Nizamabad/ lncome TaxOffice, 6-2-1 56/3, Subhash Nagar, Nizambad, Telangana-503002Office, 6-2-1 56/3, Subhash Nagar, Nizambad, Telangana-503002 3. Union of lndia, Represent by Secretary Ministry of Finance North Block, NewDelhi-1 10 001Delhi-1 10 001 ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may bepleased to pass an order or direction, especially one in the nature of writ ofmandamus holding that the order passed by 1st Respondent u/s. ['147 ]read withsection 1448 of the IT Act, dt. 11.02.2025 with DIN No. ITBA/AST|S|147|2O24-2511073140585(1)for the Ay. 2020-21, as arbitrary, illegal, bad in law, void abinitio, violation of principles of natural [justice ]apart from violation of Articles 14,t I (1 Xg) and 265 of Constitution of lndia apart from being violative of provisionsof section 14BA and section 149 of the Act and also contrary to the circularissued by CBDT and provisions of section 15'lA of the Act, and consequently setaside the order passed by 1st Respondent u/s. 147 rcad with section 1448 of the lT Act, dt. 11.022025 with DIN No. ITBA/ASTlsl147l2O2+-2511 073'140585(1) forthe Ay.2O2O-21 and all consequential proceedings [pursu.)nt ]theretolA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances statedin the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High C:urt may be [pleased ]tostay all further proceedings, including any recovery, [pursuanI ]to the order [passed]by the 1st Respondent uls 147 read with section 1.148 of the IT Act, dt.11.O2.2025 with DIN No. ITBA/ASTlsl14712024-251107i,140585(1) for the Ay2020-21 Counsel for the Petitioner: Ms. AISHWARYA SUNIL REPSRI. THANNERU CHAITANYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1&3: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMARDeputy Solicitor G -'neral of lndia Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Ms. J. SUNITHA ,JT SC FOR INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM ANDTTIE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING NANDTKONDA W.P.No.962l OF 2025 ORDBR, [(per ]llon'ble Sri Justice [P.Sam ][Koshy)] Heard Ms. Aishwarya Sunil, learned counsel representingMr. Thaneeru Chaitanya Kumar, leamed counsel for the [petitioner]and Ms. J.Sunitha, leamed Junior Standing Counsel for theIncome Tax Department for respondent No.2. Perused the [record] 2. This is a writ petition where the proceedings are eitherchallenged to the notices which were issued under Section [148A]and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [(for ]short ['the ]Act') or [the]assessment orders those have been passed under Section 147 ofthe Act which have been assailed. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM ANDTTIE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING NANDTKONDA W.P.No.962l OF 2025 ORDBR, [(per ]llon'ble Sri Justice [P.Sam ][Koshy)] Heard Ms. Aishwarya Sunil, learned counsel representingMr. Thaneeru Chaitanya Kumar, leamed counsel for the [petitioner]and Ms. J.Sunitha, leamed Junior Standing Counsel for theIncome Tax Department for respondent No.2. Perused the [record] 2. This is a writ petition where the proceedings are eitherchallenged to the notices which were issued under Section [148A]and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [(for ]short ['the ]Act') or [the]assessment orders those have been passed under Section 147 ofthe Act which have been assailed. 3. This writ petition is being taken up today only on one of thegrounds, that the notices issued under Section l48A of the Actand the subsequent initiation of proceedings under Section 148 ofthe Act by the [jurisdictional ]Assessing Officer, [whereas ][in ]termsof the amendment that was brought to the Income Tax Act by wayof Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f., 01.04.2021 onwards, [proceedings] under Section 1484. of the Act as also under Section 148 of theAct ought to have also been issued and proceedcd in a facelessmannel.4. The contention contention of the petitioner the petitioner petitioner is that the issue ofthat the issue ofthe issue ofissue ofofproceedings being in violation of the Finance A<t, 202 I i.e., theAct ought to have also been issued and proceedcd in a facelessmannel.4. The contention contention of the petitioner the petitioner petitioner is that the issue ofthat the issue ofthe issue ofissue ofofproceedings being in violation of the Finance A<t, 202 I i.e., theimpugned notices under Section l48A and Sectiorr 148 of the Actnot being issued in a faceless manner, have alreadl been dealt withand decided by this Court in the case of KANKANALARAVINDRA REDDY vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICERT decidedon 14.09.2023 whereby a batch of writ petitions w jre allowed andRAVINDRA REDDY vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICERT decidedon 14.09.2023 whereby a batch of writ petitions w jre allowed andthe proceedrngs initiated under Section 148A as also under Section148 of the Act were held to be bad with consequential reliefs on theground ol it being in violation of the provisions of S,ection 15lA olthe Act read with Notification 1812022 dated 29.03.2022. The saidjudgment passed by this Court has also been subseqrrently followedin a large number of writ petitions which were allowed on similarterms.ground ol it being in violation of the provisions of S,ection 15lA olthe Act read with Notification 1812022 dated 29.03.2022. The saidjudgment passed by this Court has also been subseqrrently followedin a large number of writ petitions which were allowed on similarterms. The contention contention of the petitioner the petitioner petitioner is that the issue ofthat the issue ofthe issue ofissue ofof 'l(2023) [156 ]taxmann.com [178 ][(Telangana)l] (-/ The contention contention of the petitioner the petitioner petitioner is that the issue ofthat the issue ofthe issue ofissue ofof 'l(2023) [156 ]taxmann.com [178 ][(Telangana)l] (-/ 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 andHaryana High Court in the case of JATINDER SINGH BANGUvs. UNION OF INDIA", and Telangana High Court in the case olSRI VENKATARAMANA REDDY PATLOOLA vS. DEPUTYCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX5 where the issue was inrespect of international taxation, Bombay High Court in the case ofABHIN ANILKUMAR SHAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,INTERNATIONAL TAXATION6 which is again on internationaltaxation and central circle, High Court ol Himachal Pradesh in thecase of GOVIND SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER?,Gujarat High Court in the case of MANSUKHBHAI'lzozcl464 [ITR 430 (Bom)]' [(2024) [156 ]taxmann.com 478 [(Gauhati)]]'l(2024) 165 taxmann.com I 15 (Punjab & Haryana)l5 [2024) 167 taxmann.com 4ll (Telangana)]" 12024) [166 ]taxmann.com 679 [(Bombay)l]' 12024) 165 taxmann.com 113 (Himachal Pradesh)l DATTYABHAI RADADTYA vs. INCOME TI\X OFFICER,WARD 3(3X5)8, Jharkand High Court in the czLse of SHyAMWARD 3(3X5)8, Jharkand High Court in the czLse of SHyAMSUNDAR SAW vs. UNION OF INDIAe, Rajasthan High Courr inthe case ol SHARDA DE\,'I CHHAJER vs. INCOME TAXOFFICER & ANOTHER and batch of writ p.:titionsro whichthe case ol SHARDA DE\,'I CHHAJER vs. INCOME TAXOFFICER & ANOTHER and batch of writ p.:titionsro 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 TNDIA & ORS(M.A.T 1690 of 2023), decided on25.09.2024.6. Even though the same issue having been decidcd by a largenumber of lJigh Courts, we are still confronted with large filing ofidentical matters on daily basis ranging between 5 to I 0 writpetitions. That upon the instructions being sot ght from theDepartment, they have been taking a solitary glound that theby the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in the case ofGIRDHAR GOPAL DALMIA vs. UNION OF TNDIA & ORS(M.A.T 1690 of 2023), decided on25.09.2024.6. Even though the same issue having been decidcd by a largenumber of lJigh Courts, we are still confronted with large filing ofidentical matters on daily basis ranging between 5 to I 0 writpetitions. That upon the instructions being sot ght from theDepartment, they have been taking a solitary glound that thedecision of the Bombay High Court in the case ol' HexawareTechnologies Ltd., (2 supra) as also the one which has beendecided by this Court in the case of Kanakala Rcrvindra Reddy 8z0zq SCC online Guj 4012'2025 Online lhar 287'o 12023 [: RJ-JD ][:49g4-DBl] ( r (l supra) has been subjected to challenge in a Spocial 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 8z0zq SCC online Guj 4012'2025 Online lhar 287'o 12023 [: RJ-JD ][:49g4-DBl] ( r (l supra) has been subjected to challenge in a Spocial LeavePetition i.e., SLP No.3574 of 2024 before the Hon'ble SupremeCourt and the Hon'ble Supreme Court is seized of the matter.In addition, there are about 1200 SLPs also filed arising out ofthesame issue being decided by various High Courts 7. To a query being put to the learned counsel for the Revenue,they have categorically accepted the fact that there is no interimorder granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in any of thesematters pending before it. Meanwhile, fresh writ [petitions ]ofidentical nature are being piled up before this Bench on daily basisand the pendency is getting increased on matter which otherwisehas already been dealt and decided by this very High Court itself.8. On the one hand, even though the order of this Court thatwas passed as early as on 14.09.2023 and more 16 months havelapsed, till date, we do not find any remedial steps having beentaken by the Income Tax Department to take appropriate steps toeither hold back issuance of notice under Section 148,4. 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 c,rntimrously stillinitiating proceedings under Section l48A of the Act and alsoinitiating proceedings under Section 148 ol the Act incontravention to the amendments brought into the lnconte Tax Actpursuant to the Finance Ac|2020 as also the Finan:e Act202l9. Upon a query being put as to why can't this writ petition bedisposed of in the teeth of the decision rendered by this Courl inthe case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra), l,:arned StandingCounsel for the Income Tax Department contends that those wouldunnecessarily burden the lncome Tax Departm( nt where theywould be required to file equal number of SLPs before theHon'ble Supreme Court and it would be further burdening theexchequer of the Union of India. It was also the contention of theleamed Standing Counsel that no prejudice would be caused to theinterest of the petitioners in case if this writ petition is kept pendingtill the finalization of the SLPs pending beforr: the Hon'bleSupreme Court and the fact that the petitioner is already enjoyingthe benefit of interim protection. Nonetheless, on tte 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 [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 Courls, it was submitted by the learned 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 ][be]limited to any olthese [jurisdictional ]High Courts. 10. As a result of which, what we are facing is steep increase oftitigation day in and day out even though various orders have beenpassed by this High Court allowing writ petitions on the very sameissue. The lncome Tax authorities concerned are still even now [in]2025 also initiating proceedings in contravention to the [provisions]of Section l51A 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 Roindra Reddy(l supra). What is also surprising is the fact that though whileallowing the writ petitions in the case of Kanakala [Ravindra]Reddy (l supra), the Division Bench while reserving the [right ]ofthe Revenue, has also protected the interest of the [petitioners] insofar as the liberty which was granted to the Revenue forinitiating fresh proceedings strictly in accordance ryith the amendedinitiating fresh proceedings strictly in accordance ryith the amendedprovisions of the Act, as amended by the Finance Act, 2020 andthe Finance Act, 2021 . The petitioner assessee would be entitled tochallenge or raise the other legal objections if the l(evenue initiatesthe Finance Act, 2021 . The petitioner assessee would be entitled tochallenge or raise the other legal objections if the l(evenue initiatesfresh proceedings. The Department has made rro endeavour inavailing the said liberty that was reserved for the Revenue. On thecontrary, they have been still sticking on to the s and, which thisHigh Court as well as many other High Courts aleady held to bebad.availing the said liberty that was reserved for the Revenue. On thecontrary, they have been still sticking on to the s and, which thisHigh Court as well as many other High Courts aleady held to bebad. 11. It appears that because of the aforesaid liberly that this HighCourt had granted permitting the Revenue for initiating freshproceedings as a one-time measure in a facele:;s manner, theIncome Tax Department wants to take advantage tf the same byprotracting these proceedings which would enable them to meet thelimitation that would otherwise come in the way. I-ikewise, if thewrit petition is kept pending for a considerable long period of timeand finally at a later stage if the Hon'ble Supreme ,lourt confirmsthe decision taken by this High Court as also by he other HighCourts in which the SLPs are still pending, thc lncome Tax rf Deparlment would get the advantage of the liberty that is otherwiseprotected in favour of the Revenue for initiation of freshproceedings Iiom the disposal ofthese matters at a much later stagewhich would be advantageous and beneficial to the Revenue andwould be equally disadvantageous and detrimental so far as interestof the assesses are concemed. As a consequence, the Income TaxDepartment gets an extended period of time for initiation of freshproceedings. 12. The alarming trend of docket explosion in this Court, despitethe clear precedent setin Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra), is amatter of grave concern. The Income Tax Department's persistentinitiation of fresh proceedings, disregarding the established [judicial]pronouncements, has led to an unprecedented surge in litigationwith over 600-700 petitions piling up on the same issue. Thisdeliberate approach not only undermines the principle of [judicial]precedent but also strains the judicial resources unnecessarily. TheDepartment's strategy of awaiting the Supreme Court's decision onpending SLPs while continuing to initiate fresh proceedingsappears to be a calculated move to buy time and circumventlimitation periods, rather than adhering to the established legal position. Such conduct raises serious questions about theadministrative efficiency and the respect for judicialpronouncements, particularly when this Court has erh'eady provideda balanced approach by preserving both the Revenue's rights andassesses interestsassesses interests position. Such conduct raises serious questions about theadministrative efficiency and the respect for judicialpronouncements, particularly when this Court has erh'eady provideda balanced approach by preserving both the Revenue's rights andassesses interestsassesses interests 13. Another aspect which needs to be considered is that in fact itshould have been realized by the Income Tax Departrnent itself andshould have found out via media in ensuring ttrat proceedingsunder Sections 148-4. and 148 should not have b,:en issued in afaceless manner, at least till the Hon'ble Supreme ( ourt decide thetweive hundred (1200) odd SLPs which it is already seized ofor, atleast the Income Tax Department should have found out someremedial steps to ensure that wherever the autho;ities intend toinitiate proceedings under Sections 148-A and 148, other than in afaceless manner, the proceedings should have been deferredwithout precipitating the matter further intimating the assessee thatthey shall initiate appropriate proceedings only aftel the SLP's aredecided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the ve y same issue.This again, the Income Tax Department, has not been able to give aconvincing reply, except for the fact that such a decision if at all t/ 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 thelevel of Central Board of Direct Taxes. [Though ]the [learned]Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department contended [that]the Delhi High Court dismissed a writ [petition ]of similar [nature, on]the one hand when the High Court is struggling to [reduce its]pendency, such notices which are under challenge in this writpetition are forcing the assessee to knock the doors of this [High]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 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 ][maj ][ority]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-A ][and] 148 through the jurisdictional Assessing Officer whereas it oughtto have been only in the faceless manner.to have been only in the faceless manner. 14. In the case of BANK OF INDIA vr;. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, INCOME TAXrr, on an issue rvhether it wasjustifiable on the part of the Incorne Tax Department in notfollowing an order passed by the adjudicating authority only on theground that the appeals are pending, the Division Bench of theHigh Court of Bombay held at paragraph No.25 as rrnder, r,iz., :following 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 rrnder, r,iz., : 148 through the jurisdictional Assessing Officer whereas it oughtto have been only in the faceless manner.to have been only in the faceless manner. 14. In the case of BANK OF INDIA vr;. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, INCOME TAXrr, on an issue rvhether it wasjustifiable on the part of the Incorne Tax Department in notfollowing an order passed by the adjudicating authority only on theground that the appeals are pending, the Division Bench of theHigh Court of Bombay held at paragraph No.25 as rrnder, r,iz., :following 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 rrnder, r,iz., : "25. Mr. Paridwalla has righfly drawn out a e rtion to thedecision ol this Court in Commissioner of lncome Iax vs. Smt.Godavaridevi Sarafl2 as also the recent decision of the co_ordinate Bench of this Court in Samp Furniture (p) l.td. v. lTO13of which one of us (Justice G.S. Kulkarni) was a mem )er, 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 wo rld loose itsbinding force. Referring to the decision of the Suprene Court inUnion of lndia vs. Kamlakshi Finance Corporatiorr Ltd.14, theCourt observed that the approach of the officials of ievenue oftreating decisions being "not acceptable" was criticized by theSupreme Court. ln such decision, following are flle relevantobservations made by the Supreme Courl. '.ll{zozs1 [170 ][taxmann.com ]422 [(Bombay)l]t2 1t9781113 ITR 589 (Bombay)t2 1t9781113 ITR 589 (Bombay) " 120241165 [raxmann.com ]581/300 Taxman452 (Bombry) 'o ]t9921raxmann.com 16/55 ELT 433 (SC) '.ll{zozs1 [170 ][taxmann.com ]422 [(Bombay)l]t2 1t9781113 ITR 589 (Bombay)t2 1t9781113 ITR 589 (Bombay) " 120241165 [raxmann.com ]581/300 Taxman452 (Bombry) 'o ]t9921raxmann.com 16/55 ELT 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 Revenuetenable and that, if it was accepted, the Revenuewould suffer. But what Sri Reddy overlooks is that weare not concerned here with the correilness orotherwise of their conclusion or of factualany malafides but with the fact that the officers, in reachingin their conclusion, by-passed two appellate orders inare not concerned here with the correilness orotherwise of their conclusion or of factualany malafides but with the fact that the officers, in reachingin their conclusion, by-passed two appellate orders inregard to the same issue which were qlaced beforethem, one of the Collector (Appeals) and the other ofthe Tribunal. The High Court has, in our view, righttycriticized this conduct 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. ltthe Tribunal. The High Court has, in our view, righttycriticized this conduct 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. ltcannot be too vehemently emphasized that it is ofutmost importance that, in disposing of thequasiiudicial issues before them, revenue officers arequasiiudicial issues before them, revenue officers arebound by the decisions of the appellate authorities.The order of the Appellte Collector is binding on theThe 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 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 objectionable phrase -and is the subiect 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 undueharassment to assesses and chaos in admin strationof tax laws.of tax laws. 12. We have dealt with this aspect at some length,because it has been suggested by lhe earnedAdditional Solicitor General that the observationsmade by the High Court, have been harsh on theofficers. lt is clear that the observations of fl-e HighCourt, seemingly vehement, and apparenflyunpalatable to the Revenue, are only intended lo curba tendency in revenue matters which, if allorved tobecome widespread, could result in consic erableharassment to the assesses-pubtic without any ,enefitto the Revenue. We would like to say that thedepartment should take these observations rn theproper spirit. The observations of the High Courtshould be kept in mind in future and the utmost [-egard]should be paid by the adjudicating authorities a1d theappellate authorities to the requirements of j_rdicialdiscipline and the need for giving effect to the ,)rdersof the higher appellate authorities which are brndingon them." 15. What is worrying this Bench more is th,: fact that anendeavour is being made whole heartedly to ensure not to generatefurther litigation on issues which have been laid to rest by a largenumber of High Courts all of whom have taken a c)nsistent standthat the action of the Income Tax Department being [.riolative ]of the ( .- Finance Act,2020 and Finance Act,202l . Now, in order to protectthe 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 the considered opinion that unless and until we do not timely disposeof matters which are squarely covered by the decision of this Courtand which stands fortified by the decisions of the various otherHigh Courts on the very same issue, the pendency of this HighCourt would further be burdened which otherwise can be decidedand disposed of as a covered matter. 17. So far as the interest of the Revenue is concemed, we are of the considered opinion that the interest of the Revenue has alreadybeen considered and protected, as has been observed in paragraphs 36,37 and 38 ofthe order which, for ready reference. is reproducedhereunder: 36. For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugncd noticesissued and the proceedings drawn by the rer;pondent-Department is neither tenable, hor su;ta,nable.The notices so issued and the procedure adopted beingper se illegal, deserves to be and are accor(lingly setaside/quashed. As a consequence, all the inpugnedorders getting quashed, the consequential orders passedby the respondent-Department pursuant to th,l noticesissued under Section 147 and 148 would .Llso getquashed and it is ordered accordingly. The reason weare [quashing ]the consequential order is on the [)rinciplesthat when the initiation of the proceedings ilsetf wasprocedurally wrong, the subsequent orders elso getsnullified automatically. 37 The preliminary objection raised by the pelitioner issustained and all these writ petitions stands all,rwed onthis very [jurisdictional ]issue. Since the impugne<l noticesand orders are getting quashed on the )oint ofjurisdiction, we are not inclined to proceed fudher anddecide the other issues raised by the petitionr:r whichstands reserved to be raised and contended in anappropriate proceedings. 38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the caseof Ashish Agarwal, supra, as a one-time rteasureexercising the powers under Article 142 of theConstitution of lndia, permitted the Revenue to l)roceedunder the substituted provisions, and this Court allowingthe petitions only on the procedural flaw, t e right conferred on the Revenue would remain reserved toproceed further if they so want from the stage of theorder of the Supreme Court in the case of AshishAgarwal, supra. 18. We would only further like to make observations that sincewe are inclined to dispose of the instant writ petition, conscious ofthe fact that the earlier order of this High Court in the case ofKunakala 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 of thisHigh 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. 18. We would only further like to make observations that sincewe are inclined to dispose of the instant writ petition, conscious ofthe fact that the earlier order of this High Court in the case ofKunakala 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 of thisHigh Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra)This, in other words, would mean that either of the parties, if theyso want, may move an appropriate petition seeking revival of thiswrit petition in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble SupremeCourt in the pending SLP on the very same issue. 19. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands allowed infavour of the assessee so far as the issue of [jurisdiction]ISconcerned. As a consequence, the impugned notice underchallenge under Sections 148-A and 148 stands set aside/quashed. II The consequential orders, if any, also stand set lside/quashed in similar tenns as have been passed by this High Co:rt in the case of Kunksnala Ravindra Reddy (l supra). There sharl be no order as to costs Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pendilg, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- B. REKHA RANIASSISTANT REGISTRAR/,/( ltiSECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, 1. Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre, lncome TaxDepartment, Nlinistry of Finance, Room No. +Oi inO'Efoo;, ["E_H";;]Jawaharlat Nehru St5dium, Dethi - i tO OOi.Department, Nlinistry of Finance, Room No. +Oi inO'Efoo;, ["E_H";;]Jawaharlat Nehru St5dium, Dethi - i tO OOi.2. The Assistant commissioner of rncome tax, circre 1, r,iizamabad/ rncome Tax_ [Office, 6-2-156/3, Subhash Nagar, ][NizambaO, ]felangana-SOSOO23. The^Secretary, Union of rndii, [/inistry of Fintn;ir.lorfr eroi[, New Derhi-1 10 001_ [Office, 6-2-156/3, Subhash Nagar, ][NizambaO, ]felangana-SOSOO23. The^Secretary, Union of rndii, [/inistry of Fintn;ir.lorfr eroi[, New Derhi-1 10 0014. 5 One One CC CC to to t\,4s. SRI, J THANNERU CHAITANYA KUMAR. Advocate SU|THA, Jr SC FOR TNCOME iAX }FAiirr,,lEili'toPIIcIloPUClloPUCl6. One CC to SRl. GADI PRAVEEN KUIMAR, Deputy Sollcitor General oflndia lndia 7. Two CD CopiesBIVBIV gGJP HIGH COURT DATED:2410412025 ORDER WP.No.9621 of 2025 \''t 0 siP ?025 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 0t