Ed ][Counsel ][For ][The v. The Contention Of The Contention Of The Of The The [[Petitioner ]]Is That The That The The [[Issue ]]Ol

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 KOSHYAND THE HONOURABLE SRt JUST|CE NARSTNG RAO NANDTKONDA WRIT PETITION NO: 9436 OF 2o2S Between: Santosh Zawar, Wlo. Suresh Kutlar Zawar, Aged about 49 year, Occ ; Business,R/o 5-6-39/40, Dwaraka Nagar, KC P Symphony Apartments, Nizambad-503001 . .....PETITIONER AND 1. The lncome Tax Officer, ward 1, lncome Tax Department, Nizamabad. 2. Assessment Unit, lncome Tax Department, National e-Assessment CenterNew Delhi, Room No 4O1 ,Znd Floor, E-Ramp Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium.New Delhi 1l0 003.New Delhi, Room No 4O1 ,Znd Floor, E-Ramp Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium.New Delhi 1l0 003. .....RESPONDENTS Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit frled therewith, the High Court may bepleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ Order orDirection declaring the Notice under section 148(b) of lncome Tax Act, dated 3.1-01-2024 in DIN No.ITBA/AST/F/I48A(SCN)/2023-2411060295074 (i) for theAssessment Year 2017-18 as arbitrary illegal bad in law void-ab-initio violative ofthe principles of natural justice apart f rom being violative of Articles [-l ]4,'1 gg andAssessment Year 2017-18 as arbitrary illegal bad in law void-ab-initio violative ofthe principles of natural justice apart f rom being violative of Articles [-l ]4,'1 gg and265 of the Constitution of lndla and Sec 148A of the lncome Tax Act 1961 andconsequently set aside the same in the interests of justice.consequently set aside the same in the interests of justice. l.A.NO:1 OF 2025 Petition Under Section ['l ]5'l cpc praying that in the crrcumstances stated inthe affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to stayall further proceedings, including any recovery, pursuant to the Notice issued bythe 1st Respondent, notice under section i4g(b) of Income Tax Act, dated 31-01-2024 in DIN No |rBA/AST/F/148A(scN)2023-2o24t1o6ozgso74 (1) for theAssessment Year 2017-18, pending disposal of the main writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : Ms. HIMANGINI SANGHI Counsel for the Respondents : Ms. J.SUNITHA, LEARNED JUNTOR SC FORINCOME TAX DEPARTMENT The Court made the following ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI [P.SAM ] ANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTTCE NANDIKONDA W.P.No.9436 OF 2025 , (per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.Sam [Koshy)] Heard Ms. Himangini Sanghi, [learned ][counsel ][for ][the] petitioner and Ms. J.Sunitha, learned [Junior ][Standing Counsel ][for]the Income Tax Department [for ][respondent ][No. ] [. ][Perused ][the]record. 2. This is a writ [petition ][where ][the ][proceedings ][are ][either]challenged to the notices [which ][were ][issued ][under ][Section ][l48A]and 148 of the Income [Tax ]Act, [1961 ][(for ][short ]['the ][Act') ][or ][the]assessment orders those [have been ][passed ][under Section ][l4'7 ][of]the Act which have [been assailed] 3. This writ petition is being [taken up ][today ][only ][on ][one ][of ][the]grounds, that the notices issued under [Section ][1484. ][of ][the ][Act]and the subsequent [initiation ][ofproceedings ][under ][Section ][148 ][of]the Act by the [jurisdictional ][Assessing ][Officer, ][whereas ][in ][terms]of the amendment that [was ][brought to ][the ][Income ][Tax ][Act ][by ][way]of Finance Act, 2021 [w.e.f., ][01.04.2021 onwards, ][proceedings] It 2. This is a writ [petition ][where ][the ][proceedings ][are ][either]challenged to the notices [which ][were ][issued ][under ][Section ][l48A]and 148 of the Income [Tax ]Act, [1961 ][(for ][short ]['the ][Act') ][or ][the]assessment orders those [have been ][passed ][under Section ][l4'7 ][of]the Act which have [been assailed] 3. This writ petition is being [taken up ][today ][only ][on ][one ][of ][the]grounds, that the notices issued under [Section ][1484. ][of ][the ][Act]and the subsequent [initiation ][ofproceedings ][under ][Section ][148 ][of]the Act by the [jurisdictional ][Assessing ][Officer, ][whereas ][in ][terms]of the amendment that [was ][brought to ][the ][Income ][Tax ][Act ][by ][way]of Finance Act, 2021 [w.e.f., ][01.04.2021 onwards, ][proceedings] It under Section 148,4 of [the ][Act ][as ][also ][under Section ][148 ][of ][the]Act ought to have also been issued [and proceeded ][in ][a ][faceless]manner.4. The contention of the contention of the of the the [[petitioner ]]is that the that the the [[issue ]]olproceedings being in violation of the Finance Act, [2021 ][i.e., ]theimpugned notices under Section l48A and Section [148 ]ofthe [Act]not being issued in a faceless manner, [have ][already ]been [dealt ][with]and decided by this Court in the case of KANKANALARAVINDRA REDDY vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICERT decidedon 14.09.2023 whereby a batch of [writ ][petitions ][were ][allowed ][and]the proceedings initiated under Section 148A as also [under ]SectionI 48 of the Act rvere held to be bad with consequential reliefs on theground of it being in violation of the provisions of Scction 15 I A ofthe Act read with Notification 1812022 dated29.03.2022. [The ][said]judgment passed by this Court has also been subsequently followedin a large number of writ [petitions ]which were allowed on similarterms The contention of the contention of the of the the [[petitioner ]]is that the that the the [[issue ]]ol ' l(2023) 156 taxmann.com [1 ]78 [(Telangana)l] 7 5. Down the line, we find that the same issue [has also ][been] decided against the Revenue byvanous 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 ][case]of RAM NARAYAN SAH vs. UNION OF [INDIA3, ][Punjab ][and]Haryana High Court in the case of JATINDER SINGH vs. UNION OF INDIA4, and Telangana High Court [in ][the ][case ][of]SRI \'ENKATARAMANA REDDY PATLOOLA [VS. ] COMMISSIONER OF INCOME [where the issue was in]respect of intemational taxation, Bombay [High Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]ABHIN ANILKUMAR SHAH VS. INCOME [OFFICER,]INTERNATIONAL TAXATION6 [which ][is again on ][international]taxation and central circle, High Court [of ][Himachal ][Pradesh ][in ][the]case of GOVIND SINGH vs. INCOME [OFFICERT,]Gujarat High Court in the case of MANSUKHBHAI 2 lzoz+1464 ITR 430 (Bom)'l(2024) [156 ][taxmann.com 478 ][(Gauhati)l]' l(2024) [165 ][taxmann.com ] [5 ][(Punjab ][& ][Haryana)l]'12024) [167 ][taxmann.com 411 (Telangana)l]" 12024) [166 ][taxmann.com ][679 ][(Bombay)l]'12024) [165 ]taxmann.com [113 ][(Himachal ][Pradesh)l]'l(2024) [156 ][taxmann.com 478 ][(Gauhati)l]' l(2024) [165 ][taxmann.com ] [5 ][(Punjab ][& ][Haryana)l]'12024) [167 ][taxmann.com 411 (Telangana)l]" 12024) [166 ][taxmann.com ][679 ][(Bombay)l]'12024) [165 ]taxmann.com [113 ][(Himachal ][Pradesh)l] 2 lzoz+1464 ITR 430 (Bom)'l(2024) [156 ][taxmann.com 478 ][(Gauhati)l]' l(2024) [165 ][taxmann.com ] [5 ][(Punjab ][& ][Haryana)l]'12024) [167 ][taxmann.com 411 (Telangana)l]" 12024) [166 ][taxmann.com ][679 ][(Bombay)l]'12024) [165 ]taxmann.com [113 ][(Himachal ][Pradesh)l]'l(2024) [156 ][taxmann.com 478 ][(Gauhati)l]' l(2024) [165 ][taxmann.com ] [5 ][(Punjab ][& ][Haryana)l]'12024) [167 ][taxmann.com 411 (Telangana)l]" 12024) [166 ][taxmann.com ][679 ][(Bombay)l]'12024) [165 ]taxmann.com [113 ][(Himachal ][Pradesh)l] DAHYABHAI RADADIYA [VS. ] [OFFICER,]WARD 3(3X5)8, Jharkand [High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ] SUNDAR SAW [vs. ] [lNDIAe, ][Rajasthan ][High ][Court ][in]the case of SHARDA [CHHAJER vs. INCOME TAX]OFFICER & ANOTHER [and ][batch ][of writ ][petitionsto which]stood decided ot [19.03.2024. ][Similar views ][have also been ][taken]the Division [Bench ][of ][Calcutta ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]by GIRDHAR GOPAL [vs. ] [& ] (M.A.T 1690 of 2023). decided [on25.09.2024.]6. Even though the same [issue ][having ][been ][decided ][by ][a ][large]number of High Courts, [we ][are ][still ][confronted ][with ][large ][filing ][of]identical matters on daily [basis ranging ][between ][5 ][to ][10 ][writ]petitions. That upon the [instructions ][being ][sought ][from ][the]Department, they [have been ]taking [a ][solitary ][ground ][that ][the]decision of the Bombay High [Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ][Hexuware]Technologies Ltd., [(2 ][supra) ][as also ][the ][one ][which ][has ][been]decided by this [Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ][Kanakala Ravindra ][Reddy] 82ozq SCC online Guj 4012"2025 [Online ][Jhar287]1o 12023 [: ] [:4984-DBl]"2025 [Online ][Jhar287]1o 12023 [: ] [:4984-DBl] - (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 [these]matters 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 ][otherwise]has already been dealt and decided by this very [High ]Court [itself.]8. On the one hand, even though the order of this Court [that]was passed as early as on 14.09.2023 and more 16 [months ][have]lapsed, till date, we do not find any remedial steps having beentaken by the Income Tax Department to take appropriate steps toeither hold back issuance of notice under Section [148A ]and [under]Section 148 of the Act by the [jurisdictional ]Assessing Officer,rather the authorities concerned in the teeth of series of decisions by all the major High Courts ln India are [continuously still]initiating proceedings under Section l48A of the Act [and ][also]initiating proceedings under Section 148 of the Act [in]contravention to the amendments brought [into ][the ][Income ][Tax ][Act]pursuant to the Finance Act,2020 as also the Finance Act202l.9. Upon a query being put as to why can't this writ [petition ]bedisposed of in the teeth of the decision rendered b1' [this ]Court [in]the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra), leamed StandingCounsel for the Income Tax Department contends that [those ][would]unnecessarily burden the Income Tax Department [where ][they]would be required to file equal number of SLPs before theHon'ble Suprerne Court and it would be further burdening theexchequer of the Union of India. It was also the contention [of ][the]leamed Standing Counsel that no prejudice would be caused to theinterest ofthe petitioners in case if this writ petition is kept [pending]till the finalization of the SLPs pending before the Hon'bleSupreme Court and the fact that the [petitioner ]is already enjoyingthe benefit of interim protection. Nonetheless, on the earlier [query]of this Court as to why the Income Tax Department [have ][not ][come]out with a mechanism to issue appropriate instructions or to takef( 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 ofthe decisions dedcided by thevarious High Courts, 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 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 concerned are still even now in2025 also initiating proceedings in contravention to the provisionsof Section 15 1A 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 petitioners insofar as the liberry [which was ][granted ][to ][the ][Revenue ][for]fresh [proceedings ][strictly ][in ][accordance ][with ][the ][amended]initiating provisions of the [Act, ][as amended ][by ][the ][Finance ][Act, ][2020 ][and]the Finance [Act,2O2l. ][The ][petitioner ][assessee ][would ][be ][entitled to]challenge or [raise ][the other legal objections ][if ][the ][Revenue ][initiates]fresh proceedings. [The ][Department has made ][no ][endeavour ][in]availingthesaidlibertythatwasreservedfortheRevenue.onthecontrary, they [have been ][still ][sticking ][on ][to the ][stand, ][which ][this]High Court as [well ][as ][many other ][High ][Courts ][already ][held to ][be]bad.I L It appears [that ][because ][ofthe ][aforesaid ][liberty ][that ][this ][HiSh]Court had [granted ][permitting ][the ][Revenue ][for ][initiating ][fresh]proceedings as a one-time [measure ][in ][a ][faceless ][manner' ][the]Income Tax Department [wants ][to ][take ][advantage ][of ][the ][same ][by]protracting these [proceedings ][which would ][enable ][them to ][meet the]limitation that [would ][otherwise come ][in ][the ][way. ][Likewise, ][if ][the]writ petition is [kept pending ][for ][a ][considerable ][long period ][of ][time]and finally at [a ][later ][stage ][if ][the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Court ][confirms]the decision [taken ][by ][this ][High ][Court ][as also ][by ][the ][other ][High]Courts in [which ][the ][SLPs ][are ][still ][pending, ][the ][Income ][Tax]f( Department would get the advantage of the liberty that is otherwiseprotected in favour of the Revenue for initiation of freshproceedings from the disposal of these 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 concerned. 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 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 approach not only undermines the principle of judicialprecedent 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 already provideda balanced approach by preserving both the Revenue's rights andassesses interests. 13. Another aspect which ne.eds to be considered is that in fact itshould have been realized by the Income Tax Depanment itself andshould have found out via media in ensuring that proceedingsunder Sections 148-4 and 148 should not have been issued in afaceless manner, at least till the Hon'ble Supreme Court decide thetwelve hundred (1200) odd SLPs which it is already seized of or, atleast the Income Tax Department should have found out someremedial steps to ensure that wherever the authorities 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 after the SLp's aredecided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the very same issue.This again, the Income Tax Department, has not been able to give aconvincing reply, except for the fact that such a decision if at all o. o. has to be taken, has to be taken for the whole of India, and whichotherwise has to be by way of a policy decision and that too at thelevel of Central Board of Direct Taxes. Though the learnedotherwise has to be by way of a policy decision and that too at thelevel of Central Board of Direct Taxes. Though the learnedStanding Counsel for the Income Tax Department contended thatthe Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition of similar nahrre, onthe one hand when the High . [Court ][is ][struggling ][to ][reduce ][its]the Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition of similar nahrre, onthe 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 HighCourt resulting in f,rling of hlundreds of new writ petitions which inthe long run not only affects the disposal ofthe wdt petitions butpetition are forcing the assessee to knock the doors of this HighCourt resulting in f,rling of hlundreds of new writ petitions which inthe long run not only affects the disposal ofthe wdt petitions butalso consumes substantial time of the Bench in hearing thesematters again and again on daily basis. Admittedly, in spite of thematters again and again on daily basis. Admittedly, in spite of thematter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court having been taken onmany occasions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court which is seized of thematter has been reluctant in granting any interim protection to themany occasions, the Hon'ble 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 makeof 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 l4g-A andaudacity by issuing notices continuously under Sections l4g-A and 148 through the [jurisdictional ]Assessing Officer u,hereas it oughtto have been only in the faceless manner. 14. In the case of BANK OF INDIA vs. ASSISTANTCOMMISSIONER, INCOME TAXrr, on an issue whether it wasjustifiable on the part of the Income Tax Department rn notfollowing an order passed by the adjudicating authority only on theground that the appeals are pending, the Division Bench of theHigh Court of Bombay held at paragraph No.25 as under, viz., "25. Mr. Paridwalla has rightly drawn out attention to thedecision of this Couft in Commissioner of lncome Tax vs. Smt.Godavaridevi Sarafl2 as also the recent decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Samp Furniture (P) Ltd. v. 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 mean that tillthe same is set aside in a manner known to law, it would loose itsbinding force. Referring to the decision of the Supreme Court inUnion of lndia vs. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd.14, theCourt observed that the approach of the officials of Revenue oftreating decisions being "not acceptable" was criticized by theSupreme Court. ln such decision, following are the relevantobservations made by the Supreme Court. '] ttzOZSt [taxmann,com 422 ][(Bombay)l]'' [978J l l3 ITR 589 (Bombay)" 7ZO2+1165 [taxmann.com 581i300 Taxman ]452 [(Bombay)] 'o lgeZl [taxmann.com ][16/55 ] [433 (SC)] t I r '] ttzOZSt [taxmann,com 422 ][(Bombay)l]'' [978J l l3 ITR 589 (Bombay)" 7ZO2+1165 [taxmann.com 581i300 Taxman ]452 [(Bombay)] 'o lgeZl [taxmann.com ][16/55 ] [433 (SC)] t I r "6. Sri Reddy is perhaps right in saying that theofficers were nol actuated by any mala fides inofficers were nol 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, [rightly]criticized this conduct of the Assistant Collectors andthe harassment to the assessee caused by the failureof these officqrs 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 [the]quasijudicial 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 [function]under the [jurisdiction ]of the Tribunal. The [principles ]ofludicial [discipline require that the orders of ][the ][higher]appellate authorities should be followed unreservedlyby the subordinate authorities. The mere fact that [the]order of the appellate authority is not ["acceptable" ][to]the department - in itself an objectionable [phrase ]-and is the subject matter of [an ][appeal ]can furnish [no]ground for not following it unless its operation hasbeen suspended by a competent [court. ][lf ][this healthy]tenable 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, [rightly]criticized this conduct of the Assistant Collectors andthe harassment to the assessee caused by the failureof these officqrs 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 [the]quasijudicial 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 [function]under the [jurisdiction ]of the Tribunal. The [principles ]ofludicial [discipline require that the orders of ][the ][higher]appellate authorities should be followed unreservedlyby the subordinate authorities. The mere fact that [the]order of the appellate authority is not ["acceptable" ][to]the department - in itself an objectionable [phrase ]-and is the subject matter of [an ][appeal ]can furnish [no]ground 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 administrationof tax laws. rule is not followed, the result will only be undueharassment to assesses and chaos in administrationof tax laws. 12. We have dealt with this aspect at some length,because it has been suggested by the learnedAdditional Solicitor General that' the observationsmade by the High Court, have been harsh on theofficers- lt is clear that.the observations of the HighCourt, seemingly vehement, and apparentlyunpalatable to the Revenue, are only intended to curba tendency in revenue matters which, if allowed tobecome widespreaf,, could result in considerableharassment to the assesses-public without any benefitto the Revenue. We would like to say that thedepartment should take these observations in theproper spirit. The observations of the High Courtshould be kept in mind in future and the utmost regardshould be paid by the adjudicating authorities and theappellate aulhorities to the requirements of judicialdiscipline and the need for giving effect to the ordersof the higher appellate authorities which are bindingon them." 15. What is worrying this Bench more is the fact that anendeavour is being made whole heartedly to ensure not to generatefurther litigation on issues which have been laid to rest by a largenumber of High Courts all of whom have taken a consistent standthat the action of the Income Tax Department being violative of the Y 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 ofKankanalu Ravindra Reddy (1 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 ofas 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 ][already]been considered and protected, as has been observed [in ][paragraphs] 36,37 and 38 ofthe order which, for ready reference, is reproduced hereunder: 36. For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned noticesissued and the proceedings drawn by the respondent-Department is neither tenable, nor sustainable.The notices so issued and the procedure adopted beingper se illegal, deserves to be and are accordingty setaside/quashed. As a consequence, all the impugnedorders getting quashed, the consequential orders passedby the respondent-Department pursuant to the noticesissued under Section 147 and 148 would also getquashed and it is ordered accordingly. The reason weare quashing the consequential order is on the principlesthat when the ini{i}tion of the proceedings itself wasprocedurally wrong, the subsequent orders also getsnullif ied automatically_ 37. The preliminary objection raised by the petitioner issustained and all these writ petitions stands allowed onthis very jurisdictional issue. Since the impugned noticesand orders are getting quashed on the ooint ofjurisdiction, we are not inclined to proceed further anddecide the other issues raised by the petitioner whichstands reserved to be raised and contended in anappropriate proceedings. 38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the caseof Ashish Aoarwal, supra, as a one-time measureexercising the powersunder Ae 142 of theConstitution of lndia, permitted the Revenue to proceedunder the substituted provisions, and this Court allowingthe petitions only on the procedural ftaw, the rightconferred on the Revenue would remain reserved to - 37. The preliminary objection raised by the petitioner issustained and all these writ petitions stands allowed onthis very jurisdictional issue. Since the impugned noticesand orders are getting quashed on the ooint ofjurisdiction, we are not inclined to proceed further anddecide the other issues raised by the petitioner whichstands reserved to be raised and contended in anappropriate proceedings. 38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the caseof Ashish Aoarwal, supra, as a one-time measureexercising the powersunder Ae 142 of theConstitution of lndia, permitted the Revenue to proceedunder the substituted provisions, and this Court allowingthe petitions only on the procedural ftaw, the rightconferred on the Revenue would remain reserved to - proceed further if they so want from the stage of theorder of the Supreme Court in the case of AshishAqarwal, supra.order of the Supreme Court in the case of AshishAqarwal, 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 ofKanakalu 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 *pra)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 148-4 and 148 stands set aside/quashed. !. The consequential orders, if any, also stand [set ][aside/quashed ][in] similar terms as have been [passed ][by ][this ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of] Kankanala Ravindra Reddy [(l ]supra). [There shall ][be ][no order ][as]to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous [petitions pending, ][if ][any, ][shall] stand closed. SD/. A.H.S. GOWRI SHANKARASSISTANT REGISTRAR.,. .\\I)\',SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPYII To 1. The lncome Tax Officer, Ward 1, lncome Tax Department, Nizamabad.2. The Assessment Unit, lncome Tax Department, National e_nssesJmentCenter New Delhi, Room No 401, 2nd Floor, E_ilamp Jawahartal NefrruStadium. New Delhi 1'10 003.2. The Assessment Unit, lncome Tax Department, National e_nssesJmentCenter New Delhi, Room No 401, 2nd Floor, E_ilamp Jawahartal NefrruStadium. New Delhi 1'10 003.3. One CC to Ms. H|MANG|Nt SANGH|, Advocate IOPUCIJ .O:E [C^C ][to ][tVls. ] [(JUN|OR ] [tNCOMd ][TAX) ]Advocate' ' 5. Two CD CopiesSAGJPryGJPry HIGH COURT DATED:2410412025 ORDER WP.No.9436 of 2025 ALLOWING THE W.PWITHOUT COSTS. 1i("V\ irrES\ ','ad()P1 i JUr 2025**.aPAIC. rrcl