'Fhe Contention Of The Petitioner The Petitioner Petitioner Is That The Issue Ofthat The Issue Ofthe Issue Ofissue Ofof v. 'L(2023) [156 ][Ta.xmann.com ][I ][78 ][T ][L ][Elan-Qana)L

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JULYTWO THOUSANDAND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION NO: 20176 OF 2025 Between: Sri Vodala Rajender, S/o. Sri Laxminarayana [Vodala, ][and about 64 ][years,]Occupation. Business, 21-1-42314, Opp N Science [College, ][Ricobgunj,]Hyderabad - 500002. ...PETITIONER AND The lncome Tax Officer, Ward - B(1), Signature Towers, [Opp. Botanical]Gardens, Kondapur, Hyderabad - 500084. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 ol the Constitution of lndia [praying ][that in ][the]circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the [High ][Court may ][be pleased]to pass an order or direction, especially one in the nature of holding that the order [passed ]by Respondent u s.'1484(3) [of the ][Act, dl. ][1010612025]with DIN and Notice No.ITBA/AST/F1148N2O25-2611076888977(1) [and the ][notice]dated 11t0612025 issued under section 148 of the [Act with ] [and ][Notice]No. ITBtuAST/S I 1 48 1 12025-261 107 693207 4(1) for the assessment [year ][2O19-20,]as being illegal, arbitrary and [passed ]in [gross ]violation [of ][principles ][of ][natural]lustice [without ][application of mind, and consequently set aside ][the ][same.] lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section [1 ]51 CPC [praying ]that [in ][the ][circumstances stated ][in]the affidavit filed in support of the [petition, ][the ][High Court ][may ][be ][pleased ][to]suspend the operation of the [notice issued by ][the ][Respondent u/s.148 ][of ][the ][Act.]dt.1 1tOOt2O25 for the assessment [year ][2019-20 ][with ] [and ][Notice]No.ITBtuAST/S1148-112025-2611076932074('1) [and all ][consequential ][proceedings]thereto. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. A V RAGHU RAM Counsel for the Respondents: Ms. J SUNITHA (SR SC FOR INCOM TAX)The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAONANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION N0.20176 of 2025 ORDER(per ltctn'ble Sri .Iustice Narsing Rao Nandikunda) Heard Mr. A.V.Raghu Ram, learned counsel tbr the petitioner and Ms.J.Sunitha, leamed Senior Standing Counsel forthe [ncorne Tax Department appearing for the respondentsPerused the record. 2. 'l'his is a writ petition a writ petition petition where the proceedings proceedings are eithereitherchallenged to the notices which were issued under Section l4gAand 148 of the Income Tax Acr, 1961 (for short [,the ]Act,) or theassessment orders those have been passed under Section 147 ofthe Act w,hich have bcen assailed. 'l'his is a writ petition a writ petition petition where the proceedings proceedings are eithereither .fhis writ petition is being taken up today petition is being taken up today is being taken up today only on one of theon one of theone of theof thethe .fhis 3. writ petition is being taken up today petition is being taken up today is being taken up today only on one of theon one of theone of theof thethegrounds, that rhc norices issued under Section l4gA of the Actand the subsequent initiation ol proceedings under Section 14g ofthe Act by the [j ]urisd ictional Assessing Officer, whereas in termsIof the ainc-ndrnent that was brought to the Income Tax Act by wayol Financc Act, 2021 rv.e.I., 0l .04.2021 onwards, proceedings \ LI lr il t under Section l48A of the Act as also under Section 148 of theAct ought to have also been issued and proceeded in a lacelessmanner 'fhe contention of the petitioner the petitioner petitioner is that the issue ofthat the issue ofthe issue ofissue ofof .fhis 3. writ petition is being taken up today petition is being taken up today is being taken up today only on one of theon one of theone of theof thethegrounds, that rhc norices issued under Section l4gA of the Actand the subsequent initiation ol proceedings under Section 14g ofthe Act by the [j ]urisd ictional Assessing Officer, whereas in termsIof the ainc-ndrnent that was brought to the Income Tax Act by wayol Financc Act, 2021 rv.e.I., 0l .04.2021 onwards, proceedings \ LI lr il t under Section l48A of the Act as also under Section 148 of theAct ought to have also been issued and proceeded in a lacelessmanner 'fhe contention of the petitioner the petitioner petitioner is that the issue ofthat the issue ofthe issue ofissue ofof 'fhe 4. contention of the petitioner the petitioner petitioner is that the issue ofthat the issue ofthe issue ofissue ofofproceedings being in violation of thc F-inance Act, 2021 i.e., theimpugned notices under Section I48A and Section 148 of the Actnot being issued in a laceless manner, have already been dealt withand decided by this Court in the case of KANKANALARAVINDRA REDDY vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER| decidedon 14.09.2023 whereby a batch of rvrit petitions were allowed andthe proceedings initiated undcr Section l48A as also under Section148 ofthe Act werc held to bc bad ivith consequential reliefs on theground of it being in violation of the pror,'isions of Section 151A ofthe Act read with Notification l8l2o22 dated 29.03.2022. The saidjudgment passed by this Court has also been subsequently followedin a large number of writ petitions ra-lrich were allowed on sirnilarterms. 'l(2023) [156 ][ta.xmann.com ] [78 ][t ][l ][elan-qana)l] 5. Down the line, we find that the same find that the same that the same 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. ASSTSTANT 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 INDIAI, and Telangana High Court in the case ofSRI VENKATARAMANA REDDY PATLOOLA vs. DEPUTYCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX5 where rhe issue was inrespect of intemational taxation, Bombay High Court in the case ofABHIN ANILKUNIAR SHAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER.INTERNATIONAL TAXATION6 which is again on intemarionaltaxation and central circlc, High Courl of Himachal pradesh in thecase ol GOVIND SINGII vs. INCOME TAX OFFICBRT,Gujarat High Court in the casc of MANSUKHBHAI'zlzoz+1464 [430 ][(Born)]'K2024) 156 taxmann.com 178 (Cauhati)l't@024) 165 taxmann.com I l5 (l,unlab & Haryana)l'[2024) [67 taxmann.com 4l I ('l-elangana)]" [2024) 166 taxmann.com 679 (I]ombay)l'[2024) [65 taxmanu.corn I l3 (l{imachal Pradesh)] Down the line, we find that the same find that the same that the same same issue has also been Down the line, we find that the same find that the same that the same same issue has also been DAHYABTIAI RADADIYA vs. INCOME TAx OFFICER,WARD 3(3)(5)8, Jharkand High Court in rhe case of SHyAMOFFICER,WARD 3(3)(5)8, Jharkand High Court in rhe case of SHyAMSUNDAR SAW vs. UNION OF INDIA9, Rajasrhan Ftigh Court inthe case of SHARDA DEVI CHHAJER vs. INCOME TAXOFFICER & ANOTHER and batch of wr.ir petirionsr0 whichOFFICER & ANOTHER and batch of wr.ir petirionsr0 whichstood decided on 19.03.2024. Similar views have also been takenby the Division Bench of Calcutta High Coun in the case ofby the Division Bench of Calcutta High Coun in the case ofGIRDHAR GOPAL DALMIA vs. UNTON OF INDIA & ORS(M.A.T 1690 of 2023),decided on25.09.2024.6. Even though the same issue having been decided by a large(M.A.T 1690 of 2023),decided on25.09.2024.6. Even though the same issue having been decided by a largenumber of High Courts, u,e arc still conlltrnted n,ith large filing ofidentical matters on daily basis ranging berrveen 5 to 10 writidentical matters on daily basis ranging berrveen 5 to 10 writpetitions. That upon the instructions being sought from theDepartment, they have been taking a solitary ground that theDepartment, they have been taking a solitary ground 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 Ktnukala Ravindra Reddy8Z0Z+ 8Z0Z+ SCC Online Gui 4012I'2025 Scc+)ffinc Jhar 287I o 72023 [: RJ-JD ][:4984-DB ]I'2025 Scc+)ffinc Jhar 287I o 72023 [: RJ-JD ][:4984-DB ]I n (l supra) has been subjected to challenge in a Special [Leave]Petition i.e., SLP No.3574 ol 2024 before the [Hon'ble ][Supreme]Court and the l{on'ble Suprcme Coufl is [seized ][of ][the ][matter.]In addition, there are about 1200 SLPs also filed arising [out ][of ][the]same issue being decided by various l{igh Courts.7. To a query being put to the learned counsel for the [Revenue,]they have categorically accepted the lact that [there ][is ][no ][interim]order granted by the t{on'blc Supreme Court in [any ][of ][these]matters pending belore it. Meanwhile, fresh writ [petitions ][of]identical nature are being piled up belbre this [Bench ][on ][daily ][basis]and 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, titt date, wc do not frnd any remedial steps [having ][been]taken by the lncomc Tax Deparlment [to ][take appropriate ][steps ][to]either hold back issuancc of notice under Section [1484. ][and under]Section 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 Courls in India are conrinuously stillinitiating proceedings under Section l48A of rhc Act and alsoinitiating proceedings under Section I 48 o I the Act incontravention to the amendments brought into thc lncome Tax Actpursuant to the Finance Act,2020 as also thc [;inence Act 2021.9. Upon a query being put as to why can't this q.rit petition bedisposed of in the teeth of the decision rendered by this Court inthe case of Kanokila Ravindro Reddy (l supra). learned StandingCounsel for the Income Tax Departmcnt contcnds that those wouldunnecessarily burden the Income T'ax Departilerrt rvhere theywould be required to file equal number o1' Sl_frs before theHon'ble Supreme Court and it would be fur.ther hurdening theexchequer of the Union of India. It was also thc contcntion of theleamed Standing Counsel that no pre.judice w,oulcl he causcd to theinterest of the petitioners in case ilthis writ petirion is kept pendingtill the flnalization of the SLPs pending befbre the Hon'bleSupreme Court and the fact that the petitioner is already enjoyingthe benefit of interim protection. Nonetheless, on the earlier queryof this Cout as to why the Income Tax Department have not colneout with a mechanism to issue appropriate instructior.rs or to take appropriate steps in ensuring that [proceedings under ][Section ][l48A]of the Act as also the assessment [orders ][under Section ][148 ][of ][the]Act are kept in a hold in thc [light ][ol'the ][decisions dedcided ][by ][the]various High Courts, it [was ][subrnitted ][by ][the ][leamed ][Standing]Counsel that the said steps [can ][only ][be ][taken ][at thc 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]titigation 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 151A of thc [Act ][and ][as ][a result by now, more than ][600]to 700 petitions have [been ][already ][got piled up ][belore ][this ][High]Court on an issue [which ][otherwise ][stands ][squarely covered ][by ][the]judgment of this Court in the casc ol Kanakola [Ravindra ][Reddy](l supra). What is also surprising [is the tact ][that though while]allowing the writ [petitions ][in ][the ][case ][ol ][Kanakala ][Ravindra]Reddy (l supra), the l)ivision [Bench ][while ][reserving ][the ][right ][of]the Revenue, has also [protected ][tl-rc ][interest ][of ][the ][petitiqlrers] insof'ar as thc liberty which was gr.anted to the Revenue tbrinitiating fresh proceedings strictly in accordance *,.ith the arnendecrprovisions of the Act, as amended by the Finance ,\ct, 2020 andthe Finance Act, 2021. The petitioner assessee woulcl be enritled tochallenge or raise the other legal objections if the Revenue initiatesfresh proceedings. The Department has made no endeavour inavailing the said liberty that was reserved for the Revenuc. On thecontrary, they have been still sticking on to the stand, u,hich thisHigh Court as well as many other High Courts already hcld to bebad insof'ar as thc liberty which was gr.anted to the Revenue tbrinitiating fresh proceedings strictly in accordance *,.ith the arnendecrprovisions of the Act, as amended by the Finance ,\ct, 2020 andthe Finance Act, 2021. The petitioner assessee woulcl be enritled tochallenge or raise the other legal objections if the Revenue initiatesfresh proceedings. The Department has made no endeavour inavailing the said liberty that was reserved for the Revenuc. On thecontrary, they have been still sticking on to the stand, u,hich thisHigh Court as well as many other High Courts already hcld to bebad I I. It appears that because of the aforesaid libertl, that rhis HighCourt had granted permitting the Revenue lbr initiating ticshCourt had granted permitting the Revenue lbr initiating ticshproceedings as a one-time measure in a faceless rnanner, theIncome Tax Department wants to take advantage of the same b-vprotracting these proceedings which would enable thern to rrleet thelimitation that would otherwise corne in the w.ay. Likewise, if thewrit petition is kept pending for a considerable long period of rimeand finally at a later stage if the Hon,ble Suprerne Court conflrmsprotracting these proceedings which would enable thern to rrleet thelimitation that would otherwise corne in the w.ay. Likewise, if thewrit petition is kept pending for a considerable long period of rimeand finally at a later stage if the Hon,ble Suprerne Court conflrmsthe decision taken by this High Court as also by rhe other LlighCourts in rvhich the SLps are still pending, the [ncourc Tax \ ,i^ 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 mattcrs at a much [ater stagewhich would be advantageous and beneficial to the Revenue andwould be equally disadvantageous and detrimental so f-ar as interestof the assesses are concemed. As a conscquence, the Income TaxDepartment gets an extended period of tirne fbr initiation of freshproceedings.12. The alarming trend of docket explosion in this Court, despitethe clear precedent set in Kanskalu Ravindro Retttty (l supra), is awhich would be advantageous and beneficial to the Revenue andwould be equally disadvantageous and detrimental so f-ar as interestof the assesses are concemed. As a conscquence, the Income TaxDepartment gets an extended period of tirne fbr initiation of freshproceedings.12. The alarming trend of docket explosion in this Court, despitethe clear precedent set in Kanskalu Ravindro Retttty (l supra), is amatter of grave concern. The Income Tax Department's persistentinitiation of fresh proceedings, disregarding thc established judicialpronouncements, has led to an unprecedented surge in litigationwith over 600-700 petitions piling up on rhe same issue. [-lhis]deliberate approach not only undermines the principle of judicialpronouncements, has led to an unprecedented surge in litigationwith over 600-700 petitions piling up on rhe same issue. [-lhis]deliberate approach not only undermines the principle of judicialprecedent but also strains the judicial resourccs unnecessarily. TheDepartment's strategy of awaiting thc Suprernc Court,s dccision onpending SLPs while continuing to initiate licsh proceedingspending SLPs while continuing to initiate licsh proceedingsappears to be a calculated move to buy tirne and circumventlimitation periods, rather than adhering to the established legallimitation periods, rather than adhering to the established legal position. Such conduct raises serious questions about theadministrative efficiency and the respect lor judicialpronouncements, particularly when this Court has already provideda balanced approach by preserving both the Revenue's rights andassesses rnterestsa balanced approach by preserving both the Revenue's rights andassesses rnterests position. Such conduct raises serious questions about theadministrative efficiency and the respect lor judicialpronouncements, particularly when this Court has already provideda balanced approach by preserving both the Revenue's rights andassesses rnterestsa balanced approach by preserving both the Revenue's rights andassesses rnterests 13. Another aspect which needs to be considered is that in fact itshould have been realized by the Income Tax Department itself andshould have fbund out via media in ensuring that proceedingsunder Sections 148-.4 and 148 should not have been issued in alaceless manner, at least till the Hon'ble Supreme Court decide thetwelve hundred (1200) odd SLPs which it is already seized of or, atleast the lncome Tax Deparlment should have f,ound out somerernedial steps to ensure that wherever the authorities intend toinitiate proceedings under Sections 148-A.and 148, other than in alaceless manner, the proceedings should have been def'erredwithout precipitating the matter further intimating the assessee thatthey shall initiate appropriate proceedings only after the SLp,s aredecided by the llon'ble Supreme Couft on the very same issue.This again, the Income Tax Department, has not been able to givc aconvincing reply, cxcept for the fact that such a decision il at all 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 J'axes. Though the [carnedStanding Counsel for the Income Tax Department contended thatthe Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition of similar nature, onthe one hand when the High Court is struggling to reduce itspendency, such notices which are under challenge in this writpetition are forcing the assessee to knock the doors of this FlighCourt resulting in filing of hundreds of new writ petitions which inthe long run not only affects the disposal of the writ petitions butalso consumes substantial time of the Bench in hearing thesematters again and again on daity basis. Admittedty, in spite ol thematter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court having been taken onmany occasions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court which is seized of thcrnatter has been reluctant in granting any interim protection to theI ncorne Tax Department. Yet, the authorities conccmed 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 maketthing$ fufther worse, the Income Tax Deparlment is showingaudacity by issuing notices continuously under Sections t48-A and 148 through the .iurisdictional Assessing Officer whereas it oughtto have been only in the faceless manner.to have been only in the faceless manner. 14. In the case ol BANK OF INDIA vs. ASSISTANTCOMMISSIONER, INCOME TAXrr, on an issue whether it wasjustifiable on the part of the lncome Tax Deparlment in notfollowing an order passed by the adjudicating authority only on theground that the appeals are pending, the Division Bench of theHigh Court olBombay held at paragraph No.25 as under, viz., : "25. lvlr. Paridwalla has righ y drawn out attention to thedecision of this Court in Commissioner of lncome Tax vs. Smt.Godavaridevi Sarafr2 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 woulcl loose itsbinding force Referring to the decision of the Supreme Court inUnion of lndia vs. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd.i4, theCourt observed that the approach of the officials of Revenue oftreating decisrons being ',not acceptable,, was criticized by theSupreme Court ln such decision, following are the relevantobservations made by the Supreme Court. 'l ttzOZSt [170 ][raxmann.corn ]422 [(Bombay)l]12 12 Jtez81 I l3 I'fR 589 (Bombay)Jtez81 I l3 I'fR 589 (Bombay) 'l ttzOZSt [170 ][raxmann.corn ]422 [(Bombay)l]12 12 Jtez81 I l3 I'fR 589 (Bombay)Jtez81 I l3 I'fR 589 (Bombay) " IZOZ+1 [165 ][raxrnann.com ]5g l/300 Taxman 452 (Bombay)ta 7S921ra\mann.com l615-5 EI_T 433 (SC)ta 7S921ra\mann.com l615-5 EI_T 433 (SC) ,/ ii "6. Sri Reddy is perhaps right in saying that theofficers were not actuated by any mala fides [in]officers were not actuated by any mala fides [in]passing 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 correctness [or]otherwise of their conclusion or of any [factual]malafides but with the fact that the officers, [in reaching]in their conclusion, by-passed two appellate orders [in]regard to the same issue which were [placed ][before]them, one of the Collector [(Appeals) ]and the [other of]the Tribunal. The High Court has, in our view, [rightly]criticized this conducl of the Assistant Collectors [and]the harassment to the assessee caused [by ]the [failure]of these officers to [give ]effect to the orders [of]authorities higher to them in the appellate hierarchy. [lt]cannot be too vehemently emphasized that it [is ]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 [the]Assistant Collectors working within his [jurisdiction ][and]the order of the Tribunal is binding upon [the Assrstant]Collectors and the Appellate Collectors who [function]under the [jurisdiction ]of the Tribunal. [The principles ][of]judicial discipline require that the orders of the hrgherappellate authorities should be followed unreservedlyby the subordinate authorities. The [mere ]fact that theorder of the appellate authority is not ["acceptable" ]tothe department - in itself an objectionable [phrase ]-and is the subject matter of an appeal [can ]furnish noground for not following it unless its operation hasbeen suspended by a competent court. [lf ]this healthyare not concerned here with the correctness [or]otherwise of their conclusion or of any [factual]malafides but with the fact that the officers, [in reaching]in their conclusion, by-passed two appellate orders [in]regard to the same issue which were [placed ][before]them, one of the Collector [(Appeals) ]and the [other of]the Tribunal. The High Court has, in our view, [rightly]criticized this conducl of the Assistant Collectors [and]the harassment to the assessee caused [by ]the [failure]of these officers to [give ]effect to the orders [of]authorities higher to them in the appellate hierarchy. [lt]cannot be too vehemently emphasized that it [is ]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 [the]Assistant Collectors working within his [jurisdiction ][and]the order of the Tribunal is binding upon [the Assrstant]Collectors and the Appellate Collectors who [function]under the [jurisdiction ]of the Tribunal. [The principles ][of]judicial discipline require that the orders of the hrgherappellate authorities should be followed unreservedlyby the subordinate authorities. The [mere ]fact that theorder of the appellate authority is not ["acceptable" ]tothe department - in itself an objectionable [phrase ]-and is the subject matter of an appeal [can ]furnish noground for not following it unless its operation hasbeen suspended by a competent court. [lf ]this 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 thrs 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 apparen yunpalatable to the Revenue, are only intended to curba tendency in revenue matters which, if allowed tobecome widespread, could result in considerableharassment to the assesses_public without any benefitto the Revenue. We would like to say that thedepartmenl 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 authorities to the requirements of judicialdiscipline and the need for giving effect to the ordersof the higher appellate authorities which are bindingon them." I 5. What is worrying this Bench more is the tact that anendeavour is being rnade 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 standfurther 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 Depaftment being virtlative of the Finance Act,2O20 and Finance Act,2021. Now, in order to protecrthe interest of the Revenue as also that of the assessee, it would betrite at this juncture, if we dispose of the writ petition with anobserwation/direction that the disposat of the instant writ petition interms of the judgment rendered by this High Court in the case ofKankanala Ravindra Reddy (1 supra) shall however be subject tothe outcome of the SLPs which were hled by the lncome TaxDepartment and which is pending consideration before the Hon'bleSupreme Court. 16. In the given facts and circumstances, this Bench is of theconsidered opinion that unless and until we do not timely disposeof matters which are squarely covered by the decision of this Courtand which stands tbrtified 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 tar as the interest of the Revenue is concemed, we are ofthe considered opinion that the interest of the Revenue has alreadybeen considered and protected, as has been observed in paragraphs 36,37 and 38 of the order which. for ready reference, is reproducedhereunder 36. For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned noticesissued and the proceedings drawn by the respondent-Department is neither tenable, nor sustainable.The notices so issued and the procedure adopted beingper se illegal, deserves to be and are accordingly setaside/quashed. As a consequence, all the impugnedorders getting quashed, the consequential orders passedby the respondent-Department pursuant to the noticesissued under Section 147 and 148 would also getquashed and it is ordered accordingly. The reason weare quashing the consequential order is on the principlesthat when the initiation of the proceedings itself wasprocedurally wrong, the subsequent orders also getsnullified automatically. 37. The preliminary objection raised by the petitioner issustained and all these writ petitions stands allowed onthis very [jurisdrctional ]issue. Since the impugned noticesand orders are getting quashed on the point ofjurisdiction, we are not inclined to proceed further anddecide the other issues raised by the petitioner whichstands reserved to be raised and contended in anappropriate proceedings. 37. The preliminary objection raised by the petitioner issustained and all these writ petitions stands allowed onthis very [jurisdrctional ]issue. Since the impugned noticesand orders are getting quashed on the point ofjurisdiction, we are not inclined to proceed further anddecide the other issues raised by the petitioner whichstands reserved to be raised and contended in anappropriate proceedings. 38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the caseof Ashish Agarwal, supra, as a one{ime measureexercising the powers under Article 142 of theConstitution of lndia, permitted the Revenue to proceedunder the substituted provisions, and this Court allowingthe petitions only on the proceduraj flaw, the right confered on the Revenue would remain reserved toproceed further if they so want from the stage of theorder of the Supreme Courtin the case of AshishAgarwal, supra. 18. we would onry fufther like to make observations that sincewe are inclined to disposc of the instant writ petition, conscious ofthe fact that rhe earlier orcler of this High Court in the case ofKanakula Ravindra Reddy (l supra) is subjected to challengebefbre the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLp No.3574 of 2024,preferred by the l.come Tax Department, we make it clear thatallowing of the instant writ petition is subject to outcome of theaforesaid SLP prelerred by the Revenue against the decision of thisIJigh Court in the case ol Kanakalo Ravindra Reddy (l supra).This, in other rvords, rvould 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 thc very same issue. 19. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands allowed in favour of the assessee so far as thelssue of jurisdictionISconcemed. As a consequence, theimpugned notice undercl'rallenge under Sections 148-A and l4gstands set aside/quashed I The consequential orders, if any, also stand set aside/quashed insimilar terms as have been passed by this High Court in the case ofKonkanols Ravindra Redt{, (t supra). 1.here shall be no order asto costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. r [sD/-]M.NAGAMANISISTANT REGISTRAR//TRUE COPYII\ [sECTtoN ]OFFTCER To 13:?#;3,1""lS:,?t ",Tb [y3;." ]; ? ! J,oBbnX,,,,"rs, Opp. Botanical2One CC to SRt. A V RAGHU RAM Advocate tOpUCI3One CC to Ms J SUNTTHA (SR SC FOR TNCOM TAX) topucl4Two CD CopiesKKSPSKw HIGH COURT DATED:1410il2025 ORDERWP.No.201t6 ot 2O2S ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITIONWITHOUT COSTS 8\8 f..(2E AUE 2ffi'+a) \ I I Il l ll