Heard Mr. A.v. Raghu Ram, Leamed [Counsel ][For ][The]Petitioner And Mr. K. Sudhakar Reddy, Leamed Senior [Standing]Counsel For The Income Tax [Department ][For v. The Contention Contention Of The Petitioner The Petitioner Petitioner Is That The Issue Ofthat The Issue Ofthe Issue Ofissue Ofof

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MAYTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 29509 OF 2024 Between: Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society [Pallewada, ][lrzlain ][Road]Pallewlda,i/emsoor lr/andal, Khammam [- ]507302. Rep., by [its ][Secretary, ][Sri]Penke Venkateswara Rao, S/o. Sri P. Papaiah ...PETITIONER AND 1Assessment Unit, National Faceless AssessmentCentre, lncome TaxDepartment, Ministry of Finance, Room No. [401,]2nd Floor, E-Ramp,Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium. Delhi [- ]110 003.Department, Ministry of Finance, Room No. [401,]2nd Floor, E-Ramp,Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium. Delhi [- ]110 003. 2. The lncome Tax Officer, Ward [- ]l, lncome [Tax ][Office, ][Rajeev Gunt, ][Rajiv]Chowk, Near Kinnerasani Theatre, Khammam [- ][507001]Chowk, Near Kinnerasani Theatre, Khammam [- ][507001] ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of [lndia ][praying that ][in ][the]circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the [High ][Court may ][be]pleased to pass an order or dlrection, especially one in the nalure [of ] IMANDAMUS holding that the notice dated 28.03.2023 [issued ][by ][2nd]Respondent under section 148 of the Act [with [and ][Notice]No.lTBA/AST/S l148_112022-2311O51444635(1)l [as ][being ][without ][jurisdiction,]arbitrary, illegal, bad in law, [void ab initio, ][apart ][from ][being ][violative ][of ][provisions]of section 14BA and section 149 of [the ][Act ][and ][also ][contrary ][to ][the ][circuhr]issued by CBDT and [provisions ]of section [151A ][of ][the Act, and consequently ][set]aside the notice under section [148 ][dated ][28.03.2023 ][and ][the ][assessment ][and]penalty orders passed by 1st Respondent for asst. [year ]2016-17 [under ][section]147 r.w.s 1448, uls.271(1)(b),271F and [271(l)(c) ][cf ][the ][Act, ][respectively.] W,=,F lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances statedrn the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased tostay the collection of tax and penalty demands raised by 1st Respondent for the4y.2016-17 . Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI A.V.RAGHU RAM Counsel for the Respondents: SRI K.SUDHAKAR REDDY, Sr. SC FOR INCOME TAX The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOT]RABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM ANDTHE, HONOT]RABLE SRI JUSTTCE NARSING RAONANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION No.29509 OF 2024 OR-DER, [(per ]Hon'ble Sri Justice [P.Sam ][Koshy)] Heard Mr. A.V. Raghu Ram, leamed [counsel ][for ][the]petitioner and Mr. K. Sudhakar Reddy, leamed Senior [Standing]Counsel for the Income Tax [Department ][for ][the ][respondents]Perused the record. 2. This is a writ petition where the [proceedings ][are ][either]chaltenged 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 ][of]the Act which have been [assailed] 3. This writ petition is being taken [up today ][only ][on ][one ][ol ][the]grounds, that the notices issued [under Section 148A ][of ][the ][Act]and the subsequent initiation [of ][proceedings under ][Section ][148 ][of]the Act by the [jurisdictional ][Assessing ][Officer, ][whereas ][in ][terms]of the amendment that [was ]brought [to ][the ][Income ][TafAct ][by ][way]of Finance Act,202l [w.e.f., ][01.04.2021 ][onwards, ][proceedings] 2. This is a writ petition where the [proceedings ][are ][either]chaltenged 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 ][of]the Act which have been [assailed] 3. This writ petition is being taken [up today ][only ][on ][one ][ol ][the]grounds, that the notices issued [under Section 148A ][of ][the ][Act]and the subsequent initiation [of ][proceedings under ][Section ][148 ][of]the Act by the [jurisdictional ][Assessing ][Officer, ][whereas ][in ][terms]of the amendment that [was ]brought [to ][the ][Income ][TafAct ][by ][way]of Finance Act,202l [w.e.f., ][01.04.2021 ][onwards, ][proceedings] under Section 148.4 of the Act as also under Section 14g of theAct ought to have also been issued and proceeded in a facelessmanner.4. The contention contention of the petitioner the petitioner petitioner is that the issue ofthat the issue ofthe issue ofissue ofofproceedings being in violation of the Finance Act,202l i.e., theimpugned notices under Section l48A and Section 14g of the Actnot being issued in a faceless manner, have already 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 were allowed andthe proceedings initiated under Section l48A as also under Section148 of the Act were held to be bad with consequential relicfs on theground of it bcing in violation of the provisions of Section I 5 I A ofthe Act read with Notification lB/2022 dated 29.03.2022. The saidjudgment passcd by this Court has also been subsequently followedin a large nurnber 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 ]taxrnann.com 178 (Telangana)l 5. Down the line, we find that the, same'isstle' [has ]also [been]decided against the Revenue by various [High ]Courts [i.e.,]by the Bombay High Court in the case of TECHNOLOGIES LTD., [VS. ]ASSISTANT OF INCOME TAX & OTHERS2, Gauhati [High ][Court in ][the case]of RAM NARAYAN SAII vs. UNION [INDIA3' ][Punjab ][and]Haryana High Court in the case of JATINDER vs. UNION OF INDIA4, and Telangana [High Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]SRI VENKATARAMANA REDDY PATLOOLA [VS. ] COMMISSIONER OF INCOME [where ][the ][issue ][was ][in]respect of intemational taxation, Bombay [High ][Court in ][the ][case ][of]ABHIN ANTLKUMAR SHAH [VS. ]INCOME [OFFICER,]INTERNATIONAL TAXATION6 [which ][is ][again on ][intemational]taxation and central circle, [High ][Court ][of ][Himachal ][Pradesh ][in ][the]case of GOVIND SINGH vs. INCOME [OFFICERT,]Gujarat High Court in the case of 'lzoz+1464 [430 ][(Bom)]'l(2024) [156 ][taxmann.com 478 ][(Gauhati)l]^ l(2024) [165 ][taxmann.com ][1 ] [5 ][(Punjab ][& ][Haryana)l]'12024) [167 ][taxmann.com ][41 ] [(Telangana)l]" 12024) [166 ][taxmann.com 679 ][(Bombay)l]' 12024) [65 ][taxmann.com ][1 ] [(Himachal ][Pradesh)l] DAIIVAi}I!\I l\r.:f,!..{i)I'tL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 3(3X5)8, Jharkand High Court in the case ol SHYAMSUNDAR S,\W vs. UNION OF INDIAe, Rajasrhan High Court inthe case ol SHAR-DA DEVI CHHAJER vs. TNCOME TAXOFFICER & ANOTIIER and batch of writ petitionsro 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 INDIA & ORS(M.A.T 1690 of 2023), decided or.25.09.20246. Even though the same issue having been decided by a largenumber of High Courts, we are still confronted with large filing olidentical matLers on daily basis ranging between 5 to 10 rvritpetitions. That upon the instructions being sought from theDepartment, t hey have been taking a solitary ground that thedecision of the Bombay High Court in the case of HexawureTechnologies Ltd., (2 supra) as also the one which has beendecided by this Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy 82024 SCC On[.ine Guj 4012'2025 SCC Onl.ine [Jhar ]287o ' 72023 [: RI-JD :'r984-DB ]l has [been ][subjected'to challengelin' a'specialr[-bave](1 [,supra) ]Petition [i.e., ] [No.3574 ][of ][2024 ][before ][the Hon'ble ][Supreme]Court [and the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Court ][is ][seized ][of ][the ][matter']In addition, [there are about 1200 SLPs also ][filed ][arising out ][ofthe]same issue [being ][decided ][by various High Courts']1. To a [query being ][put ][to ][the ][learned counsel ][for ][the ][Revenue']have [categorically ][accepted ][the ][fact ][that ][there ][is ][no interim]they order [granted ][by ][the Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Court ][in ][any ][of ][these]matters [pending ][before ][it' ][Meanwhile' fresh ][writ ][petitions ][of]identical [nature ][are ][being piled ][up before ][this ][Bench ][on ][daily ][basis]and the [pendency ][is ][getting ][increased ][on ][matter ][which ][otherwise]hasalreadybeendealtanddecidedbythisveryHighCourtitself.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]till [date, ][we do ][not find ][any remedial ][steps ][having ][been]lapsed, taken by [the Income ][Tax ][Department ][to ][take ][appropriate steps ][to]either hold [back ][issuance ][of ][notice under Section 148A ][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 Courts in India are continuously stillinitiating proceedings under Section 148,.4' of the Act and alsoinitiating proceedings under Section 148 of the Act incontravention to the aurendments brought into the Income Tax Actpursuant to the Finance Act, 2020 as also the Finance Act 20219. Upon a query being put as to why can't this writ petition bedisposed ol [jn ]the teeth of the decision rendered by this Court inthe case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra), learned StandingCounsel for the Income Tax Department contends that those wouldunnecessarily burden lhe Income Tax Department where theywould be required to f,rle equal number of SLPs before theHon'ble Supreme Court and it would be further burdening theexchequer ol the Union of India. It was also the contention of thelearned 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 before the Hon'bleSupreme Courl and the lact that the petitioner is already enjoyingthe benefit of interirn protection. Nonetheless, on the 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 l4EAof 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 leamed StandingCounsel that the said steps can onlybe taken at the level of CBDTas any such steps would have to be taken Pan India and cannot belimited to any of these [jurisdictional ]High Courts. 10. As a result of which, what we are facing is steep increase oflitigation day in and day out even though various orders have beenpassed by this High Court allowing writ petitions on the very sameissue. The Income Tax authorities concemed are still even now in2025 atso initiating proceedings in contravention to the provisionsof Section I 5 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 (1 supra), the Division Bench while reserving the right ofthe Revenug has also protected the interest of the petitioners irrscfa: a: tre .iber:y ;rhich was granted to the Revenue forinitiating frcsh proceedings strictly in accordance with the arnendedinitiating frcsh proceedings strictly in accordance with the arnendedprovisions o1'the Act, as arnended by the Finance Act,2020 andthe Finance Act,2021. Ihe petitioner assessee rvould be entitled 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 Revenue. On theavailing the said liberty that was reserved for the Revenue. On thecontrary, they have been still sticking on to the stand, which thisHigh Courl as well as lnany other High Courts already held to bebadHigh Courl as well as lnany other High Courts already held to bebad 1 1. It appears that because of the aforesaid liberty that this HighCourt had granted permitting the Revenue for initiating freshproceedings as a one-time measure in a faceless manner, theCourt had granted permitting the Revenue for initiating freshproceedings as a one-time measure in a faceless manner, theIncome Tax Department wants to take advantage of the same byprotracting these proceedings which would enable them to meet theIimitation that would otherwise come in the way. Likewise, if thewrit petition is kept pending fbr a considerable long period of timeand finally at a later stage if the Hon,ble Supreme Court confirmsthe decision taken by this High Court as also by the other Highprotracting these proceedings which would enable them to meet theIimitation that would otherwise come in the way. Likewise, if thewrit petition is kept pending fbr a considerable long period of timeand finally at a later stage if the Hon,ble Supreme Court confirmsthe decision taken by this High Court as also by the other HighCoi:'rts in which the SI-Ps are still pending, the Income Tax Departmcnt 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 concemed. As a consequence, the Income TaxDepartment gets an extended period of time for initiation of freshproceedings. Departmcnt 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 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 set in Kanakdlu Ravindra Reddy (l supra), is amatter of grave concem. 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 theadministrati-, c efficiency and the respect for judicialpronouncentcnts, particularly rvhen this Court has already provideda balanced approach by preserving both the Revenue's rights andassesses lnterests 13. Anothcr aspect which needs to be considered is that in fact itshould have been realized by the lncome Tax Depaftnrent itself andshould have fbund out via media in ensuring that proceedingsunder Sections 148-4 and 148 should not have becn issued in afaceless manncr, at least till the Hon'ble Supreme Court decide thetwelve hundrcd (1200) odd SLPs which it is already seized ofor, atleast the Income Tax Departrnent should have ibund 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 lncome Tax Department, has not been able to give aconvincing reply, except for the fact that such a decision if 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 Taxes. Though the leamedStanding Counsel lor the Income Tax Department contended thatthe Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition of similar nature, onthe one hand when the High Court is struggling to reduce itspendency, such notices which are under challenge in this writpetition are forcing the assessee to knock the doors of this HighCourt resulting in fiting 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 daily basis. Admittedly, in spite of thematter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court having been taken onmany occasions, the Hon'ble Suprerne Court which is seized of thematter has been reluctant in granting any interim protection to theIncome Tax Department. Yet, the authorities concemed at theState level are not ready to accept the verdict passed by a majorityof High Courts of different States on the same issue; and to makethings further worse, the Income Tax Department is showingaudacity by issuing notices continuously under Sections 148-A and i [213 ]thro,-rgh the julsdtctionai Assessing Officer rvhereas it oughtto have been only in thc faceless manner. i [213 ]thro,-rgh the julsdtctionai Assessing Officer rvhereas it oughtto have been only in thc faceless manner. 14. In thc case ol' BANK OF INDIA vs. ASSISTANTCOMMISSIONER, INCOME TAXIT, on an issue rvherher it wasjustifrable ou the parl of the Income Tax Departmcnt in notfollowing an order passed by the adjudicating authority only on theground that the appeals are pending, the Division Bench of theHigh Court o1-Bornbay held at paragraph No.25 as under, viz., : "25. [,1r. Paridwalla has rightly drawn out attentlon 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. lTOl3of 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 woutd 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. l] [ltzOzsl ][170 ][raxmann.conr 422 ][(Bombay)l]'" [978J I l3 ITR 589 (Bombay)t3 IZOZ+1 [165 ][taxmann.com ][581/300 Taxman ]452 [(Bombay)]'o 7l99z1raxmarm.com [16155ELT 433 (SC)] :"!Fr- ,f' l] [ltzOzsl ][170 ][raxmann.conr 422 ][(Bombay)l]'" [978J I l3 ITR 589 (Bombay)t3 IZOZ+1 [165 ][taxmann.com ][581/300 Taxman ]452 [(Bombay)]'o 7l99z1raxmarm.com [16155ELT 433 (SC)] :"!Fr- ,f' "6. Sri Reddy is perhaps right in saying that theofficers were not actuated by any mala fides inofficers were not actuated by any mala fides inpassing the impugned orders- They perhapsgenuinely felt that the claim of the assessee was nottenable and that, if it was accepted, the Revenuewould suffer. But what Sri Reddy overlooks is that weare not concerned here with the correotness orotherwise of their conclusion or of any factualmalafides but with the fact that the officers, in reachingin their conclusion, by-passed two appellate orders inregard to the same issue which were [placed ]beforethem, one of the Collector [(Appeals) ]and the other ofthe Tribunal. The High Court has, in our view, rightlycriticized this conduct 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 thetenable and that, if it was accepted, the Revenuewould suffer. But what Sri Reddy overlooks is that weare not concerned here with the correotness orotherwise of their conclusion or of any factualmalafides but with the fact that the officers, in reachingin their conclusion, by-passed two appellate orders inregard to the same issue which were [placed ]beforethem, one of the Collector [(Appeals) ]and the other ofthe Tribunal. The High Court has, in our view, rightlycriticized this conduct 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 thequasijudicial issues before them, revenue officers arebound by the decisions of the appellate authorities.The order of the Appellte Collector is binding on theAssistant Collectors working within his .iurisdiction andthe order of the Tribunal is binding upon the AssistantCollectors and the Appellate Collectors who functionunder the [jurisdiction ]of the Tribunal. The [principles ]ofjudicial discipline require that the orders of the higherappellate authorities should be followed unreservedlyby the subordinate authorities. The mere fact that theorder of the appellate authority is not ["acceptable" ]tothe department - in itself an objectionable phrase -and is the subject matter of an appeal can furnish nobound by the decisions of the appellate authorities.The order of the Appellte Collector is binding on theAssistant Collectors working within his .iurisdiction andthe order of the Tribunal is binding upon the AssistantCollectors and the Appellate Collectors who functionunder the [jurisdiction ]of the Tribunal. The [principles ]ofjudicial discipline require that the orders of the higherappellate authorities should be followed unreservedlyby the subordinate authorities. The mere fact that theorder of the appellate authority is not ["acceptable" ]tothe department - in itself an 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 healthybeen 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 widespread, 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 authorities to the requirements of [judicial]discioline 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 (-,l Finance Act,2020 and Finance Act,202l. Now, in order to [protect]the interest of the Revenue as also that of the assessee, it would betrite at this [junchrre, ]if we dispose of the writ petition with anobservation/direction that the disposal of the instant writ petition interms of the [judgment ]rendered by this High Court in the case ofKankanala Ravindra Reddy (l supra) shall however be subject tothe outcome of the SLPs which were filed by the Income TaxDepartment and which is pending consideration before the Hon'bleSupreme Court. 16. In the given facts and circumstances, this Bench is of theconsidered opinion that unless and until we do not timely disposeof matters which are squarely covered by the decision of this Courtand which stands fortif,red 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 concerned, we are of the considered opinion that the interest of the Revenue has alreadybeen considered and protected, as [has ]been observed in [paragraphs] 35,3 ,- and 3li of the order which, for ready referenoe , is reproduced hereunder 36. For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned noticesissued and the proceedings drawn by the responden!Department is neither tenable, nor suslainable.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 14g 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 rssuslained and all these writ petitions stands allowed onthis very jurisdictional issue. Since the impugned noticesand orders are getting quashed on the point ofjurisdiction, we are not inclined to proceed furlher 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 Aganval, supra, as a one-time 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 procedural flaw, the right 37. The preliminary objection raised by the petitioner rssuslained and all these writ petitions stands allowed onthis very jurisdictional issue. Since the impugned noticesand orders are getting quashed on the point ofjurisdiction, we are not inclined to proceed furlher 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 Aganval, supra, as a one-time 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 procedural flaw, the right confened 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 fufther 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 ofKanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra) is subjected to challengebefore the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No.3574 of 2024,preferred by the Income Tax Department, we make it clear thatallowing of the instant writ petition is subject to outcome of theaforesaid SLP preferred by the Revenue against the decision 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]lsconcemed. As a consequence, the irnpugned notice underchallenge underpections [148-4 and ][148 ][stands ][set ][aside/quashed.] I The consequential orders, if any, also stand set aside/quashed insimilar terms as have been passed by this Fligh 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/. K. AMMAJIDfPUw REG|STRAR//TRUE COPY//\ [.....-]. SECTION OFFICER To, The Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre, lncome TaxDepartment, Iv4inistry of Finance, Room No.401 , 2nd Floor, E-Ramp,Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, Delhi - 1 10 003.Department, Iv4inistry of Finance, Room No.401 , 2nd Floor, E-Ramp,Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, Delhi - 1 10 003. 1 2The lncome Tax Officer, Ward - l, lncome Tax Office, Raieev Gunt. RaiivChowk, Near Kinnerasani Theatre, Khammam - 507001Chowk, Near Kinnerasani Theatre, Khammam - 507001 One CC to SRI A.V RAGHU RAM, Advocate tOpUCltOpUCl 3 4One CC to SRI K.SUDHAKAR REDDY, Sr. SC FOR TNCOME TAX TAX 5Two CD CopiesBSR GJd IIt HIGH COURT DATED:0210512025 /7t1i\=-10JU L20?5*\." ORDER WP.No.29509 of 2024 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS b