Heard Mr. A.v.a.siva Kartikeya, Learned Counsel For Thepetitioner And Ms. B.sapna Reddy, Leamed Senior Standingcounsel For The Income Tax Department Appearing F v. The Content

I 13447l HIGH COURT FOR AT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction) NIONDAY, THE TWO THOUSAND PRESENT THE HONOURABLE [JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY]ANDTHE HONOURABLE WRIT PETITION[NO: 11903][ oF ][2025] Between: tvl/s A. P Fastners [Private Limited, ][Plot ][No ][1 ][4 ]' [Phas-e ][lV ] Jeedimeila, [HyOeraOaO ][I'io"o ][o;',s, ][iJingJnr.Represented ][by ][its Director. ][Mr]kitnrn kui,ringarwal, [S/o ][ll4r ][Banwari ][Lal ][Agarwal'] ...PETITIONER AND 1Assessment Unit, [lncome ][Tax ][Department' ][National ][e-Assessment Centre']ii;;6;i;i: R;;"i [r.ro ][aor, ][z"o ][rr-oot, ][E-Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru ][stadium']New Delhi [- ]110 [003]ii;;6;i;i: R;;"i [r.ro ][aor, ][z"o ][rr-oot, ][E-Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru ][stadium']New Delhi [- ]110 [003] 2Tha T)cnurv commissroner of lncome [Tax, Circle 1(1), Hyderabad, lT ][Towers,]nC C-uJtOd Masab [Tank' ][Hyderabad ][- ][500 ][004 ][Telangana']nC C-uJtOd Masab [Tank' ][Hyderabad ][- ][500 ][004 ][Telangana']JThe Principal Comnlissioner [of lncome ][Tax ][Hyderabad - 1' lncome Tax] JThe Principal Comnlissioner iijir"*. A"C ouards [Masab Tank, Hyderabad ][- ][500 ][004 ][Telangana']iijir"*. A"C ouards [Masab Tank, Hyderabad ][- ][500 ][004 ][Telangana'] ...RESPONDENTS Petition under [Article ][226 ][of the ][Constitution ][of ][lndia praying ][that in ][the]circumstances [stated ][in ][the ][affidavrt ][filed ][therewith' ][the ][High ][Court ][may ][be]pleased to issue a [Writ ][of ][Mandamus ][or any ][other appropriate ][Writ' ][Order ][or]Direction, declaring [that ][the ][order ][passed ][by ][the ][1't ][Respondent' ][uls ][147 ][rlw]Sec'144r/wSec.1448ofthelncomeTaxAct,1961,dated20.02.2025,bearingDtNandNoticeNo.ITBA/AST/S/14712024-2511073506816(1),fortheAssessmentYear20,19-20'asarbitrary,illegal,badinlaw,Void-ab-initio,violativeoftheprinciplesofnaturaljustice,apartfrombeingviolativeofArticlesla,l9(1)(g)and265 of the Constitution [of ][lndia ][and ][Sec ][148A ][of the lncome ][Tax ][Act' ][1961' ][and ][to]consequently [set ][aside the same ][in ][the ][interests ][of ][justice'] lA NO: 1 OF 2025 PetitionunderSectlonl5lCPCprayingthattnthecircurnstancesstatedinthe affidavit filed [in ][support ][of ][the petition, ][the ][High ][Court ][may be pleased ][to ][stay]all further [proceedings, including ][any ][recovery, pursuant ][to the ][order ][passed ][by]thelstRespondent,u/s147rlwSec.144rlwSecl44BofthelncomeTaxAct'.1961. dated 20'02.2025, bearing DIN and Notice No ITBA/AST/S/14712024.25l1073506816(1), [for ][the ][Assessment ][Year ][2019 ][- ][20 ][pending ][disposal et ][the]above Writ Petition Counsel for the [Petitioner: ][SRI A. ][V. A. ] Counsel for the [Respondents: ][MS. ] (Jr. SC FOR INCOME TAx) The Court made the [following: ] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAONANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION No.l1903 of 2025 ORDER, (per Hon'ble Sri Jusrice Narsing Rao Nandikonda) Heard Mr. A.V.A.Siva Kartikeya, learned counsel for thepetitioner and Ms. B.Sapna Reddy, leamed Senior StandingCounsel for the Income Tax Department appearing for therespondents. Perused the record. 2. This is a writ petition where the proceedings are eitherchallenged to the notices which were issued under Section 1484.and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short'the Act') or theassessment orders those have been passed under Section 147 ofthe Act which have been assailed 3. This writ petition is being taken up today only on one ofthegrounds, that the notices issued under Section l48A of the Actand the subsequent initiation of proceedings under Section 148 ofthe Act by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, whereas in termsof the amendment that was brought to the Income Tax Act by wayof Finhree Act,2O2l w.e.f., 01 .04.2021 onwards, proceedings 2. This is a writ petition where the proceedings are eitherchallenged to the notices which were issued under Section 1484.and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short'the Act') or theassessment orders those have been passed under Section 147 ofthe Act which have been assailed 3. This writ petition is being taken up today only on one ofthegrounds, that the notices issued under Section l48A of the Actand the subsequent initiation of proceedings under Section 148 ofthe Act by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, whereas in termsof the amendment that was brought to the Income Tax Act by wayof Finhree Act,2O2l 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 lacelessmanner4. The contention of the petitioner contention of the petitioner of the petitioner the petitioner petitioner is that the issue that the issue the issue issue ofproceedings being in violation of the Finance Act, ZO2l i.e., theimpugned notices under Section 148A 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 r4gA as also under Section148 of the Act were held to be bad with consequential reliefs on theground of it being in violation of the provisions ofSection l5lA ofthe Act read wirh Notification lBl2O22 dated 29.03 .2022. The saidjudgment passed by this Court has also been subsequently followedin a large number of writ petitions which were allorved on similarterms. The contention of the petitioner contention of the petitioner of the petitioner the petitioner petitioner is that the issue that the issue the issue issue of 'l(2023) 156 taxmann.com 178 (Tetangana)l 5. Down the line, we find that the same issue has also beendecided against the Revenue by various High Courts i.e.,by the Bombay High Court in the case of HEXAWARETECHNOLOGIES LTD., vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSTONEROF 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 INDIA4, and Telangana High Court in the case ofSRI \.ENKATARAMANA R-E,DDY PATLOOLA VS. DEPUTYCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX5 where the issue was [in]respect of international taxation, Bombay High Court in rhe case ofABHIN ANILKUMAR SHAH VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER,INTERNATIONAL TAXATION6 which is again on intemationaltaxation and central circle, High Court of Himachal Pradesh in thecase of GOVIND SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERT,Gujarat High Court in the case of 2 lzoz+1464 ITR 430 (Bom)'l(2024) [156 ][taxmann.com ][478 ][(Gauhati)l]" l(2024) [165 ][taxman+gom ][115 ][(Punjab ][& ][Haryana)l]'[2024) [167 ][taxmann.coh ][4l ] [(Telangana)]]" 12024) [166 ][taxmann.com ][679 ][(Bombay)l] '12024) [165 ][taxmann.com ][113 ][(Himachal ][Pradesh)]] DAIIYABHAI RADADIYA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 3(3)(OE, Jharkand High Court in the case of SHYAMSUNDAR SAW vs. UNION OF INDIAe, Rajasthan High Court inthe case of SHARDA DEVI CHHAJER vs. I\COME TAXOFFICER & ANOTHER 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 on25.09.2024.6. Even though the same issue having been decided by a largenumber of High Courts, we are still confronted with large filing ofidentical matters on daily basis ranging between 5 to 10 writpetitions. That upon the instructions being sought fiom theDepartment, they have been taking a solitary ground that thedecision of the Bombay High Court in the case of He-rawareTechnologies Ltd., (2 supra) as also the one u.hich has beendecided by this Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy 82024 SCC Online Guj 4012'g2025 [Online ]Jhar 287'o [y2o23 t ] [:4984-DBl] 82024 SCC Online Guj 4012'g2025 [Online ]Jhar 287'o [y2o23 t ] [: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 oftheCourt 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 thesematters pending before it. Meanwhile, fresh writ petitions ofidentical nature are being piled up before this Bench on daily basisand the pendency is getting increased on matter which otherwisehas already been dealt and decided by this very High Court itself. 8. On the one hand, even though the order of this Court thatwas passed as early as on 14.09.2023 and, more 16 months havelapsed, till date, we do not find any remedial steps having beentaken by the Income Tax Department to take appropriate steps toeither hold back issuance of notice under Section 148,.{ and underSection 148 of the Act by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer,rather the authorities concemed in the teeth of series of decisions by all the major High Courts in India are continuously stillinitiating proceedings under Section 148,4. of the Act and alsoinitiating proceedings under Section 148 of the Act incontravention to the amendments brought into the Income Tax Actpursuant to the Finance Act,2020 as also the Finance Act 2021.9. Upon a query being put as to why can't this writ petition bedisposed of in the teeth of the decision rendered by this Couft inthe case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra), leamed StandingCounsel for the lncome Tax Department contends that those wouldunnecessarily burden the lncome Tax Department where theywould be required to file equal number of SLPs before theIJon'ble Supreme Court and it would be further burdening theexchequer of the Union of India. It was also the contention of theleamed Standing Counsel that no prejudice would be caused to theinterest ofthe petitioners in case ifthis writ petition is kept pendingtill 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 queryof this Court as to why the Income Tax Departmenl have not comeout with a mechanism to issue appropriate instructions or to take :./l'./' appropriate steps in ensuring that proceedings under Section 148,4of the Act as also the assessment orders under Section 148 of theAct are kept in ahold in the light of the decisions dedcided by thevarious High Courts, it was submitted by the leamed 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 concemed are still even now in2025 also initiating proceedings in contravention to the provisionsof Section 151A 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(l supra). What is also surprising is the fact that though whiteallowing 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 liberly which was granted to the Revenue forinitiating fresh proceedings strictly in accordance with the amendedprovisions of the Act, as amended by the Finance Act, 2020 andthe Finance Act,2021 . The petitioner assessee would be entitled toinitiating fresh proceedings strictly in accordance with the amendedprovisions of the Act, as amended by the Finance Act, 2020 andthe Finance Act,2021 . The petitioner assessee would be entitled tochallenge or raise the other legal objections if the Revenue initiatesfresh proceedings. The Department has made no endeavour inavailing the said liberty that was reserved for the Revenue. On thefresh proceedings. The Department has made no endeavour inavailing the said liberty that was reserved for the Revenue. On thecontrary, they have been still sticking on to the stand, which thisHigh Court as well as many other High Courts already held to bebadHigh Court as well as many other High Courts already held to bebad 1 l. It appears that because ofthe aforesaid liberty that this HighCourt 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 thelimitation that would otherwise come in the way. Likewise, if thewrit petition is kept pending for a considerable long period of timeand finally at a later stage if the Hon'ble Supreme Court conhrrnsthe decision taken by this High Court as also by the other HighCourts in which the SLPs are still pending, the Income Tax *g ,rtr' ,/, Department would get the advantage of the liberfy that is otherwiseprotected in favour of the Revenue for initiation of freshprotected 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 Ileshproceedings.which 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 Ileshproceedings. 12. The alarming trend of docket explosion in this Court, despitethe clear precedent set in 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 judiciatprecedent 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 Reyenue's rights andassesses lnterests. 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 Reyenue's rights andassesses lnterests. 13. Another aspect which needs to be considered is that in fact itshould have been realized by the Income Tax Departrnent itself andshould have lound 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 ofor, 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 fuither intimating the assessee thatthey shall initiate appropriate proceedings only after the SLp,s aredecided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the ver1. 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 !I (i,;[r-{t ][. ][:,].i, .. 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 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 HighCourt resulting in fiiing 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 Supreme Court which is seized of thematter has been reluctant in granti ng 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 showingIaudacity by issuing notices continuously under Sections 148-A and 148 through the jurisdictional Assessing Officer whereas it oughtto have been only in the faceless mamer.to have been only in the faceless mamer. 14. In the case of BANK OF INDIA vs. ASSISTANTCOMMISSIONER, INCOME TAXIr, on an issue rvhether it wasjustifiable on the part of the [ncome Tax Department in notfollowing an order passed by the adjudicating authority only on theground that the appeals are pending, the Division Bench of theHigh Court of Bombay held at paragraph No.25 as under, viz., : "25. Mr. Paridwalla has righfly drawn out attention to thedecision of this Court 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. lTOr3of 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 Suprerne Court inUnion of lndia vs. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd.i4, 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. t,t,|\zO_zs ) I 70 taxmann.com 422 ( Bombay)l) I 70 taxmann.com 422 ( Bombay)l t,t,|\zO_zs ) I 70 taxmann.com 422 ( Bombay)l) I 70 taxmann.com 422 ( Bombay)l '' 119781I l3 ITR 589 (Bombay)13 IZOZ+1165 taxmann.com 5gl/300 Taxman 452 (Bombai,)13 IZOZ+1165 taxmann.com 5gl/300 Taxman 452 (Bombai,)'o TtggZl [raxmann.com ]16/55 EL-t 433 (SC) "6. Sri Reddy is perhaps right in saying that theofficers were not actuated by any mala fides inpassing the impugned orders. They perhapsgenuinely felt that the claim of the assessee was nottenable and that, if it was accepted, the Revenuewould suffer. But what Sri Reddy overlooks ls that weare not concerned here with the correctness orwould suffer. But what Sri Reddy overlooks ls that weare not concerned here with the correctness orotherwise of their conclusion or of any factualmalafides but with the fact that the officers, in reachingmalafides 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 ofregard 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 thequasiludicial 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 functionAssistant Collectors working within his jurisdiction andthe order of the Tribunal is binding upon the AssistantCollectors and the Appellate Collectors who functionunder the [jurisdiction ]of the Tribunal. The principles ofiudicial [discipline ][require ][that the ][orders ][of the ][higher]appellate authorities should be followed unreservedlyiudicial [discipline ][require ][that the ][orders ][of the ][higher]appellate 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 hasbe_en 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.of 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 apparenflyunpalatable 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 authoritres and theappellate authorities to the requrrements of judicialdiscipline and the need for giving effect to the ordersof the higher appellate authorities which are bindrngon them." 1 5. What is worrying this Bench more is the fact that anendeavour is being made whole hearledly to ensure not to generatefuither litigation on issues which have been laid to rest by a largenumber of High Courts all of whom have taken a consistent standendeavour is being made whole hearledly to ensure not to generatefuither 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 : B:(! ! Finance Act,2O2O and Finance Act,2o2l . Now, in order to protectthe interest of the Revenue as also that of the assessee, it would betrite at this juncture, if we dispose of the writ petition with anobservation/direction that the disposal of the instant writ petition interms of the judgment rendered by this High Court in the case ofKankanala Ravindra Reddy (l supra) shall however be subject tothe outcome of the SLPs which were filed by the Income TaxDepartment and which is pending consideration before the Hon'bleSupreme Court. 16. In the given facts and circumstances, this Bench is of theconsidered 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 ofthe considered opinion that the interest of the Revenue has alreadybeen considered and protected, as has been observed in paragraphsbeen 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 responden!Department is neither tenable, nor sustainable.The notices so issued and the procedure adopted beingper se illegal, deserves to be and are accordingly setasideiquashed. 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 ieason 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 [jurisdictional ]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 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.Agarwal, supra. 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 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.Agarwal, 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 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 Kanukala 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 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 (1 supra). There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed SD/-M. OSMAN ALI BAIGSREGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ON OFFICER To,'1 . Assessment Unit, lncome Tax Department, Natioe-Assessment Centre,New Delhi, Room No. 401 , 2nd Floor, E-Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru[ Stad ][ium,]New Delhi - 110 003'1 . Assessment Unit, lncome Tax Department, Natioe-Assessment Centre,New Delhi, Room No. 401 , 2nd Floor, E-Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru[ Stad ][ium,]New Delhi - 110 003 2. The Deputy Commissioner of lncome Tax, Circle ['1(1), ]Hyderabad, [Towers,]AC Guards Masab Tank, Hyderabad - 500 004. TelanganaAC Guards Masab Tank, Hyderabad - 500 004. Telangana 3. The Principal Commissioner of lncome Tax, Hyderabad - 1, lncome TaxTowers. A C Guards. Masab Tank, Hyderabad - 500 004. Telangana.C Guards. Masab Tank, Hyderabad - 500 004. Telangana.Guards. Masab Tank, Hyderabad - 500 004. Telangana.500 004. Telangana.004. Telangana.Towers. A C Guards. Masab Tank, Hyderabad - 500 004. Telangana.C Guards. Masab Tank, Hyderabad - 500 004. Telangana.Guards. Masab Tank, Hyderabad - 500 004. Telangana.500 004. Telangana.004. Telangana. Towers. A C Guards. Masab Tank, Hyderabad - 500 004. Telangana.C Guards. Masab Tank, Hyderabad - 500 004. Telangana.Guards. Masab Tank, Hyderabad - 500 004. Telangana.500 004. Telangana.004. Telangana.4 One CC to Sri A V. A Siva Kartikeya, Advocate 5. One CC to lr/ls. Bokaro Sapna Reddy (Jr. SC for lncome Tax) 6. Two CD CopiesTJlts\t ,tX&X&i*:, HIGH COURT DATED:1610612025 ORDER WP.No.11903 of 2025 ALLOWING THE WRIT WITHOUT COSTS g[.d4] Yt.fr*s ::.r(oR [rls ]S I4-'\li9,\?7 iituu 2W\z)rt.tP4 i'clro *