Heard Mr. Manmohan Dundu, Leamed [Counsel ][For ][The]Petitioner And Mr. K. Sudhakar Reddy, Learned Senior [Standing]Counsel For The Lncome Tax Department [Appe v. The Income Tax Officer

HIGH COURT AT HYDERABAD(SPecial Original [Jurisdiction)] MONDAY,THE rWO THOUSAND PRESENT THE HONOURABLE [P'SAM ] AND THE HONOURABLE [SRI .TUSTiTET'TNNSING ] WRIT PE [N][O: ][11819][ oF ][2025] Between: Raishekar [ReddY]#?tli#,"'i"rflfl lni,,5&1oXIi8'Ifi [3'I;ff ][i'i-.'1'""#J]54vears, [OccuPati]Welfare [SocietY,]t'r;"di: ["i#;;p;lii, ][Kompallv' ][Hvderabad'relansana-]500014 ...PETITIONER AND 1ThelncomeTaxofficer'Ward15(1)Hyde^rabad,lTTower.ACGuards,viaJ;i;;k. [Hvd-erabad,Telansana-500004']viaJ;i;;k. [Hvd-erabad,Telansana-500004'] 2The Principal [Commisstoner of ][lncome^Tax ][4, Hyderabad, ][l.T. ][Tower, ] Gr"";i.'i/"r;r;1bnt<. [Hvoeraoad-500004']Gr"";i.'i/"r;r;1bnt<. [Hvoeraoad-500004'] 3The Assessment [Unit. lncome ][Tax ][Department' National Faceless]Assessment [centre. ][oernr,'il)tlniriry ][;#il;-"-", ][Room ][No. ][4O1,2nd ][Floor, ] ffi;;:ffiffi;iri [ll"n" ][stadium ][Delhi-1 ][1 ][0003']Assessment [centre. ][oernr,'il)tlniriry ][;#il;-"-", ][Room ][No. ][4O1,2nd ][Floor, ] ffi;;:ffiffi;iri [ll"n" ][stadium ][Delhi-1 ][1 ][0003'] ...RESPONDENTS PetitionunderArticle226oflheConstitutionoflndiaprayingthatinthetf"d tnerewith' [the ][High ][Court ][may be ][pleased]circumstances [stated in ][tnt ]"i'O'"'t to issue [an appropriate ][*'it ][o'J"i ][or direction ][more particrilarly ][one ][in ][the ][nature of]Writ of [Mandamus, Oectarini'i-r"e ][itte"rn"nt ][Order ][dt ][15 ][03'2025 passed by ][the]3rdrespondent [u/s ][147 ][r'w ][sv1ffi ][;;th" ][lncometax ][Act ][for A ][Y' ][2019'20 vide ] No. ITBA/AST/ [sjl147t2024';5tlolqslsafi(l)' ][consequent ][to ][the order passed ][u/s]148A(d) [and ][the ][noti""-"it""J ][uis ]['t+A dt' ][07 ][O4'2O23 ][vide DIN ][No']rrBA/ASr/si [1 ][4 ][B-1t2023- ][z+tiiilszzs11 ][(1 ][), ][issued ][bv ][the ][JA0('1 ][st ]-T:P:l9:tt)instead of [FAo(3rd ][|.".oo"i"nli'J= ][uoio"iri"g"r'.a.nd ][c'ontrary ][to ][the ][provisions ][of]i".tr"-ta [Act and contrary to ][ihe ][Principles ][of ][Natural Justice] lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC [praying that in ][the ][circumstances stated ][in]the affidavit filed in support [of the ][petition, ][the ][High Court may be pleased ][to ][stay]all further proceedings [pursuant ]to [the Assessment Order ][dt- ][15 ][03.2025 ][passed by]the 3rdrespondent u/s 147 r.w-s [1448 ][of ]the [lncome-tax Act for ][A.Y. ][2019-20 ][vide]DIN No. ITBA/ASTiS/14712024-25110745156 [10(1)and ][may ][pass, ][such ][other]orde(s) as the Honourable [Court ][deems ][fit ][and ][proper ][in ][tht: ][interests ][of]substantial [justice, ]as otherwise [the ][Petitioner ][would ][be put ][to ][irreparable ][loss ][and]severe rnJUry. Counsel for the Petitioner: [SRl. DUNDU MANMOHAN] Counsel for the Respondents: [SRI K. ] [REODY (Sr. ] TAX) The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING NANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION No.ll819 of 2025 ORDER, [(per ]Hon'ble Sri.Iustice [Nar.cing ][Rao ][Nandikonda)] Heard Mr. Manmohan Dundu, leamed [counsel ][for ][the]petitioner and Mr. K. Sudhakar Reddy, learned Senior [Standing]Counsel for the lncome Tax Department [appearing ][for ][the]respondents. Perused the record. 2. This is a writ petition where the [proceedings ][are ][either]challenged to the notices which were issued [under Section ][148A]and 148 of the Income Tax Act, [196l (for ][short ]['the ][Act') ][or ][the]assessment orders those have [been ][passed ][under ][Section ][147 ][of]the Act which have been assailed. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING NANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION No.ll819 of 2025 ORDER, [(per ]Hon'ble Sri.Iustice [Nar.cing ][Rao ][Nandikonda)] Heard Mr. Manmohan Dundu, leamed [counsel ][for ][the]petitioner and Mr. K. Sudhakar Reddy, learned Senior [Standing]Counsel for the lncome Tax Department [appearing ][for ][the]respondents. Perused the record. 2. This is a writ petition where the [proceedings ][are ][either]challenged to the notices which were issued [under Section ][148A]and 148 of the Income Tax Act, [196l (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 ][of ][the]grounds, that the notices issued under Section l48A 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 [tlrat ][was ][brought ][to the Income Tax ][Act ][by ][way]of Finance Act, 2021 [w.e.f., ][01'04.2021 ][onwards, ][proceedings] under Section l48A of the Act as also under Section 148 of [the]Act ought to have also been issued and proceederl in zL lacelessmanner.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, 202.1 i.e., theimpugned notices under Section l48A and Section 148 of the Actnot being issued in a faceless manner, have already been dealt withand decided by this Courtln the case of KANKANALARAVINDRA REDDY vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICEFIT 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 reliefs on theground of it being in violation of the provisions of Section l5lA ofthe Act read with Notification 1812022 dated 29.03.12022. The saidjudgment passed by this Court has also been subsequentlv followedin a large number of writ petitions which were allowed on similarterms The contention contention of the petitioner the petitioner petitioner is that the issue ofthat the issue ofthe issue ofissue ofof '[(2023) 156 taxmann.com 1 78 (Telangana)] 5. Down the line, we find that the same issue has also [been]decided against the Revenue by various High Courts [i.e.,]by the Bombay High Court in the case of HEXAWARETECHNOLOGIES LTD., vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX & OTHERS2, Gauhati [High Court in ][the ][case]of RAM NARAYAN SAH vs. UNION OF INDIAT, [Punjab ][and]Haryana High Court in the case of JATINDER SINGH vs. UNION OF INDIA4, and Telangana High Court [in ][the ][case ][of]SRI VENKATARAMANA REDDY PATLOOLA [VS. ] COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX5 [where the ][issue ][was ][in]respect of international taxation, Bombay [High ][Court in ][the ][case ][of]ABHIN ANILKUMAR SHAH vs. INCOME TAX [OFFICER']INTERNATIONAL TAXATION6 [which ][is again ][on ][intemational]taxation and central circle, High Court [of ][Himachal ][Pradesh ][in ][the]case of GOVIND SINGH vs. TAX [OFFICERT,]Gujarat High Court in the [case ]of '1zozt1464 [430 ][(Bom)]'l(2024) [156 ][taxmann.com 478 ][(Gauhati)l]^ l(2024) [165 ][taxmann.com ][115 ][(Punjab ][& ][Haryana)l] '[2024) [167 ][taxmann.co]rr4l ] [(Telangana)l] " [2024) [166 ][taxmann.com ][679 ][(Bombay)]] ' [2024) [165 ][taxmann.com ][t ][l3 ][(Himachal ][Pradesh)]] '[2024) [167 ][taxmann.co]rr4l ] [(Telangana)l] " [2024) [166 ][taxmann.com ][679 ][(Bombay)]] ' [2024) [165 ][taxmann.com ][t ][l3 ][(Himachal ][Pradesh)]] DAHYABHAI RADADIYA vs. INCOME TAX O,FFICER,WARD 3(3)(08, Jharkand High Court in the ca:;e of SHYAMSUNDAR SAW vs. UNION OF INDIAe, Rajasthan High Court inthe case of SHARDA DEVI CHHAJER vs. INCOME TAXOFFICER & ANOTHER and batch of writ petitiorsr0 whichstood decided on 19.03.2024. Similar views have zLlso been takenby the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in the case ofGIRDHAR GOPAL DALMIA vs. UNION OF INDI.,\ & ORS(M.A.T 1690 of 2023), decided on25.09.20246. Even though the same issue having been decided :y a largenumber of High Courts, we are still confronted witl larg: fiting ofidentical matters on daily basis ranging between 5 to I 0 writpetitions. That upon the instructions being sor,Lght from theDepartment, they have been taking a.solitary ground that thedecision of the Bombay High Court in the case of lTe-ruworeTechnologies Lrd., (2 supra) as also the one wnich has beendecided by this Court in the case of Kanakala Rtvindra Reddy 8zoz4 ScC Online Guj 4012'2025 SCC Online Jhar 287' o 12023, RI- J D :49 84-DB l (l supra) has been subjected to challenge in a [Special ][Leave]Petition i.e., SLP 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 ][of ][the]same issue being decided [by ][various High ][Courts.]7. To a query being put to the learned [counsel ][for ][the ][Revenue,]they have categorically accepted [the ][fact ][that ][there ][is ][no ][interim]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]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 ][been]taken by the lncome 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 concerned [in ][the teeth ][of ][series ][of ][decisions] by all the [major ][High ][Courts ][in ][India ][are ][continuously still]initiating [proceedings ][under ][Section ][1484. ][of ][the ][Act ][and ][also]initiating [proceedings ]under Section 148 [of ][the ][Act ][in]contravention [to ][the amendments ][brought into the Incomt: Tax ][Act]pursuant 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 ][be]disposed of [in ][the teeth ]of [the decision ][rendered ][b1, ][this ][Court ][in]the case of Kanakala [Ravindra ][Reddy ][(1 ]supra), [leamed ][Standing]Counsel for [the ]Income [Tax ][Department ]contends [that ][thc,se ][would]unnecessarily burden the Income Tax Departmerlt [where ]theywould be required to file equal number of SLI)s bt:fore theHon'ble Supreme Court [and ]it [would be ][further ][burdt:ning ][the]exchequer o{'the Union of India. It [was also ][the ]contention of theleamed Standing Counsel that no [prejudice ][would ][be: ]caused to theinterest of the [petitioners ]in case if this writ [petition ]i:s kepr 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 thr: earlier queryof this Court as to why the Income Tax Department have nol comeout with a mechanism to issue appropriate instructions c r to take appropriate steps in ensuring that proceedings under Section l4gAof the Act as also the assessment orders under Section l4g of theAct are kept in a hold 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 Courrs. 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 stilt even now in2025 also initiating proceedings in contravention to the provisionsof Section 15 I A of the Act and as a result by now, more than 600to 700 petitions have been already got piled up before rhis HighCourt on an issue which otherwise stands squarely covered by thejudgment of this Court in the case of Kanqkala Ravindra Reddy(1 supra). What is also surprising is the fact rhat 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 liberty which was granted to th,: [Revenue ][for]initiating fresh proceedings strictly in accordance [with ][thr: amended]provisions of the Act, as amended by the Finance Act,202O andthe Finance Acq202l. The petitioner assessee [wouLd ]be [entitled ][to]challenge or raise the other legal objections if the Revenue initiatesfresh proceedings. The Department has made no encleavour inavailing the said liberty that was reserved for the Rr:venr"re. On thecontrary, they have been still sticking on to the stand, which thisHigh Courl as well as many other High Courts alrr:ady held to bebad. I l. It appears appears that because ofthe aforesaid because ofthe aforesaid ofthe aforesaid aforesaid liberbr thal. thal. this HighHighCourt had granted permitting the Revenue for initiating freshproceedings as a one-time measure in a faceless manner, theIncome Tax Department wants to take advantage [,rf ]thr: same byprotracting these proceedings which would enable them tc meet thelimitation that would otherwise come in the way. l-ikevrise, if thewrit petition is kept pending for a considerable long, pericd of timeand finally at a later stage if the Hon'ble Supreme Court confirmsthe decision taken by this High Court as also by the c,ther HighCourts in which the SLPs are still pending, the In<:ome TaxN It appears appears that because ofthe aforesaid because ofthe aforesaid ofthe aforesaid aforesaid liberbr thal. thal. this HighHigh - Department would [get ][the advantage ]of [the ][liberty ][that ][is ][otherwise]protected in favour of the [Revenue ][for ][initiation ][of ][fresh]proceedings from the disposal of [these ]matters [at ][a ][much later ][stage]which would be advantageous [and ]beneficial [to ][the ][Revenue ][and]would be equally disadvantageous [and ][detrimental ][so ][far ][as ][interest]of the assesses are [concemed. As ][a consequence' ][the Income Tax]Department gets an extended [period ][of ][time ][for initiation ][of ][fiesh]proceedings. It appears appears that because ofthe aforesaid because ofthe aforesaid ofthe aforesaid aforesaid liberbr thal. thal. this HighHigh - Department would [get ][the advantage ]of [the ][liberty ][that ][is ][otherwise]protected in favour of the [Revenue ][for ][initiation ][of ][fresh]proceedings from the disposal of [these ]matters [at ][a ][much later ][stage]which would be advantageous [and ]beneficial [to ][the ][Revenue ][and]would be equally disadvantageous [and ][detrimental ][so ][far ][as ][interest]of the assesses are [concemed. As ][a consequence' ][the Income Tax]Department gets an extended [period ][of ][time ][for initiation ][of ][fiesh]proceedings. 12. The alarming [trend ][of ][docket ][explosion ][in ][this Court, ][despite]the clear precedent [set ][in ][Kanakala Ravindra ][Reddy ][(1 ][supra), ][is ][a]matter of grave concem. [The ][Income ][Tax ][Department's persistent]initiation of fresh [proceedings, disregarding ][the established ][judicial]pronouncements, has led to [an ][unprecedented ][surge ][in ][litigation]with over 600-700 [petitions ][piling up on ][the ][same ][issue' ][This]deliberate approach [not only ][undermines ][the principle ][of judicial]precedent but also strains [the ][judicial ][resources ][unnecessarily' The]Department's strategy of [awaiting the ][Supreme ][Court's decision ][on]pending SLPs while continuing [to ][initiate ][fresh ][proceedings]to be a [calculated ][move ][to ][buy ][time ][and ][circumvent]appears limitation [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 lnterests. 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 afaceless manner, at least till the Hon'ble Supreme Court decide thetwelve hundred (1200) odd SLPs which it is already seize:d of or, atleast the Income Tax Department should have fcrund 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 suclg a decisior.r if at all has to be taken, [has ][to ][be ][taken ][for ][the whole ][of ][India, ][and ][which]otherwise has to be [by way ][of ][a ][policy ][decision ][and ][that too ][at the]level of Central [Board ][of ][Direct ][Taxes. ][Though ][the ][learned]Standing Counsel [for ][the lncome ][Tax ][Department ][contended ][that]the Delhi High Court [dismissed ][a ][writ ][petition ][of ][similar ][nature, on]the one hand [when ][the ][High ][Court ][is ][struggling ][to ][reduce ][its]such notices [which ][are ][under challenge ][in ][this writ]pendency, petition are forcing the [assessee ][to ][knock the ][doors ][of ][this ][High]Court resulting in [filing ][of ][hundreds ][of ][new ][writ ][petitions ][which ][in]the long run not [only ][affects the ][disposal ][of ][the ][writ ][petitions ][but]also consumes substantial [time ][of ][the ][Bench ][in ][hearing ][these]matters again and [again on ][daily ][basis' ][Admittedly, ][in ][spite ][of ][the]matter before the [Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Court having ][been taken ][on]many occasions, the [Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Court ][which ][is seized ][of ][the]matter has been [reluctant ][in ][granting any ][interim ][protection ][to ][the]Income Tax Department. [Yet, the ][authorities ][concemed ][at ][the]State level are [not ][ready ][to ][accept ][the verdict ][passed ][by ][a ][majority]of High Courts [of ][different ][States ][on the ][same ][issue; ][and ][to ][make]things further [worse, ][the ][Income ][Tax ][Department ][is ][showing]audacity by issuing [notices ][continuously ][under Sections ][148-A ][and] 148 through the [jurisdictional ][Assessing ][Officer ][whereas ][it ][ought]to have been only in the [faceless ][manner'] 14. [n the case of [INDIA vs. ] COMMISSIONER, INCOME [TAX|r, ][on ][an issue ]['''^rhet[rer ][it ][was]justifiable on the part of the Income Tax Department [in ][not]an order [passed ][by ][the ][adjudicating authority ][orly ][on ][the]following ground that the appeals are [pending, ][the ][Division ][Ben<:h ][of ][the]High Court of Bombay [held ][at paragraph ][No.25 ][as ][under, ]['riz., ][:] "25. Mr. Paridwalla has rightly drawn out attention tc thedecision of this Court [in ][Commissioner ][of ][lncome ][Tax ][vs- ][Smt.]Godavaridevi Sarafl2 as [also ][the ][recent decision ][cf ][the' ][co-]ordinate Bench of this Court [in ][Samp ][Furniture ][(P) Ltd. ][v. ][lTO13]of which one of us [(Justice G.S. Kulkarni) was ][a ][member, wherein]the Court categorically [observed ][that ][the ][Revenue ][havinll ][not]"accepted'the iudgrnent of the High Court [would not mean that ][till]the same is set [aside in a manner known ][to ][law, ][it ][would ][loor;e its]binding force. Referring to the [decision of the Supreme ][Corrt ][in]Union of lndia vs. Kamlakshi [Finance Corporation ][Ltd.l', ][the]Court observed that the approach [of the ][officials ][of ][Revenue of]treating decisions being ["not ][acceptable' ][was ][criticized ][bv ][the]Supreme Court. [ln ][such ][decision, following ][are tl''e ][reklvant]observations [made ][by ][the Supreme ][Court.] " 71zozs1 [170 ][taxmann.com 422 ][(Bombay)l] '2 1t9z8i [113 ] [589 ][(Bombay)] " lzOZ+1165 [taxmann.com ][581/300 Taxman 452 ][(Bombay)] 'o 7t992l [raxmann.com ][l6155 ] [433 ][(SC)] " 71zozs1 [170 ][taxmann.com 422 ][(Bombay)l] '2 1t9z8i [113 ] [589 ][(Bombay)] " lzOZ+1165 [taxmann.com ][581/300 Taxman 452 ][(Bombay)] 'o 7t992l [raxmann.com ][l6155 ] [433 ][(SC)] "6. Sri Reddy is perhaps right in saying [that ][the]officers were not actuated by any [mala ][fides ][in]passing the impugned orders. They [perhaps]genuinely felt that the claim of the assessee [was ][not]tenable and that, if [it ][was ]accepted, [the ][Revenue]would suffer. [But ][what Sri Reddy overlooks ][is ][that we]are 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]crlticized this conduct [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 ][of]utmost importance that, [in ][disposing ][of ][the]quasijudicial issues before them, [revenue ][officers ][are]bound 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 Assistant]Collectors and the [Appellate Collectors who ][function]under the [jurisdiction ][of ][the ][Tribunal. ][The principles ][of]judicial discipline require that the [orders ]of the [higher]appellate authorities should [be followed ][unreservedly]by 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 ][has]been suspended [by a competent ][court. ][lf this healthy] rule is not followed, the result will only be unduerharassment to assesses and chaos in administratiorof tax laws.of tax laws. 12. We have dealt with this aspect at some length,because it has been suggested by the IearnedAdditional Solicitor General that the observationsmade by the High Court, have been harsh orr 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 C;ourtshould be kept in mind in future and the utmost reqardshould be paid by the adjudicating authorities and theappellate authorities to the requirements of judicialdiscipline and the need for giving effect to the o(lersof 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 f]eneratefurther 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 violativrl of the - 15' what is worrying this Bench more is the fact that anendeavour is being made whole heartedly to ensure not to f]eneratefurther 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 violativrl of the - Finance Ac:,ZOZO [and ][Finance ][Act,202l ][' ][Now' ][in ][order ][to ][protect]the interest [of ][the ][Revenue ][as ][also that ][of the ][assessee' ][it ][would ][be]trite at this [juncture, ][if ][we ][dispose ][of ][the ][writ ][petition ][with ][an]observation/direction [that the disposal ][of ][the instant ][writ ][petition ][in]terms of [the ][judgment ][rendered ][by this ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]Kankanala [Ravindra ][Reddy ][(l ][supra) shall ][however be ][subject ][to]theoutcomeoftheSLPswhichwerefiledbythelncomeTaxDepartment [and ][which ][is ][pending consideration before ][the ][Hon'ble]Supreme [Court.] 16. [n [the ][given ][facts and ][circumstances' ][this ][Bench ][is ][of ][the]considered [opinion that ][unless and ][until ][we ][do not ][timely ][dispose]of matters [which ][are ][squarely covered by the decision ][of ][this Court]and which [stands ][fortified by ][the ][decisions ][of ][the ][various ][other]Courts [on the very ][same issue, ][the ][pendency ][of ][this ][High]High Court would [fuither ][be ][burdened ][which ][otherwise ][can ][be ][decided]and disposed [of ][as ][a ][covered matter'] 17. So [far ][as ][the ][interest ][of ][the ][Revenue ][is ][concemed' ][we ][are ][of]the considered [opinion ][that ][the ][interest ][of ][the ][Revenue has ][already]been considered [and protected, ][as ][has been ][observed ][in ][paragraphs] 36., 37 and 38 of the order which, for ready referenr:e, is reproducedhereunder:hereunder: 36. For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned noticesissued and the proceedings drawn by the respondent_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 noti,:esissued 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 rarasprocedurally wrong, the subsequent orders also g,:tsnullifi ed automatically. 37. The preliminary objection raised by the petitioner issustained and all these writ petitions stands allowed lnthis very jurisdictional issue. Since the impugneo noticesand orders are getting quashed on the point ofjunsdiction, we are not inclined to proceed further anddecide the other issues raised by the petitioner whiohstands reserved to be raisedand contendec, in anappropriate proceedings. 38. Since the Hon,ble Supreme Court had. in the cas,eof Ashish Aganrval, supra, as a one{ime measureexercising the powers under Article 142 tf theConstitution of lndia, permifted the Revenue to proceedunder the substituted provisions, and this Court allowinEthe petitions only on the procedural flaw, thr: right confened [on the ][Revenue ][would remain reseNed ][to]proceed further [if ][they ][so ][want from ][the ][stage ][of ][the]order [of ][the ][Supreme ][Court ][in the ][case ][of ][Ashish]Agarwal, [suPra.] 38. Since the Hon,ble Supreme Court had. in the cas,eof Ashish Aganrval, supra, as a one{ime measureexercising the powers under Article 142 tf theConstitution of lndia, permifted the Revenue to proceedunder the substituted provisions, and this Court allowinEthe petitions only on the procedural flaw, thr: right confened [on the ][Revenue ][would remain reseNed ][to]proceed further [if ][they ][so ][want from ][the ][stage ][of ][the]order [of ][the ][Supreme ][Court ][in the ][case ][of ][Ashish]Agarwal, [suPra.] 18. We [would ][only ][further ][like ][to ][make observations ][that ][since]we are inclined [to ][dispose ][of ][the ][instant ][writ ][petition' ][conscious ][of]the fact [that ][the ][earlier order ][of ][this High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]KanakulaRavindraReddy(lsupra)issubjectedtochallengebefore [the Hon'bte ][Supreme ][Court ][in ] [No'3574 ][of ][2024']preferred [by the ][tncome ][Tax Department' ][we ][make ][it ][clear that]allowing [of ][the ][instant ][writ ][petition ][is ][subject ][to ][outcome ][of ][the]aforesaid [SLP preferred ][by ][the ][Revenue against ][the decision ][of this]Court [in ][the ][case ][of ][Kanakala ][Ravindra ][Reddy ][(1 ][supra)']High in [other ][words, ][would ][mean ][that either ][of ][the parties' ][if ][they]This, so want, [may move an ][appropriate ][petition ][seeking ][revival ][of ][this]writ [petition ][in ][the ][light ][of ][the ][decision ][of ][the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme]Court [in ][the ][pending SLP on ][the ][very ][same ][issue'] 19. [Accordingly, ][the ][instant ][writ ][petition ][stands ][allowed ][in]favour [of ][the ][assessee ][so far ][as ][the ][issue ][of ][jurisdiction ][is]concemed. [As ][a ][consequence' ][the ][impugned ][notice ][under]challenge [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 Cor.rrt in the case of Kankanala Ravindra Reddy (1 supra). There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pendirrg, if any, shalt stand closed. SD/. K.SREERAMA MURTHYREGISTRAR//TRUE COPY//ON OFFICER To, 1The ln.eme Tax Officer, Ward 15(1 ), fiyderabad, lT Tcwer,.AC Guards,Masab Tank, Hyderabad,TelangahdisO'000aMasab Tank, Hyderabad,TelangahdisO'000a 2The Principal Commissioner of llcglle- Tax 4, Hyderabad, 1..I. Tower, ACGuards. L4asab Tank, Hyderabad_SOObOq [']Guards. L4asab Tank, Hyderabad_SOObOq ['] .)Tf^l:::.:lXnt.UniL [Incom_e ][Tax, Department, ][Natior,at ]FacelessAssessment Centre, Delhi. Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru StaOium, Ministry Delhi_fl of Finance, Room OO-Oa. [""']t.to +i,f . ina Floor, E_Tf^l:::.:lXnt.UniL [Incom_e ][Tax, Department, ][Natior,at ]FacelessAssessment Centre, Delhi. Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru StaOium, Ministry Delhi_fl of Finance, Room OO-Oa. [""']t.to +i,f . ina Floor, E_ 4One CC to SRt. DUNDU MANMOHAN Advocate tOpUCltOpUCl One CC to SRI K. SUDHAKAR REDDY (Sr. SC FOR tNlCOrvtE TAX) tOpUCl 6Two CD Copies KKSCLGJ HIGH COURT DATED:1610612025 i-.-. [-.i:,]2 0 sEP [2U5]ORDERWP.No.11819 of 2025 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITIONWITHOUT COSTS B3-?rt )