Heard Mr. M.naga Deepak, Leamed Counsel For The v. Income-Tax Officert Decided On 14.09.2023 Rvhereby A Batch Of Writ Petitions Wele Allo

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF JUNETWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION NO: 13855 OF 2025 Between: Mrs. Suseela Navari, D/o. [\/r. Mal Reddy Kotha, aged 59 years, Occ.Agriculturist, H.No. 9-3-60, Nehru Nagar, Champapet, Hyderaba<i - 500 079,Telangana ...PETITIONER AND 1Assessment Unit, lncome Tax Department,. National e-Assessment Center,New Delhi, Room No.. 401 ,2nd Floor, E-Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium,New Delhi - I 10 003.New Delhi, Room No.. 401 ,2nd Floor, E-Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium,New Delhi - I 10 003.2The Joint Commissioner (Appeals), the Commissioner of Income Tax(4OOgqts;, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Through the PrincipalChief Commissioner of lncome Tax (NaFAC), Delhi, North Block, New Delhi -110001.(4OOgqts;, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Through the PrincipalChief Commissioner of lncome Tax (NaFAC), Delhi, North Block, New Delhi -110001. 3The Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax, Circle 9(1), Hyderabad,lTTowers, 10-2-3, AC Guards, Hyderabad - 500 004, Telangana.Towers, 10-2-3, AC Guards, Hyderabad - 500 004, Telangana. 4The Principal Chief Commissioner of lncome Tax, Andhra Pradesh andTelangana, Hyderabad, Room No.. 922, [gth ]Floor,'B' Block, l.T.Towers,'1 0-2-3, AC Guards, Hyderabad - 500 004, Telangana.Telangana, Hyderabad, Room No.. 922, [gth ]Floor,'B' Block, l.T.Towers,'1 0-2-3, AC Guards, Hyderabad - 500 004, Telangana. The Central Board of Direct Taxes, Represented by its Chairman, Departmentof Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of lndia, Secretariat Buildings,New Delhi - 110 001of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of lndia, Secretariat Buildings,New Delhi - 110 001 ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleasedto issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction,declaration that the Order passed by the 1 st Respondent, uls 147 rlw Sec. 144B ofthe lncome Tax Act, 1961, dated 08.O3.2024, bearing DlN.. ITBA/ASTlsl147l2O22-circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleasedto issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction,declaration that the Order passed by the 1 st Respondent, uls 147 rlw Sec. 144B ofthe lncome Tax Act, 1961, dated 08.O3.2024, bearing DlN.. ITBA/ASTlsl147l2O22-2311062254482(1), for the Assessmenl Year 2016 - 17, as confirmed by the orderof the 2nd Respondent dated 05.08.2024, vide DIN and Order No.. ITBA/NFAC/5/25012024-25/1067319011(1), [passed ][u/s 250 ]of the lncome Tax Act, 1e61, [as]of the 2nd Respondent dated 05.08.2024, vide DIN and Order No.. ITBA/NFAC/5/25012024-25/1067319011(1), [passed ][u/s 250 ]of the lncome Tax Act, 1e61, [as] arbitrary illegal, barred by Iimitation, bad in law, void-ab-initio, violative of theprinciples of natural justice., apart from being violative of Articles 1a, 1 9(1 Xg) and265 of the constitution of lndia and sec 148A of the lncome Tax Act, igoi, ,noconsequently set aside the same lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 15'1 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated inthe_affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to stayall further proceedings, incruding any recovery. pts pursuant to the order passed by08.03.2024, the 1 st Respondent, bearing u/s 14r DrN.IrBA/AST/sr14il2022-23r10622s4482(1), rrw Sec. 'r 44B of the rncome tax Act, .r 961 tor , datedtheAssessment Year 2016 - 17 a9 confirmed by the order of the 2nd'Respondentdated 05.08-2024, vide DIN and brder No.rrBtuNFAC 3l2sol2o24-2511067319011(1), passed u/s 250 ofthe lncome Tax Act, 1961. pending dispoiatof the above Writ Petition, pending disposal of the above Writ petition lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 15'1 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated inthe_affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to stayall further proceedings, incruding any recovery. pts pursuant to the order passed by08.03.2024, the 1 st Respondent, bearing u/s 14r DrN.IrBA/AST/sr14il2022-23r10622s4482(1), rrw Sec. 'r 44B of the rncome tax Act, .r 961 tor , datedtheAssessment Year 2016 - 17 a9 confirmed by the order of the 2nd'Respondentdated 05.08-2024, vide DIN and brder No.rrBtuNFAC 3l2sol2o24-2511067319011(1), passed u/s 250 ofthe lncome Tax Act, 1961. pending dispoiatof the above Writ Petition, pending disposal of the above Writ petition counsel for the Petitioner: sRl M. NAGA DEEPAK REPRESENTING FoR sRl. AV A SIVA KARTIKEYA counsel for the Respondents: sRr K. SUDHAKAR REDDY (Sr. sc FoR rNcoMETAX) The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAONANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION No.13855 OF 2025 ORDER, (per Hon'ble Sri Justice Sam Koshy) Heard Mr. M.Naga Deepak, leamed counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K.Sudhakar Reddy, learned Senior StandingCounsel for the Income Tax Department for the respondents.Perused the record 2. This is a writ petition where the proceedings are eitherchallenged to the notices which were issued under Section I48Aand 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 of thegrounds, that the notices issued under Section l48A of the Actand the subsequent initiation ofproceedings under Section 148 ofthe Act by the [jurisdictional ]Assessing Off6,er, whereas in termsof the amendmenL that was brought to the Income Tax Act by wayof Finance Act,202l w.e.f., 01.04.2021 onwards, proceedings under Section 148A of the Act as also under Section 148 of theAct ought to have also been issued and proceeded in a facelessmanner.4. The contention contention of the petitioner is that the issue ofthe petitioner is that the issue ofpetitioner is that the issue ofis that the issue ofthat the issue ofthe issue ofissue ofofproceedings being in violation of the Finance Act, 2021 i.e., theimpugned notices under Section 148,4. 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 OFFICERT decidedon 14.09.2023 rvhereby a batch of writ petitions wele allowed andthe proceedings initiated under Section 148A as also under Section148 of the Act were held to be bad with consequential reliels on theground of it being in violation of the provisions of Section l51A ofthe Act read rvith Notification 1812022 dated29.03.2022. The saidjudgment passed by this Court has also been subsequently followedin a large number of writ petitions which were allowed on similarterms. The contention contention of the petitioner is that the issue ofthe petitioner is that the issue ofpetitioner is that the issue ofis that the issue ofthat the issue ofthe issue ofissue ofof 'l(2023) 156 taxmann.com 178 (Telangana)l The contention contention of the petitioner is that the issue ofthe petitioner is that the issue ofpetitioner is that the issue ofis that the issue ofthat the issue ofthe issue ofissue ofof 'l(2023) 156 taxmann.com 178 (Telangana)l 5. Down the line, we find that the same issue has also beendecided against the Revenue byvartous High Courts i.e.,by the Bombay High Court in the case of HEXAWARETBCHNOLOGIES LTD., vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX & OTHERS2, Gauhati High Court in the caseof RAM NARAYAN SAH vs. UNION OF INDIA3, Punjab andIHaryana High Court in the case of JATINDER SINGH BANGUvs. UNION OF INDIA4, and Telangana High Court in the case ofSIII VENKATARAMANA REDDY PATLOOLA vs. DEPUTYCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX5 where the issue was inrespect of international taxation, Bombay High Court in the case ofAIIHIN ANILKUMAR SHAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,IN'I'ERNATIONAL TAXATIONP 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 MANSUKHBHAI '?lzoz+1464 [trR ][430 ][(Born)]'l(2024) [156 ]taxmann.com 478 (Gauhati)l'l(2024) [156 ]taxmann.com 478 (Gauhati)l ^ l(2024) 165 taxmann.com I l5 (Punjab & I{aryana)l '[2024) [167 ]taxmann.corn 4l I (Tetangana)] " 12024) [166 ]taxmann.com 679 (Bomb'ay)l ' [2024) 165 taxmann.com I I 3 (l Iimachal Pradesh)] DAHYABHAI RADADIYA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 3(3)(5)8, Jharkand Higtr Court in the case of SHYAMSUNDAR SAW vs. UNION OF INDIAe, Rajasrhan I-Iigh Court inthe case of SHARDA DEVI CHHAJER vs.. INCOME TAXOFFICER & ANOTHER and batch ol writ petitionsro whichstood decided on 19.03.2024. Similar views have also been takcnby the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in the case ofGIRDHAR GOI'AL DALMIA vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS(M.A.T 1690 rrl2023), decided on25.09.2024.6. Even though the sarne issuc having been decided by a largenumber of High Courts, we are still confronted with large fiting ofidentical matters on daily basis ranging between 5 to l0 writpetitions. That upon the instructions being sought from theDepartment, they have been taking a solitary ground that thedecision of tlrc Bombay High Court in thc case of HexawareTechnologies Ltd., (2 supra) as also the one which has bccndecided by this Court in the case of Ktnskala Ravindra Reddy '2024 [Onl.inc Guj ][4012]'2025 [On[.ine ][Jhar ][287]'o 12023, [:4984-DBl]'2025 [On[.ine ][Jhar ][287]'o 12023, [:4984-DBl] (1 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 addiliop,-fheuq*rs..ahaart.,l200-.SrtBs.also.,fled.adsi&Faut^ofJhQ,o..=**.-o=.*-,,.*o.'***-sarne issue being decided [by various ][High ][Courts.] 7. To a query being put to [the ][leamed counsel ][for ][the Revenue,]thcy have categorically [accepted ][the fact that there ][is no ][interim]order granted by thc [l-Ion'ble ][Supreme ][Courl ][in ][any ][of ][these]r.natters pending betbre it. [Meanwhile, fresh ][writ ][petitions ][ol]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, titl date, we do not [find ][any remedial ][steps ][having ][been]tal<en by the Income Tax Department [to ][take appropriate ][steps ][to]either hold back issuance of notice under Section [148,4. ][and under]Scction 148 of the Act by the [jurisdictional ][Assessing Officer,]rather the authorities concemed [in ]the teeth [of ][series ][of ][decisions] by all the rnajor High Courts in India are conrinuously stillinitiating proceedings under Section 1484 of the Act and alsoinitiating proceedings under Section 148 of the Act incontravention to the arncndments brought into the Income Tax Actpursuant to the Finance Act,2020 as also the Financc Act 20219. Upon a query being put as ro why can't this u.rit petition bedisposed of in the teeth of the decision rendered bi. this Court intlre case of Konakala Ravintlra Rcddy (l supra), learned StandingCounsel for thc Income Tax l)eparlrnent contends that those wouldunnecessarily burden the Income Tax Deparlment where theywould be required to file equal numbcr of SI_ps before theHon'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 of the petitioners in case if this writ petition is kept pendingtitl the finalization of the SLps pending before the Hon'bleSupreme Courl and the fact rhat the petitioner is already enjoyingthe benefit of interim protection. Nonetheless, on the earlier queryof this Court as to why the Income Tax Department have not colneout with a mechanism to issue appropriate instructions or to take appropriate steps in ensuring that proceedings under Section 148Aof 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 I{igh Courts, it was submitted by the leamed StandingCounsel that the said steps can only be taken at the level of CBDTof 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 I{igh 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.limited 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 sameISSUC The Income Tax authorities concerned are still even now in2025 also 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 RavindruReddy (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 the Revenue forinitiating fresh proceedings strictly in accordance with the amendedprovisions of rhe Act, as amended by the Finance Act, 2020 andthe Finance Act,202l. The petitionel assessee would be entitled tochallenge or raise the other legal objections if the Revenue initiatesfresh proceedings. The Department has made no cndeavour inavailing the said liberty that was reserved for the Revenue. On thecontrary, they have been still sticking on to the stand, wl.rich thisHigh Court as well as many other High Courts already held to bebad. 11. It appears that because of the aforesaid liberly that this HighCourt had granted per mitting the Revcnr-re for initiating tieshproceedings as a one-time measure in a faceless manner, theIncome Tax Department wants to take advantage of the same byprotracting these proceedings which rvould enable them to meet thelimitation that would otherwise come in the way. Likewisc, il thewrit petition is kept pending for a considerable long period of timeand finally at a later stage if thp IJon'ble Supreme Court confirmsthe decision taken by this High Court as also by lhe other HighCourts in which the SLPs are still pending, the Income J'ax 11. It appears that because of the aforesaid liberly that this HighCourt had granted per mitting the Revcnr-re for initiating tieshproceedings as a one-time measure in a faceless manner, theIncome Tax Department wants to take advantage of the same byprotracting these proceedings which rvould enable them to meet thelimitation that would otherwise come in the way. Likewisc, il thewrit petition is kept pending for a considerable long period of timeand finally at a later stage if thp IJon'ble Supreme Court confirmsthe decision taken by this High Court as also by lhe other HighCourts in which the SLPs are still pending, the Income J'ax Department would get tl.re advantaqe of the liberry that is otherwiseprotected in favour of the Revenue for initiation of freshproceedings from the disposal ofthese 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 Taxl)epartment gets an extended period of tirne for initiation of freshIproceedings. protected in favour of the Revenue for initiation of freshproceedings from the disposal ofthese 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 Taxl)epartment gets an extended period of tirne for initiation of freshIproceedings. 12. The alarming trend of docket explosion in this Courl, despitethe clear precedent set in Kanukala Rflvindru Retldy (l supra), is amatter of grave concern. The Income Tax Department's persistentinitiation of fresh proceedings, disregarding the estabtished 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 principte of judicialprecedent but also strains the judicial resources unnecessarily. TheDepartment's strategy of awaiting the Supreme Court,s decision onpending SLPs while continuing to initiate fresh proceedingsappears to be a calculated move to buy time and circumventlimitation periods, r'ather than adhering to the established legal position. Such conduct rais6s seriousquestions about theadministrative efficiency and the respect [for ][jLrdicial]pronouncements, particularly when this Coult [has ah'eady ][provided]a balanced approach by preserving [both ][the ][Revenue's ][rights ][and]assesses tnterests. 13. Another aspect which needs [to ][be ][considered ][is ][that ][in ][fact ][it]should have been realized by the Income [Tax Departrncnt ][itsclland]should have lound out via media in [ensuring ][that ][proceedings]under Sections 148-4 and 148 should [not ][havc ][bcen issued ][in ][a]faceless manner, at least till the Hon'ble [Supreme ][Courl ][decide ][tl.re]twelve hundred [(1200) ]odd SLPs which [it ][is ][already ][seized ][ofor, ][at]least the Income Tax Department should [have found ][out ][some]remedial steps to ensure that wherever [the autholities ][interrd ][to]initiate proceedings under Sectibns [148-A and ][148, ][other ][than ][in ][a]faceless [Ianner, the proceedings should havc [bcen ][delened]without precipitating the matter flurther intimating [1[.re ][assessee ][that]they shall initiate appropriate [proceedings ]only [after ][the SLP's ][are]decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court [on ][the ][very ][same ][issue.]This again, the Income Tax Department, has [not ][been ][able to ][give ][a]convincing 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 leamedotherwise 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 lncome Tax Department contended thatthe Delhi High Courl dismissed a writ petition of similar nature, onthc one hand when the High Courl is struggling to reduce itsthe Delhi High Courl dismissed a writ petition of similar nature, onthc one hand when the High Courl is struggling to reduce itspendency, such notices which are under challenge in this writpetition are forcing the assessee to knock the doors ol this HighCourt resulting in filing of hundreds of new writ petitions which inthe long run not only aflects the disposal of the writ petitions butalso consumes substantial time of the Bench in hearing thesethe long run not only aflects the disposal of the writ petitions butalso consumes substantial time of the Bench in hearing thesematters again and again on daity basis. Adrninedly, in spite of thernattcr before the Hon'ble Suprcme Court having been taken onmany occasions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court which is seized of themany occasions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court which is seized of thematter has been reluctant in granting any interim protection to theIncome Tax Department. Yet, the authorities concemed at theState level are not ready to accept the verdict passed by a majorityof High Courts of different States bn the same issue; and to makethings furlher worse, the Income Tax Deparlment is showingaudacity by issuing notices continuously under Sections 148-A andof High Courts of different States bn the same issue; and to makethings furlher worse, the Income Tax Deparlment is showingaudacity by issuing notices continuously under Sections 148-A and 148 through the jurisdictional Assessing Officer wher.eas it oughtto have been only in the faceless rnanner.to have been only in the faceless rnanner. 14. In the case of BANK OF INDIA vs. ASSISTANTCOMMISSIONBR, INCOME TAXrt, on an issue ii,hether ir nasjustifiable on the pat't of the Income Tax Deparlnrent in notlollowing an order passed by the adjudicating authoritl, only on theground that tlie appeals are pgnding, the Division Bench of tl,reHigh Courl of Bombay held at paragraph No.25 as unclcr, r,iz., : "25. [Vr 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 Cou( in Samp Furniture (p) Ltd. v. lTO13of which one of us (Justice G.S. Kulkarni) was a member. whereinthe Court categorically observed that the Revenue having not"accepted" the judgment of the High Court would not mean that tillthe same is set aside in a manner known to law, it would loose itsbinding force. Referring to thd decision of the Supreme Court inUnion of lndia vs. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd.i4, theCourt observed that the approach of the officials of Revenue ofireating decisions being "not acceptable,, was criticized by theSupreme Court. ln such decision, following are the relevantobservations made by the Supreme Court. ',',1t20251 [1 ][70 raxmann.corn 422 ][(Bombay)l] ',',1t20251 ' ll978l Ill llR 589 (Bombay) " [72OZl1 165 ][taxmann.com ][581/300 Taxman 452 (Bomba1,)] " 1tO92l [raxnlann.corn ][l6155 ][Et,T ][433 ][(SC)] ',',1t20251 [1 ][70 raxmann.corn 422 ][(Bombay)l] ',',1t20251 ' ll978l Ill llR 589 (Bombay) " [72OZl1 165 ][taxmann.com ][581/300 Taxman 452 (Bomba1,)] " 1tO92l [raxnlann.corn ][l6155 ][Et,T ][433 ][(SC)] "6, Sn Reddy is perhaps right in saying that theofficers were not actuated by any mala fides inpassing the impugned oiders. They perhapsofficers were not actuated by any mala fides inpassing the impugned oiders. They perhapsgenuinely felt that the claim of the assessee was nottenable and that, if it was accepted, the Revenuewould suffer. But what Sri Reddy overlooks is that weare not concerned here with the correctness orwould suffer. But what Sri Reddy overlooks is that weare not concerned here with the correctness orotherwise of their conclusion or of any factualmalafides but with the fact that the officers, in 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, rightlycnticized this conduct of therAqsistant Collectors ar-l.dthe harassment to the assessee caused by the failureof these officers to give effect to the orders ofauthorities higher to them in the appellate hierarchy. Itthem, one of the Collector (Appeals) and the other ofthe Tribunal. The High Court has, in our view, rightlycnticized this conduct of therAqsistant Collectors ar-l.dthe harassment to the assessee caused by the failureof these officers to give effect to the orders ofauthorities higher to them in the appellate hierarchy. Itcannot 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 rs binding on theAssistant 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 ofjudicial discipline require that the orders of the higherutmost 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 rs binding on theAssistant 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 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" ]toorder of the appellate authority is not ["acceptable" ]tothe department - in itself an objectionable phrase -and is the subject matter of an appeal can furnish noand 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 s not followed, the result will only be [undue]harassment to assesses and chaos [in ][administration]of tax laws. rule s not followed, the result will only be [undue]harassment to assesses and chaos [in ][administration]of tax laws. '12. We have dealt with this aspect at some length,because it has been suggested by the [learned]Additional Solicitor General that the [observations]made by the High Court, have been [harsh ][on ][the]officers. lt is clear that the observations of [the ][High]Coufi, seemingly vehement, and [apparently]unpalatable to the Revenue, [are ]only [intended to curb]a tendency in revenue matters which, if allowed [to]become widespread, cbuld result in [considerable]harassment to the assesses-public [without ]any [benefit]to the Revenue. We would like to say [that ][the]department should take these observations [in ][the]proper spirit. The observations of the High Courtshould be kept in mind in future [and the utmost ][regard]should be [paid ]by the adjudicating [authorities and ][the]appellate authorities to the requirements [of ]ludicialdiscipline and the need for [giving effect ]to [the ][orders]of the higher appellate authorities which are [binding]on them." I 5. What is worrying this Bench more is [thc lact ][that ][an]endeavour is being made whole heartedly [to ][ensure ][not ][to ][generate]lurther litigarion on issues which have been laid [to ][rest ][by ][a ][large]nulnber of Fligh Courts all of whom have taken a [consistent ][stand]that the action of [the Income ][Tax ][Department ][being ][violative ][of ][the] Finance Act,2020 and Finance Act,202l. Now, in order to protectthe interest of the Revenue as also that of the assessee, it would betrite at this juncture, if we dispose of the writ petition with anobservation/direction that the disposal of the instant writ petition interms of the judgment rendered by this High Court in the case ofKankonala Ravindra Reddy (l supra) shatl however be subject tolhe outcome of the SLPs which were filed by the Income Taxl)epartment and which is pending consideration before the Flon,bleSuprerne Court. 16. [n 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 Couftand which stands fortified by the decisions of the various otherHigh Courts on the very same issue, the pendency of this lJighCourL would fufther be burdened which otherwise can be decidedand disposed of as 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 ordcl [which, for ][ready reference. ][is ][lellroduccd]hereunder 36. For all the aforesaid [reasons, ][the ][impugned ][notices]issued and the [proceedings ][drawn by ][the.respondent-]Department is neithe'r tenable, [nor ][sustainable]The rotices so issued and the [procedure ][adopted ][being]per se illegal, deserves to be and are accordingly [set]aside/quashed. As a consequence, [all ][the ][impugned]orders [getting quashed, ]the [consequential orders ][passed]by the respondent-Department [pursuant ][to the ][notices]issued under Section 147 [and ][148 ][would ][also ][get]quashed and it is ordered accordingly. The [reason ][we]are [quashing ]the consequential [order ][is on ][the ][principles]that when the initiation of [the ][proceedings ][itself ][was]procedurally wrong, the subsequent orders also [gets]nullifiedautomatically. I 37. The [preliminary ]objection [raised ][by ][the ][petitioner ][is]sustained and all these writ [petitions stands ][allowed ][on]this very [jurisdtctional issue. Since ][the ][impugned notices]and orders are [getting ][quashed ]on [the ][point ][of]jurisdiction, we are not inclined to proceed further [and]decide the other issues [raised ][by the ][petitioner ][which]stands reserved to be raised [and ][contended ][in ][an]appropriate [proceedings.] 37. The [preliminary ]objection [raised ][by ][the ][petitioner ][is]sustained and all these writ [petitions stands ][allowed ][on]this very [jurisdtctional issue. Since ][the ][impugned notices]and orders are [getting ][quashed ]on [the ][point ][of]jurisdiction, we are not inclined to proceed further [and]decide the other issues [raised ][by the ][petitioner ][which]stands reserved to be raised [and ][contended ][in ][an]appropriate [proceedings.] 38 Since the Hon'ble Supreme [Court had, ][in ][the case]of Ashish Agarwal, .ritr, ,. a [one{ime ][measure]exercising the [powers ]under [Adicle ][142 ][of ][the]Constitution of lndia, [permitted ][the ][Revenue ][to ][proceed]under the substituted [provisions, ][and ][this ][Court ][allowing]the petitions only [on the ][procedural ][flaw, ][the ][right] ,t conferred 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 further like to make observations that sincewe are inclined to dispose of the instant writ petition, conscious ofthe lact that the earlier order of this High Couft in the case ofKanaksla Ravindra Reddy (l sr-lpra) is subjected to challengebefore tl.re Hon'ble Supreme Courl in SLP No.3574 of 2024,preleffed by the Income Tax Department, we make it clear thatallowing of the instant writ petition is subject to outcome of thealoresaid SLP preferred by the Revenue against the decision of thisIligh Courl in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra).l'his, in other words, u,ould 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 inlbvour of the assessee so far as the issue of jurisdiction isconcerned. As . a consequence, the impugned notice underchallenge undel sections 148-A aild t+8 stands set aside/quashed. t( The consequential orders, if any, also [stand set ][aside/quashed ][in] similar terms as have been [passLd ]by [this ][High Courl ][in ][the ][case ][of] Konkanola Ruvindra Rcddy [(l ]supra). [There shall ][be no ][order ][as] to costs. Consequcntly, rniscellaneous petitions [pending, ]il [any, ][shall] stand closed SD/- A.H.S. GOWRI SHANKARsr$TANT REGTSTRARsr$TANT REGTSTRAR//TRUE COPY//?r\ 'l secrott oFFrcER\ 'l secrott oFFrcER To, IAssessment Unit, lncome Tax Department, National e-Assessment Center,New Delhi, Room No.. 4O1 ,2nd Floor, E-Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium,New Delhi - 1 10 003.New Delhi, Room No.. 4O1 ,2nd Floor, E-Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium,New Delhi - 1 10 003.2The Joint Commissioner (Appeals), the Commissroner of lncome TaxSppgals), [Natronal Faceless ][Appea! Centre, ][Delhi, ][Through the principal]Chief Commissioner of lncome Tax (NaFAC), Delhi, NortfiBtock, New'Delhi -'1 10 001.Sppgals), [Natronal Faceless ][Appea! Centre, ][Delhi, ][Through the principal]Chief Commissioner of lncome Tax (NaFAC), Delhi, NortfiBtock, New'Delhi -'1 10 001. The Assistant Commissroner of lncome Tax, Circle 9(1), Hyderabad,lTTowers, 10-2-3, AC Guards, Hyderabad - 500 004, Tblbngana.Towers, 10-2-3, AC Guards, Hyderabad - 500 004, Tblbngana.4The Principal Chief Commissioner of lncome Tax, Andhra pradesh andTelanggna, Hyderabad, Room No.. 9Z2, 9th Floor,'B' Block, l.T.Towers, 1 0-2-3, AC Guards, Hyderabad - 500 004, Telangana.Telanggna, Hyderabad, Room No.. 9Z2, 9th Floor,'B' Block, l.T.Towers, 1 0-2-3, AC Guards, Hyderabad - 500 004, Telangana.5The Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes, Department of Revenue,yllir^try of Finance, Government of lndia, Secretaiiat Buildings, New Delhi -110 001yllir^try of Finance, Government of lndia, Secretaiiat Buildings, New Delhi -110 001oOne CC to SRl. A V A SIVA KARTTKEYA Advocate tOpUCl7One CC to SRI K. SUDHAKAR REDDY (Sr. SC FOR TNCOME TAX) tOpUCl7One CC to SRI K. SUDHAKAR REDDY (Sr. SC FOR TNCOME TAX) tOpUCl 8Two CD CopiesIf,:% HIGH COURT