Heard Mr. P. Soma Shekar Reddy, Leamed Counsel For Thepetitioner And Ms. B.sapna Reddy, Learned Junior Standingcounsel For The Income Tax Department For The [Re v. '[(2023) [156 ][Taxmann.com ]178 (Telangana

l [34471 HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF APRILTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYAND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTIGE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION NO: 33543 OF 2024 Between: Srinivasa Rao Kolluri, (Presently staying at 7736, [Haye Drive, ][lrving,]Texas, 75063) Represented by SPA holder [/addulapalli [Raghunadh]S/o: M.L.N. Sastri, aged aboul 44 [years, ]Occ.Employed, [R/ o, ][A.S, ][Raju]Nagar, Kukatpally, Hyderabad, 500072. ...PETITIONER AND 1Union of lndia, Ministry of Finance Rep. by its Secretary, ['166-8, ][North ][Block,]New Delhi - 110 001New Delhi - 110 001 Income Tax Officer, Ward 17('1), Hyderabad Signature Towers, [Kondapur,]Serilingam paally, Hyderabad,Serilingam paally, Hyderabad, JPrincipal Commissioner of lncome Tax- 2 Signature Towers, [Kondapur,]Serilingampally HyderabadSerilingampally Hyderabad 4National Faceless Assessment Centre, lncome Tax Department, [Ministry ][of]Finance, Government of lndia, New DelhiFinance, Government of lndia, New Delhi ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution [of ][lndia ][praying ][that ][in ][the]circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the [High Court may ][be]pleased to l. lssue a Writ, Order or Direction more [particularly, ]one, in the natureof Writ of Jvlandamus, declaring the action of the [Respondent ][No. ][2 in ][passing ][an]Order dated 27.02.2024 u/s. 14BA(d) and [Notice ][u/s. ][148 ][daied ][21 ][.O3.2023 ][calling]for income for A.Y. 2016-17 as illegal, [arbitrary, bad in ][law ][and violative ][of ][Articles]14, 19 and 265 of the Constitution of [lndia, ]Il. [Set aside ][the ][Order ][dated]21 .03.2023 u/s. 14BA(d) and Notice [issued ]by [Respondent ][No.2 ][u/s. ][148 ][of]lncome Tax Act, ['1961 ]dated 21 .03.2023 [calling ][for ][the ][return ][of ][income ][of ][the] Petitioner for A.Y. 2016-17 and any consequent [proceedings including passing ][the]order u/s 144 rlw Section 1448 dated 26.02.2024 [and, ]lll. [Set ][aside ][the ][notices]issued u/s 226(ll) dated 04.11.2024 attaching the [bank ][accounts' ][deposits]maintained with lllCl Bank Ltd and lnduslnd [Bank ][Ltd ][as ][being ][illegal, arbitrary]and contrary to la'rv lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition unrier 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 ][direct]the Department to lift the attachment and not to take [any ][further coercive steps ][for]recovery of demand. Counsel for the F'etitioner: SRI P. SOMA SHEKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI GADI PRAVEEN Dy. SOLICITOR GEN. OF INDIA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 4: MS. B. SAPNA REDDY, SC FOR INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM I(OSHYANDTHE IIONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAONANDTKONDA WRIT PETITION No.33543 OF 2024 $DE.B, [(per ][Hon'ble ][Sri ][Justice ][P.Sam ][Koshy)] Heard Mr. P. Soma Shekar Reddy, leamed counsel for thepetitioner and Ms. B.Sapna Reddy, learned Junior 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 l48Aand 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [(for ]short ['the ]Act') [or ][the]assessment 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 148A of the Actand the subsequent initiation of [proceedings under ][Section ][148 ][of]the Act by the [jurisdictional ]Assessing [Officer, ][whereas ][in ][terms]of the amendment that was brought [to ][the Income ][Tax Act ][by ][way]of Finance 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 l48Aand 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [(for ]short ['the ]Act') [or ][the]assessment 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 148A of the Actand the subsequent initiation of [proceedings under ][Section ][148 ][of]the Act by the [jurisdictional ]Assessing [Officer, ][whereas ][in ][terms]of the amendment that was brought [to ][the Income ][Tax Act ][by ][way]of Finance Act, 2O2l w.e.f., 01.04.2021 [onwards, ][proceedings] under Set:tion 148,4. of the Act as also under Section 148 of theAct ought to have also been issued and proceeded in a facelessmanner.4. The: contention of the petitioner is that the issue ofproceedings being in violation of the Finance Act, Z02l i.e., theimpugned notices under Section 148A and Section 148 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 148,,4. as also under SectionI 48 of the Act were held to be bad with consequential reliefs on theground of it being in violation of the provisions of Section 151A ofthe Act read with Notification 18/2022 dated29.O3.2022. The saidjudgment passed by this Court has also been subsequently followedin a large number of writ petitions which were allowed on similarterms. 5. Down the line, we find that the [same ][issuer ][has also ][been]decided against the Revenue by [various ][High ][Courts ][i.e.,]by the Bombay High Court in the [case ]of TECHNOLOGIES LTD., [VS. ] OF INCOME TAX & OTHERS2, [Gauhati ][High ][Court in the ][case]of RAM NARAYAN SAH [vs. ]UNION [OF INDIA3, ][Punjab ][and]Haryana High Court in the case of JATINDER vs. UNION OF INDI#, and [Telangana ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]SRI VENKATARAMANA [VS. ] COMMISSIONER OF INCOME [where ][the ][issue ][was ][in]respect of international taxation, [Bombay ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]ABHTN ANILKUMAR SHAH [VS. ] [OFFICER,]INTERNATIONAL TAXATION6 [which is ][again ][on intemational]taxation and central circle, [High Court ][of ][Himachal ][Pradesh ][in ][the]case of GOVIND SINGH [vs. INCOME ] [OFFICERT,]Gujarat High Court in the [case ][of ] 'Tzoz+1464 [rrR ][430 (Bom)]'l(2024) [156 ][taxmann.com ][478 (Gauhati)l]'l(2024) [165 ][taxmann.com ][115 ][(Punjab ][& ][Haryana)l]'12024) [167 ][taxmann.com ][41 ][1 ][(Tetangana)l]" 12024) [166 ][taxmann.com 679 ][(Bombay)l]' 12024) [165 ][taxmann.com ][113 ][(Himachal ][Pradesh)l] d,-l I DAITYAI}IIAI RADADIYA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 3(3X5)8, Jharkand High Court in the case of SIfyAMSLTNDAR SAW vs. UNION OF INDIAe, Rajasthan High Court inthe case of SHARDA DEVI CHHAJER vs. INCOME TAXOFFICEIT & 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 l(,90 of 2023),, decided on25.09.20246. Even though the same issue having been decided by a largenumber of High Courts, we are still confronted with large fi1ing ofidentical rnatters 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 c f the Bombay High Court in the case of llexawqreTechnologies Ltd., (2 supra) as also the one which has beendecided b1r this Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy 82024 SCC Online Guj 4012'2025 [Online ]Jhar2871 o 72023 [: ][RI.JD :4984-DB ]l 82024 SCC Online Guj 4012'2025 [Online ]Jhar2871 o 72023 [: ][RI.JD :4984-DB ]l (l :supra) has been subjected to challenge in a Special'LeavePetition i.e., SLP No.3574 of 2024 before the Hon'ble SupremeCourl and the Hon'ble Supreme Court is seized of the matterIn 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 learned 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 olidentical 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 the one hand, even though the order of this Court one hand, even though the order of this Court though the order of this Court the order of this Court order of this Court of this Court this Court 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 l48A and underSection 148 of the Act by the [jurisdictional ]Assessing Offrcer,rather the authorities concerned in the teeth of series of decisions On the one hand, even though the order of this Court the one hand, even though the order of this Court one hand, even though the order of this Court though the order of this Court the order of this Court order of this Court of this Court this Court Court that 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 202L 9. Upon a query being put as to why can't this writ petition bedisposed rrf in the teeth of the decision rendered by this Court inthe case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra), learned StandingCounsel firr the Income Tax Department contends that those wouldunnecessarily burden the Income Tax Department where theywould be required to flle equal number of SI-Ps before theHon'ble Iiupreme 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 pendingtill the finalization of the SLPs pending before the Hon'bleSupreme [(lourt ]and the fact that the petitioner is already enjoyingthe benefit of interim protection. Nonetheless, on the earlier queryof this Courl as to why the Income Tax Department have not comeout with a mechanism to issue appropriate instructions or to take appropriate steps in ensuring that proceedings under Section 148Aofthe Act as also the assessment orders under Section 148 oftheAct are kept in a hold in the light ofthe decisions dedcided by thevarious High Courts, it was submitted by the leamed StandingCounsel that the said steps can 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. appropriate steps in ensuring that proceedings under Section 148Aofthe Act as also the assessment orders under Section 148 oftheAct are kept in a hold in the light ofthe decisions dedcided by thevarious High Courts, it was submitted by the leamed StandingCounsel that the said steps can 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 15 1A of the Act and as a result by now, more than 600to 700 petitions have been already [got ][piled ]up before this HighCouft on an issue which otherwise stands squarely covered [by ][the]judgment of this Court in the case of Kunakala Ravindra Reddy(1 supra). What is also surprising is the fact that though whileallowing the writ petitions in the case of Kunakala RavindraReddy (l supra), the Division Bench while reserving the right ofthe Revenue, has also protected the interest of the petitioners i;is,:fai' a: fie lit,e , ty whj,:n was granted to the Revenue fcrinitiating lresh proceedings strictly in accordance with the amendedprovisions of the Act, as amended by the Finance Act,2020 andthe Finanr:e Act,202l. The petitioner assessee would be entitled tochallenge or raise the other legal objections if the Revenue initiatesfresh pror:eedings. The Department has made no endeavour inavailing the said liberty that was reserved for the Revenue. On thecontrary, lhey have been still sticking on to the stand, which thisHigh Court as well as many other High Courts already held to bebad. 11. 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 T;rx Department wants to take advantage of the same byprotractinll 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 f,rnall_rr at a later stage if the Hon'ble Supreme Court confirmsthe decision taken by this High Court as also by the other HighCourts in which the SLPs are still pending, the Income Tax Department would get the advantage of the liherty that is otherwiseprotected in favour of the Revenue for initiation of freshproceedings from the disposal of these matters at a much later stagewhich would be advantageous and beneficial to the Revenue andwould be equally disadvantageous and detrimental so far as interestof the assesses are concemed. As a consequence, the Income TaxDepartment gets an extended period of time for initiation of [fresh]proceedings. 12. The alarming trend of docket explosion in this Court, despitethe 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 litigationwith over 600-700 petitions piling up on the same issue. Thisdeliberate approach not only undermines the [principle ]of [judicial]precedent but also strains the [judicial ]resources unnecessarily. TheDepartment's strategy of awaiting the Supreme Court's decision onpending SLPs while continuing to initiate fresh proceedingsappears to be a calculated move to buy time and circumventlimitation periods, rather than adhering to [the ][established legal] position. Such conduct raises serious questions about theadministrirtive efficiency and the respect for judicialpronounc()ments, particularly when this Court has already provideda balancel approach by preserving both the Revenue's rights andassesses rlterests. position. Such conduct raises serious questions about theadministrirtive efficiency and the respect for judicialpronounc()ments, particularly when this Court has already provideda balancel approach by preserving both the Revenue's rights andassesses rlterests. 13. Another aspect which needs to be considered is that in fact itshould ha're been realized by the Income Tax Department itself andshould have found out via media in ensuring that proceedingsunder Sections 148-4. and 148 should not have been issued in afaceless rrianner, at least till the Hon'ble Supreme Clourt decide thetwelve hundred (1200) odd SLPs which it is already seized ofor, atleast the [ncome Tax Department should have fttund out someremedial steps to ensure that wherever the authorities intend toinitiate proceedings under Sections 148-A and 148, other than in afaceless roanner, the proceedings should have been deferredwithout precipitating the matter further intimating the assessee thatthey shall initiate appropriate proceedings only after the SLp,s aredecided bv 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 such a decision if at all has to be taken, has to be taken for the whole oflndia, and whichotherwise has to be by way ofa policy decision and that too at thelevel of Central Board of Direct Taxes. Though the learnedStanding 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 filing of hundreds of new writ petitions which inthe long run not only affects the disposal of the writ petitions butalso consumes substantial time of the Bench in hearing thesematters again and again on 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 granting any interim protection to theIncome Tax Department. Yet, the authorities concerned at theState level are not ready to accept the verdict [passed ]by a majorityof High Courts of different States on the same issue; and to makethings further worse, the Income Tax Department is showingaudacity by issuing notices continuously under Sections 148-4. and 148 through the [jurisdictional ]Assessing Officer whereas it oughtto have br:en only in the faceless manner 14. In the case of BANK OF INDIA vs. ASSISTANTCOMIWSSIONER, INCOME TAX'r, on an issue whether it wasjustifiable on the part of the Income 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. [/r. Paridwalla has rightly 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. 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 the decision of the Supreme Court inUnion of lndia vs. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd.14, theCourt observed that the approach of the officials of Revenue oftreatirrg decisions being "not acceptable" was criticized by theSupreme Court. ln such decision, following are the relevantobservalions made by the Supreme Court. tt 71ZOZS1l70 [taxmann.com ][422 ][(Bombay)l]t2 7t97811 t3 ITR 589 (Bombay)'3 120241155 [taxmann.com ][581/300 Taxman ]452 [(Bombay)]'n :t99z1kxmann.com [16/55 ] [(SC)] ':-.':a. tt 71ZOZS1l70 [taxmann.com ][422 ][(Bombay)l]t2 7t97811 t3 ITR 589 (Bombay)'3 120241155 [taxmann.com ][581/300 Taxman ]452 [(Bombay)]'n :t99z1kxmann.com [16/55 ] [(SC)] ':-.':a. "6. Sri Reddy is perhaps right in saying that theofficers were not actuated by any mala fides [in]officers were not actuated by any mala fides [in]passing the impugned orders. They perhapsgenuinely felt that the claim of the assessee was nottenable and that, if it was accepted, the Revenuewould suffer. But what Sri Reddy overlooks is that weare not concerned here with the eorreetness orotherwise of their conclusion or of any factualmalafides but with the fact that the officers, in reachingin their conclusion, by-passed two appellate orders [in]regard 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, rightly]criticized this conduct of the Assistant Collectors andthe harassment to the assessee caused by [the failure]of these officers to give effect to the orders ofauthorities higher to them in the appellate hierarchy. ltcannot be too vehemently emphasized that it is ofutmost importance that, in disposing of thequasijudicial issues before them, revenue officers arebound by the decisions of the appellate authorities.The order of the Appellte Collector is binding on theAssistant Collectors working within his [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 ]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" ]totenable and that, if it was accepted, the Revenuewould suffer. But what Sri Reddy overlooks is that weare not concerned here with the eorreetness orotherwise of their conclusion or of any factualmalafides but with the fact that the officers, in reachingin their conclusion, by-passed two appellate orders [in]regard 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, rightly]criticized this conduct of the Assistant Collectors andthe harassment to the assessee caused by [the failure]of these officers to give effect to the orders ofauthorities higher to them in the appellate hierarchy. ltcannot be too vehemently emphasized that it is ofutmost importance that, in disposing of thequasijudicial issues before them, revenue officers arebound by the decisions of the appellate authorities.The order of the Appellte Collector is binding on theAssistant Collectors working within his [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 ]ofjudicial discipline require that the orders of the higherappellate authorities should be followed unreservedlyby the subordinate authorities. The mere fact that theorder of the appellate authority is not ["acceptable" ]tothe department - in itself an objectionable [phrase ]-and is the subject matter of an appeal can furnish [no]ground for not following it unless its operation hasbeen suspended by a competent court. lf this [healthy]and is the subject matter of an appeal can furnish [no]ground for not following it unless its operation hasbeen suspended by a competent court. lf this [healthy] rule is not followed, the result will only be undueharassment to assesses and chaos in administrationof tax laws. rule is not followed, the result will only be undueharassment to assesses and chaos in administrationof tax laws. 12. We have dealt with this aspect at some length,because it has been suggested by the learnedAdditional Solicitor General that the observationsmade by the High Court, have been harsh on theofficers. lt is clear that the observations of the HighCourt, seemingly vehement, and apparentlyunpalatable to the Revenue, are only intended to curba tendency in revenue matters which, if allowed tobecome widespread, could result in considerableharassment to lhe assesses-public without any benefit[o the Revenue. We would like to say that theCepartment should take these observations in theproper spirit. The observations of the High Courtshould be kept in mind in future and the utmost regardshould be paid by the adjudicating authorities and theappellate authorities to the requirements of judicial,Jiscipline and the need for giving effect to the orders,)f the higher appellate authorities which are binding,ln them." 15. What is worrying this Bench more is the fact that anendeavour is being made whole heartedly to ensure not to generatefurther litigation on issues which have been laid to rest by a largenumber of High Courts all of whom have taken a consistent standthat the acrion of the Income Tax Department being violative of the ':.. Finance Act,2020 and Finance Act,202l. Now, in order to [protect]the interest of the Revenue as also that of the assessee, it would betrite at this [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 lncome TaxDepartment and which is pending consideration before the Hon'bleSupreme Courl. 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 fuither 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 paragraphs 36,37 ar,1 38 ofthe order which, for ready reference, is reproducedhereunder': 36. For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned noticesissued and the proceedings drawn by the respondenlDepartment is neither tenable, nor sustainable.The notices so issued and the procedure adopted beingper se illegal, deserves to be and are accordingly setaside/quashed. As a consequence, all the impugnedorders gefting quashed, the consequential orders passedby the respondent-Department pursuant to the noticesissued under Section 147 and 148would also getquashed and it is ordered accordingly. The reason weare quashing the consequential order is on the principlesthat when the initiation of the proceedings itself wasprocedurally wrong, the subsequent orders also getsnullified automatically. 37. The preliminary objection raised by the petitioner issustained and all these writ petitions stands allowed onthis very [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 lhe 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 ftaw, the right 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 lhe 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 ftaw, the right 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 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 [this]High Court in the case of Karu*ala Ravindra Reddy (1 stpra).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 ]isconcemed. 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 (l supra). There shall be no order as to costs Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closred. D/-8. REKHA TANT //TRUE ECTION \l To,1.The Secreiary, [Union of ][lndia' ][Ministry of Finance ][tYO-g' ][Nlor.tl-' ][Block' ][New]1.The Secreiary, [Union of ][lndia' ][Ministry of Finance ][tYO-g' ][Nlor.tl-' ][Block' ][New] '":'ik'ii;%licer, [ward 17(1) ][Hvderabad Signature ][Towers ][Kondapur'] 2 b"nfingm PaallY, [HYderabad']Tax- 2 Signature [Towers' ][Kondapur']Princioal C;ommlssloner [o' ]'l-tto*" Princioal C;ommlssloner [o' ]'l-tto*" Serilingarrrpally [uv99l1b^'^1,.nt ]centre, rncome Tax Department, Ministry [of]4National Faceless [Assessn] exu;rii$lsl."idLlltalffi ]n39."",-"3'?.Lg'Y,?lo,,ropucl[[Pra'"en ]][[Kumar ][Dy- ][solicitor ][Gen]][[Dy- ][solicitor ][Gen]][[solicitor ][Gen]][[Gen]][[Pra'"en ]][[Kumar ][Dy- ][solicitor ][Gen]][[Dy- ][solicitor ][Gen]][[solicitor ][Gen]][[Gen]] E]n39."",-"3'?.Lg'Y,?lo,,ropucl65.# Ed ii [sti ][crol ][[Pra'"en ]][[Kumar ][Dy- ][solicitor ][Gen]][[Dy- ][solicitor ][Gen]][[solicitor ][Gen]][[Gen]]7one cc to [sri ][Ms ][e. ][sap# ][h';j;;, ][stj ][fbr ][lncome ][DepartmentloPucl]65.# Ed ii [sti ][crol ][[Pra'"en ]][[Kumar ][Dy- ][solicitor ][Gen]][[Dy- ][solicitor ][Gen]][[solicitor ][Gen]][[Gen]]7one cc to [sri ][Ms ][e. ][sap# ][h';j;;, ][stj ][fbr ][lncome ][DepartmentloPucl] Two CD [C;oPies] 8 TJBSw HIGH COURT DATED:2810412025 ORDER WP.No.33543 of 2024 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITIONWITHOUT COSTS I0 "oC*\(+-flrt*: rl(rZIAUEM'.9C.dIi-1o