Heard Mr. T.chaitanya Kumar, Learncd Counsel For The v. The Contention Contention Of The Petitioner Is That

IN THE HIGH (SPecial Original [Jurisdiction)] WEDNESDAY, TWO THOUSAND PRESENT THE HONOURABLE [JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY]ANDTHE HONOURABLE [JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA]WRIT PET [NO: 350][80 ][0F ][2024] Between: LIVE INDIA [ESTATES'..1t' ][Rep ][by ][Managing Partner ][Shah]Mohammed [zaneer'i6uas ][-s6. ][t-rt" ]-vlrhw#at6 [Aoed about ][49 ][years,]occu oation. [e ][rsine.r:"R75: ][s ][12 ][-"603/ ][1 ][valN/ ]-soooa+. [i ][znH ee ][nA ][NAGAR' ][RoAD- ][ll'o]relansana' lndia. PANid""EAi'ilAR{HILG''ivoEneano- nlf fit saao, [Assessment ][Year' ][20 ][1 ][8-1 ][I] ...PETITIONER AND 1The lncome [tax ][officer ][ward ][14( ][1 ][). ][Hyderabad' ] [TOWER' AC Guards']Masab Tank, [HYDERABAD-500004, I elangana']Masab Tank, [HYDERABAD-500004, I elangana'] The Principal Chief [Commissioner ][of ][lncome Tax Telanoana ][and ][A'P"]Hft ; U5,ii1;;"-';: [cL; ][;' ][iui; ][;;6 ][i'" ][k ] [vd ][er"a ][bad - ][500028']Telangana.Hft ; U5,ii1;;"-';: [cL; ][;' ][iui; ][;;6 ][i'" ][k ] [vd ][er"a ][bad - ][500028']Telangana. 2 JThe National [Faceless Assessment ][Center' ][lncome Tax Department' New]Delhi.Delhi. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under [Article ][226 ][of ][the Constitution ][of ][lndia ][praying ][that in ][the]circumstances [stated ][in the ][affidavit ][filed ][therewith' ][the ][High ][Court ][may ][be]pleased to issue an [appropriate ][writ' ][order ][or ][direction more ][particularly ][one ][in]the nature of [Writ ][of ][Mandamus, declaring ][the ][Notice ][under section ][148 ][of ][the]lncome-tax [Act, ][1961 ][of ][the ][lncome-tax ][Act ][Date oI ][31-OB-2O24 ][' ] 1t2o24.2511o6s218183(1)fortheAssessmentYear2ols.lgaSarbitrary,illegal,bad in law, [without jurisdiction, void-ab-initio, violative ][of the ][principles ][of ][natural]justice apart from being [violative ][of ][Articles ][1 ][+' ][f ][9(1 ][)(g) and ][265 ][of ][the]Constitution of [lndia and ][Sec ]['148A ][of ][the ][lncome ][Tax ][Act' ][1961' ][and]consequently [set ][aside the same ][in ][the interests ][of ][justice'] lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 15'r cpc praying that in the circumstances stated inthe affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be preased tosuspend the order Notice under section 14g of the rncome-tax Act, 196r of thelncome-tax Act Date of 31-oB-2024, ITBA/AST/S/1 48_1t2024- 25li0682i8183(j)for the assessment year 20 1 g-1 9 pending disposar of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI THANNERU CHAITANYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: Ms.B.SAPNA REDDY, Sr.SC for lT DEpTThe Court made the following: ORDERThe Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTTCE NARSING RAONANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION No.35080 OF 2024 GDEB, @er [Hon'ble ][Sri ][Justice Narsing ][Rao ][Nuntlikonda)] Heard Mr. T.Chaitanya Kumar, learncd counsel for the petitioner and Ms. B.Sapna Reddy, learned Senior StandingCounsel for the Income Tax Department appearing for therespondents. Perused the record. 2. This is a writ petition where the proceedings are eitherchallenged to the notices which were issued under Section l48Aand 148 of the Income Tax Act,, 196 I [(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 1484. of the Actand the subsequent initiation of proceedings under Section 148 ofthe Act by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, whereas in termspf [the amendment that was brought to the Income ][Tax ][Act ][by ][way]l, Ur,run"" Act, 2021 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,, 196 I [(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 1484. of the Actand the subsequent initiation of proceedings under Section 148 ofthe Act by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, whereas in termspf [the amendment that was brought to the Income ][Tax ][Act ][by ][way]l, Ur,run"" Act, 2021 w.e.f., 01.04.2021 onwards, proceedings under Section l48A 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,{ 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 TCANKANALARAVINDRA REDDY vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICBRT decidedon 14.09.2023 whereby a batch of writ petitions were allowed andthe proceedings initiated under Section 148A as also under Section148 of the Act were held to be bad with consequential reliefs on theground of it being in violation ofthe provisions of Section l5lA olthe Act read rvith Notification l8l2o22 dated 29.03.2022. The saidjudgment passed by this Court has also been subsequently ibllowedin a large number of writ petitions which were allor.r,ed 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 ' LQ023) [[ ][56 ][taxmann.com ][178 ][(Telangana)]] .l a 5. Down the line, we find that the same issue has also beendecided against the Revenue by various High Courts i.e.,by the Bombay High Court in the case ol HEXAWARETECHNOLOGIES LTD., vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX & OTHERS2, Gauhati Fligh Courl in the caseof RAM NARAYAN SAH vs. UNION OF INDIA3, Punjab andHaryana High Court in the case of JATINDER SINGH BANGUvs. UNION OF INDIA4, and Telangana High Court in the case ofSRI VENKATARAMANA REDDY PATLOOLA vs. DEPUTYCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX5 where the issue was inrespect of international taxation, Bombay High Court in the case olABHIN ANILKUMAR SHAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,INTERNATIONAL TAXATION which is again on internationaltaxation and central circle, High Court of Himachal Pradesh in thccase of GOVIND SINGH vs. INCOMB TAX OFFICER',Gujarat High Court in the case of MANSUKHBHAI '1zoz+1464 [430 ][(Bom)]'l(2024) [156 ][taxmann.com 478 ][(Gauhati)l] " [(2024) 165 taxmann.com [(Punjab ][& ][Haryana)]]'[2024) [167 ][taxmann.com ][41 ][1 ][(Telangana)]]'[2024) [167 ][taxmann.com ][41 ][1 ][(Telangana)]] " 12024) [166 ][taxmann.com 679 ][(Bombay)l] ' L2024) [165 ]taxmann.com [113 ][(Himachal ]Pradesh)l^\ '1zoz+1464 [430 ][(Bom)]'l(2024) [156 ][taxmann.com 478 ][(Gauhati)l] " [(2024) 165 taxmann.com [(Punjab ][& ][Haryana)]]'[2024) [167 ][taxmann.com ][41 ][1 ][(Telangana)]]'[2024) [167 ][taxmann.com ][41 ][1 ][(Telangana)]] " 12024) [166 ][taxmann.com 679 ][(Bombay)l] ' L2024) [165 ]taxmann.com [113 ][(Himachal ]Pradesh)l^\ DAHYABHAT RADADIYA VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER'WARD 3(3)(5)8, Jharkand High Court in the case of SHYAMSUNDAR SAW vs. UNION OF INDIAe, Rajasthan High Court inthe case ol SHARDA DEVI CHHAJER vs. INCOME TAXOFFICER & ANOTHER and batch of writ petitionsro whichstood decided on 19.03.2024. Similar views have also been takenby the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in the case ofGTRDHAR GOPAL DALMIA vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS(M.A.T 1690 of 2023), decided on25.09.2024.6. Even though the same issue having been decided by a largenumber of High Courts, we are still confronted with large filing ofidentical matters on daily basis ranging between 5 to l0 writpetitions. That upon the instructions being sought from theDepartment, they have been taking a solitary grotmd that thedecision of the Bombay High Court in the case of HerawareTechnologies Ltd., (2 supra) as also the one which has beendecided by this Court in the case of Kanakalu Ravindra Reddy rzo24 SCC Online Guj 4012'2025 SCC On[.ine Jhar 287o ' 12023, R.r-JD : 4984-DB l -, (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 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 ][itsetf.]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, tilt date, we do not find [any remedial ][steps ][having ][been]taken by the Income Tax [Department ][to ][take appropriate ][steps ][to]either hold back issuance [of ][notice under Section ][1484. ][and ][under]Section 148 of the Act by [the jurisdictional ][Assessing ][Officer,]rather the authorities concemed [in ][the ][teeth ][of ][series ][of ][decisions] by all the major High Courts in lndia are continuously stillinitiating proceedings under Section l48A of the Ac1 and alsoinitiating proceedings under Section 148 of the Act incontravention to the amendments brought into the Income Tax Actpursuant to the Finance Act,2020 as also the Finance Act 2021 .9. Upon a query being put as to why can't this '*,rit petition bedisposed of in the teeth of the decision rendered by this Court inthe case of Kunakala Ruvindra Reddy (l supra), leamed StandingCounsel for the Income ['lax ]Department contends that those wouldunnecessarily burden the Income Tax Department where theywould be required to file equal number of SLPs 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 o[the petitioners in case if this writ petition is kept pendingtitl the finalization of the SLPs pending before the Hon'bteSupreme Court and the fact that the petitioner is already enjoyingthe benefit of interim protection. Nonetheless, on the earlier queryof this Court as to why the Income ['fax ]Department have not comeout with a mechanism to issue appropriate instructions or to take appropriate steps in ensuring [that proceedings ][under Section ][l48A]of the Act as also the assessment orders [under Section ][148 ][of ][the]Act are kept in a hold in the light of the [decisions dedcided ][by ][the]various High Courts, it was submitted by [the ][leamed ][Standing]Counsel that the said steps can [only ][be ][taken ][at ][the level ][of ] as any such steps would have [to ][be ][taken ][Pan ][lndia ][and ][cannot ][be]timited to any of these [jurisdictional ][High Courts'] 10. As a result of which, [what we ][are ][facing is ][steep ][increase ][of]litigation day in and day out [even ][though various ][orders have ][been]passed by this High Court allowing [writ ][petitions on ][the ][very ][same]issue. The Income Tax authorities [concemed are ][still ][even ][now ][in]2025 also initiating [proceedings ][in ][contravention ][to ][the provisions]of Section l51A of [the ][Act ][and ][as ][a ][result by now, more ][than 600]to 700 petitions have been [already ][got piled ][up before ][this ][High]Court on an issue [which ][otherwise ][stands ][squarely ][covered ][by ][the]judgment of this Court in the case of Kanakalu [Ravindra ][Reddy](l supra). What is also surprising [is ][the fact that ][though while]allowing the [writ ][petitions ][in ][the ][case ][of ][Kanakala ][Ravindru]Reddy (l supra), [the ][Division ][Bench ][while ][reserving ][the ][right ][of]the Revenue, has also [protected ][the ][interest ][of ][the ][petitioners] insolar as the liberry which was granted to the Revenue forinitiating fresh proceedings strictly in accordance with the amendedprovisions of the Act, as amended by the Finance Act, 2020 andthe Finance Act, 202I. The petitioner assessee would be entitled tochallenge or raise the other legal objections if the Revenue initiatesfresh proceed ings. The Department has made no endeavour inavailing the said libefty that was reserved for the Revenue. On thecontrary, they have been still sticking on to the stand, which thisHigh Court as well as many other High Courts already held to bebad. I I. It appears that appears that that because of the aforesaid of the aforesaid the aforesaid liberly that this HighHighCourt had granted permitting the Revenue for initiating freshproceedings as a one-time measure in a faceless manner, theIncome 1-ax Department wants to take advantage of the same byprotracting these proceedings which would enable them to meet thelimitation that would otherwise come in the way. Likewise, if thewrit petition is kept pending for a considerable long period of timeand finally at a later stage if the Hon'ble Supreme Couft confirmsthe decision taken by this High Court as also by the other HighCourts in which the SLPs are still pending, the Income Tax It appears that appears that that because of the aforesaid of the aforesaid the aforesaid liberly that this HighHigh Department would get the advantage of the liberty that is otherwiseprotected in favour of the Revenue for initiation of freshproceedings from the disposal of these matters at a much later stagewhich would be advantageous and beneficial to the Revenue andwould be equally disadvantageous and detrimental so far as interestof the assesses are concemed. As a consequence, the Income TaxDepartment gets an extended period of time for initiation of freshproceedings.which would be advantageous and beneficial to the Revenue andwould be equally disadvantageous and detrimental so far as interestof the assesses are concemed. As a consequence, the Income TaxDepartment gets an extended period of time for initiation of freshproceedings. Department would get the advantage of the liberty that is otherwiseprotected in favour of the Revenue for initiation of freshproceedings from the disposal of these matters at a much later stagewhich would be advantageous and beneficial to the Revenue andwould be equally disadvantageous and detrimental so far as interestof the assesses are concemed. As a consequence, the Income TaxDepartment gets an extended period of time for initiation of freshproceedings.which would be advantageous and beneficial to the Revenue andwould be equally disadvantageous and detrimental so far as interestof the assesses are concemed. As a consequence, the Income TaxDepartment gets an extended period of time for initiation of freshproceedings. 12. The alarming trend of docket explosion in this Court, despitethe clear precedent set in Kunokala Ravindra Refuly (I supra), is amatter of grave concern. The Income Tax Department's persistentinitiation of fresh proceedings, disregarding the established judicialpronouncements, has led to an unprecedented surge in litigationwith over 600-700 petitions piling up on the same issue. Thisdeliberate approach not only undermines the principle of 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, rather than adhering to the established legal position. Such conduct raises serious questions about theadministrative efficiency and the respect for [j ]udicialpronouncements, particularly when this Coutt has already provideda balanced approach by preserving both the Revenue's rights andassesses interests. 13. Another aspect which needs to be considered is that in fact itshould have been realized by the Income Tax Department itself andshould have lound out via media in ensuring that proceedingsunder Sections 148-4 and 148 should not have been issued in afaceless manner, at least till the Hon'ble Supreme Court decide thetwelve hundred (1200) odd SLPs which it is already seized ofor, atleast the Income Tax Department should have found out someremedial steps to ensure that wherever the authorities intend toinitiate proceedings under Sections 148-A and 148, other than in afaceless manner, the proceedings should have been deferredwithout precipitating the matter 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 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 theotherwise 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 Court dismissed a writ petition of similar nature, onthe 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 thesealso consumes substantial time of the Bench in hearing thesematrers 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 thematter has been reluctant in granting any interim protection to theIncome Tax Department. yet, the authorities concemed at theState level are not ready to accept the verdict passed by a majorityof High Courts of different States on the same issue; and to makeof 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 l4g_A andtaudacity by issuing notices continuously under Sections l4g_A andt 148 through the [jurisdictional ]Assessing Officer whereas it oughtto have been only in the faceless manner. 14. In the case of BANK OF INDIA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, INCOME TAXrr, 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. Mr. 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 oftreating decisions being 'not acceptable" was criticized by theSupreme Court. ln such decision, following are the relevantobservations made by the Supreme Court. ll ttZOZSl [170 ][taxmann.com 422 ][(Bombayll]'' ll978l ili ITR 589 [(Bombay)]" 1202+1 [165 ][taxmann.com ][58 ][l/300 ][Taxman 452 ][(Bornbay)] tn lgeZl taxrnann.com l6l-55 ELT 433 (SC)lgeZl taxrnann.com l6l-55 ELT 433 (SC) ll ttZOZSl [170 ][taxmann.com 422 ][(Bombayll]'' ll978l ili ITR 589 [(Bombay)]" 1202+1 [165 ][taxmann.com ][58 ][l/300 ][Taxman 452 ][(Bornbay)] tn lgeZl taxrnann.com l6l-55 ELT 433 (SC)lgeZl taxrnann.com l6l-55 ELT 433 (SC) "6. Sri Reddy is perhaps right in saying that theofficers were not actuated by any mala fides inpassing the impugned orders. They perhapsgenuinely felt that the claim of the assessee was nottenable and that, if it was accepled, the Revenuewould 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 reachingwould 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 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, righflythem, one of the Collector (Appeals) and the other ofthe Tribunal. The High Court has, in our view, righflycriticized this conduct of the Assistant Collectors andthe harassment to the assessee caused by the failureof these officers to give effect to the orders ofauthorities higher to them in the appellate hierarchy. ltthe harassment to the assessee caused by the failureof these officers to give effect to the orders ofauthorities higher to them in the appellate hierarchy. ltcannot be too vehemently emphasized that it is ofutmost importance that, in disposing of theutmost 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 theThe order of the Appellte Collector is binding on theAssistant Collectors working within his jurisdiction andthe order of the Tribunal is binding upon the AssistantCollectors and the Appellate Collectors who functionunder the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The principles ofjudicial discipline require that the orders of the higherthe order of the Tribunal is binding upon the AssistantCollectors and the Appellate Collectors who functionunder the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The principles ofjudicial discipline require that the orders of the higherappellate authorities should be followed unreservedlyby the subordinate authorities. The mere fact that theorder of the appellate authority is not "acceptable,, tothe department - in itself an objectionable phrase _and is the subject matter of an appeal can furnish noground for not following it unless its operation hasby the subordinate authorities. The mere fact that theorder of the appellate authority is not "acceptable,, tothe department - in itself an objectionable phrase _and is the subject matter of an appeal can furnish noground for not following it unless its operation hasbeen suspended by a competent court. lf this healthy rule is not followed, the result will only be undueharassment to assesses and chaos in administrationof tax laws. 12. We have dealt with this aspecl at some length,because it has been suggested by the learnedAdditional Solicitor General that the observationsmade by the High Court, have been harsh on theofficers. lt is clear that the observations of the HighCourt, seemingly vehement, and apparentlyunpalatable to the Revenue, are only intended to curba tendency in revenue matters which, if allowed tobecome widespread, could result in considerableharassment to'the assesses-public without any benefitto the Revenue. We would like to say that thedepartment should take these observations in theproper spirit. The observations of the High Courtshould be kept in mind in future and the utmost regardshould be paid by the adjudicating authorities and theappellate authorities to the requirements of .ludicialdiscipline and the need for giving effect to the ordersof the higher appellate authorities which are bindingon them." I 5. What is worrying this Bench more is the f-act that anendeavour is being made whole heartedly to ensure not. to generatefurther litigation on issues which have been laid to rest by a largenumber of High Courts all of whom have taken a consistent standthat the action of the Income Tax Department being violative of the Finance Act,202O 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 ofthe instant writ petition interms of the [judgment ]rendered by this High Court in the case ofKankanala Ravindru Reddy (l supra) shall however be subject tothe outcome of the SLPs which were filed bv the lncome TaxDepartment and which is pending consideration belore the Hon'bleSupreme Court. 16. In the given facts and circumstances, this Bench is of theconsidered opinion that unless and until we do not timely disposeof matters which are squarely covered by the decision of this Couftand which stands fortified by the decisions of the various otherHigh Courts on the very same issue, the pendency of this HighCourt would further be burdened which otherwise can be decidedand disposed ofas a covered matter 17. So far as the interest of the Revenue is concemed, [we ]are ofthe considered opinion that the interest of the Revenue has alreadybeen considered and protected, as has been observed in [paragraphs] 36, 37 and 38 of the order which, for ready reference, [is reproduced] hereunder: 36. For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned noticesissued and the proceedings drawn by the respondent'Department 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 getting [quashed, ]the consequential orders [passed]by the respondent-Department pursuant to the noticesissued under Section 147 and 148 would also [get]quashed and it is ordered accordingly. The reason weare [quashing ]the consequential order is on the [principles]that when the initiation of the proceedings itself wasprocedurally wrong, the subsequent orders also getsnullified automatically. 37. The [preliminary ]ob,ection raised by the [petitioner ]issustained and all these writ [petitions ]slands allowed onthis very [jurisdictional ]issue. Since the impugned noticesand orders are getting quashed on lhe [point ]ofjurisdiction, we are not inclined to proceed further anddecide the other issues raised by the petitioner whichstands reserved to be raised and contended in anappropriate proceedings. 38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the caseof Ashish Agarwal, supra, as a one-time measureexercising the powers under Article 1 42 of theConstitution of lndia, [permitted ]the Revenue to [proceed]under the substituted [provisions, ]and this Court allowingthe petitions only on the [procedural ]flaw, the right .\ \\ conferred on the Revenue would remain reserved [to]proceed further if they so want from the stage of theorder of the Supreme Court in the case [of ][Ashish]Agarwal, supra. 18. We would only further like to make observations that sincewe are inclined to dispose of the instant writ petition, conscious ofthe fact that the earlier order of this High Court in the case ofKanakala Ruvindra Reddy (l supra) is subjected to challengebefore the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No.3574 of 2024,preferred by the Income Tax Department, we make it clear thatallowing of the instant writ petition is subject to outcome of theaforesaid SLP preferred by the Revenue against the decision of thisHigh Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra).This, in other words, would mean that eithel 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. 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 Ruvindra Reddy (l supra) is subjected to challengebefore the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No.3574 of 2024,preferred by the Income Tax Department, we make it clear thatallowing of the instant writ petition is subject to outcome of theaforesaid SLP preferred by the Revenue against the decision of thisHigh Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra).This, in other words, would mean that eithel 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 [in]favour of the assessee so far as the issue of [jurisdiction]1Sconcemed. As a consequence, the impugned notice [under]challenge under Sections [148-A ]and 148 stands set aside/quashed. I I The consequentiaI orders, if any, also stand set aside/quashed in similar tenns as have been passed by this High Court in the case of Kankanala Ravindrq Reddy (l supra). There shail be no order as to costs Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed SD/.A. PRATHIMADUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY//ECTION OFFICER To,1. The lncome tax officer ward i4(1), Hyderabad, lT TOWER, AC Guards,It/lasab Tank, HYDERABAD-SOOOO+, Telangaria.1. The lncome tax officer ward i4(1), Hyderabad, lT TOWER, AC Guards,It/lasab Tank, HYDERABAD-SOOOO+, Telangaria. 2. The Principal Ctrief Commissioner of lncome Tax Telangana and A.p.,Hyderabad, lT Towers, AC Guards, Masab Tank, UyOeriOaO _ SbOiiZti,Telangana.Hyderabad, lT Towers, AC Guards, Masab Tank, UyOeriOaO _ SbOiiZti,Telangana. 3. The National Faceless Assessment Center, lncome Tax Department, NewDelhi.Delhi. 4. One CC to SRI THANNERU CHA|TANYA KUMAR, Advocate. tOpUCltOpUCl 5. One CC to [r,,ls.B.SAPNA REDDY, SC for lncome Tax Department. 6. Two CD Copies. BSK GJP HIGH COURT DATED:161071202s RfHEllo a4.<-)\il,.lORDER11 1EP 2W:.WP.No.35080 of Z0Z4,/ ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITIONWITHOUT COSTS [,{],l?