Heard Mr. T.chaitanya Kumar, Learned [Counsel ][For ][The]Petitioner And Ms.j.sunitha, Leamed Junior [Standing Counsel ][For]The Lncome Tax Department Lor [The v. Income_Tax Opftcert

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF MAYTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYAND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION NO: 31441 OF 2024 Between: PRIMARI AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVE SOCIETY,, Rep. by the SecretaryBusiness, PATIL JAGANNATH S/o. PATIL SANG SHETTY Ryo. OPP EATIVE BANK OF lNDIA, , Aged about 40 years, NARAYANKED Occupation.PRIMARIAGRICULTURAL, SANGAREDDY 502286 Telangana, lndia. PAN. ,Assessment Year. 20'18-1 9. .....PETITIONER AND 1 . The lncome Tax Officer Ward 1 , Sangareddy lncome Tax Office,Veerabhadra Nagar, New Bus Stand, Veerabhadra Nagar, Sangareddy,Telangana.Veerabhadra Nagar, New Bus Stand, Veerabhadra Nagar, Sangareddy,Telangana. 2. The Principal Chief Commissioner of lncome Tax Telangana and A.P,,Hyderabad, lT Towers, AC Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad 500028,Telangana.Hyderabad, lT Towers, AC Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad 500028,Telangana. 3. The Central Board of Direct Taxes, Represented by its Chairman, Departmentof Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of lndia, Secretariat Buildings,New Delhi - 110 001 .of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of lndia, Secretariat Buildings,New Delhi - 110 001 . 4. The National Faceless Assessment Center, lncome Tax Department, New.Delhi.Delhi. 5. The Union of lndia, Represented by its Secretary to the Government,Depa(ment of Revenue, Irlinistry of Finance, New Delhi - 110 001 .Depa(ment of Revenue, Irlinistry of Finance, New Delhi - 110 001 . .....RESPONDENTS Petition Under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may bepleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one inthe nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order, or Direction, declaring the rrrder passed by the lncome Tax Authorities (National Faceless E-Assessment Centre) completed the assessment UIS 147 [-.w.s ]['144 ]Date of 06-03-2024, DIN ITBA/AST/S/ 14712023-2411062116002(1) for the Assessment Year2018-19 detenrining the total income of Rs. 5,91,20,444l-as arbitrary, illegal, badin law, without jurisdiction, void-ab-initio, violative of tlre principles of naturaljustice apart from being violative of Articles 14. 19(1)(g) and 265 of theConstitution of lndia and Sec. 148A of the lncome Tax Act, ['1961, ]andconsequently set aside the same in the interests of justice |.A.NO:1 OF 2024 Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the :ircumstances stated inthe affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased tosuspend the order Under section 147 r.w.s 144 Datt> of 06-03-2024, DINITBA/AST/S/14712023- 241 1062116002(1) for the Assessment Year 2018-19determining th€, total income of Rs. 5,91,20,4441 -. and Demand notice u/s ['1 ]56 ofthe lncome T;ax act 196'1 , vlde DIN 86 Notice No. ITBA/AST/S/15612023-2411062116024(1) Dt. 06-03-2024 for the assessment lear 2018-19 pendingdisposal of the ,above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI THANNERU CHAITANYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : Ms. J.SUNITHA (,,UNIOR SC FORrNcoME TAX) Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 to 5 : SRI cADl PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUTYSOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA The Court made the following ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI [P.SAM ] ANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI NANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION No.3l44l of [2024] ORDER: @er I[on'ble [Sri.lttsrice ][P.Som ][Koshy)] Heard Mr. T.Chaitanya Kumar, learned [counsel ][for ][the]petitioner and Ms.J.Sunitha, leamed Junior [Standing Counsel ][for]the lncome Tax Department lor [the ][respondents. ][Perused ][the]record Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI THANNERU CHAITANYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : Ms. J.SUNITHA (,,UNIOR SC FORrNcoME TAX) Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 to 5 : SRI cADl PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUTYSOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA The Court made the following ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI [P.SAM ] ANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI NANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION No.3l44l of [2024] ORDER: @er I[on'ble [Sri.lttsrice ][P.Som ][Koshy)] Heard Mr. T.Chaitanya Kumar, learned [counsel ][for ][the]petitioner and Ms.J.Sunitha, leamed Junior [Standing Counsel ][for]the lncome Tax Department lor [the ][respondents. ][Perused ][the]record 2. This is a writ petitiou where the [proceedings ][are ][either]challenged to the notices [which ][were ][issued ][under ][Section ][148A]and 148 of the lncome [-l-ax ][Act, ][196 ] [(for ][short ]['the ][Act') ][or ][the]assessment orders those have [been passed ][under ][Section ][147 ][of]the Act which have been [assailed] 3. This wlit petition is being taken up today [only ][on ][one ][of ][the]grounds, that the notices issued under Section [148,{ ][of ][the Act]and the subsequent initiation olproceedings [under ][Section ][148 ][of]the Act by the [jurisdictional ][Assessing ][Officer, ][whereas ][in ][terms]ol'the arnendrnent that [was brought ][to ][the lncome ][Tax ][Act ][by way]of Finance Acr, [2021 ][w.e.f., ][01.04.202l'-oE-wards, ][proceedings] under Section l4gA of the Act as also under Se:tion l4g of theAct ought to have also been issued and proceeded in a facelessmanner4. The contention of the petitioner is thrrr the issue ofproceedings being in violation of the Finance A<,r. 202 I i.e., theimpugned notices under Section l4gA and Sectiorr I4g of the Actnot bein5g issued in a faceless manner, have a,.eadl been dealt withand decided by this Court in rhe case of I{ANKANALARAVINDRA REDDY vs. INCOME_TAX OPFTCERT decidedon 14-09.2023 whereby a batch of writ petitions w(,r.c alrowed andthe proceedings initiated under Section l4gA as als. rrnder Section148 of the Act were held to be bad with consequenti{rl reliefs on theground of it being in violation of the provisions of s,rction r5rA ofthe Act read with Notification lil2L22datcd 29.03.2()22. .Ihe saidjudgment passed by this Court has also been subsequ,:ntly lollowedin a large number of writ petitions which were alrov.,:d on sirnilarterms ' K2023) 156 raxnrann.corn I 7g (1-elangana).1 5. Down the line, we find that the same issue has also beendecided against the Revenue by various High Courts i.e.,by the Bombay High Court in the case of HEXAWARETECHNOLOGIES LTD., vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX & OTHERS2, Gauhati High Court in the caseof RAM NARAYAN SAH vs. UNION OF INDIA3, Punjab andHaryana High Coun 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 intemational taxation, Bombay High Court in the case ofABHIN ANILKUMAR SHAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,INTERNATIONAL TAXATION6 rvhich is again on internationaltaxation 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 ' Tzoz+1464 [430 ][(Bom)] ' [(2024) I 56 taxmann.com 478 (Gauhati)] ' [(2024) 165 taxmann.com I I 5 (Punjab & Haryana)] ' 12024) I67 taxmann.com 4 I t ('l elangana)l " [2024) [166 ]taxmann.com 679 (Bombay)] '12024) [165 ]taxmann.com I l3 [(Himachal ]Pradcsh)l DAHYABHAI RADADIYA vs. INCOME TITX OFFICER,WARD 3(3X5)8, Jharkand High Court in the case of SHyAMSUNDAIT SAW vs. UNION OF INDIAe, Rajasthar_. I{igli Court inthe case of SHARDA DEVI CHHAJER vs. IJ\C9114p ,O"OFFICER & ANOTHER and batch of wrir peritionsr0 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. UNTON OF I\DIA & OIIS(M.A.T lti90 of 2023). decided on25.09.2024. ' Tzoz+1464 [430 ][(Bom)] ' [(2024) I 56 taxmann.com 478 (Gauhati)] ' [(2024) 165 taxmann.com I I 5 (Punjab & Haryana)] ' 12024) I67 taxmann.com 4 I t ('l elangana)l " [2024) [166 ]taxmann.com 679 (Bombay)] '12024) [165 ]taxmann.com I l3 [(Himachal ]Pradcsh)l DAHYABHAI RADADIYA vs. INCOME TITX OFFICER,WARD 3(3X5)8, Jharkand High Court in the case of SHyAMSUNDAIT SAW vs. UNION OF INDIAe, Rajasthar_. I{igli Court inthe case of SHARDA DEVI CHHAJER vs. IJ\C9114p ,O"OFFICER & ANOTHER and batch of wrir peritionsr0 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. UNTON OF I\DIA & OIIS(M.A.T lti90 of 2023). decided on25.09.2024. 6. Even though the samc issue having been decicled by a largenumber o1'High Courts, we are still confronted with large filing olidentical rnatters on daily basis ranging betrveen 5 to l0 q,ritpetitions. That upon the instructions being sousht fiorn theDepartment, they have been taking a solitary gr,tund that thcdecision of the Bombay High Court in the case ol HcxnwareTechnologies Ltd., (2 supra) as also the one which has beendecided by this Courl in the case of Kanakalo Ravindra Reddy8202+ SCC (Jnt.ine Guj 4012" 2025 SCCnLine Jhar 287',r4.2-i;+-:<L itrrE?,ir€.s!.6q+:.€y]jr?6 !1?:srE ar1:}|J,,i\,:!'!r. j: [2023: [RJ-ID:4984-Dg]] !1?:srE ar1:}|J,,i\,:!'!r. j: <i_ti,T! */i:r?:tii.,..i#f,-{,:4r: (1 supra) has been [subjected ][to ][challenge ][in a ][Special ][Leave]Petition i.e., SLP [No.3574 ][of ][2024 ][before ][the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme]Couft and [the ][Hon'b][le ][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 ][lo ][the ][Iearned ][counsel ][for ][the ][Revenue']they have categoricatly [accepted ][the ][f'act ][that there ][is ][no ][interim]order granted by [the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Court ][in ][any ][of ][these]matters pending [before ][it' ][Meanwhile, lresh ][writ ][petitions ][of]identical nature [are ][being piled ][up ][belore 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 Coun ][itself']8. On the one hand, [even ][though ][the ][order ][of ][this ][Court ][that]was passed as early [as ][on ][14.09.?023 ][and ][more ] [6 ][months ][have]lapsed, till date, [we ][do ][not ][find ][any remedial ][steps ][having ][been]taken by the [Income ][Tax ][Deparlment ][to ][take appropriate ][steps ][to]either hold back issuance [of ][notice under Section ][l48A ][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 Courrs in India are conrinuously stillinitiating proceedings under Section l4gA of rhe .Act and alsoinitiating proceedings under Section l4g of the Act incontra,zention to the amendments brought into the Income Tax Actpursuant to the Finance Act,2020 as also the Finr:uce Act 2021 .9' IJpon a query being put as to why can,t this writ petition bedisposed of in the teeth of the decision renderec by this Court inthe case of Kanakala Ravindro Reddy (l supra), leamed Standingcounsei lor the Income Tax Deparlment contends that trrose wouldunnecessarily burden the Incorne Tax Depaftnrent where tlieywou [d lte required to file equal number of S l_ps before theIJon'ble Supreme Court and it would be further burclening rheexchequr:r of the Union of India. It was also the contention of thcleamed Standing Counsel that no prejudice would :e caused to theinterest of the petitioners in case if this writ petition rs kept pendingtill the hnalization ol the SLps pending beforc, the Hon,bleSupreme Courl and the fact that the petitioner is a r.eady enjoyingthe bcnefit of interim protection. Nonetheless, on the earlier queryof this court as to why the Income 'rax Department lrave not co*eout u ith zt mechanism to issue appropriate instruct ons or to take- ,r. t,// appropriate steps in ensuring that proceedings under Section [148A]of the Act as also the assessment orders under Section 148 of theAct are kept in a hold in the light of the decisions dedcided by thevarious High Courts, it was submitted by the learned 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 sameISSUC The Income Tax authorities concemed are still even now [rn]2025 also initiating proceedings in con{.ravention to the [provisions]of Section l51A of the Act and as a result by now, more [than ][600]!(, orrJ Ut LrrwDr7.rurrJ\rr\,LrL,rtar r rrt+r \?\r!rr rr. to 700 petitions have been already got piled up before [this ][High]Courl on an issue which otherwise stands squarely [covered ][by ][the]judgment of this Courl in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy(1 supra). What is also surprising is the fact that though [while]allowing the writ petitions in the case of Kanakalo [Ravindra]Reddy (l supra), the Division Bench while reserving [the ][right ][of]the Revenue, has also protected the interest of the [petitioners] -.:: [{}rf3!X&8ffi,a-] insofar as thc liberty which was granted to thc Revenue forinitiating lresh proceedings strictly in accordance u ith the amendedinitiating lresh proceedings strictly in accordance u ith the amendedprovisiorLs of the Act, as amended by the Finance Act, 20?0 andthe Finance Act,202l. The'petitioner assessee would be entitled tochallenge or raise the other legal objections if the Revenue initiatesfresh proceedings. The Department has made nr endeavour inavailing the said libefty that was rese.ed for the R,:venue. c)n thefresh proceedings. The Department has made nr endeavour inavailing the said libefty that was rese.ed for the R,:venue. c)n thecontrary, they have been stilr sticking on to the strrncl, wrrich thisHigh Court as well as many other High Courts alrcady held to bebad.High Court as well as many other High Courts alrcady held to bebad. 1lIt appears that because of the aforesaid libertl. that this HighCourl hacl granted permitting the Revenue for initiatins lreshCourl hacl granted permitting the Revenue for initiatins lreshproceedings as a one-time measure in a facelesrr rnanner, theIncome Tax Department wants to take advantage cf.the same byprotractinp; thesc proceedings which would enable th,rrn to meet thelimitation ihat n,ould otherwise come in the way. Likewise, if thewrit petition is kept pending for a considerable long period ol.timeand finally at a iater stage if the Hon'ble Supreme Courl confirmsthe decision takcn by this High Court as also by the other HighCourls in which the SLps are stilt pending, tl.re Income Taxprotractinp; thesc proceedings which would enable th,rrn to meet thelimitation ihat n,ould otherwise come in the way. Likewise, if thewrit petition is kept pending for a considerable long period ol.timeand finally at a iater stage if the Hon'ble Supreme Courl confirmsthe decision takcn by this High Court as also by the other HighCourls in which the SLps are stilt pending, tl.re Income Tax Depafiment would get the advantage of the [liberty ][that ][is otherwise]protected in favour of the Revenue for initiation of freshproceedings from the disposal of these matters at a much later stagervhich would be advantageous and beneficial to the Revenue andrvould be equally disadvantageous and detrimental so far as interestof the assesses are concemed. As a consequence, [the Income Tax]f)epaftment gets an extended period of time lor initiation of freshproceedings. 12. The alarming trend of docket explosion in [this ]Court, [despite]the clear precedent set in Ktnakola Rsvindra [Reddy ][(l ][supra), is ][a]rnatter of grave concern. The Income Tax Department's [persistent]initiation of fresh proceedings, disregarding the established [judicial]pronouncements, has led to an unprecederited surge in litigationrr ith over 600-700 petitions piling up on the same issue. Thiscleliberate approach not only undermines the [principle ]of [judicial]precedent but also strains the [judicial ]resources unnecessarily. [The]Deparlment's strategy of awaiting the Suprerne Court's [decision ][on]pending SLPs while continuing to initiate fresh proceedingsappears to be a calculated move to buy time and [circumvent]lirnitation periods, rather than adhering to the established [legal] posltron. Such conduct raises serious questions about theadminist:ativc elficiency and the respect fbr judicialpronoun()cnreuts, paflicularly when this Court has e iready provideda balanct:d approach bv preserwing both the Reve ruc,s rights andassesses lnterests 13. Another aspect which needs to be considered is that in facr itshould have becn realizcd by the Income Tax Depar,nrent itself andshould have lirund out via rnedia in ensuring that proceedingsunder Sections I4g-A and l4g should not have bcr:n issued in afaceless manncr., at least till the Hon,ble Supreme Crr-rr1 decide thetwelve hundred ( I200) o<rd Sr-ps which it is arready seized of or. arleast the lncorne T'ax l)cpartment shourd have fbuntr ort someremedial steps to ensurc that wherever the ar.rthor lies intend toinitiate proceedings under. Sections l4g_A and l4g, or.lrer than in afaceless ,,ranucr, the proceedings should have t,cen deferrcdwithout precipitating the rnatter further intimating the assessee thatthey shall initiate appropr.rate proceedings only after Lhc SLp,s aredecided by thc l{on,ble Supreme Court on the verl. same issue.This again, the Incorne 1'ar Deparlment, has not been rble to give aconvincing reph,. c1gsp1 lbr the fact that such a decision il.at ali -/ -/ has to be taken, has to be taken for the whole of India, [and ][which]otherwise has to be by way of a policy decision and that too at thelevel of Central Board of Direct Taxes. Though the leamedStanding Counsel for the Income Tax Department contended thatttre 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 lbrcing the assessee to knock the doors of this HighCourt resulting in filing of hundreds of new writ [petitions ][which ][in]the Iong run not only affects the disposal of the writ [petitions ]butalso consumes substantial time of the Bench in hearing thesernatters again and again on daily basis. Admittedly, in spite of thematter befbre the Hon'ble Supreme Courl having been taken onmany occasions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court which [is ][seized ][of ][the]matter has been reluctant in granting any interim [protection ][to ][the]lncome Tax Department. Yet, the authorities [concemed ][at ][the]State level are not ready to accept [the ][verdict ][passed ][by ][a ][majority]of t{igh Clourts of different States [on the ][same ][issue; and ][to ][make]things further worse, the Income Tax [Department]IS showingaudacity by issuing notices continuously [under ][Sections 148-A ][and] 148 through the jurisdictional Assessing Officer rvhereas it oushtto have been only in the faceless ffranner. 14. In the case ot- BANK OF INDIA vs, ASSISTANTCOMMISSIONER, INCOME TAXrr, on an issut: u.hether it wasjustifiabk: on the part of the Income Tax Depaftment in notfollowing an order passed by the adjudicating authority only on theground that the appeals are pending, the Divisiorr Bench of theHigh Coutt of Bombay held at paragraph No.25 as under, viz., : "25. lvlr. Parrdwalla has righfly drawn out atter t on to thedecision of this Court in Commissioner of lncome Tax vs. Smt.Godavaridevi Saraf,2 as also the recent decision of the co_ordinate Bench of this Court in Samp Furniture (p) Ltd. v. lTOr3of which one of us (Justice G.S. Kulkarni) was a member, whereinthe Court categorically observed that the Revenue having not"accepted" the Judgment of the High Court would not rnean that tillthe same is set aside in a manner known to law, it would loose itsbinding force. Referring to the decision of the Suprenre Court inUnion of lndia vs. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd.r4, theCourt observed thal the approach of the officials of Flevenue oftreating decisions belng,,not acceptable,, was critici2ed by theSupreme Court. ln such decision, following are the relevantobservations made by the Supreme Court. ',',lr..r:f^2, [t ][/0 ]Iaxrnann.corn 422 (Bonrbay)l ',',lr..r:f^2, Iaxrnann.corn 422 '' [ 19781 I l3 It R 589 r Bombay r'' [ 19781 I l3 It R 589 r Bombay r r'" .l.axrnan to 120241 165 taxnrann.com 5g l/300 452 (Bombal )to 120241 165 taxnrann.com 5g l/300 452 (Bombal ) TtOSZl taxmann.con.r l6155 ELT 43t (SC) - ,/ ',',lr..r:f^2, [t ][/0 ]Iaxrnann.corn 422 (Bonrbay)l ',',lr..r:f^2, Iaxrnann.corn 422 '' [ 19781 I l3 It R 589 r Bombay r'' [ 19781 I l3 It R 589 r Bombay r r'" .l.axrnan to 120241 165 taxnrann.com 5g l/300 452 (Bombal )to 120241 165 taxnrann.com 5g l/300 452 (Bombal ) TtOSZl taxmann.con.r l6155 ELT 43t (SC) - ,/ "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 correctness orotherwise of their conclusion or of any factualmalafides but wrth the fact that the officers, in reachingin their conclusion, by-passed two appellate orders inregard to the same issue which were placed beforethem, one of the Collector [(Appeals) ]and the other ofthe Tribunal. The High Court has, in our view, rightlycriticized this conduct of the Assistant Collectors andthe harassment to the assessee caused by the [failure]of these otficers 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 theAssrstant Collectors working within his [jurisdiction ]andthe order of the Tribunal is binding upon the AssistantCollectors and the Appellate Collectors who [function]under the [jurisdiction ]of the Tribunal. [The principles ]ofjudicial discrpline require that the orders of the higherappellate authorities should be followed [unreservedly]by the subordinate authorities. The [mere ]fact [that ]theorder of the appellate authority [is ][not ]["acceptable" to]the department - in itself an objectionable [phrase ]-and is the subject matter of an [appeal can ][furnish ][no]ground for not following it unless its operation hasbeen suspended by a [competent ][court. ][lf ][this ][healthy]tenable and that, if it was accepted, 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 wrth the fact that the officers, in reachingin their conclusion, by-passed two appellate orders inregard to the same issue which were placed beforethem, one of the Collector [(Appeals) ]and the other ofthe Tribunal. The High Court has, in our view, rightlycriticized this conduct of the Assistant Collectors andthe harassment to the assessee caused by the [failure]of these otficers 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 theAssrstant Collectors working within his [jurisdiction ]andthe order of the Tribunal is binding upon the AssistantCollectors and the Appellate Collectors who [function]under the [jurisdiction ]of the Tribunal. [The principles ]ofjudicial discrpline require that the orders of the higherappellate authorities should be followed [unreservedly]by the subordinate authorities. The [mere ]fact [that ]theorder of the appellate authority [is ][not ]["acceptable" to]the department - in itself an objectionable [phrase ]-and is the subject matter of an [appeal can ][furnish ][no]ground for not following it unless its operation hasbeen suspended by a [competent ][court. ][lf ][this ][healthy] \-. \' \ rule is not followed, the result will only b€ undueharassment to assesses and chaos in admin strationof tax laws. \-. \' \ rule is not followed, the result will only b€ undueharassment to assesses and chaos in admin strationof tax laws. 12. We have dealt with this aspect at some length,because it has been suggested by the earnedAdditional Solicitor General that the observationsmade by the High Court, have been harsh on theofficers. lt is clear that the observations of the HighCourt, seemrngly vehemenl, and apparenflyunpalatable to the Revenue, are only tntended :o curba tendency in revenue matters which, if allorved tobecome widespread, could result in consicerableharassment to the assesses_public without any :enefitto the Revenue. We woutd like to say that thedepartment should take these observations n theproper spirit. The observatrons of the High Courtshould be kept in mind in future and the ulmosl regardshould be paid by the adjudicating authorities and theappellate authorjties to the requirements of jrrdicialdiscipline and the need for giving effect to the ordersof the higher appellate authorities whrch are brndingon them." 15' what is wonying this Bench rnore is the ract that an %ioemerJ,*r4oh*eagedqE{.,,"nq,fi olehto€enemtfu further litigation on issues which have been laid to -est by a largenumber of High Courts all of whom have taken a corlsistent standthat the action of the Income [.fax ]Departmenr being violative of the ./ -/ ,/ --.- I Finance Act,2020 and Finance Act,202l. Now, in order to protectthe interest of the Revenue as also that ofthe assessee, it would betrite at this [j ]unctule, if we dispose of the writ petition with anobservation/d irection [hat the disposal of the instant writ petition interms of the [judgment ]rendered by this High Court in the case ofKonkanslu Ravindru Retldy (l supra) shall however be subject tothe outcome of the SLPs which were filed by the Income TaxDepaftment and which is pending consideration before the Hon'bleSupreme Cou11. 16. In the given lacts and circumstances, this Bench is of theconsidered opinion that unless and until we do not timely disposeof matters which are squarell' covered by the decision of this Courtand which stands lortifred by the decisions of the various otherHigh Courts on the very sarne issue, the pendency of this HighCourl would turther be burdened which otherwise can be decidedand disposed of as a covered rnatter. I7 . So lar as the interest ol the Revenue is concerned, 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 reproducedhereunder: 36. For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned noticesissued and the proceedings drawn by the r€spondent-Department is neither tenable, nor s(lstainable.h%4.The?1o1i6eiss6.isSU.dand.the-pro-cedUrg.ddoJ)tecl.b€ing;r6l'rj{:..1-{.ii*!*'i=j}ir.r;g:per se illegal, deserves to be and are accordingly setaside/quashed. As a consequence, all the impugnedorders getting quashed, the consequential orders passedby the respondent-Department pursuant to fl-e noticesissued under Section 147 and l4gwould tlso getquashed and il is ordered accordingly. The ()ason weare quashing the consequential order is on the orinciplesthat when the initiation of the proceedings itself wasprocedurally wrong, the subsequent orders illso getsnullifled automatically. 37 The preliminary objection raised by the petitroner issustained and all these writ petitions stands aj cwed onthis very jurisdictional issue. Since the impugne 1 noticesand orders are getting quashed on the point ofjurisdiction, we are not inclined to proceed further anddecide the other issues raised by the petition,r - whichstands reserved to be raisedand contendeJ in anappropriate proceedings. 37 The preliminary objection raised by the petitroner issustained and all these writ petitions stands aj cwed onthis very jurisdictional issue. Since the impugne 1 noticesand orders are getting quashed on the point ofjurisdiction, we are not inclined to proceed further anddecide the other issues raised by the petition,r - whichstands reserved to be raisedand contendeJ in anappropriate proceedings. 38Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in he caseof AshishAgarwal, supra, as a one{imerneasureexercisingthe powers under Article 142of the,3onstitution of lndia, permitted the Revenue to lroceed,3onstitution of lndia, permitted the Revenue to lroceedunder the substituted provisions, and this Court l,lowingthe petitions only on the procedural flaw, ti e rightthe petitions only on the procedural flaw, ti e right \\ tI 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 lurther like to make observations [that ][since]we are inclined to dispose of the instant writ [petition, ]conscious ofthe lact that the earlier order ol this High Court in [the ][case ][of]Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra) is subjected to [challenge]before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP [No.3574 ]of [2024,]preferred by the Incomc Tax Dcpartment, [we ]make it [clear ][that]altowing of the instant writ [petition is ]subject to [outcome ][of ][the]aforesaid SLP preferred by the Revenue against [the decision ][of ][this]High Court in the case ol Kantkala Ravindra [Redcly ][(l ][supra).]This, in other words, would mean that either [of ][the parties, ][if ][they]so want, may move an appropriate [petition ]seeking [revival ][of ][this]writ petition in the light ol the dccision of [the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme]Court in the pending Sl-P on the [very ][same ][issue] -.ua,-;jgzurE 19. Accordingly, thc instant writ [petition ][stands ][allowed ][in]favour of the assessee so far as the [issue ]of [jurisdiction]ISconcemed. As a consequence, thc impugned notice [under]challenge under Sections 148-A and 148 stands set aside/quashed. I t BEJA. 'l \\ \-_ - The consequential orders, if any, [also ][stand set ][rside'/qlrashed in]similar lenns as have been passed by [this ][l{igh ][Cctrrt in the ][case ][of] Kankanala Ravindra Reddy [(1 ][supra). ][There ][shz,ll ][be ][uo ][orcleL ][as] to costs Consequently, miscellaneous [petitions pcnding, ][il ][any, shall] stand closed SD/ISMAILpTYSTRARCOPY/' [/\,],/TRUE SECTION \i\rToTax Office,1r he [r ]nco [me ][rax ][orricer ][w ][a:X ]d.]fi f [fl.."""1xyo[:?ff,]agar, [SangareddY,]Veerabhadra [Nagar, New ][u]2iffi :lo["J;3]t';fl,:::'J:::il?J"ill?iJ'"?':11t"i'E:3ff 3t'.Xl,her,-""Iysl,?:;'ff1?[ff il:t?:,33?,?'E;,il:11",{31,'3;,n,'Ministry [of Finance, Goverr]4.1L3R0"1a"r, [Faceless Assessment ][center' ][lncome ][rax ][Department' ][New]Delhi.The Secretary [to the ][uovernment' ][Unlon ][of ][lndia' ][D':partment of Revenue']67ffi [jIffi ][i#b'e'trs,em.t*irTii,RI,.']"]H[Taf 8t"[%'i to SRt [GAD. PRAVEEN KUMAR' ][DEPUr\ ][sollclToR ] 6il r.r-orn, [Advocate ][(oPUC)]ITwo C;D [Copies]SAGJP+r4_-t.-.- ffi *F-?-ii \ l i.l HIGH COURT DATED:0110512025 ORDER WP.No.31441 of 2024 ALLOWING THE W.PWITHOUT COSTS. o\ lrtE, r<t6.o[({]f,r(r\11 SEP [206]\ ::,