Heard Mr. Upadhyay Raghavender, Learned [Counsel ][For ][The]Petitioner And Ms. J.sunitha, Learned Junior [Standing ][Counsel ][For]The Income Tax Department Fo v. 'L(2023) [[56 Taxmann.com ][178 ][(Telangana

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MAYTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 25661 OF 2024 Between: Susheela Upadhyay, W/oJagdish Upadhyay, Aged60 Years,Occ. Commission Agent, [H.]No. ['14-4-34311 ], Begum Bazar,Hyderabad [-]500012. ...PETITIONER AND 1.lncome Tax Officer, Ward - [7(1 ]), Hyderabad. [lncome Tax Office, Signature]Towers, Sy.No.6(P) of Kondapur, Sy.No.37(P) [of ][Kothaguda, Opp. ][Botanical]Garden, S'edingampally(M), [R. ]R. District,.Hyderabad [- ][500084.]Towers, Sy.No.6(P) of Kondapur, Sy.No.37(P) [of ][Kothaguda, Opp. ][Botanical]Garden, S'edingampally(M), [R. ]R. District,.Hyderabad [- ][500084.] 2Principal Commissioner Of lncome [Tax ][- ][3, Signature ][T9ye5, ][Opp. ][Botanical]Garddn, Serlingampally(M), R. R. District, [Hyderabad ][- ][500084.]Garddn, Serlingampally(M), R. R. District, [Hyderabad ][- ][500084.] ...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 a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate [writ, order ][or]direction, declaring the order [passed ]by the [lncome ][Tax ][Officer, ][WardT(1),]Hyderabad, Under Order 148-A of the lncome [Tax Act, ]['1961 ][Date ][of ][Order 27-03-]2024 DIN No. ITBA/AST/F/1481\12023- [2411063426678(1) ][For ][the ][Year]Assessment Year 2017-18, as arbitrary [illegal ][bad ][in law without ].iurisdiction [void]abinitio violative of [principles ][of ][Natural Justice part from being violative of ][Article]4, 19 and 265 of Constitution of [lndia and consequently ][set ][aside ][the ][same ][in ][the]interests of [justice.] lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the c rcumstances stated inthe affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court nray be pleased to stayall further proceedings including any recovery, pursuant to tlre order passed by the1st respondent Under Order 148-A of the lncome Tax Act, 196'1 Date of Order of27-03-2024 Dll'J No ITBA/AST/F/148A1202324t106342667 8(1) For the YearAssessment Year 2O17-18 pending disposal of writ petition. lA NO: 2 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the crrcumstances stated inthe affidavit frled in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to fix anearly for hearing of the writ petition No. 25661 of 2024 al an early date. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI UPADHYAY RAGHAVEND-R Counsel for the Respondents: MS. J SUNITHA (JUNIOR SC FOR INCOME TAX)The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM [-]ANDTIIE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAONANDIKONDA,WRIT PETITTO N No.25661 OF 202{ GDEB, [(per ][Hon'ble ][Sri ][Justice ][P.Sam Koshy)] Heard Mr. Upadhyay Raghavender, learned [counsel ][for ][the]petitioner and Ms. J.Sunitha, learned Junior [Standing ][Counsel ][for]the Income Tax Department for [the ][respondents. Perused ][the]record. 2. This is a writ petition where the [proceedings ][are ][either]challenged to the notices [which ][were ][issued ][under Section ][148A]and 148 of the Income [Tax ][Act, ][1961 (fo'r ][short ]['the ][Act') ][or ][the]assessment orders those [have ][been passed ][under ][Section ][147 ][of]the Act which have been assailed. 3. This writ petition is being taken [up ][today ][only ][on ][one ][of ][the]grounds, that the notices issued under [Section ][l48A ][of ][the ][Act]and the subsequent initiation [of ][proceedings under ][Section ][148 ][of]the Act by the [jurisdictional ][Assessing ][Officer, ][whereas ][in ][terms]of the amendment [that ][was ][brought ][to ][the ][lncome Tax Act by ][way]of Finance Act, [2021 ][w.e.f., ][01.04.2021 ][onwards, ][proceedings]. -t 2. This is a writ petition where the [proceedings ][are ][either]challenged to the notices [which ][were ][issued ][under Section ][148A]and 148 of the Income [Tax ][Act, ][1961 (fo'r ][short ]['the ][Act') ][or ][the]assessment orders those [have ][been passed ][under ][Section ][147 ][of]the Act which have been assailed. 3. This writ petition is being taken [up ][today ][only ][on ][one ][of ][the]grounds, that the notices issued under [Section ][l48A ][of ][the ][Act]and the subsequent initiation [of ][proceedings under ][Section ][148 ][of]the Act by the [jurisdictional ][Assessing ][Officer, ][whereas ][in ][terms]of the amendment [that ][was ][brought ][to ][the ][lncome Tax Act by ][way]of Finance Act, [2021 ][w.e.f., ][01.04.2021 ][onwards, ][proceedings]. -t under Section 1484. ofthe Act as also under Section 148 oftheAct ought to have also been issued and proceederl in a faceiessmanner4. The contention ol the petitioner is that the issue ofproceedings being in violation of the Finance Ac.. 2021 i.e., theimpugne,l notices under Section l48A 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 KANKANALARAVINI)RA REDDY vs. INCOME-TAX OFFt(tERr decidedor 14.09.2023 wliereby a batch of writ petitions w::re allowed andthe proceedings initiated under Section l48A as also under Section148 of the Act were held to be bad with consequential reliefli on theground ol it being in violation of the provisions of ljection l5lA ofthe Act read with Notification 1812022 dated 29.03 2022. The saidjudgmen: passed by this Court has also been subsecuently followedin a largr: nurnber of writ petitions which were albwed on similarterms. 'l(2023) [[56 taxmann.com ][178 ][(Telangana)]] 5. Down the line, we find that the same issub has also beendecided against the Revenue by various High Courts [i.e.,]by the Bombay High Court in the case of TECHNOLOGIES LTD., VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX & OTHERS2, Gauhati [High Court in the ][case]of RAM NARAYAN SAH vs. UNION [INDIA3, ][Punjab ][and]Haryana High Court in the case of JATINDER vs. UNION OF INDIA4, and Telangana [High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]SRI VENKATARAMANA REDDY PATLOOLA [VS. ] COMMISSIONER OF INCOME [where ][the ][issue ][was ][in]respect of international taxation, [Bombay ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]ABHIN ANILKUMAR SHAH VS. INCOME TAX [OFFICER,]INTERNATIONAL TAXATION6 which [is ]again [on ][international]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 ' lzoz+1464 [430 (Bom)]'[(2024) [156 ][taxmann.com 478 ][(Gauhati)]]'l(2024) [165 ][taxmann.com ][115 ][(Punjab ][& ][Haryana)l] ' 12024) [167 ][taxmann.com ][4l ] [(Telangana)l] " 12024) [166 ][taxmann.com 679 ][(Bombay)l] ' 12024) [165 ][taxmann.com ] [13 ][(Himachal ][Pradesh)l] DAflY-rc,.i3liA{. !,.,.r,r.rADi! + v.'. .{IYCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD .l(3X5)8, Jharkand High Court in the caie of SHYAMSUNDAIf SAW vs. UNION OF INDIAe, Rajasthan High Court inthe case of SHARDA DEVI CIIHAJER vs. II\COME TAXOFFICER & ANOTHER and batch of writ prritionsr0 whichstood de<;ided on 19.03.2024. Similar views have rlso been takenby the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in the case ofGIRDHAR 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 de< ided by a largenumber c,f High Courts, we are still confronted witr large filing ofidentical ntatters on daily basis ranging between 5 to l0 writpetitions. That upon the instructions being sought fiom theDepartmcnt, they have becn taking a solitary p round that thedecision of tlie Bombay H igh Court in the casc of HexawareTechnobgies Ltd., (2 supra) as also the one v,hich has beendecided by tl.ris Court in the case of Kanakala I'avindra Reddy 82024 SC,l Online Guj 4012'2025 [Online ]lhar287n ' 12023 [: ][rJ-.rD ][: ][a9 ][Ea-DB ]l 82024 SC,l Online Guj 4012'2025 [Online ]lhar287n ' 12023 [: ][rJ-.rD ][: ][a9 ][Ea-DB ]l (rL supra) has been subjectd to challenge:in.a-Special [.Leave]Petition i.e., SLP No.3574 of 2024 before the Hon'ble SupremeCourt 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 leamed counsel for the Revenue,they have categorically accepted the fact that there is [no interim]order granted by the Hon'ble Supreme [Court ][in ][any ][of ][these]matters pending before it. Meanwhile, [fresh ]writ [petitions ][of]identical nature are being piled up before this Bench [on daily ][basis]and the pendency is getting increased on matter [which ][otherwise]has already been dealt and decided by this very High Court [itself.]8. On the one hand, even though the order of this Court [that]was passed as early as on 14.09.2023 and more [16 months ][have]lapsed, till date, we do not find any remedial [steps ][having ][been]taken by the Income Tax Department to take [appropriate ][steps ][to]either hold back issuance of notice [under Section ][148,{ ][and ][under]Section 148 of the Act by the [jurisdictional ][Assessing Ofhcer,]rather the authorities concemed in the teeth of [series ][of ][decisions] ( by all the major High Courts in India are continuously stillinitiating proceedings under Section l48A of th,: Act and alsoinitiating proceedings under Section 148 ol the Act incontravention to the amendments brought into the lncome Tax Actpursuant to the Finance Ac|2020 as also the Finance Act2021 9. Upon a query being put as to why can't this writ petition bedisposed of in the teeth of the decision rendered by this Court inthe case of Kanaksla Ravindra Reddy (l supra), l,:arned StandingCounsel lor the Income Tax Department contends that those wouldunnecessarily burden the Income Tax Departmcnt where theywould be required to file equal nurnber of S. -Ps before theHon'ble Supreme Court and it would be further burdening theexchequcr of the Union of India. It was also the contention of thelearned Standing Counsel that no prejudice would re caused to theinterest c,f the petitioners in case if this writ petition is kept pendingtill the finalization of the SLPs pending before the Hon'bleSupreme Court and the fact that the petitioner is z,lready enjoyingthe bene[rt of interim protection. Nonetheless, on [..he ]earlier queryof this Court as to why the Income Tax Department have not comeout with a mechanism to issue appropriate instru<;tions or to take appropriate steps in ensuring [that proceedings ][under Section ][148A]of the Act as also [the ][assessment ][orders ][under Section ][148 ][of ][the]Act are kept in a [hold in ][the ][light ][ofthe ][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 CBDT]as any such steps [would ][have ][to ][be ][taken Pan ][India ][and ][cannot ][be]limited to any of [these ][jurisdictional ][High ][Courts.] appropriate steps in ensuring [that proceedings ][under Section ][148A]of the Act as also [the ][assessment ][orders ][under Section ][148 ][of ][the]Act are kept in a [hold in ][the ][light ][ofthe ][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 CBDT]as any such steps [would ][have ][to ][be ][taken Pan ][India ][and ][cannot ][be]limited to any of [these ][jurisdictional ][High ][Courts.] 10. As a result of [which, ][what ][we ][are ][facing is ][steep ][increase ][of]in and [day ][out ][even ][though ][various ][orders ][have been]titigation day 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 [Kanakala Ravindra ][Reddy](1 supra). What is also surprising [is ][the fact that ][though ][while]allowing the writ [petitions ][in ][the ][case ][of ][Kanakala ][Ravindra]Reddy (l supra), [the ][Division ][Bench ][while ][reserving the ][right of]the Revenue, has [also protected ][the ][interest ][of ][the ][petitioners] insofar as the irber y which was granted to thc Revenue iorinitiating fresh proceedings strictly in accordance with the amendedinitiating fresh proceedings strictly in accordance with the amendedprovisions o[ the Act, as amended by the Finance Act, 2020 andthe Finance Act,202l . The petitioner assessee would be entitled tochallenge or raise the other legal objections if the Revenue initiateschallenge or raise the other legal objections if the Revenue initiatesfresh proceedings. The Department has made nt endeavour inavailing the said liberty that was reserved for the R:venue. On thecontrary, they have been still sticking on to the stand, which thisHigh Courl as well as many other High Courls alr:ady held to bebad.availing the said liberty that was reserved for the R:venue. On thecontrary, they have been still sticking on to the stand, which thisHigh Courl as well as many other High Courls alr:ady held to bebad. 1 1. It appears that because of the afortsaid liberry that this HighCourt had granted permitting the Revenue for initiating fieshCourt had granted permitting the Revenue for initiating fieshproceedings as a one-time measure in a faceler;s manner, theIncome ['1'ax ]Department wants to take advantage ol- the same byprotracting these proceedings which would enable tliem to meet thelimitation that would otherwise come in the way. t-ikewise, if thewrit petition is kept pending for a considerable lonll period of timeand final1y at a later stage if the Hon'ble Supreme Court confirmsthe decision taken by this High Court as also by the other HighIncome ['1'ax ]Department wants to take advantage ol- the same byprotracting these proceedings which would enable tliem to meet thelimitation that would otherwise come in the way. t-ikewise, if thewrit petition is kept pending for a considerable lonll period of timeand final1y 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 thc SLPs are still pending, tt e Income Tax Department would get the advantage of the liberty that is otherwiseprotected1n favour of the Revenue for initiation of freshproceedings from the disposal ofthese matters at a much later stagewhich would be advantageous and beneficial to the Revenue andwould be equally disadvantageous and detrimental so far as interestof the assesses are concerned. As a consequence, the Income [Tax]Department gets an extended period of time for initiation of fieshproceedings. Department would get the advantage of the liberty that is otherwiseprotected1n favour of the Revenue for initiation of freshproceedings from the disposal ofthese matters at a much later stagewhich would be advantageous and beneficial to the Revenue andwould be equally disadvantageous and detrimental so far as interestof the assesses are concerned. As a consequence, the Income [Tax]Department gets an extended period of time for initiation of fieshproceedings. 12. The alarming trend of docket explosion in this Court, despitethe clear precedent setin Kanakala Ruvindra Reddy (l supra), [is ][a]matter of grave concern. 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. [This]deliberate 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 [on]pending SLPs while continuing to initiate fresh [proceedings]appears to be a. calculated move to buy time [and ][circumvent]limitation periods, rather than adhering to the established [legal] position. Such conduct raises serious questic,ns about theadministrative efficiency and the respect fbr [judicial]pronouncements, parlicularly when this Court has a Lready provideda balanced approach by preserving both the Reverrue's rights andassesses lnterests.administrative efficiency and the respect fbr [judicial]pronouncements, parlicularly when this Court has a Lready provideda balanced approach by preserving both the Reverrue's rights andassesses lnterests. 13. Another aspect which needs to be considered is that in fact itshould ha.ve been realized by the Income Tax Department itself andshould have found out via media in ensuring tfLat proceedingsunder Sections 148-.4 and 148 should not have b:en issued in afaceless manner, at least till the Hon'ble Supreme [('ourt ]decide thetwelve htrndred (1200) odd SLPs which it is already seized of or, atleast the Income Tax Department should have fi rutrd 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 t re assessee thatthey shalt initiate appropriate proceedings only after the SLP's aredecided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the vr:ry same issue.This again, the Income Tax Department, has not bee.n able to give aconvincing reply, except for the fact that such a dccision if at all has to be taken, has to be taken for the whole of India, and whichotherwise has to be by way of a policy decision and that too at thelevel of Central Board of Direct Taxes. Though the 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 struggting to [reduce ][its]pendency, 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 ][in]the long run not only alfects the disposat [of ][the ]writ [petitions but]also consumes substantial time of the [Bench ][in ][hearing ][these]matters again and again on daily basis. Admittedly, [in ][spite ][of ][the]matter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court having been [taken ][on]many occasions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court [which is ][seized ][of ][the]matter has been reluctant in [granting ]any [interim ][protection ][to ][the]Income Tax Department. Yet, the [authorities ][concemed ]4t [the]State level are not ready to accept [the verdict ][passed ][by ][a ][majority]of High Courts of different States on [the ][same issue; and ][to ][make]things further worse, the Income Tax [Department ][is ][showing]audacity by issuing notices [continuously ][under Sections 148-A ][and] 148 throrigli the lurisdictional Assessing Officer vrhcreas it oughtto have been only in the faceless manner. 14 In the case of BANK OF INDIA vs. ,{SSISTANT COMMISSIONER, INCOME TAXIr, on an issuc u.hether it wasjustifiableon the part of the Income Tax Dep anment in notfollowing an order passed by the adjudicating authorily only on theground that the appeals are pending, the DivisioLr Bench of theHigh Court of Bombay held at paragraph No.25 as rrnder. viz., : "25. It4r. Paridwalla has rightty drawn out attention to thedecision of this Court in Commissioner of lncome'l-ax vs. Smt,Godavaridevi Sarafl2 as also the recent decisior of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Samp Furniture (P) -td. v. lTO13of which one of us (Justice G.S. Kulkarni) was a member, whereinthe Court categorically observed that the Revenue having not"accepted" the iudgment of the High Court would not nean that tiltthe same is set aside in a manner known to law, it would loose itsbindlng 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 oftrea{ing decisions being ''not acceptable" was critir;ized by theSupleme Court. ln such decision, following are the relevantobservations made by the Supreme Court. " [112021 ][170 ][taxmann.com ][422 ][(Bombay)l]t2 t2 1t9787 I l3 ITR 589 (Bombay) t1 720241165 raxmann.com 581/300 Taxman 452 (Bombay) ta ltggZl taxmann.com 16/55 ELT 433 (SC) + "6. Sri Reddy is perhaps .right in saying . that theofficers were not actualed by any mala fides inpassing 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 [factual]malafides 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 ][before]them, 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 [and]the harassment to the assessee caused by [the failure]of these officers to [give ]effect to the orders [of]authorities higher to them in the appellate hierarchy. [lt]cannot be too vehemently emphasized that [it is ]ofutmost importance that, in Sisposing of [the]quasUudicial issues before them, revenue officers arebound by the decisions of the appellate [authorities.]The order of the Appellte Collector is binding on [the]Assistant Collectors working within [his ][jurisdiction ][and]the order of the Tribunal is binding [upon the Assistant]Collectors and the Appellate [Collectors ][who ][function]under the [jurisdiction ]of the Tribunal. [The principles ][of]judicial discipline require that the orders of the higherappellate authorities should be followed [unreservedly]by the subordinate authorities. [The mere ][fact ][that the]order of lhe appellate authority is [not "acceptable" to]the department - in itself an objectionable [phrase ]-and is the subject matter of an [appeal ][can furnish ][no]ground for not following it unless its operation [has]been suspended by a competent [court. ][lf ][this healthy] rule is not followed, the result will only be undueharassment to assesses and chaos in admini:;trationof tax laws. rule is not followed, the result will only be undueharassment to assesses and chaos in admini:;trationof tax laws. 12. We have dealt with this aspect at some length,because it has been suggested by the learnedAdditional Solicitor General that the observatronsmade by the High Court, have been harsh on theofficers. lt is clear that the observations of the HighCoun, seemingly vehemenl, and apparenflyunpalatable to the Revenue, are only intended to curba tendency in revenue matters which, if allo,,ved tobecome widespread, could result in consirjerableharassment to lhe assesses-public without any benefitto the Revenue. We would like to say ttrat thedepartment should take these observations in theproper spirit. The observations of the High Courtshould be kept in mind in future anl the utmost regardshould be paid by the adjudicating authorities zrnd theappellate authorities to the requirements of judiciatdiscipline and the need for giving effect to the ordersof the higher appellate authorities which are rindingon them." I 5. What is worrying this Bench more is tlre fact that anendeavour is being made whole heartedly to ensurr: not to generatefurther litigation on issues which have been laid to rest by a largenumber rtf High Courts all of whom have taken a consistent standfurther litigation on issues which have been laid to rest by a largenumber rtf High Courts all of whom have taken a consistent standthat the action of the Income Tax Department bein6, r,iolative of the Finance Act,2020 and Finance Act,202I. Now, [in ][orderto ][protect]the interest ofthe Revenue as also that ofthe [assessee, ][it ][would ][be]trite at this [juncture, ]if we dispose of the writ [petition ][with ][an]observation/direction that the disposal of [the instant ][writ ][petition in]terms of the [judgment ]rendered [by this High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]Kankanala Ravindra Reddy (l supra) shall [however be ][subject ][to]the outcome of the SLPs which [were ][hled ][by ][the ][Income ][Tax]Department and which is [pending ]consideration [before the ][Hon'ble]Supreme Court. 16. In the given facts and circumstances, [this ][Bench ][is ][of ][the]considered opinion that unless [and ][until ][we do ][not ][timely ][dispose]of matters which are squarely [covered by the decision ][of ][this ][Courl]and which stands fortified by [the ][decisions ][of ][the various ][other]High Courts on the very same [issue, the pendency ][of ][this ][High]Court would further be burdened [which ][otherwise ][can ][be ][decided]and disposed ofas a covered [matter.] 17 . So far as the interest of the [Revenue ][is ][concemed, we are ][of]the considered opinion that the [interest ][of the ][Revenue has ][already]been considered and [protected, ][as ][has been ][observed ][in ][paragraphs] 36,37 and 38 ofthe order which, for ready reference, is reproduced hereunder 36. For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugn€,d noticesissued and the proceedings drawn by the rer;pondent-Department is neither tenable, nor [' ]su stainable.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 orde^s passedby the respondent-Department pursuant to the noticesissued under Section 147 and 148 would ,rlso getquashed and it is ordered accordingly. The r()ason weare quashing lhe consequential order is on the principlesthat when the initiation of the proceedings rtself wasprocedurally wrong, the subsequent orders tlso getsnullified automatically. 37. The preliminary objection raised by the petitioner issustained and all these writ petitions stands a lowed onthis very [jurisdictional ]issue. Since the impugnerd noticesand orders are getting quashed on the poinl of.jurisdiction, [we ]are not inclined to [proceed ]further anddecide the other issues raised by the petitiorrer whichstands reserved to be raised and conlend,ld in anappropriate proceedings. 37. The preliminary objection raised by the petitioner issustained and all these writ petitions stands a lowed onthis very [jurisdictional ]issue. Since the impugnerd noticesand orders are getting quashed on the poinl of.jurisdiction, [we ]are not inclined to [proceed ]further anddecide the other issues raised by the petitiorrer whichstands reserved to be raised and conlend,ld in anappropriate proceedings. 38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, ir 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 flaw, the right conferred on the [Revenue ][would ][remain ][reserved to]proceed further if they so [want from ][the ][stage ][of ][the]order of the Supreme [Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ][Ashish]Agarwal, supra. 18. We [would ][only ][further ][like to ][make ][observations ][that ][since]we are inclined [to ][dispose ][of ][the instant ][writ ][petition, ][conscious ][of]the fact that [the earlier ][order ][of ][this High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]Kanakala [Ravindra ][Reddy ][(l ][supra) ][is ][subjected ][to ][challenge]before the [Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Court ][in ][SLP No'3574 ][of ][2024']preferred by [the ][Income ][Tax Department, we ][make ][it ][clear that]of [the ][instant ][writ ][petition ][is ][subject ][to ][outcome ][of ][the]allowing aforesaid SLP [preferred ][by ][the Revenue against ][the ][decision ][of this]High Court in [the ][case ][of ][Kanakalu Ruvindra ][Rerldy ][(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 ][of ][the ][decision ][of ][the Hon'ble ][Supreme]Court in the [pending ] [on the very ][same issue'] 19. Accordingly, [the ][instant ][writ ][petition ][stands allowed]lnfavour of the [assessee ][so far ][as ][the ][issue ][of ][jurisdiction]1Sconcemed. [As ][a]consequence, [the ][impugned ][notice ][under]challenge [under Sections ][148-,{ ][and ][148 stands ][set ][aside/quashed] t i I I i The consequential orders, if any, also stand set a side/quashed insimilar terms as have been passed by this High Cou( in the case of Kankanala Ravindra Reddy (l supra). There shal be no order as to costs Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed TiD/. L. LAKSHMI BABUASI;ISTANT REGISTRAR//TRUE COPY//SEC#"*"FFICERASI;ISTANT REGISTRAR//TRUE COPY//SEC#"*"FFICER To,'1 . lncome T^ax Off1c9r, Ward - ,711), Hyderabld lncome Tax Office, SignatureTowers, Sy No.6(p) of Kondapur, Sy.No.37(p) oikot raguda, tjpp. BotiniI"rt. ^ [pqrdgn ][ynnctpat ][.S^ertrngampaily(M), ]uommissioner of lncome [R. R. Oistrtct, ][HvcieiaOaO ][_ ][EOOoe+.']Irl_ g, Signature Towers, opp.^ [Potanicat ][G_a1Qen, ][Sertingampaily(M), ][R. ][R. OtitriCi, ][rryoerirao-_-doooa+]4. 5. ? one One 91. CC [CC to ]CC to to Sri .Sri I\,4s. J. Sunitha loadhvav-Rasjrpvtilciel, Bokaro Sapna (JUNTOR [e!{V_(Jr. SC ror [novocate'ioi0cf---]SC lncome for Incbnre iax) tOFLii fa'x) tOpUC][- ][-,]6. Two CD CopiesTJaGJ \\ HIGH COURT DATED:0210512025 ))/.\1lt [sEP ][2025]I(. ORDER WP.No.25661 of 2024 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITIONWITHOUT COSTS