I._._,1+-_-\Rz Rfrfif,I v. Tenlls

HIGH COURT FOR THE STTE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERAD(Special Originalurisdiction) THURSDAY,THE FIST DAY OF MAYTWO THOUSAND AD TWENTY FIVE PRESNT THE HONOURABLE SRI JSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANTHE HoNoURABLE sR J USTIcE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDAANTHE HoNoURABLE sR J USTIcE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA WRIT PTION N 175 0F 2024 Between: hlisf,yfJl5',f |E,HATI A9X'",".?:."ngana, TURAL about the Secreta56 lndra. COOPyearARAESoSHsTmE VE (-U nRpa otiVEneRaENtB 2DU UGST0 noIESsoPoA1s9CLR/ETS/ooTLEMSHERKM TA DEL AND ...PEITtoNER 1ThencomeTAXofficerardq0e2er00ab1 ahTdera angaNanIaaNewB UsS1, nd, SangareddvVeerabhadralncomeNagar,Tax SangareddyOffice.q0e2er00ab1 ahTdera angaNanIaaNewB UsS1, nd, SangareddvVeerabhadralncomeNagar,Tax SangareddyOffice.2THThelanydergaPabar n nac padTCThowfersom mA(. sG aS oUnerdr"hl:T?"li: rft,flg:r,!Br&8,rft,flg:r,!Br&8,43DeTNoThhCW he cR Na DEVentraeeti hnoUn Ba1 1M noardF 0 00a ScelryoES D oS ec TAF naSSenSaxeCsemSen RCenter, lncome ernmresennteodbvnd[tS] aTax Shaecr rmDepartment, Newe a1an DaepaBuilrtd nmIenSJ:;, i;f,i #- Ltfu "Tif; [l?i ][:"1 ][i,li]lL:,:,r..?,8,8,,# _to1 [the ][Governmenr,]J:;, i;f,i #- Ltfu "Tif; [l?i ][:"1 ][i,li]lL:,:,r..?,8,8,,# _to1 [the ][Governmenr,] 5 ...RESPONDENTS pct ercaU Smed SPetition ta noCSSeS Uunder e aS a en adppArticle nrophr a226 ea fidaof rthe o dtfiC rnstitution or therewith, of the lndia High Court may praying that in thebeo24na rithSeRsso1 nES06aS42 Um eo 31 a1re1 2nti 81 ote oI IItU S 2( )f1r1 4hM no 7faSpr ahrde namrbSc p eUr1sa S44erSv D mdeclofa naee te on ao U nfsre 0baade o2U S03 20n ce Iri ar oddirection more particularly 0 4e21rI papadD N srt ShouedfmrotT n nm bbBUvNAr Sshe hd neS c cosT on Som aop e ed1 a 4VO7tin done co-a0meobh3fin Articles 14, t9(tXg) 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 ['151 ][cPC ][praying ][that ][in ][the ][circunrstances ][stated ][in]the affidavit [filed ][in ][support ][of the ][petition, ][the ][High Court may ][be ][pleased ][to]suspend [the ][order ][Under section ][147 ][r'w's ][144 ][Dale ][of ][06-03-2024' ] ITBAJAST/S/14712023-24t1}621312g2(1) [for the ][Assessment ][Year ][2018-19]determining [the total income ][of ][Rs ][4,1 ][1 ]'89,9521 [and Demand notice ][u/s ][1 ][56 of]thelncomeTaxactl96l,VideDlNandNoticeNo-ITBA/AST/Si15612023-2411062 1313 [57(1) ][Dt. ][06-03-2024 ][for ][the ][assessment ][year ][2018-19 ][pending]disposal [of ][the above ][Writ ][Petition] Counsel [for the ][Petitioner: ][SRI' THANNERU CHAITANYA KUMAR] Counsel [for ][the Respondents: ][Ms' ][J' ][SUNITHA (JUNIOR SC ] [TAX)]The Court [made ][the ][following: ] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOT]RABLE SRI JUTICE NARSING RAONANDIKODA WRIT PETITION N .32175 of 2024 ORDER, [(per ]Hon'ble Sri Jusrice P.Sumo.thy) Heard Mr. T.Chaitanya Ku, [learned ][counsel ][for ][the]petitioner and Ms.J.Sunitha, leamedunior Standing Counsel forthe lncome Tax Department for threspondents. Perused the record 2. This is a writ petition where the proceedings are eitherchallenged to the notices which werissued under Section l48Aand 148 of the Income Tax Act, 196(tbr short 'the Act') or theassessment orders those have beensed under Section 147 ofthe Act which have been assailed 3. This writ petition is being takeup today only on one of thegrounds, that the notices issued und r Section l48A of the Actand the subsequent initiation of proceings under Section 148 ofthe Act by the [j ]urisdictional AssessinOfficer, whereas in termsof the amendment that was brought [to][ he ][Income ]Tax Act by way of Finance Act, 2021w.e. f ., 00402 I onwards, proceedings 6r,^ !.;.^- ^-.^iI ^ /.1 , i._._,1+-_*-\rz* rFrFiF,i record 2. This is a writ petition where the proceedings are eitherchallenged to the notices which werissued under Section l48Aand 148 of the Income Tax Act, 196(tbr short 'the Act') or theassessment orders those have beensed under Section 147 ofthe Act which have been assailed 3. This writ petition is being takeup today only on one of thegrounds, that the notices issued und r Section l48A of the Actand the subsequent initiation of proceings under Section 148 ofthe Act by the [j ]urisdictional AssessinOfficer, whereas in termsof the amendment that was brought [to][ he ][Income ]Tax Act by way of Finance Act, 2021w.e. f ., 00402 I onwards, proceedings 6r,^ !.;.^- ^-.^iI ^ /.1 , i._._,1+-_*-\rz* rFrFiF,i under Section l4gA of the Act as also under. Section i4g of theAct ought to have also been issued and proceedecl in a facelc,ssmanner4. The contention of the petitionerIStl'rat the issue ofproceedings being in violation of the Finance Acr, 102 I i.e.. theimpugned notices under Section l4gA and Section I4g of the Actnot being issued in a faceless manrer, have already bcen dealt withand decided by this Court rn rhe case ol K.ANKANAI,ARAVINDRA REDDY vs. INCOME_TAX OFFI(],]Rr decidcdon l,4.09.2023 rvhereby a batch of writ petitions werc allowed andthe proceedings initiated under Section l4gA as also Lrnder Section148 of the Ad were held to be bad with consequential r.cliefs on theground of it being in violation of the provisions of Section l5lA ofthc Acr read with Notification lg/2022 dated 29.03.2021. The saidjudgment passed by this Court has also been subsequentll, followedrn a large number ol writ petitions which were allowed on sinrilar tenlls ' [(2023) I 56 raxrnann.corn I 78 (Tolangana)l I - 5. Down the line, we find that the same issue has also beendecided against the Revenue bvaflousHigh Courts i.e.,by the Bombay High Court in the case of HEXAWARETECHNOLOGIES LTD., vs. ASSTANT COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX & OTHERS2,auhati High Court in the caseof RAM NARAYAN SAH vs. UN ON OF INDIAT, Punjab andFlaryana High Court in the case of ATINDER SINGH BANGUvs. UNION OF INDIA4, and Telana High Court in the case ofSRI VENKATARAMANA REDDPATLOOLA vs. DEPUTYCOMMISSIONER OF INCOMEAXs where the issue was inrespect of intemational taxation, Bobay High Court in the case ofABHIN ANILKUMAR SHAH [VS.] INCOME, TAX [OFFICER,]INTERNATIONAL TAXATION6hich is again on intemationaltaxation and central circle, High Co rt of Himachal Pradesh [in ][the]case of GOVIND SINGH vs. I COME TAX OFFICERT,Gujarat High Courl in these of MANSUKHBHAI ' lzoz+1464 [430 (Bom)] '1Q024) [156 ][taxmann.com ][478 (Gauhat])l llaryana)l 'l(2024) [taxmann.com ][115 ][(Punjab] a)l'12024) [167 ][taxmann.com ][4l ] [(Telanga]" 12024) 12024) I66 taxmann.com 679 taxmann.com 679 [[(Bombay]]l " 12024) 12024) I66 taxmann.com 679 taxmann.com 679 [[(Bombay]] '12024) [165 ][taxmann.com ][113 ][(Himach lPradesh)l] DAHYABTIAI RADADIYA .rAX vs. INCOME OFFICER,vs. INCOME OFFICER, WARD f1:;1S;t, Jharkand High Court in the casc ot.SHyAMSUNDAR SAW vs. UNION OF INDIAT, Rajasrhan High Court inthe case o1'SHARDA DEVI CIIHAJER vs. TNCOME TAXOFFICER & ANOTHER and batch of writ petitionsr0 whichstood decidcd on 19.03.2024. Sirnilar views have also been takenb.v' the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in thc case ofGIRDHAR GOPAL DALNIIA vs. UNION OF INI)IA & OIrs(M.A.T t690 of 2023),decided on25.09.2024.6. Even tlrough the same issue having been decidcd by a larrenumber of Fligh Courts, we are still confronted with large nf ing "lidentical matrers on daily basis ranging between -5 to I0 wrirpetitions. That upon the instructions being soughr fr.om thcDepartment, rhey have been taking a solitary ground that thcdecision of the Bombay High Court in ihe case ot HexowareTechnologies Ltut., (2 supra) as also the one which has beendecided lry this Court in the case of Kanakaln Ravitttlro llgddy, *202+ SC('OnLirrc Cuj 40 l2"2025 SC( Onl.irrc Jhar287"'[ 202 3 : R.t-JD:4984-DB I -[\"r] - *202+ SC('OnLirrc Cuj 40 l2"2025 SC( Onl.irrc Jhar287"'[ 202 3 : R.t-JD:4984-DB I -[\"r] - (l supra) has been subjected [to ][ch][ llenge ][in ][a ][Special ][Leave]Petition i.e., SLP [No.3574 ][of ][2024]efore the Hon'ble SuPremeCourt and the [Hon'ble ][SuPreme Co][ rt ][is ][seized ][ol ][the ][matter.]ln addition, there [are ][about ][1200 ] also filed arising [out ][of ][the]sarne issue being [decided by various ][H][ gh ][Coutts] 7. To a query being Put [to ][the lear]ed counsel for the [Revenue,]they have categorically [accepted ][the]act that there [is ][no ][intertm]me Court in [anY ][of ][these]order granted [bY ][the ][Hon'ble ][SuPr]lnatters pending [before ][it' ][Meanw]ile, fresh writ [petitions ][of]identicat nature [are ][being ][piled ][up be]re this Bench [on dailY ][basrs]and the pendency [is ][getting ][increas]on matter [which ][otherwise]has already been [dealt ][and ][decided ][by]is very High [Court ][itself.] 8. On the one [hand, even ][though][ the order ][of ][this ][Court ][that]r,r as passed as early [as ][on ][14.09.202]and more 16 [months ][have]tapsed, 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]er Section l48A [and under]Section 148 of [the ][Act ][bY the ][juris][ ictional ][Assessing ][Officer,]rather the authorities [concemed ][in ][th]teeth of series of [decisions] ) by all the major High Courts in India are continuously stillinitiating proceedings under Section 14gA of the Act and alsoinitiating proceedings under Section l4g ol the Act ininitiating proceedings under Section 14gA of the Act and alsoinitiating proceedings under Section l4g ol the Act incontravention to the amendments brought into the Income fax Actpursuant to the Finance Act,2020 as also the Finance Act 2021.9. 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 Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra), leamed Standingcounsel for the Incorne Tax Department contends that those wouldunnecessarily burden the Income Tax Department where theypursuant to the Finance Act,2020 as also the Finance Act 2021.9. 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 Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra), leamed Standingcounsel for the Incorne Tax 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 theHon'ble Supreme Court and it would be further burdening theexchequer of the union of India. It was also the contention of thelearned Standing counsel that no prejudice would be caused to theinterest olthe petitioners in case if this writ petition is kept pendingtitt 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 Tax Department have not colneout with a mechanism to issue appropriate instructioag q" to taketitt 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 Tax Department have not colneout with a mechanism to issue appropriate instructioag q" to take - \'- \l \l I - - \'- \l \l I - appropriate steps in ensuring that pr ceedings under Section 148Aof the Act as also the assessment oers under Section 148 of theAct are kept in a hold in the light of the decisions dedcided by thevanous High Courts, it was submt ted by the leamed StandingCounsel that the said steps can onlye taken at the level of CBDTas any such steps would have to be ten Pan India and cannot belimited to any of these [jurisdictional]gh Courls.10. As a result of which, what wee facing is steep increase oflitigation day in and day out even th ugh [various ][orders have ][been]passed by this High Court allowingit petitions on the very sameissue. The Income Tax authorities ccerned are still even now tn2025 also initiating proceedings inntravention to the provisionsof Section I5 lA of the Act and as asult by now, more than 600to 700 petitions have been alreadyot pited up before this HigltCourl on an issue which otherwiseds squarely covered by thejudgment of this Court in the case o Kanakala Ravindra Reddy( I supra). What is also surprisingthe fact that though whileallowing the writ petitions in thease of Kanakala RavindraReddy (l supra), the Division Bench[while ][reserving ][the ][right ][of]the Revenue, has also protected [th]interest of the petitioners insofar as the liberty which rvas granted to the. Revenue forinitiating fr.esh proceedings strictly in accordance rvith the amendedprovisions of the Act, as amended by the Financ e Act, 2020 anrlthe Financc AcL,202r . Thc petitioner assessee woulcr be entitled tochallenge or raise rhe other legal objections if the Revenuc initiatesfresh proceedings. [-l ]he Departr-nent has made no endeavour inavailing the said liberty that was reserved for the Rcvenue. On thecontrary, they have been still sticking on to the stand, which thisHigh Court as well as rnanv other High Courts already held to bebad.I I. It appears that because ol the aforesaid liberty that this HighCourt had granted permitting the Revenue for initiating freshproceedings as a one-time measure in a faceless rnanner, theIncome Tax Departrnent wants to take advantage of the sarne byprotracting these proceedings which would enable them to meet tlielimitation that would otherwise come in the way. Likewise, if thewrit petition is kept pending For a considerable long pcriod of timeand finally at a later stage if the Hon,ble Supreme Court confirmsthe decision taken by rhis Fligh Courr as also blz the other HighCourts in rvhich the Sl_ps are still pending, the Incomc Ta.r r -7 f the liberly the liberly liberly that is otherwrseis otherwrseotherwrse Departrnent would get the advantagef the liberly the liberly liberly that is otherwrseis otherwrseotherwrseprotected in favour of the Reve ue for initiation of [lresh]proceedings lrom the disposal of thematters at a much later stagewhich ri,ould be advantageous and b neficial [to ][the ][Revenue ][and]would be equa[[y disadvantageous andetrimental so far as interestof the assesses arc concerned. [As ][a c nsequence, ][the Income Tax]Departnrent gets an extended [period]f time for initiation of lreshprocecdings. 12. ['l'he ]alarming trend of docket [ex][ losion in this Court, ][despite]the clear precedent set [in ]Kanakala [R]vindra Reddy (1 supra), is [a]matter ol grave concern. ['fhe ][Income]Tax Department's persistent- - .,;.,'--1-.?F+.T--initiation of lresh proccedings, [disreg]lng the estabtlsneo Juolclalpronouncements, has led to [an ][unp]dented surge in litigationwith ovcr 600-700 pctitions [piling]p on the same issue. Thisdeliberate approach not only [undermi es ][the principle ][of ][judicial]prccedent but also strains the [judiciat]sources unnecessarily. TheDepartment's strategy [of ][awaiting ][the]upreme Courl's decision onpending SLPs while continuing [to][ initiate ][fresh ][proceedings]to be a calculated [move ][to][ buy ][time ][and ][circumvent]appears limitation periods, rather than [adher]g to the established legal posltlon. SLrch conduct raises serious questions about theadministrative efficiencl, and tlrerespect for j udicialpronouncelnents, particularly rvhen this Court has already provideda balanced approach by preserving both the Revenue,s r.ights andassesses inlerests 13. Another aspect which needs to be considered is that in fact itshould havc been realized by the lncome Tax Departrnent itself andshould have found out via rnedia in ensuring that proceedingsunder Sections I4g_A and t4g should not have bcen issued in afaceless manner, at least till thc Hon,bte Supreme (.ourt decide thetwelve huncired (1200) odd SI-ps r.rhich ir is arready seized of or., atleast the Incorne Tax Department shourd have fbund out someremedial steps to ensure that wherever the arrthorities intend toinitiate proceedings under Sections l4g-A and I4g, other than in afaceless manner, the proceedings should have been deferredwithout precipitating the matter fumher intimating thc assessee thatthey shall initiate appropriatc proceedings only after the SLp,s aredecided by the Hon,ble Suprerne Court on the verv sarne issue.This again, the Incorne Tax Deparlruent. has nor been able to give aconvincing repiy, except for the lact that such a decision if at all - - (.-- has to be taken, has to be taken fore whole of India, and whichotherwise has to be by way of a poli y decision and that too at thelevel of Central Board of Directixes.Though the leamedStanding Counsel fbr the [ncome TDepartment contended thatthe Dethi High Court dismissed a wri petition of similar nature, onthe onc hand when the l{igh Couis struggling to reducertspendency, slrch notices which areder challenge in this writpetition are lorcing the assessee toock the doors of this HighCourl resulting in fitirrg ol hundredsf new writ petitions which inthe long run not only aff'ccts the dissal of the writ petitions butalso consurnes substantial tirne of he Bench in hearing thesematters again and again on daily basiAdmittedly, in spite of thernatter before the Hon'ble Supremeourt having been taken onmany occasions, the Hon'ble SupremCourt which is seized of thematter has been reluctant in grantingy interim protection to theIncome Tax Department. Yet, theuthorities concemed at theState level are not ready to accept theerdict passed by a majorityof High Courts of different States one same issue; and to makethings further wolse, the Incomex DepartmentIS showingaudacity by issuing noticcs continuousy under Sections 148-A and I48 through the -jurisdictional Assessing Officer uhereas it oughtto have been only in the face,less manner. 14. In the case ol BANK OF INDIA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, TNCOME TAXr,, on an issue whethcr ir wasjustifiable on the part of the Incorne .l.ax Depanrr.rent in notfollowing an order passed b;, the adjudicating ar.rthority only on theground that the appeals are pending, thc Division llench of theHigh Court of Bombay held at paragraph No.25 as un<ler, viz., : "25. [t4r. [paridwalla ]has righ y drawn out attentron to thedecision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Smt.Godavaridevi Sarafr2 as also the recent decision of the co_ordinate Bench of this Coud in Samp Furniture (p) Ltd. v. ITOrJof 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 Ioose itsbinding force. Referring to the decision of the Supreme Court rnUnion of lndia vs. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd.r4, theCourt observed that the approach of the officials of Revenue oftreating decisions being.,not acceptable,, was criticized by theSupreme Court. ln such decisjon, followjng are the relevantobservations made by the Supreme Court. '' ll ttl0_tt, ll ttl0_tt, ttl0_tt, [raxmilnn.corn 42J rBorrrbay)l] '' ll ttl0_tt, ll ttl0_tt, ttl0_tt, It978] I l3 llR 589 (Bornbar) " [1202+1 165 ][laxmann.corn ]5g1,r300 Taxman.l52 (Bornbar,) 'o ltTgZl [taxmann.com ]16,/55 Irl_T 43 j (SC) - \--- 1 '' ll ttl0_tt, ll ttl0_tt, ttl0_tt, [raxmilnn.corn 42J rBorrrbay)l] '' ll ttl0_tt, ll ttl0_tt, ttl0_tt, It978] I l3 llR 589 (Bornbar) " [1202+1 165 ][laxmann.corn ]5g1,r300 Taxman.l52 (Bornbar,) 'o ltTgZl [taxmann.com ]16,/55 Irl_T 43 j (SC) - \--- 1 "6. Sri ReddYis [perhaps ][right]in saying [that ][the]mala [fides ][in]officers [were]not actuated [bY]any . They PerhaPspassing [the]impugned [orde]genuinely felt [that the claim ][of]e assessee [was ][not]epted, [the ][Revenue]tenable [and that, ][if it ][was ][a]overlooks [is ][that ][we]would suffer. [But what Sri ][Redd]the correctness [or]are not [concerned ][here ][with]or of any [factual]otherwise [of ][their ][conclusion]malafides [but with the fact ][that ][t][ e ][officers, ][in ][reaching]o appellate [orders ][in]in their [conclusion, ][by-Passed]were Placed [before]to [the ][same issue ][whic]regard als) [and ][the ][other ][of]them, one [of the ][Collector ][(AP]the [Tribunal]The High [Court ][h]s, in [our ][view' ][rightlY]sistant [Collectors ][and]criticized [this ][conduct ][of ][the ][A]caused [bY ][the ][failure]the harassment [to the ][assesse]ct to the [orders ][of]of these [officers ][to ][give ][eff]appellate [hierarchy' lt]authoritres [higher ][to ][them ][in ][the]phasized [that ][it ][is ][of]cannot [be too ][vehemently ][e]disPosing [of ][the]utmost [imPortance ][that' ][I], [revenue ][officers ][are]quasijudicial [issues before ][the]appellate [authorities']bound [bY ][the ][decisions ][of ][th]ctor is [binding ][on ][the]The order [of the ][Appellte ][Coll]hin [his ][jurisdiction ][and]Assistant [Collectors working ][w]ing uPon [the ][Assistant]the order [of ][the ][Tribunal is ][bin]ollectors [who ][functlon]Collectors [and the ][Appellate]unal. [The ]PrinciPles [of]uMer [the jurisdiction ][of the ][Tri]e orders [of ][the ][higher]judicial disciPline [require that]followed [unreservedlY]appellate [authorities ][should]The [mere fact that the]by the [subordinate authorities]y is not ["accePtable" to]order of [the ][appellate ][authori]ob1ectionable [Phrase ][-]the department - [in ][itself ][an]appeal [can furnish ][no]and [ls ][the subject ][matter ][of ][a]less its [operation ][has]ground for [not ][following ][it]nt court. [lf this ][healthy]been [susPended ][bY ][a compe] rule is not followed, the result will only be undueharassment to assesses and chaos in adminrstrationof tax laws. 12. We have dealt with this aspect at some lengthbecause it has been suggested by the learnedAdditional Solicitor General that the observatronsmade by the High Court, have been harsh on theofflcers. lt is clear that the observations of the HrghCourt, seemingly vehement, and apparentlyunpalatable to the Revenue, are only intended to curba tendency in revenue matters which, if allowed tobecome widespread, could result in constderableharassment 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 lhe requirements of iudrcialdiscipline and the need for giving effect to the ordersof the higher appellate authorities which are bindingon them." 15. What is worrying this Bench more is thc l-act that anendeavour is being made whole heaftedly to ensurc not to generatefurther litigation on issues u,hich have been laid to rest by a lar.genumber of High Courts all of whom have taken a consistent standthat the action of the Income Tax Department being violativc of the 15. What is worrying this Bench more is thc l-act that anendeavour is being made whole heaftedly to ensurc not to generatefurther litigation on issues u,hich have been laid to rest by a lar.genumber of High Courts all of whom have taken a consistent standthat the action of the Income Tax Department being violativc of the Finance Act,2020 and Finance Act, 202 I . Now, in order to protectthe interest of the Revenue as alsoat of the assessee, it would betrite at this [juncture, ]if we disposol thc writ petition with anobservation/direction that the dispos I of the instant writ petition interms of the [judgment ]rendered by his High Court in the case ofKankanala Ravindra Reddy (l supr ) shall however be subject tothe outcome of the SLPs which w re filed by the Income TaxDepartment and which is pending coideration before the Hon'bleSupreme Court 16. In the given facts and circum tances, this Bench is of theconsidered opinion that unless and u til we do no1 timely disposeof matters which are squarely covercby the decision of this Courtand which stands fortifled by the d cisions of the various otherHigh Courts on the very same issu , the pendency of this HighCourt would further be burdened wh ch otherwise can be decidedar-rd disposed of as a covered rnatter. 17 . So far as the interest of the Renue is concemed, we are ofthe considered opinion that the intereof the Revenue has alreadybeen considered and protected, as haseen observed in paragraphsbeen considered and protected, as haseen observed in paragraphs 36,37 and 3tl of the order which, for ready reference, is reproducedhereunder: 36. For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned noticesissued and the proceedings drawn by the respondent-Department is neither tenable, nor sustarnable.The notices so issued and the procedure adopted betngper 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 the noticesissued under Section 147 and i4g would also getquashed and it is ordered accordingly. The reason weare quashing the consequential order is on the principlesthat when the initiation of the proceedings itself wasprocedurally wrong, the subsequent orders also getsnullified automatically. 37. The prelimtnary objection raised by the petrtioner issustained and all thbse writ petitions stands allowed onthis very .turisdictional issue. Since the impugned noticesand orders are getting quashed on the point ofjurisdiction, we are not inclined to proceed further anddecide the other issues raised by the petitioner whichstands reserved to be raisedand conlended in anappropriate proceedin gs. 38Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the caseof Ashishof AshishAganval, supra, as a one{imemeasureexercisingthe powers under Article 142of theunder the substituted provlsions. and this Court d owrngthe petitjons only on the procedural flaw, 4h€-{jghtunder the substituted provlsions. and this Court d owrngthe petitjons only on the procedural flaw, 4h€-{jght conferred on the Revenueuld remain reserved toproceed further if they soant from the stage of theorder of the Supreme Cort in the case of AshishAgarwal, supra. 18. We would only would only further [ike 18. We would only would only further [ikeo make observations that sincewe are inclined to dispose of the intant writ petition, conscious ofthe fact that the earlier order ofis High Court in the case ofKanakala Ravindra Reddy (lSUra) is subjected to challengebefore the Hon'ble Supreme Cort in SLP No.3574 ol 2024,preferred by the Income Tax Depent, we make it clear thatis subject'to outcome oflhaforesaid SLP preferred by the Revnue against the decision of thisHigh Courl in the case of Kanaklu Ravindra Reddy (l supra).This, in other words, would mean tat either of the parties, if theyso want, may move an appropnatepetition seeking revival of thiswrit petition in the light of the deision of the Hon'ble SupremeCourt in the pending SLP on the vesame lssue 18. We would only would only further [ike 18. We would only would only further [ikeo make observations that sincewe are inclined to dispose of the intant writ petition, conscious ofthe fact that the earlier order ofis High Court in the case ofKanakala Ravindra Reddy (lSUra) is subjected to challengebefore the Hon'ble Supreme Cort in SLP No.3574 ol 2024,preferred by the Income Tax Depent, we make it clear thatis subject'to outcome oflhaforesaid SLP preferred by the Revnue against the decision of thisHigh Courl in the case of Kanaklu Ravindra Reddy (l supra).This, in other words, would mean tat either of the parties, if theyso want, may move an appropnatepetition seeking revival of thiswrit petition in the light of the deision of the Hon'ble SupremeCourt in the pending SLP on the vesame lssue 19. Accordingly, the instant wit petition stands allowed infavour of the assessee so far athe issue of [jurisdiction]ISconcemed. As a consequence,the impugned notice underchallenge under Sections 148-A an148 stands set aside/quashed. To, The consequential orders, if any, also stand set asicle/quashed in similar terms as have been passed by this High Court in the case of Ksnkanala Ravindra Reddy (l supra). There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending. if any, shall stand closed. t-P. PONNA KRISHNASISTANT REGISTRAR//TRUE COPY//SECTION OFFICER 1. '' The lncome Tax Offlcer [Ward ][1, ][Sangartddy lncome ][Tax ][Office']Veerabhadra Nagar, New Bus [Stand, ][Veerabhadra ][Nagar, ][Sangareddy]Veerabhadra Nagar, New Bus [Stand, ][Veerabhadra ][Nagar, ][Sangareddy]2. 502001 ih; Hyderabad, Principal , Telangana.lT ["Chief ]Towers, Commissioner AC Guards, [of ][lvlasab ][lncome ][Tank, ][Tax, ][Hyderabad ][Telangana alq ][500028,]^ Telanoana.^.i,Telanoana.^.i, Telanoana.3. The dhairman, Central [Board ][of ][Direct Taxes, ][Department ][of ][Revenue,]tvlinistry of Finance, Government [of ][lndia, ][Secretariat Buildings, ][New ][Delhi ][-]110 001.tvlinistry of Finance, Government [of ][lndia, ][Secretariat Buildings, ][New ][Delhi ][-]110 001. 4. The National Faceless Assessment [Center, lncome ][Tax ][Department, ][New]Delhi.Delhi. Delhi.5. The Union of [lndia, ][Represented ][by its ][Secretary ][to ][the ][Government']Deoartment o[ Revenue, Ministrv of Finbnce, [New Delhi ][- ][110 ][001 ][[.]]Deoartment o[ Revenue, Ministrv of Finbnce, [New Delhi ][- ][110 ][001 ][[.]] [[.]]6. On'e CC to SRl. THANNERU CIIAITANYA [, ][Advocate ][oPUC] 7. One CC to lr.4s. J. SUNITHA [(JUNIOR SC ] [TAX) ] 8. Two CD Copies BMTJ Y," F!'dl l HIGH COURT DATED:01 10512025 zi;{ [1 ]['15 ][-c ][r!]Ie-/.:;-'{:'(ORDERii,jI'12 AUE M-.)WP.No.32175 of 2024t o ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITTON WITHOUT COSTS rO[.o\!r''\]vrft-rdar