Ia No:10F 2025 v. A. ][Siva Kartikeya

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA"ATHYDERABAD (Special Originat Jurisdiction) THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF APRILTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYTHE HONOURABLE SRI UUSTflCDITENSING RAO NANDIKONDAWRIT PETITION NO:8291 0F 2025 Between: lrlr. Srinivas [palde. ]S/o. Mr. Devender Business, Ryo. 6-e-12, r.ramoewaa'a, Gupta palde, aged I 45 years, Occ.ri;#;5;; SoTbor, retansana ...PETITIONER AND 1.The lncome Tax Officer. W?rd-:! Njzalabad, lncome Tax Office, 6_2_156/3,tAssessmenr Subhash Nagar, Nizamabad Unir. tncome T1x _ soi OOr:i;la;;;;""'"jiiilon"r New New Delhi Dethi, Room No.. - 1i0 003.+or, 2no .Dgp;;;_;;j, FLoi, t:*;t,'rrta'hartat e_Assessment Center.Nehru Stadium,tAssessmenr Subhash Nagar, Nizamabad Unir. tncome T1x _ soi OOr:i;la;;;;""'"jiiilon"r New New Delhi Dethi, Room No.. - 1i0 003.+or, 2no .Dgp;;;_;;j, FLoi, t:*;t,'rrta'hartat e_Assessment Center.Nehru Stadium, 3The Chief Commissioner of. Guards. Hyderabad - 500 oor, lngoTe Gir"ii;.'r'vvrsvqv' Tax, Hyderabad, l.T.Towers, r'10-2_3, ACGuards. Hyderabad - 500 oor, lngoTe Gir"ii;.'r'vvrsvqv' Tax, Hyderabad, l.T.Towers, r'10-2_3, AC ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Articre 226 0f the constitution of rndia praying that in thecircumstances stated in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may bepleased to issue a Writ of lMandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order orDirection, decraring that the order passed urs 147 r/w Sec. 144.rtw sec. 1448 ofthe lncome Tax Act. [.l ]961, dated 11tO3t2O2S, bearing DIN and Notrce No.ITBA/AST/S/'14,2o24-2st1O7 Direction, decraring that the order passed urs 147 r/w Sec. 144.rtw sec. 1448 ofthe lncome Tax Act. [.l ]961, dated 11tO3t2O2S, bearing DIN and Notrce No.ITBA/AST/S/'14,2o24-2st1O7 4326790(1), by the 1"t Respondenr, for rheAssessment year 201t-18. as arbitrary, illegal, bad in law, void_ab_initioviolative of the principles of natural justice apart from being violative of Articles14. 1s(1)(g) and 265 of the constitution of rndia and Sec. 148A of the rncomeTax Act' .r 961 , and consequenay set aside the same in the interests of justice.14. 1s(1)(g) and 265 of the constitution of rndia and Sec. 148A of the rncomeTax Act' .r 961 , and consequenay set aside the same in the interests of justice. IA NO:10F 2025 Petition under Section [151 ][cPC ][praying ][that in the ][circumstances ][stated]in the affidavit filed [iri ][support of the writ petition, the ][High ][court ][may be pleased]to stay all further [proceedings, ][including any recovery, pursuant ][to the ][notice]issued uis 148 of the lncome [Tax ][Act, ][1961, ][dated ][2210312024, ][bearing DIN ][and]Notice No.. ITBAiASTIS/148-1t2023-24t1063135300(1), [by ][the ][1"1 ][Respondent,]for the Assessment [Year ][2017 ][- ][18. ], [pending ][disposal ][of ][the ][above ][writ ][Petition] Counsel for the Petitioner: [SRI. A. V. ][A. ] Counsel forthe Respondents [1 ][to ][3 : Ms B. SAPNA ] (JUNTOR SC FOR INCOME TAX)Counsel for the ResPondent [2:-] The Court made the following: TIIE TTONOIJRAIII,E, SRI JTISTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAONANDTKONDA W.P.No.8291 OF 2025 ORDER: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy) Heard Mr. A.V.A.Siva Kartikeya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. B.Sapna Reddy, leamed Junior StandingCounsel for the Income Tax Department for respondent Nos.land 3. Perused the record.and 3. Perused the record. 2. This is a writ petition where the proceedings are eitherchallenged to the notices which were issued under Section l48Aand 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short'the Act') or theassessment orders those have been passed under Section 147 ofthe Act which have been assailed. The Court made the following: TIIE TTONOIJRAIII,E, SRI JTISTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAONANDTKONDA W.P.No.8291 OF 2025 ORDER: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy) Heard Mr. A.V.A.Siva Kartikeya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. B.Sapna Reddy, leamed Junior StandingCounsel for the Income Tax Department for respondent Nos.land 3. Perused the record.and 3. Perused the record. 2. This is a writ petition where the proceedings are eitherchallenged to the notices which were issued under Section l48Aand 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short'the Act') or 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 ofthegrounds, that the notices issued under Section l48A of the Actand the subsequent initiation of proceedings under Section 14E ofthe Act by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, whereas in termsof the amendment that was brought to the lncome Tax Act by wayof Finance Act,202l w.e.L, 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 of the petitioner is that the issue ofcontention of the petitioner is that the issue ofof 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,202l i.e., theimpugned notices under Section 148,4' and Section 148 ofthe Actnot being issued in a faceless manner, have already been dealt withand decided by this Court in the case ot KANKANALARAVINDRA REDDY vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICERT decidedon 14.09.2023 whereby a batch of writ petitions were allowed andthe proceedings initiated under Section l48A as also under Section148 of the Act were held to be bad with consequential reliefs on theground of it being in violation of the provisions of Section l5 1A ofthe Act read with Notihcation 18/2022 dated 29.03.2022. The saidjudgment passed by this Court has also been subsequently followedin a large number of writ petitions which were allowed on similarterms. The contention of the petitioner is that the issue ofcontention of the petitioner is that the issue ofof 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 ' l(2023) [56 ][taxmann.com ] [78 (Telangana) ]l -/t/ 5. Down the line, we find tlrat lhe same issue has also becridecided 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 Court in the case of JATINDER SINGII 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 OTTICE&INTERNATIONAL TAXATION6 which is again on internationaltaxation and central circle, High Court of Flimachal Pradesh in thecase of GOVIND SINGII vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERT,Gujarat High Court in the case of MANSIIKIIBHAI'lzoz+1464 [430 ][(Born)]'l{2024) [156 ][taxmann.com 478 ][(Gauhati)l]'l(2O24) [165 ][taxmann.com ] [l5 ][(Punjab ]& Haryana)l' [2024) [167 taxmann.com ][4 ] [(-l'elangana)]]" 12024) [166 ][taxmann.corn ]679 [(Bombay)l]'12024) [165 ][taxmann.corn ][t ][l3 ][(llimachal ][Prade ][sh)l] ,^l ,^l DAIfYABHAI ]RADADIYA vs. TNCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 3(3X5)8, Jharkand High Court in the case of StIyAMSUNDAR SAW vs. UNION OF INDIAe, Rajasthan High Court inthe case of SHARDA DEVI CHIIAJER vs. INCOME TAXOFFICER & ANOTIDR and batch of writ peritionsr0 whichstood decided on 79.03.2024. Similar views have also been takenby the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in the case ofGIRDIIAR GOPAL DALMIA vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS(M.A.T 1690 ot2023), 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 fiIinE ofidentical matters on daily basis ranging between 5 to t 0 writpetitions. That upon the instructions being sought lrom theDepartment, they have been taking a solitary ground that thedecision of the Bombay High Court in the case ol HerairareTechnologies Ltd, (2 supra) as also the one rvhich [ras beendecided by this Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra neddy 'z\zq [Online ][G:uj ]40tz'2025 SCC Online that ZB7o ' 12023 [: ] [:4984-DB ]l (I supra) has bcer subjeeted to challenge in a Specicl LeavePetition i.e., SLp No.3574 of Z0Z4 before rhe I{on,ble SupremeCourt and the Hon,ble Supreme Court is seized of the matter.In 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 interimthey have categorically accepted the fact that there is no interimorder granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in any of thesematters pending before it. Meanwhile, fresh writ petitions ofidentical nature are being piled up before this Bench on daily basismatters pending before it. Meanwhile, fresh writ petitions ofidentical nature are being piled up before this Bench on daily basisand the pendency is getting increased on matter which otherwisehas already been dealt and decided has already been dealt and decided by this very High Court itself.8. On the 8. On the one hand, even though the order of this Court thatwas passed as early as on 14.0g.2023 and rnore 16 months havewas passed as early as on 14.0g.2023 and rnore 16 months havelapsed, till date, we do not find any remedial steps having beentaken by the Income Tax Department to take appropriate steps toeither hold back issuance of notice under Section l4gA and underSection 148 of the Act by the jurisdicrional Assessing Officer,taken by the Income Tax Department to take appropriate steps toeither hold back issuance of notice under Section l4gA and underSection 148 of the Act by the jurisdicrional Assessing Officer,rather the authorities concemed in the teeth of series of decisions \ by all the major [High ][Courts ][in ][India ][are ][continuously ][still]initiating [proceedings ][under Section ][l48A ][of ][the ][Act ][and ][also]initiating [proceedings ][under Section ][148 ][of ][the ][Act ][in]contravention [to the ][amendments ][brought into the ][Income ][Tax ][Act]Finance [Act,2O20 ][as ][also the ][Finance ][A,Lct202l ][']pursuant to the \ by all the major [High ][Courts ][in ][India ][are ][continuously ][still]initiating [proceedings ][under Section ][l48A ][of ][the ][Act ][and ][also]initiating [proceedings ][under Section ][148 ][of ][the ][Act ][in]contravention [to the ][amendments ][brought into the ][Income ][Tax ][Act]Finance [Act,2O20 ][as ][also the ][Finance ][A,Lct202l ][']pursuant to the 9. Upon a [query ][being put ][as ][to ][why can't ][this ][writ ][petition ][be]disposed of in [the teeth ][ofthe ][decision ][rendered ][by ][this ][Court ][in]the case of Kanakala [Ravindra ][Reddy ][(l ][supra), leamed Standing]Counsel for the [Income ][Tax ][Department contends ][that those ][would]unnecessarily [burden ][the ][Income ][Tax ][Department ][where ][they]would be required [to ][file ][equal number ][of ][SLPs before ][the]Hon'bte Supreme [Court ][and ][it ][would ][be ][further ][burdening ][the]of [the ][Union ][of ][India. It ][was also ][the ][contention ][of ][the]exchequer teamed Standing [Counsel that no ][prejudice ][would ][be ][caused ][to ][the]interest of [the ][petitioners ][in ][case ][if ][this ][writ ][petition ][is ][kept pending]till the [finalization ][of ][the ][SLPs pending ][before ][the ][Hon'ble]Supreme [Court ][and ][the ][fact ][that ][the ][petitioner is ][already ][enjoying]the bene[rt of [interim protection. ][Nonetheless, ][on ][the ][earlier ][query]of this Court [as ][to why ][the ][lncome Tax Department ][have ][not ][come]out with [a ][mechanism ][to ][issue ][appropriate instructions ][or ][to ][take] afllncpriate steps in ensudng that proceedings utrder section I4gAof the Act as also the assessnent orders under Section I4g of theAct are kept in a hold in the light ofthe decisions dedcided by thevarious High Courts, it was submitted by the leamed StandingCounsel that the said steps can only be taken at the level of CBDTas any such steps would have to be taken pan India and cannot belimited to any of these jurisdictional High Courts.10. As a result of which, what we are facing is steep increase oflitigation day in and day out even though various orders have beenpassed by this High Court allowing writ petitions on the very sameissue. The Income Tax authorities concerned are still even now in2025 also initiating proceedings in contravention to the provisionsof Section l51A of the Act and as a result by now, more than 600to 700 petitions have been already got pitcd up befbre this HighCourt on an issue which otherwise stands squarely covered by thejudgment of this court in the case of Kanakara Ravindra Reddy(l supra). What is also surprising is the lact that though whileallowing the writ petitions in the case of Kanakala RavindraReddy (l supra), the Division Bench while reserving the right ofthe Revenue, has also protected the interest of the petitionersII.. insofar as the [liberty ][which was ganted ][to ][the ][Revenue ][for]fresh [proceedings ][strictly ][in ][accordance ][with ][the ][amended]initiating provisions of the [Act, ][as ][amended ][by ][the Finance ][Act' ][2020 ][and]the Finance [Act,202l ][. ][The ][petitioner ][assessee ][would ][be ][entitled ][to]or [raise the ][other legal objections ][if ][the ][Revenue ][initiates]challenge fresh proceedings. [The ][Department has made ][no ][endeavour ][in]availing the said [liberty ][that ][was ][reserved ][for ][the ][Revenue' ][On ][the]contrary, they [have been ][still ][sticking ][on ][to the ][stand' ][which ][this]as [well ][as ][many ][other ][High ][Courts ][already ][held to ][be]High Court bad. insofar as the [liberty ][which was ganted ][to ][the ][Revenue ][for]fresh [proceedings ][strictly ][in ][accordance ][with ][the ][amended]initiating provisions of the [Act, ][as ][amended ][by ][the Finance ][Act' ][2020 ][and]the Finance [Act,202l ][. ][The ][petitioner ][assessee ][would ][be ][entitled ][to]or [raise the ][other legal objections ][if ][the ][Revenue ][initiates]challenge fresh proceedings. [The ][Department has made ][no ][endeavour ][in]availing the said [liberty ][that ][was ][reserved ][for ][the ][Revenue' ][On ][the]contrary, they [have been ][still ][sticking ][on ][to the ][stand' ][which ][this]as [well ][as ][many ][other ][High ][Courts ][already ][held to ][be]High Court bad. I 1. It appears [that ][because ][ofthe ][aforesaid ][liberty ][that ][this ][High]Court had [granted ][permitting ][the ][Revenue ][for ][initiating ][fresh]proceedings as a [one-time ][measure ][in ][a ][faceless ][manner' ][the]lncome Tax [Department ][wants ][to ][take ][advantage ][of ][the ][same ][by]these [proceedings ][which would ][enable ][them to meet ][the]protracting limitationthatwouldotherwisecomeintheway.Likewise,ifthewnt petition is [kept pending ][for ][a ][considerable long ][period ][of ][time]and finally [at a ][later ][stage ][if ][the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Court ][conf-trms]the decision [taken ][by this High Court ][as ][also ][by ][the other ][High]Courts in [which ]the [SLPs ][are ][still ][peoding, ][the ][Income ][Tax].-v i Departrnont would get the advantage of the liherly that is otherwiseprotected in favour of the Revenuc for initiation of fieshproceedings 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 tar as interestof the assesses are concemed. As a consequence, the Income Taxprotected in favour of the Revenuc for initiation of fieshproceedings 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 tar as interestof the assesses are concemed. As a consequence, the Income TaxDepartment gets an extended period of time for initiation of fieshproceedings.proceedings. 12. The alarming trend of docket explosion in this Court, despite the clear precedent setin Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra), is amatter of grave concem. The Income Tax Department,s persistentinitiation of fresh proceedings, disregarding the established judicialinitiation 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 oljudicialwith over 600-700 petitions piling up on the same issue. Thisdeliberate approach not only undermines the principle oljudicialprecedent but also strains the judicial resources unnecessarily. TheDepartment's strategy of awaiting the Supreme Court's decision onpending SLPs while continuing to initiate fresh proceedingsDepartment'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 circumventlirnitation lirnitation periods, rather than adhering to the established tegat conduct [raises serious ][questions ][about ][the]position. Such administrative efficiency [and ][the ][respect ][for ][judicial]pronouncements, [particularly ][when ][this Court ][has already ][provided]a balanced approach [by ][preserving ][both ][the ][Revenue's ][rights ][and]assesses interests. conduct [raises serious ][questions ][about ][the]position. Such administrative efficiency [and ][the ][respect ][for ][judicial]pronouncements, [particularly ][when ][this Court ][has already ][provided]a balanced approach [by ][preserving ][both ][the ][Revenue's ][rights ][and]assesses interests. 13. Another aspect [which ][needs ][to ][be ][considered ][is ][that ][in ][fact ][it]should have been realized [by ][the ][Income ][Tax ][Department ][itself ][and]should have found [out ][via ][media ][in ][ensuring ][that ][proceedings]under Sections 148-,{ [and ][148 ][should ][not ][have ][been issued ][in ][a]faceless manner, at [least ][till ][the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Court ][decide ][the]twelve hundred [( ]1200) [odd ][SLPs ][which ][it ][is already ][seized ][of ][or, ][at]least the lncome Tax [Departmeflt ][should ][have found ][out ][some]remedial steps to ensure [that ][wherever ][the ][authorities intend ][to]initiate proceedings [under Sections ][148-A and ][148, ][other than ][in ][a]faceless mannet, the [proceedings ][should ][have been ][deferred]without precipitating the matter [further ][intimating ][the ][assessee ][that]they shall initiate appropriate [proceedings ][only ][after ][the SLP's ][are]decided by the [Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Court ][on the very ][same ][issue']This again, the lncome [Tax ][Department, ][has ][not ][been able ][to ][give ][a]convincing reply, [except ][for ][the ][fact ][that ][such ][a decision ][if ][at ][all] has to be taken, has to be takcn for the rvhole of. ludia, ancl ryhichothcrwise 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 struggling to reduce itspendency, such notices which are under challenge in this writpetition are forcing the assessee to knock the doors of this HighCourt resulting in filing of hundreds of new writ petitions which inthe long run not only affects the disposal of the writ petitions butalso consumes substantial time of the Bench in hearing thesematters again and again on daily basis. Admittedly, in spite of thematter before the Hon,ble Supreme Court having been taken onmany occasions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court which is seized of thematter has been reluctant in granting any interim protection to theIncome Tax Department. yet, the authorities concerned at theState level are not ready to accept the verdict passed by a majorityof High Courts of different States on the same issue; and to makethings lurther worse, the Income Tax Department is showingaudacity by issuing notices continuously under Sections r4g-A and 148 through the [jurisdictional ][Assessing ][Officer ][whereas ][it ][ought]to have been only [in ][the ][faceless ][manner'] 14. In the [case ][of ] [INDIA vs' ] COMMISSTONER, [INCOME TAXIr, ][on ][an ][issue ][whether ][it ][was]justifiable on the paft of the [Income ][Tax ][Department ][in ][not]an [order ][passed ][by the ][adjudicating authority only ][on the]following ground that the appeals [are pending, the ][Division ][Bench ][of ][the]High Court of [Bombay held ][at ][paragraph ][No'25 ][as ][under' ][viz'' ][:] 148 through the [jurisdictional ][Assessing ][Officer ][whereas ][it ][ought]to have been only [in ][the ][faceless ][manner'] 14. In the [case ][of ] [INDIA vs' ] COMMISSTONER, [INCOME TAXIr, ][on ][an ][issue ][whether ][it ][was]justifiable on the paft of the [Income ][Tax ][Department ][in ][not]an [order ][passed ][by the ][adjudicating authority only ][on the]following ground that the appeals [are pending, the ][Division ][Bench ][of ][the]High Court of [Bombay held ][at ][paragraph ][No'25 ][as ][under' ][viz'' ][:] "25. Mr. Paridwalla [has ][rightly drawn ][out ][attention ][to ][the]decision 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' ][lTO13]of which one [of ][us ][(Justice G.S. ][Kulkarni) ][was a member' wherein]the Court categorically [observed ][that ][the ][Revenue having not]"accepted" the [judgment of the High ][Court ][would ][not ][mean that till]the same is [set aside in ][a ][manner known ][to ][law' ][it ][would loose ][its]binding force. [Referring ][to the ][decision of ][the ][Supreme Court ][in]Union of lndia [vs. Kamlakshi ][Finance ][Corporation ][Ltd't4' the]Court observed [that the ][approach ][of the ][officials ][of ][Revenue ][of]treating decisions being ["not ][acceptable" ][was ][criticized ][by ][the]Supreme Court. [ln ][such ][decision, ][following ][are ][the ][relevant]observalions [made by ][the Supreme Court'] It (2025) [70 taxmann.com 422 (Bombay)]" [119281 ] [Ii ] [589 ][(Bombay)]tt 7zOZl1 165 taxmann.com 58 l/300 Taxman 452 (Bombay)'o [1t99Z1tar,(mann.com t6155 ] [4ll ][(SC)] It (2025) [70 taxmann.com 422 (Bombay)]" [119281 ] [Ii ] [589 ][(Bombay)]tt 7zOZl1 165 taxmann.com 58 l/300 Taxman 452 (Bombay)'o [1t99Z1tar,(mann.com t6155 ] [4ll ][(SC)] ''rj. -Sri xe.,Jv i+ Fo-hiipE .,ent in EEying ttrat theofficors were not actuatad by any mela fides inpasslng the impugned orders. They perhapspasslng the impugned orders. They perhapsgenuinely felt that the claim of the assessee was nottenable and that, if it was accepted, the Revenuetenable and that, if it was accepted, the Revenuewould suffer. But what Sri Reddy overlooks is that weare not concerned here with the correctness orare 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, bygassed tu,o appellate orders inmalafides but with the fact that the officers, in reachingin their conclusion, bygassed tu,o appellate orders inregard to the same issue which wefe placed beforethem, 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. ltcannot be too vehemenfly enphaslzed that it is ofof these officers to give effect to the orders ofauthorities higher to them in the appellate hierarchy. ltcannot be too vehemenfly enphaslzed that it is ofutmost importance that, in disposing of thequasi.judicial issues before them, revenue officers arebound by the decisions of the appellate authorities.The order of the Appellte Collector is binding on theAssistant Collectors working within his jurisdiction andthe order of the Tribunal is binding upon the AssistantAssistant Collectors working within his jurisdiction andthe order of the Tribunal is binding upon the AssistantCollectors and the Appellate Collectors who functionunder the jurisciiction of the Tribunal. The principles ofjudicial judicial discipline require that th€ orders of the higherappellate authorities should tre fiollowed unresen/edlyby 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 subiect matter of an appeal can fumish noand is the subiect matter of an appeal can fumish noground for not following it unless i(s operation hasbeen suspencJed by a compebnt.@urt. Jf this healthybeen suspencJed by a compebnt.@urt. Jf this healthy , iJle is [Ii(rn ]iciicorei, ',:.1 [: ][e-i-.lri ][will ][only ][be ][L!ncue]harassrnent to [assesses ][and chaos in ][administration]of tax laws. 12. We have [dealt with this aspect ][at ][some length']because it [has ][been ][suggested ][by ][the ][leamed]Additional [Solicitor General ][that ][the ][observations]made by [the ][High Court, have been harsh ][on ][the]officers. [lt ][is ][clear that the ][observations ][of the ][High]Court, seemingly [vehement, ][and ][apparently]unpalatable [to ][the ][Revenue, ][are ][only intended ][to ][curb]a tendency in [revenue mafters ][which' ][if ][allowed ][to]become widespread, [could result ][in ][considerable]harassment [to the assesses-public without ][any ][benefit]to the Revenue [We ][would ][like ][to ][say ][that ][the]should [take these ][observations ][in ][the]department The [observations ][of the ][High ][Court]proper spirit. should be [kept ][in ][mind ][in ][future ][and ][the utmost ][regard]should be [paid by ][the ][adjudicating authorities and ][the]appellate authorities [to the ][requirements ][of ][iudicial]discipline and [the ][need for ][giving effect ][to ][the orders]of the higher [appellate ][authorities ][which ][are ][binding]on them." 15. What is [worrying ][this ][Bench ][more ][is ][the ][fact ][that ][an]endeavour [is being ][made ][whole heartedly ][to ][ensure ][not ][to ][generate]further litigation [on ][issues ][which ][have ][been ][laid ][to ][rest ][by ][a latge]number of [High ][Courts ][all of ][whom ][have ][taken ][a ][consistent ][stand]that the action [of ][the lncome ][Tax ][Department being ][violative ][of ][the] liinance Aet. 2020 and Finanee Act, 2tt2 l . Now, in order to protectthe interest of the Revenue as also that ofthe assesse€, it would betrite at this juncture, if we dispose of the writ petition with anobservationy'direction that the disposar of the instant writ petition interms of the judgment rendered by this High Court in the case ofKankanala Ravindra Reddy (l supra) shall however be subject tothe outcome of the SLps which were filed by the Income TaxDepartment and which is pending consideration before the Hon,bleSupreme Court. 16. In the given facts and circumstances, this Bench is of the considered opinion that unless and until we do not timely disposeof matters which are squarely covered by the decision of this Courtand which stands fortified by the decisions of ttre various otherHigh Courts on the very same issue, the pendency of this HighCourt would further be burdened which otherwise can be decidedof matters which are squarely covered by the decision of this Courtand which stands fortified by the decisions of ttre various otherHigh Courts on the very same issue, the pendency of this HighCourt would further be burdened which otherwise can be decidedand disposed olas a covered matter. 17. So far as the interest of the Revenue is concerned, we are of the considered opinion that the interest ofthe Revenue has alreadybeen considered and protected, as has been observed in paragraphs 36,37 atd38 ofthe order [which, for ][ready reference, is ][reproduced]hereunder: 36. For all the [aforesaid reasons, the impugned notices]issued and the [proceedings ][drawn ][by the ][respondent-]Department is [neither tenable, ][nor ][sustainable']The notices so [issued and ][the ][procedure adopted ][being]per se illegal, deserves to be and [are ][acmrdingly ][set]aside/quashed. As a [consequence, ][all ][the ][impugned]orders [gefting quashed, the consequential orders ][passed]by the respondent-Department [pursuant ][to ][the ][notices]issued under Section [147 ][and ][148 ][would ][also ][get]quashed and it is ordered accordingly. [The ][reason we]are [quashing ]the [consequential order is ][on ][the principles]that when the initiation [of ][the ][proceedings ][itself ][was]procedurally wrong, the subsequent [orders ][also ][gets]nullified automatically. 37. The [preliminary objection raised by ][the ][petitioner ][is]sustained and all [these ][writ ][petitions stands allowed ][on]this very [jurisdictional ][issue ][Since the impugned ][notices]and orders are [getting ][quashed ][on the ][point ][of]jurisdiction, we are not inclined to [proceed ][further ][and]decide the olher [issues raised ][by the ][petitioner which]stands reserved to [be ][raised ][and ][contended ][in ][an]appropriate [proceedings.] 38. Since [the Hon'ble Supreme Court ][had, ][in ][the ][case]of Ashish Agarwal, supra, [as ][a ][one-time ][measure]exercising the [powers ][under ][Article ][142 ][of ][the]Constitution of lndia, [permitted ][the ][Revenue ][to ][proceed]under the substituted [provisions, and this Court ][allowing]the petitions only on the [procedural ][flaw' the ][right] ! i I lI I I I \ confened on the Revenue would rernain reserved toproaeed further if they so want from the stagre of theorder of the Supreme Court in the case of AshishAgarwal, supra.order of the Supreme Court in the case of AshishAgarwal, supra. 38. Since [the Hon'ble Supreme Court ][had, ][in ][the ][case]of Ashish Agarwal, supra, [as ][a ][one-time ][measure]exercising the [powers ][under ][Article ][142 ][of ][the]Constitution of lndia, [permitted ][the ][Revenue ][to ][proceed]under the substituted [provisions, and this Court ][allowing]the petitions only on the [procedural ][flaw' the ][right] ! i I lI I I I \ confened on the Revenue would rernain reserved toproaeed further if they so want from the stagre of theorder of the Supreme Court in the case of AshishAgarwal, supra.order of the Supreme Court in the case of AshishAgarwal, supra. 18. We would only further like to make observations that sincewe are inclined to dispose of the instant writ petition, conscious ofthe fact that the earlier order of this High Court in the case ofKanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra) is subjected to challengebefore the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLp No.3574 of 2024,preferred ['by ]the Income Tax Department, we make it clear thatallowing of the instant writ petition is subject to outcome of theaforesaid SLP preferred by the Revenue against the decision of thisHigh Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (1 stpra).This, in other words, would mean rhat either of the parties, if theyso want, may move an appropriate petition seeking revival of thiswrit petition in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble SupremeCourt in the pending SLP on the very same issue. 19. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands allowed infavour of the assessee so far as the issue of jurisdiction isconcemed. As a consequence, the impugned notice underchallenge under Sections 148-,4 and l4g stands set aside/quashed. ( ( The consequential orders, if any, [also ][stand ][set ][aside/quashed ][in] similar terms as have been [passed ][by this High Court in ][the ][case ][of] Kankanala Ravindra Reddy [(l ][supra). ][There shall be no order ][as] to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous [petitions ][pending, ][if ][any, ][shall] stand closed. D/. L. VIJAYA LAXMIAqsr TANT REGISTRAR//TRUE COPY't\SECTION OFFICER To,1. The lncome Tax Officer, Ward [-1, ]Nizamabad, [ln]e Tax Office, 6-2-15613,Subhash Nagar, Nizamabad [[- ]]503 002, [Telangana]1. The lncome Tax Officer, Ward [-1, ]Nizamabad, [ln]e Tax Office, 6-2-15613,Subhash Nagar, Nizamabad [[- ]]503 002, [Telangana] [[- ]]2. The Assessment Unit, lncome [Tax ][Department, ][National ][e-Assessment]Center, New Delhi, Room No.. [401 ], 2nd [Floor, E-Ramp, ][Jawaharlal ][Nehru]Stadium, New Delhi - 110 003.Center, New Delhi, Room No.. [401 ], 2nd [Floor, E-Ramp, ][Jawaharlal ][Nehru]Stadium, New Delhi - 110 003. 3. The Chief Commissioner of lncome [Tax, ][Hyderabad, LT.Towers, ][10-2-3' ] Guards, Hyderabad - 500 004, [Telangana.]Guards, Hyderabad - 500 004, [Telangana.] 4. One CC to SRl. A. V. A. SIVA KARTIKEYA, [Advocate ]IOPUCI5. One CC to Ms. B. SAPNA REDDY, [(JUNIOR ] [TAX)]loPUCl5. One CC to Ms. B. SAPNA REDDY, [(JUNIOR ] [TAX)]loPUCl6, Two CD Copies MJP HIGH COURT DATED:2410412025 ORDER WP.No.8291 ot [2025] 1HE14:o[$](.a(..:)r)26 tlJEua** ALLOWING (^