Itioner And Ms. J.sunitha, [Learned]Nior Standing Counsel [For]The Income Tax [Department ][For ][The]Respondents. [Perused ][The]Record v. The Income Tax Officer

ELANGANA AT HYDERABADIN THE HIGH COURT (SPecial Original Juriiction)MONDAY, THE DAY OF APRILTWO THOUSAND ANDENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE E P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE ING RAO NANDIKONDA IT PETION NO:130 8 [0F ][202s] Between: ple, Rep. by Executive Officer [UPPala]ak, Telangana-5O2O32 Sri Bramaramba [Mallikhariuna Swamy ][Tem]Shashidhar, Beeramguda [Village' ][Ameenpur,] ...PETITIONER AND 1. The lncome Tax [fficer, ][Ward ][1,]anoareddv. lncome Tax [Office,]Veerabhadra Nagar, [New Bus Stand, ][S]ana re"Ody, T6la [n ][gan ]a-50200 [1]Veerabhadra Nagar, [New Bus Stand, ][S]ana re"Ody, T6la [n ][gan ]a-50200 [1]2ThePnncipalComm SSionef ofncoll1e T2Hvde a( b a dSrsna U[(]eTowe rSSSve No 6(rlngamP[pa])oJvKondRangaapuRerddvSy.3H7(ydP)etaoTbakdohTaesaUngdaana 5[o][p]p00 B4B0otan caGardenSSSve No 6(rlngamP[pa])oJvKondRangaapuRerddvSy.3H7(ydP)etaoTbakdohTaesaUngdaana 5[o][p]p00 B4B0otan caGardenS 3. The Assessment Unit, [lncome ][Tax]Deoartment. National [Faceless]Assessment Centre, [Delhi, ][Ministry ][of ][Fin]nce, Room No.401,2nd [Floor, ] Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru [Stadium, ][Delhi-1]0003Assessment Centre, [Delhi, ][Ministry ][of ][Fin]nce, Room No.401,2nd [Floor, ] Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru [Stadium, ][Delhi-1]0003 ...RESPONDENTS Petition under [Article 226 ][of the ][Const]ution of lndia [praYing ][that in ][the]circumstances stated [in ][the ][affidavit ][filed ][t]rewith, the High Court [maY ][be]pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, [mo][ e ][partrcularly ][one ][in ][the ][nature of]rder dt. 21 .O3.2O25 [passed ][bY ][the]Writ of Mandamus, declaring [the Assessment]3rd respondent u/s [147 ][r.w's ][144/1448 ][of ][th]lncome-tax Act for A.Y. [2O2O-21]vide DIN No. ITBA/ASTlSl [1 ][47 ][12024-251 ][107 ][48]3631(1), consequent to the [order]passed u/s 148A(d) dL.28.03.2024 [vide]lN No. ITBA/AST/F/148A12O23-and the [notice ][u/s ][14]dt. 30.03.2024 vide DIN [No.]24t1O6352O935(1) |TBA/AST/S/1 48 1 12023-241 [1063733786( ][1 ]), [i]sued by the JAO(1St [resPondent)]instead of FAO(3rd respondent) [as void, ][illeg]l, and contrary [to ][the ]Provisions [of]lncome-tax Act and contrary [to ][the ][Principles]f Natural Justice. IA NO| 1oF [2025] PetitionundersectionlslcPcprayingthatinthecircumstancesstatedinthe affidavit [filed ][in ][support ][of ][the ][petition,. ][the ][High ][court ][may ][be ][pleased]pleased to stay all [further ][proceedings pursuant ][to ][the ][Assessment ][Order ][dt']21 .O3.2O25 [passed ][by ][the 3rd respondent ][uls ][147 ][r'w's ][14411448 ][of ][the ][lncome-]taxActforA.Y.2o2o-2lvideDlNNo.ITBA/ASTlsl147t2o24-25/1074803€31(1). Counsel for [the ][Petitioner ][: SRI DUNDU ] Counsel for [the ][Respondents: ][Ms'J'SUNITHA(JUNIOR ] [TAX)] The Court [made ][the ][following: ] THE IIONOURABLE ICE P.SAMKOSHYANDTHE HONOI]RABLE CE NARSINGRAONAIIDIKOA WRITPETITION No.l[ 038 ][()F ][202s] ORDER: [(per ][Hon'ble ][Si ][Justice ][Narsing ][Rao][ Nandikonda)] Heard Mr. Dundu [Manmohan]leamed counsel [for ][the]petitioner and Ms. J.Sunitha, [learned]nior Standing Counsel [for]the Income Tax [DePartment ][for ][the]respondents. [Perused ][the]record. 2. This is a writ Petition [where]e proceedings [are ][either]challenged to the [notices ][which ][were]sued under Section [l48A]and 148 of the [Income ][Tax ][Act, ][1961]for short ['the ]Act') [or ][the]assessment orders [those have been ][p]sed under Section [147 ][ol]the Act which have [been ][assailed.] l. This writ [petition ][is ][being ][taken]p today only on one [ofthe]grounds, that the notic€s [issued ][unde]Section l48A of [the ][Act]and the subsequent [initiation ][ofpro]dings under Section [148 ][of]the Act by the [jurisdictional ][Assessin]Ofhce r, whereas [in ][terms]of the amendniEnfthat [was ][brought to]e lncome Tax [Act ][bY waY] 2. This is a writ Petition [where]e proceedings [are ][either]challenged to the [notices ][which ][were]sued under Section [l48A]and 148 of the [Income ][Tax ][Act, ][1961]for short ['the ]Act') [or ][the]assessment orders [those have been ][p]sed under Section [147 ][ol]the Act which have [been ][assailed.] l. This writ [petition ][is ][being ][taken]p today only on one [ofthe]grounds, that the notic€s [issued ][unde]Section l48A of [the ][Act]and the subsequent [initiation ][ofpro]dings under Section [148 ][of]the Act by the [jurisdictional ][Assessin]Ofhce r, whereas [in ][terms]of the amendniEnfthat [was ][brought to]e lncome Tax [Act ][bY waY] of Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f., 01.04.2021 onwards, proceedingsunder Section l48A ofthe Act as also under Section 148 oftheAct ought to have also been issued and proceeded in a facelessmanner4. 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 ofissue ofofproceedings being in violation of the Finance Act, 2021 i.e., theimpugned notices under Section l48A and Section 148 ofthe Actnot being issued in a faceless manner, have already been dealt withand decided by this Court in the case of KANKANALARAVINDRA REDDY vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICERI decidedon 14.09.2023 whereby a batch of writ petitions were allowed andthe proceedings initiated under Section 148A as also under Section148 olthc Act were held to be bad with consequential reliefs on theground ol'it being in violation of the provisions of Section l51A ofthe Act rcad with Notification 18/2022 dated29.03.2022. 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 ofissue ofof 3 5. 5. Down the line, we find that thesame issue has also beendecided against the Revenue byous High Courts i.e.,by the Bombay High Court incase of HEXAWARETECHNOLOGIES LTD., vs. ASSISANT COMMISSIONEROF TNCOME TAX & OTHERS2,ti High Court in the caseof RAM NARAYAN SAH vs. tiNIOOF INDIA3, Punjab andHaryana High Court in the case of JAER SINGH BANGUvs. UNION OF INDIA4, and TelangHigh Court in the case ofSRI VENKATARAMANA REDDYTLOOLA vs. DEPUTYCOMMTSSIONER OF INCOME Twhere the issue was inrespect ol intemational taxation, BombHigh Court in the case o[ABHIN ANILKUMAR SHAII VS.COME TAX OFFICER,I NTE RNATIONAL TAXATION6 Wch is again on intemationaltaxation and central circle, High Courtf Himachal Pradesh in thecase of GOVIND SINGH vs. INOME TAX OFFICERT,Gujarat High Court in the casof MANSUKI{BHAI'pzoz+1464 [430 ][(Bom)]'[(202!\ [156 ][taxmann.com 478 ][(Gauhati)]]'t(2024) 165 taxmann.com 115 (Punjab &aryana)l'[2024)'167 [taxmann.com ][4l ] [(Te]l"[2024) [166 ]taxmann.com [679 ][(Bombay)]] '12024) [165 ]taxmann.com [113 ][(Himachal] radesh)l l '12024) [165 ]taxmann.com [113 ][(Himachal] radesh)l l DAHYABHAI RADADTYA vs. INCOME TAX OF,FICE&WARD 3(3)(5)8, Jharkand High Court in the case of SIfyAMST NDAR SAW vs. UNION OF INDIAe, Rajasthan High Court inthe case of SHARDA DEVI CHHAJER vs. INCOME TAXOFFICER & ANOTHER and batch of writ petitionsro whichstood decided on 19.03.2024. Similar views have also been takenby the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in the case ofGIRDHAR GOPAL DALMTA vs. UNION OF,INDIA & ORS(M.A.T 1690 of 2023), decided on25.09.2024.6. Even though the sarne issue having been decided by a largenumber of High Courts. we are still confronted with large filing ofidentical matters on daily basis ranging between 5 to l0 writpetitions. That upon the instructions being sought from theDepartment, they have been taking a solitary ground that thedecision of the Ilombay High Court in the case of HexawareTechnologies Ltd., (2 supra) as also the one which has beendecided by this Court in rhe case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy E2O2+ SCC Online (iuj 40 t 2'2025 SCC Onlir:e Jhar 287'o 12023 [: ] [:4984- ]DB l (l supra) has been subjected to chalsubjected to chalto chalchal (l supra) has been subjected to chalsubjected to chalto chalchalenge in a Special LeavePetition i.e., SLP No.3574 of [2024 ][b]ore the Hon'ble SupremeCourt and the Hon'ble [Supreme Co]is seized of the matterIn addition, there are about [1200 ][SLPs]o filed arising out ofthesame issue being decided [by various ][Hi]Courts. 7. To a query being [put ]to the [leam]counsel for the Revenue,they have categorically accepted [the]that there is no [interim]order granted by the [Hon'ble ][SuP]e Court in any of [these]matters pending before it.Meanwe, fresh writ [petitions ][ol]identical nature are being [piled ][up befo]this Bench on daily [basis]and the pendency is [getting ][increased]matter which otherwisehas already been dealt and [decided ][by]s very High Court [itself.] 8. On the one hand, even [though]e 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]edial steps having beentaken by the Income [Tax ][DePartment]take appropriate steps [to]either hotd back issuance of notice [un]Section l48A and [under]Section 148 ot the Act by the [juri]ctional Assessing [Officer,]rather the authorities concerned in the toeth of [series ][of ][decisions] by all the major High Courts ln India are continuously stillinitiating proceedings under Section l48A of the Act and alsoinitiating proceedings under Section 148 of the Act incontravention to the amendments brought into the Income Tax Actpursuant to the Finance Act,2020 as also the Finance Act202l.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 lncome 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 theexchequer of the Union ol tndia. [t was also the contention of theleamed Standing Counsel that no prejudice would be caused to theinterest ofthe petitioners in case ilthis writ petition is kept pendingtill the finalization ol the SLl']s pending before the Hon'bleSupreme Court and the lact 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 comeout with a mechanism to issue appropriate instructions or to take appropriate steps in ensuring that [proc]ngs under Section l48Aof the Act as also [the ][assessment o]under Section 148 oftheAct are kept in a hold [in ][the ][light ][of]decisions dedcided by thevarious High Courts, it was submiby the learned StandingCounsel that the [said ][steps ][can ][only ][be]taken at the level of CBDTas any such steps [would ][have ][to ][be]en Pan India and cannot belimited to any of these [jurisdictional ][Hi]Courts 10. As a result of [which, what ][we]facing is steep increase oflitigation day in and day [out ][even ][thou]various orders have [been]passed by this High Court allowingt petitions on the very [same]issue. The lncome [Tax authorities ][con]ed are still even now [in]2025 also initiating [proceedings ][in ][co]travention to the Provisionsof Section t5lA [of ][the ][Act ][and ][as ][a]sult by now, more than [600]to 700 petitions have [been ][already ][g]t piled up before this [High]Court on an issue [rvhich otherwise ][sta]ds squarely covered by [the]judgment of this Court in the case oKanakala Ravindra ReddY(1 supra). What is also surprising [t]the fact that though whileallowing the writ [petitions ][in ][the]of Kanakala RavindraReddy (l supra), the [Division ][Bench]ile reserving the right [of]the Revenue, [has ][also ][protected ][th]interest of the [petitioners] insofar as the liberty which was granted to the Revenue forinitiating fresh proceedings strictly in accordance with the amendedinitiating fresh proceedings strictly in accordance with the amendedprovisions of the Act, as amended by the Finance Lct,2020 atd,the Finance Act, 2021. The petitioner assessee woutd be entitled tochallenge or raise the other legal objections if the Revenue initiatesfresh proceedings. The Department has made no endeavour inavailing the said liberty that was reserved for the Revenue. On thecontrary, they have been still sticking on to the stand, which thisHigh Court as well as many other High Courts already held to bebad.the Finance Act, 2021. The petitioner assessee woutd be entitled tochallenge or raise the other legal objections if the Revenue initiatesfresh proceedings. The Department has made no endeavour inavailing the said liberty that was reserved for the Revenue. On thecontrary, they have been still sticking on to the stand, which thisHigh Court as well as many other High Courts already held to bebad. I l. It appears appears that because of the aforesaid liberty that this Highthe aforesaid liberty that this Highliberty that this Highthat this HighHighCourt had granted permitting the Revenue for initiating freshproceedings as a one-time measure in a faceless manner, theIncome Tax Department wants to take advantage of the same byprotracting these proceedings which would enable them to meet thelimitation that would otherwise come in the way. Likewise, if thewrit petition is kept pending for a considerable long period of timeprotracting these proceedings which would enable them to meet thelimitation that would otherwise come in the way. Likewise, if thewrit petition is kept pending for a considerable long period of timeand finally at a later stage if the Hon,ble Supreme Court confirmsthe decision taken by this High Courr as also by the other Highthe decision taken by this High Courr as also by the other HighCourts in which the SLPs are still pending, the Income Tax It appears appears that because of the aforesaid liberty that this Highthe aforesaid liberty that this Highliberty that this Highthat this HighHigh Department would get the advantage oth€ liberty that is otherwiseprotected in favour of the Revenfor initiation of freshproceedings from the disposal oftheseatters at a much later stagewhich would be advantageous andeficial to the Revenue andwould be equally disadvantageous andetrimental so far as interestof the assesses are concemed. As a cosequence, the Income TaxDepartment gets an extended [period ]otime for initiation of freshproceedings. It appears appears that because of the aforesaid liberty that this Highthe aforesaid liberty that this Highliberty that this Highthat this HighHigh Department would get the advantage oth€ liberty that is otherwiseprotected in favour of the Revenfor initiation of freshproceedings from the disposal oftheseatters at a much later stagewhich would be advantageous andeficial to the Revenue andwould be equally disadvantageous andetrimental so far as interestof the assesses are concemed. As a cosequence, the Income TaxDepartment gets an extended [period ]otime for initiation of freshproceedings. 12. The alarming trend of docket exosion in this Court, despitethe clear precedent set in Kanakala [Ra]dra Reddy (l supra), is amatter of grave concern. The [ncomeax Department's [persistent]initiation of fresh proceedings, disreing the established [judicial]pronouncements, has led to an unprnted surge in litigationwith over 600-700 [petitions ][piling ]uon the same issue. Thisdeliberate approach not only [undermi]es the principle ofjudicialprecedent but also strains the [judicial]sources unnecessari ly. TheDepartment's strategy ol awaiting [the]upreme Court's decision onpending SLPs while continuing toinitiate fiesh proceedingsappears to be a calculated [move ][to]buy time and circumventlimitation periods, [rather ]than [adheri]to the establi$ed legal position. Such con<iuct raises serious [questions ][about ][the]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. l.3. 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-A 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 Income Tax Department should [have lound ]out [some]remedial steps to ensure that wherever the [authorities intend ][to]initiate proceedings under Sections 148-A and [I48, ][other than ][in ][a]faceless manner, the proceedings should have bcen [defened]without precipitating the matter further intimating [the ][assessee ][that]they shall initiate appropriate [proceedings ]onty [afier the SLP's ][are]decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the [very ]same [lssue.]This again, the Income 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 taken forwhole of India, and whichotherwise has to be by way of a policydecision and that too at thelevel of Central Board of Direct TesThough the leamedStanding Counsel for the Income TaxDepartment contended thatthe Delhi High Court dismissed a writetition of similar nature, onthe one hand when the High Courts struggling to redrrce itspendency, such notices which are uder challenge in this writpetition are forcing the assessee to knck the doors of this HighCourt resulting in filing of hundreds ofnew writ petitions which rnthe long run not only affects the dispoI of the writ petitions butalso consumes substantial time o[e Bench in hearing thesematters again and again on daily basisAdmittedly, in spite of thematter before the Hon'ble Supremeurt having been taken onmany occasions, the Hon'ble Supremeourt which is seized of thematter has been reluctant in [granting ][a]y interim protection to theIncome Tax Department. Yet, [the ][a]thorities concemed at theState level are not ready to accept theerdict passed by a majorityof High Courts of different States [on ][t]e same issue; and to makethings further worse, the Income [T]xDepartment is showingaudacity by issuing notices continuouslunder Sections 148-4 and 148 through the [jurisdictional ][Assessing ][Officer ][whereas ][it ][ought]to have been only [in ][the ][faceless ][manner.] 14. In the case of BAI\K OF [vs. ] COMMISSIONER, INCOME [TAXrr, ][on ][an issue ][whether ][it ][was]justifiable on the part of the Income Tax Department [in ][not]following an order [passed ]by [the adjudicating ][authority only ][on ][the]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 thedecision of this Court in Commissioner [of ][lncome ][Tax ][vs. ][Smt.]Godavaridevi Sarafl2 as also the recent [decision ][of ][the ][co-]ordinate Bench of this Court in Samp [Furniture ][(P) ][Ltd. v. ][lTOl3]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.'0, ][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 ][relevanl]observations made by the [Supreme Court.] " 11zozs1 [[70 ][taxmann.com 422 ][(Bombay)]] '' 1t9281 [113 ] [589 ][(Bombay)] " 1202+1 [165 ][taxmann.com 581/300 Taxman 452 ][(Bombay)] 'o |l99z1taxmann.com [l6155 ] [433 (SC)] -A t "6. Sri Reddy is PerhaPS [right]salftg that [the]offroers were [not ][actuated ][bY]ny mala fides [in]passing the [imPugned ][orders]They PerhaPSgenuinelY felt that the [claim ][of ][th]assessee was [not]tenable and [that, ][if ][it ][was ][a], [the ][Revenue]overlooks [is that we]vrculd suffer. [But ][what Sri ][ReddY]e conectness [or]are not concerned [here ][with]otheruise of [their ][conclusion]or of any [factual]malafides [but with the ][fact ][that ][th]officers, [in reaching]in their conclusion, [bY-Passed]appellate orders [in]were [placed ][before]regard to the [same ][issue ][which]ls) and the other [of]them, one [of ][the Collector ][(APPe]the Tribunal. [The ][High ][Court ][ha], [in ][our view, ][nghtlY]criticized this [conduct ][of ][the ][Ass]stant Collectors [and]the harassment [to ][the ][assessee]used by the [failure]to the orders [of]of these officers [to ][give ][effe]llate hierarchY. [lt]authorities [higher to ][tfrcm ][in ][the]cannot be [troo ][vehementlY ][em]asized that [it ][is ][of]utmost imPortance [that, ][in]disposing [of]thequasijudicial issues [before ][them,]revenue officers [are]bound bY the [decisions ][of ][the]ppellate authoritiesThe order [of ][the ][APPellte Col]tor is binding [on ][the]in his [jurisdiction ][and]Assistant [Collectors working wi]the order [of the Tribunal is ][bindi]upon the Assistantllectors who [function]Coltectors [and ][the ][APPellate]nal. The [princiPles ][of]under the [jurisdiclion ][of the Trib]judicial discipline require [that ][th]orders of the [higher]lowed unreservedlYappellate authorities [should ][be]by the subordinate [authorities']mere fact that [the]is not [.acceptable" ][to]order of the [aPPellate authority]the department - [in ][itself ][an ][o]iectionable [Phrase ]-and is the [subject matter ][of ][an]ppeal can furnish [no]ground for not following [it ][u]ss its operation [has]t court. lf [this healthY]been susPended [bY ][a ][compete] nile is not followed, the result will only be [undue]harassment to assesses and chaos in administrationof tax laws. nile is not followed, the result will only be [undue]harassment to assesses and chaos in administrationof tax laws. 12. We have dealt with this aspect at some length,because it has been suggested by the learnedAdditional Solicitor General that the observationsmade by the High Court, have been harsh on theofficers. lt is clear that the obseryations of the HighCourt, seemingly vehement, and apparentlyunpalatable to the Revenue, are only intended to curba tendency in revenue mafters which, if allowed tobecome widespread, could result in considerableharassment to the assesses-public without any benefitto the Revenue. We would like to say that thedepartment should take these observations in theproper spirit. The observations of the High Courtshould be kept in mind in future and the utmost regardshould be paid by the adjudicating authorities and theappellate authorities to the requirements of [judicial]discipline 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 the fact that an endeavour is being made whole heartedly to ensure not to generatefurther litigation on issues which have been laid to rest by a largenumber of High Courts all of whom have'taken a consistent standthat the action of the Income Tax Department being violative of the I Finance Act, 2020 and Finance Act, 221.,. Ncil,'inBdd* tcipYotectthe interest ofthe Revenue as alsoofthe assessee, it would betrite at this [juncture, ]if we disposef the writ petition with anobservationidirection that the disposalf the instant writ petition interms of the [judgment ]rendered by ths High Court in the case ofKankanala Ravindra Reddy (l supra)shall however be subject tothe interest ofthe Revenue as alsoofthe assessee, it would betrite at this [juncture, ]if we disposef the writ petition with anobservationidirection that the disposalf the instant writ petition interms of the [judgment ]rendered by ths High Court in the case ofKankanala Ravindra Reddy (l supra)shall however be subject tothe outcome of the SLPs which wfiled by the Income TaxDepartment and which is pending conderation before the Hon'bleSupreme Court.Department and which is pending conderation before the Hon'bleSupreme Court. 16. In the given facts and circumsnces, this Bench is of theconsidered opinion that unless andil we do not timely disposeof matters which are squarely coveredy the decision of this Courtand which stands fortified by the disions of the various otherHigh Courts on the very same issue,the pendency of this HighCourt would further be burdened wotherwisc can be decidedand disposed of as a covered matter. 17. So far as the interest ofthe RevSo far as the interest ofthe Revfar as the interest ofthe Revas the interest ofthe Revthe interest ofthe Revofthe RevRev 17. So far as the interest ofthe RevSo far as the interest ofthe Revfar as the interest ofthe Revas the interest ofthe Revthe interest ofthe Revofthe RevRevue is concemed, we are ofthe considered opinion that the interestof the Revenue has already been considered and protected, as hasn observed in paragraphs 36,37 aod 38 of the order which, for [ready reference, ][is ][reproducei]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 accordingly setaside/quashed. As a consequence, all the [impugned]orders [getting 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 weare quashing the consequential order is on the [principles]that when the initiation of the proceedings itself wasprocedurally wrong, the subsequent orders also getsnullifi ed automatically. 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 accordingly setaside/quashed. As a consequence, all the [impugned]orders [getting 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 weare quashing the consequential order is on the [principles]that when the initiation of the proceedings itself wasprocedurally wrong, the subsequent orders also getsnullifi ed automatically. 37. The [preliminary ]objection raised by the [petitioner ][is]sustained and all these writ petitions stands allowed onthis very [jurisdictional ]issue. Since the impugned noticesand orders are getting quashed on the [point ]ofiurisdiction, [we are not ][inclined ][to ][proceed ][further ][and]decide the other issues raised by the petitioner whichstands reserved to be raised and contended in anappropriate [proceedings.] 38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the caseof Ashish Agarwal, supra, as a one{ime measureexercising the powers under Article 142 of theConstitution of lndia, permifted the Revenue to [proceed]under the substituted provisions, and this Court allowingthe petitions only on the procedural flaw, the right . ._ [?\] 7 oonfened on the [Re\irenue ][wo]remain reserved toproceed further if they so wantfrorn the stage of theorder of the Suprerne Courtthe case of AshishAganval, supra. 18. We would only further like toWe would only further like towould only further like toonly further like to further like tolike totoe observations that since18. We would only further like toWe would only further like towould only further like toonly further like towe are inclined to dispose of the inswrit petition, conscious ofthe fact that the earlier order of thisHigh Court in the case ofKanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supta is subjected to challengebefore the Hon'ble Supreme Courtn SLP No.3574 of 2024,preferred by the Income Tax Deptwe make it clear thatallowing of the instant writ [petition]subject to outcome of theaforesaid SLP preferred by the Revenuagainst the decision of thisHigh Court in the case of Kanakalaavindra Reddy (l sqra)This, in other words, would mean thatther ofthe parties, if theyso want, may move an appropriatetion seeking revival of thiswnt petition in the light of the decisiof the Hon'ble SupremeCourt in the pending SLP on the verye tssue. 19. Accordingly, Accordingly, the instant writinstant writwrit the instant writinstant writwrittion stands allowed in19. Accordingly, Accordingly, favour of the assessee so far ase lssue of [jurisdiction]ISconcemed. As a consequence, thimpugned notice under challenge under Sections l4E-A and [1] 8 stands set [aside/quashed.] lt The consequential orders, if any, also stand set aside/quashed in similar terrns 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. Sd/- K. AMMAJIDEPUTY REGISTRAR//TRUE COPYIIsEcOFFICER To, 19. Accordingly, Accordingly, the instant writinstant writwrit the instant writinstant writwrittion stands allowed in19. Accordingly, Accordingly, favour of the assessee so far ase lssue of [jurisdiction]ISconcemed. As a consequence, thimpugned notice under challenge under Sections l4E-A and [1] 8 stands set [aside/quashed.] lt The consequential orders, if any, also stand set aside/quashed in similar terrns 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. Sd/- K. AMMAJIDEPUTY REGISTRAR//TRUE COPYIIsEcOFFICER To, 1. The Veerabhadra lncome Tax Nagar, New Bus Officer, Ward Stand, ['l ], Sangareddy, Sangaieddy, lncome Tax Telangana-502001Office,2. lhq.PnLc_1pal_Commissioner of lrrcome Tax 2, Hyderabad, Signature Towers,Sy.No.6(P) oI Kondapur, Sy.37(P) of kothagudajOpp. Boiani6al Gardens,Serlingampally, Ranga Reddy, Hyderabad,-Telangana-500084.2. lhq.PnLc_1pal_Commissioner of lrrcome Tax 2, Hyderabad, Signature Towers,Sy.No.6(P) oI Kondapur, Sy.37(P) of kothagudajOpp. Boiani6al Gardens,Serlingampally, Ranga Reddy, Hyderabad,-Telangana-500084.3. The National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, The Assessment Unit,llcome [Tax Department, ][National Faceless ][Assessment Centre, ][Delhi,]Ministry of Finance, Room No. 401, 2nd Floor, E-Ramp, Jawaharlal NehruStadium, Delhi-1 10003.llcome [Tax Department, ][National Faceless ][Assessment Centre, ][Delhi,]Ministry of Finance, Room No. 401, 2nd Floor, E-Ramp, Jawaharlal NehruStadium, Delhi-1 10003. 4. One CC to SRI DUNDU MANMOHAN, Advocate. TOPUCI 5. One CC to MS J.SUNITHA (JUNIOR SC FOR TNCOME TAX). 6. Two CD CopiespKpK BSKPVL HIGH COURT DATED:2810412025 ORDER WP.No.13038 of 2025 ALLOWING THE WRIT WITHOUT COSTS fln- r! o(i[rl-lE SI]4r('; rl-($i't)l'il:-,12ilEm>zo))1lr t)r .st: t,l C