Katram Reddy Mantur, Learned Counsel [For]The Petitioner And Mr K.sudhakar [Reddy, ][Learned ][Senior ][Standing]Counsel For The Income Tax Department For The [ v. The Assessing Officer

{ HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MAYTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDAWRIT PETITION NO: 29723 OF 2024 Between: Ram Mohan Rao Paruchuri, H. No.2-22-226, Lakshmi Nilayam, Jaya Nagar,Kukatpally, Hyderabad. ...WRIT PETITIONER AND '1 . The Assessing Officer, Ward-'13(3), Hyderabad.. The Assessing Officer, Ward-'13(3), Hyderabad.2. The Central Board of Direct Taxes, Rep. by its Chairman, Department ofRevenue, Ivlinistry of Finance, Government of lndia, Secretariat Buildings,New Delhi - 1 l0 001.Revenue, Ivlinistry of Finance, Government of lndia, Secretariat Buildings,New Delhi - 1 l0 001. 3. The Principal Chief Commissioner of lncome Tax, Hyderabad- 500 004. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may bepleased to issue a Writ, Order or orders, direction or more particularly one innature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the notice u/s 147 rlw sec. 148(A)(b) ofthe lncome Tax Act 1961 on 12-04- 2024 by the 1st respondent with DIN No.ITBA/AST/F/'1 4BA(SCNy2024- 2511064057839(1 ) for the Assessment Year 2020-21 pursuant to the order u/s 148A(d) dt. 24-04-2024 with DIN No.ITBA/ASf/F/148N2O24- 2511064322417(1), and notice issued u/s 148 dt.24-04-2024 wilh DIN No. ITBA/ASTiS/148-112024-2511064322832(1) as illegal, bad inLaw, void abinitio, unfair arbitrary, apart from being violative of [provisions ]of Sec.'148 and Sec. 149 of the Act and also contrary to the notification no.1812O221F.No.37014211612022- TPL(Part-l) issued by the CBDT dI. 29-03-2022the scheme namely E-assessment of lncome Escaping Assessment Scheme 2022and provisions of sec. ['15'1 ]of the Act and [violation ]of Article 14 of the Constitutionof lndia and consequently set-a-side the [Assessment ]Order [passed ]by the 14 respondent dated23-09-2022 and all consequential proceedings pursuant thereto. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated inthe affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to stayall further proceedings subsequent to the notice.issued by the 1st respondent148(AXb) of the lncome Tax Act 1961 on 12-04-2024 with DrN No.|rBA/AST/F/148A(scNy2024- 2sl 10640s7839(.1 ) for the Assessment year 2020_21 pursuant to the order u/s 148A(d) dt. 24-04_2024 with DIN No.|rBA/AST/F/148A12o24-2s11064322411(1), and notice issued u/s 148 dt. 24_04-2024 wilh DIN No. rrBA/AST/s/148-1t2o24-2st1064322832(1) incruding anyrecovery pending disposal of the Writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI VENKATRAM REDDy MANTUR FORSRI SRINIVAS GANGISHETTIcounsel for the Respondents: sRl K.SUDHAKAR REDDY, sENloR sc FoR ITDSRI SRINIVAS GANGISHETTIcounsel for the Respondents: sRl K.SUDHAKAR REDDY, sENloR sc FoR ITDThe Court made the following: ORDER ;'r'4.4.1-- _ THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM ANDTI{E HONOT]RABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAONANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION No.29723 OF 2024 ORDER' [(per ]Hon'ble Sri Justice P.Sam [Koshy)] Heard Mr. Venkatram Reddy Mantur, learned counsel [for]the petitioner and Mr K.Sudhakar [Reddy, ][learned ][Senior ][Standing]Counsel for the Income Tax Department for the [respondents.]Perused the record. 2. This is a writ petition where the proceedings are [either]challenged to the notices which were [issued ][under Section ][148,4.]and 148 of the Income Tax Act, [1961 ][(for ][short ]['the ][Act') ][or ][the]assessment orders those have been [passed ][under Section ][147 ][of]the Act which have been assailed. ;'r'4.4.1-- _ THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM ANDTI{E HONOT]RABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAONANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION No.29723 OF 2024 ORDER' [(per ]Hon'ble Sri Justice P.Sam [Koshy)] Heard Mr. Venkatram Reddy Mantur, learned counsel [for]the petitioner and Mr K.Sudhakar [Reddy, ][learned ][Senior ][Standing]Counsel for the Income Tax Department for the [respondents.]Perused the record. 2. This is a writ petition where the proceedings are [either]challenged to the notices which were [issued ][under Section ][148,4.]and 148 of the Income Tax Act, [1961 ][(for ][short ]['the ][Act') ][or ][the]assessment orders those have been [passed ][under Section ][147 ][of]the Act which have been assailed. 3. This writ petition is being taken up today only on [one ][ofthe]grounds, that the notices issued under Section [148,4. ]of [the Act]and the subsequent initiation ofproceedings [under ][Section ][148 ][of]the Act by the [jurisdictional ][Assessing ][Offrcer, ][whereas ][in ][terms]of the amendment that was brought [to ][the ][Income-T3lr ][Act ][by way]of Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f., [01.04.2021 ][onwards, ][proceedings] under Section 148,4. ofthe Act as also under Section 148 oftheAct ought to have also been issued and proceeded in a facelessmanner.4. The contention contention of the petitioner is lhat the issue ofthe petitioner is lhat the issue ofpetitioner is lhat the issue ofis lhat the issue oflhat the issue ofissue ofofproceedings being in violation of the Finance Act, 2021 i.e., theimpugned notices under Section 148A and Section 148 of the Actnot being issued in a faceless manner, have already been dealt withand decided by this Court in the case of 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 151A ofthe Act read ivith Notification 1812022 dated 29.03.2022. The said,judgment passed by this Court has also been subsequently followedin a large number of writ petitions which were allowed on similarterms. The contention contention of the petitioner is lhat the issue ofthe petitioner is lhat the issue ofpetitioner is lhat the issue ofis lhat the issue oflhat the issue ofissue ofof 'l(202 -n [178 ][(Telangana)l] 5. Down the line, we find that the same issue has also beendecided against the Revenue by various High Courts i.e.,by the Bombay High Court in the case of HEXAWARETECHNOLOGIES LTD., vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX & OTHERS2, Gauhati High Court [in ]the [case]of RAM NARAYAN SAH vs. I-INION OF [INDIA3, ][Punjab ][and]Haryana High Court in the case of JATINDER SINGH vs. UNION OF INDIA4, and Telangana High Court in the case ofSRI VENKATARAMANA REDDY PATLOOLA [VS. ] COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX5 where the [issue ][was ][in]respect of interrrational taxation, Bombay High Court [in ][the ][case ]ofABHIN ANILKIIMAR SHAH vs. INCOME TAX [OFFICER,]INTERNATIONAL TAXATION6 which is again on [international]taxation and central circle, High Court of Himachal [Pradesh ][in ][the]case of GOVIND SINGH vs. INCOME TAX [OFFICERi,]Gujarat High Court in the case of '1zoz+1464 [430 ][(Bom)]'l(2024) [156 ][taxmann.com ][478 ][(Gauhati)l]' l(2024) 165 taxmann.com [5 ][(Punjab ][& ][Haryana)l]'12024) [167 ][taxmzinn.com ][4l ] [(Telangana)l] " 12024) [66 ][taxmann.com ][dl9{pombay)l] ' lZO24) [1 ][65 ][taxmann.com ][1 ][13 ][(Himachal ][Pradesh)l] " 12024) [66 ][taxmann.com ][dl9{pombay)l] ' lZO24) [1 ][65 ][taxmann.com ][1 ][13 ][(Himachal ][Pradesh)l] DAHYABHAI RADADIYA vs. TNCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 3(3Xr8, Jharkand High Court in the case of SIIYAMSUNDAR SAW vs. UNION OF INDIAe, Rajasthan High Court inthe case of SI{ARDA DEVI CHHAJER vs. INCOME TAXOFFICER & ANOTHER and batch of writ petitionst0 whichstood decided on 19.03.2024. Similar views have also been takenby the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in the case ofGIRDHAR GOPAL DALMIA vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS(M.A.T 1690 of 2023), decided on25.09.2024.6. Even though the same issue having been decided by a largenumber of High Courts, we are still corrfronted with large filing ofidentical matters on daily basis ranging between 5 to 10 writpetitions. That upon the instructions being sought fiom theDepartment, they have been taking a solitary ground that thedecision of the Bombay High Court in the case of HexawareTechnologies Ltd., (2 supra) as also the one which has beendecided by this Court in the case of Kan" da Ravindra Reddy '2024$CC [Online ][Guj ][4012]'2025 Online Jhar [287]'o 72023 [: ] [: ][4984-DBl] (l supra) has been subjected to challenge in a Special LeavePetition i.e., SLP No.3574 of 2024 before the Hon'ble SupremeCourt and the Hon'ble Supreme Court is seized of the matter.ln 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 learned counsel for the Revenue,they have categorically accepted the fact that [there ][is no ][interim]order granted by the Hon'ble Supreme [Court ][in ][any ]of [these]matters pending before it. Meanwhile, fresh writ [petitions ]ofidentical nature are being piled up before this Bench on daily basisand the pendency is [getting ]increased on [matter ][which ][otherwise]has already been dealt and decided by this very [High ]Court [itself.]8. On the one hand, even though the order of this Court [that]was passed as early as on 14.09.2023 and [more ][16 months ][have]lapsed, till date, we do not find any remedial steps having [been]taken by the Income Tax Department to take appropriate steps [to]either hold back issuance of [notice ][under ][Section ]l48A [and under]Section 148 of the Act by [the ][jurisdictional ][Assessing ][Officer,]rather the authorities concemed in [the teeth ][of ][series ][of ][decisions] by all the major High Courts in India are continuously stillinitiating proceedings under Section 148A of the Act and alsoinitiating proceedings under Section 148 of the Act incontravention to the amendments brought into the [ncome 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 (1 supra), learned StandingCounsel for the Income Tax Depa(ment 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 of India. It was also the contention of thelearned Standing Counsel that no prejudice would be caused to theinterest ofthe petitioners in case ifthis writ petition is kept pendingtill the finalization of the SLPs pending before the Hon'bleSupreme Court and the fact that the petitioner is already enjoyingthe beneht 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 ][proceedings ][under Section ][148A]of the Act as also the [assessment ][orders ][under Section ][148 ][of ][the]Act are kept in a hold in the [light ]ofthe [decisions dedcided ][by ][the]various High Courts, it [was submitted ][by ][the ][leamed ][Standing]Counsel that the said steps [can ][only ][be ][taken ][at ][the level ][ofCBDT]as any such steps would [have ][to ][be taken Pan ][India ][and cannot ][be]limited to any of [these ][jurisdictional ][High ][Courts.] 10. As a result of [which, ][what ][we ][are ][facing ][is ][steep increase ][of]litigation day in and day [out ][even though ][various ][orders ][have ][been]passed by this High Court allowing [writ ][petitions on ][the ][very ][same]issue. The Income Tax authorities [coneemed ][are ][still ][even ][now ][in]2025 also initiating [proceedings ][in ][contravention ][to ][the provisions]of Section 15lA of the [Act ][and ][as a ][result ][by ][now, more ][than ][600]to 700 petitions have been [already ][got ][piled ][up before ][this ][High]Court on an issue [which ][otherwise ][stands ][squarely covered ][by ][the]judgment of this Court in the case of Kanakala [Ravindra ][Reddy](1 supra). What is also surprising [is ][the ][fact ][that ][though ][while]allowing the writ [petitions ][in ][the ][case ][of ][Kanakala ][Ravindra]Reddy (l supra), the [Division ][Bench ][while ][reserving the ][right ][of]the Revenue, [has ][also protected ][the ][interest ][of ][the ][petitioners] insofar as the liberty which was granted to the Revenue forinitiating fresh proceedings strictly in accordance with the amendedprovisions of the Act, as amended by the Finance Act, 2020 arrdthe Finance Act, 2021 . The petitioner assessee would 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. 11. It appears that because ofthe aforesaid liberty that this HighCourt had granted permitting the Revenue for initiating freshproceedings as a one-time measure in a faceless manner, thelncome Tax Deparlment 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 timeand finally at a later stage if the Hon'ble Supreme Court confirmsthe decision taken by this High Court as also by the other HighCourts in which the SLPs are still pending, the Income Tax Department would [get ]the advantage [of ][the ][liberty that ][is otherwise]protected in favour of the Revenue for initiation of [fresh]proceedings from the disposal of these matters at [a ]much [later ][stage]which would be advantageous and beneficial [to ][the ][Revenue ][and]would be equally disadvantageous and [detrimental ][so ][far ][as ][interest]of the assesses are concerned. [As ][a ][consequence, ][the ][Income ][Tax]Department gets an extended [period ][of ][time ][for initiation ][of ][fresh]proceedings Department would [get ]the advantage [of ][the ][liberty that ][is otherwise]protected in favour of the Revenue for initiation of [fresh]proceedings from the disposal of these matters at [a ]much [later ][stage]which would be advantageous and beneficial [to ][the ][Revenue ][and]would be equally disadvantageous and [detrimental ][so ][far ][as ][interest]of the assesses are concerned. [As ][a ][consequence, ][the ][Income ][Tax]Department gets an extended [period ][of ][time ][for initiation ][of ][fresh]proceedings 12. The alarming trend of docket [explosion in this ][Court, despite]the clear precedent set [in ][Kanakala Ravindra ][Reddy ][(l ][supra), ][is ][a]matter of grave concern. The [Income ][Tax ][Department's persistent]initiation of fresh proceedings, [disregarding the ][established ][judicial]pronouncements, has led to an unprecedented [surge ][in ][litigation]with over 600-700 [petitions ][piling up on ][the ][same issue. This]deliberate approach [not ][only ][undermines ][the principle ][ofjudicial]precedent but also strains the [judicial ][resources ][unnecessarily. The]Department's strategy of awaiting [the ][Supreme ][Court's decision ][on]pending SLPs while continuing to [initiate fresh ][proceedings]to be a calculated [move ][to ][buy ][time and ][circumvent]appears limitation periods, rather [than adhering ][to ][the ][established ][legal] position. Such conduct raises serious questions about theadministrative efficiency and the respect for judicialpronouncements, particularly when this Court has already provideda balanced approach by preserving both the Revenue's rights andassesses lnterests 13. Another aspect which needs to be considered is that in fact itshould have been realized by the Income Tax Deparlment itself andshould have found out via media in ensuring that proceedingsunder Sections 148-A and 148 should not have been issued in afaceless manner, at least till the Hon'ble Supreme Court decide thetwelve hundred (1200) odd SLPs whichit is atready scized ofor, atleast the Income Tax Department should have found out someremedial steps to ensure that wherever the authorities intend toinitiate proceedings under Sections 148-4. and 148, other than in alaceless manner, the proceedings should have been deferredwithout precipitating the matter further intimating the assessee thatthey shall initiate appropriate proceedings only after the SLp,s aredecided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the very same issue.This again, the Income Tax Department, has not been able to give aconvincing reply, except for the fact that such a decision if at all has to be taken, has to be taken for the whole oflndia, [and ][which]otherwise has to be by way of a [policy ]decision [and ][that too at ][the]level of Central Board of Direct Taxes. Though [the ][learned]Standing Counsel for the Income Tax [Department ][contended ][that]the Delhi High Court dismissed a writ [petition of ][similar ][nature, ][on]the one hand when the High Court is [struggling ][to ][reduce ][its]pendency, such notices which are under challenge in [this ][writ]petition are forcing the assessee to knock the [doors ]of [this High]Court resulting in fiting of hundreds [of new ][writ ][petitions ][which ][in]the long run not only affects the disposal of [the ][writ ][petitions ][but]also consumes substantial time of [the ][Bench ][in ][hearing ][these]matters again and again on daily basis. [Admittedly, ][in ][spite ][of ][the]matter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court [having ][been ][taken ][on]many occasions, the Hon'ble Supreme [Court which is ][seized ][of ][the]matter has been reluctant in [granting ]any [interim ][protection ][to ][the]Income Tax Department. Yet, the [authorities ][concemed ][at ][the]State level are not ready to accept [the verdict ][passed ][by ][a ][maj ][ority]of High Courts of different States on [the ]same [issue; and ][to ][make]things further worse, the Income Tax [Department ]is [showing]audacity by issuing notices continuously under [Sections ][148-4 ][and] i48 through the jurisdictional Assessing Officer whereas it oughtto have been only in the faceless manner 14. In the case of BANK OF INDIA vs. ASSISTANTCOMMISSIONER, INCOME TAXrr, on an issuc rvhether it wasjustifiable on the part of the Income Tax Department in notfollowing an ordcr passed by the adjudicating authority only on theground that the appeals are pending, the Division Bench of theHigh 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. lTOl3of which one of us (Justice G.S. Kulkarni) was a member, whereinthe Couft categorically observed that the Revenue havlng 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 loose itsbinding force. Referring to the decision of the Supreme Court inUnion of lndia vs. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd.14, theCourt observed that the approach of the otficials of Revenue oftreating decisions being "not acceptable" was criticized by theSupreme Court. ln such decision, following are the relevantobservations made by the Supreme Court. " 11202s; [170 ][taxmann.com ][422 ][(Bombay)l]'' il9781 ll3 ITR 589 (Bombay)'3 120241165 [taxmann.com ][581/300 ]Taxman 452 [(Bombay)]to 1t9921raxmann.com l6155 ELT 433 (SC)'' il9781 ll3 ITR 589 (Bombay)'3 120241165 [taxmann.com ][581/300 ]Taxman 452 [(Bombay)]to 1t9921raxmann.com l6155 ELT 433 (SC) "6. Sri Reddy is perhaps right in saying that theofficers were not actuated by any [mala ][fides ][in]passing the impugned orders. They [perhaps]genuinely felt that the claim of the assessee was nottenable and that, if it was accepted, the Revenuewould suffer. But what Sri Reddy overlooks is that weare not concerned here with the correctness orotherwise of their conclusion or of any [factual]malafides but with the fact that the officers, [in ][reaching]in their conclusion, by-passed two appellate orders inregard to the same issue which were [placed ]beforethem, one of the Collector [(Appeals) ]and [the ]other ofthe Tribunal. The High Court [has, in ]our [view, rightly]criticized this conduct of the Assistant [Collectors and]the harassment to the assessee caused by [the failure]of these officers to give effect to the orders ofauthorities higher to them in the appellate hierarchy. [lt]cannot be too vehemently emphasized that it is ofutmost importance that, in lisposing of thequasijudicial 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 and]the order of the Tribunal is binding upon the [Assistant]Collectors and the Appellate Collectors who [function]under the [jurisdiction ]of the Tribunal. The [principles ]ofjudicial discipline require that the orders of the higherappellate authorities should be followed [unreservedly]by the subordinate authorities. [The mere fact that the]order of the appellate authority [is ][not ]["acceptable" ][to]the department - in [itself ][an ][obiectionable phrase ]-and is the subject [matter ][of ][an ][appeal ][can ][furnish ][no]ground for not following it unless its operation [has]been suspended [by ]a [competent ]court. [If ][this healthy] rule is not followed, the result will only be undueharassment to assesses and chaos in administrationof tax laws. rule is not followed, the result will only be undueharassment 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 observations of the HighCourt, seemingly vehement, and apparentlyunpalatable to the Revenue, are only intended to curba tendency in revenue matters 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 judicialdiscipline 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 anendeavour is being made rvhole 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 Finance Act,2020 and Finance [Act, ][2021. Now, ][in ][order ][to ][protect]the interest of the Revenue [as also ][that ][of the ][assessee, ][it ][would ][be]trite at this [juncture, ]if we [dispose ][of ][the ][writ ][petition ][with ][an]observation/direction that the disposal [of ][the instant ][writ ][petition ][in]terms of the [judgment ]rendered [by ][this High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]Kankanala Ravindra Reddy (l [supra) shall ][however be ][subject ][to]the outcome of the SLPs [which were ][f,rled ][by ][the ][Income ][Tax]Department and which is [pending ][consideration ][before ][the ][Hon'ble]Supreme Court. 16. In the given facts and [circumstances, ][this ][Bench ][is ][of ][the]considered opinion that [unless ][and ][untiF ][we do ][not ][timely ][dispose]of matters which are squarely [covered by ][the ][decision ][of ][this ][Court]and which stands fortified by [the ][decisions ][of ][the ][various ][other]High Courts on the very [same ][issue, the pendency ][of ][this High]Court would further be burdened [which ][otherwise ][can ][be ][decided]and disposed of as a covered [matter.] 17. So far as the interest of the [Revenue ][is ][concemed, we are ][of]the considered opinion [that the ][interest ][of the ][Revenue ][has ][already]been considered and [protected, ][as ][has been ][observed ][in ][paragraphs] 36,37 and 38 ofthe order which, for ready reference, is reproducedhereunder: 36. For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned noticesissued and the proceedings drawn by the respondent-Department is neither tenable, nor sustainable.The notices so issued and the procedure adopted beingper se illegal, deserves to be and are accordingly setaside/quashed. As a consequence, all the impugnedorders getting quashed, the consequential orders passedby the respondent-Department pursuant to the noticesissued under Section 147 and 1 48 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 preliminary objection raised by the petitioner issustained and all these writ petitions stands allowed onthis very [jurisdictional ]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 raised and contended in anappropriate proceedings. 37. The preliminary objection raised by the petitioner issustained and all these writ petitions stands allowed onthis very [jurisdictional ]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 raised and contended in anappropriate proceedings. 38. Since the Hon'bte Supreme Cou( 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 proceedunder the substituted provisions, and this Court allowingthe petitions only on the procedural flaw, the right confened on the Revenue would remain reserved [to]proceed further if they so want from the stage of theorder of the Supreme Court in the case of 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 ofKanakals Ravindrs Reddy (l supra) is subjected to challengebefore the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No.3574 of [2024,]preferred by the lncome 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 ][this]High Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy [(1 ][supra).]This, in other words, would mean that either of the [parties, ]if [they]so want, may move an appropriate petition seeking [revival ][of ][this]writ petition in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble SupremeCourt in the pending SLP on the very same issue. 19. Accordingly, the instant writ [petition ]stands allowed1nfavour of the assessee so far as the issue of [jurisdiction]ISconcemed. As ['a ]consequence, the [irnpugned ]notice [under]challenge under Sections 148-A and [148 ]stands set aside/quashed. I The consequential orders, if any, also stand set asideiquashed insimilar terms as have been passed by this High Court in the case of Kankanala Ravindra Reddy (I supra). There shal1 be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- C. DEEPIKA ,-'AISANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER To1 . The Assessing Officer, Ward-.l 3(3), Hyderabad.2. The Chairman, Central Board of'Direci Taxes, DeIt/inistry of Finance, Government of lndia, Secreta110 001.1 . The Assessing Officer, Ward-.l 3(3), Hyderabad.2. The Chairman, Central Board of'Direci Taxes, DeIt/inistry of Finance, Government of lndia, Secreta110 001. partment of Revenue,riat Buildings, New Delhi -riat Buildings, New Delhi - 3. The P^rhcipqlQ[igf Comryissloner of tncome Tax, Hyderabad_ Hyderabad_ 500 004004 tncome Tax, Hyderabad_ Hyderabad_ 500 0040044. one CC to SRI SRtNtvAS q^[c]gltETil, Advocat6 topuCjtopuCj5. One CC to SRt K.SUDHAKAR REDDY, sENtoR sc Fon rib 6. Two CD Copiestopucl6. Two CD Copiestopucl PSKGJP uk HIGH COURT DATED:0210512025 t-'-ORDER([c,']WP.No.29723 ot 2024ii)3 0 JUt zrffi,:' /_\/Ds:., ,'. , ,,.. [e ].// ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITIONWITHOUT COSTS s-{aS. "./