Kradhar Reddy Learned [Counsel ][For ][The]Petitioner And Ms. B.sapna Reddy, Learned Junior [Standing]Counsel For The Income Tax Department [For ][Respondents. v. Income-Tax ][Officert ][Decided]On 14.09.2023 [Whereby ][A ][Batch ][Of Writ ][Petitions ][Were ][Allowed ][And]The Proceedings [Initiated ][Under Section 148A

(9 HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY ,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF APRILTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION NO: 3491 OF 2025 Between: Sri Fahim Rai, S/o.Jalal Rai, Age. 58 years, Occ. Doctor, Rl/o. H.no.9-4-76,St.marrys Road, Secunderabad- 500003, Telangana. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The lncome Tax Officer, lncome tax office, Ward No.'10(1), Hyderabad.2. The Additional Commissioner of lncome tax, Range-3, l.T Towers, 10-2-3, ACGuards, Hyderabad-500004.2. The Additional Commissioner of lncome tax, Range-3, l.T Towers, 10-2-3, ACGuards, Hyderabad-500004. 3. The Principal Chief Commissioner of lncome Tax, Ap and TS, 1Oth Floor, C-Block, lT Towers, 10-2-3, AC Guards, Hyderabad-500004.Block, lT Towers, 10-2-3, AC Guards, Hyderabad-500004. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may becircumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may bepleased to pass an order or orders one in the nature of WRIT OF lt/ANDAIvIUS bydeclaring the impugned Order U/s 148 dt.06.1 1.2024 passed by the 1'trespondent vide Document lder*ification No. (DlN) ITBA/AST/S/142(1)12024-2511070132810(1) for the assessment year 2017-2018 and dt.15.04.2024 (DlN)ITBA/AST/Si148-]12024-251 1041 11355(1), for the assessment yeat 2020-2021as arbitrary illegal bad in law, without [jurisdiction, ]void-ab-initio, violative of thedeclaring the impugned Order U/s 148 dt.06.1 1.2024 passed by the 1'trespondent vide Document lder*ification No. (DlN) ITBA/AST/S/142(1)12024-2511070132810(1) for the assessment year 2017-2018 and dt.15.04.2024 (DlN)ITBA/AST/Si148-]12024-251 1041 11355(1), for the assessment yeat 2020-2021as arbitrary illegal bad in law, without [jurisdiction, ]void-ab-initio, violative of theprinciples of natural justice apart from being violative of articles 14, 19 (1) (g) and265 of the Constitution of lndia and Sec.148 of the lncome Tax Act, 1961, andconsequently set-aside the same in the [interest ]of [justice.]265 of the Constitution of lndia and Sec.148 of the lncome Tax Act, 1961, andconsequently set-aside the same in the [interest ]of [justice.] lA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 including any recovery, pursuant to the noticedt.06.'1 ['l ].2024 passed by the 1 st respondent vide Document ldentification No.(DlN) ITBA/ AST/S/142(1y2024-2511070132810(1) for the assessment year 2O17-2018 and dt.15.04.2024 (DlN) ITBA/ AST/S/ 148_112024-251104111355(1), torthe assessment year 2020-2021 , pending disposal of the above writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. K. CHAKRADHAR REDDY Counsel forthe Respondents: Ms. B. SAPNA REDDY, Jr. SC FOR INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT The Court made the following: ORDER THE IIONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM ANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING NANDTKONDAWRIT PETITION No.3491 OF 20ZS QBDEB' [(per ][Hon'ble ][Sri ][Justice ][P.Sam ][Koshy)] Heard Mr.K.Chakradhar Reddy learned [counsel ][for ][the]petitioner and Ms. B.Sapna Reddy, learned Junior [Standing]Counsel for the Income Tax Department [for ][respondents. ][Perused]the record. 2This is a writ petition [where the ][proceedings ][are ][either]challenged to the notices [which ][were ][issued ][under Section ][148A]and 148 of the Income [Tax ]Act, [196l (for ][short 'the ][Act') ][or ][the]assessment orders those [have ][been passed ][under Section ][147 ][of]the Act which have been [assailed.] Jr. SC FOR INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT The Court made the following: ORDER THE IIONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM ANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING NANDTKONDAWRIT PETITION No.3491 OF 20ZS QBDEB' [(per ][Hon'ble ][Sri ][Justice ][P.Sam ][Koshy)] Heard Mr.K.Chakradhar Reddy learned [counsel ][for ][the]petitioner and Ms. B.Sapna Reddy, learned Junior [Standing]Counsel for the Income Tax Department [for ][respondents. ][Perused]the record. 2This is a writ petition [where the ][proceedings ][are ][either]challenged to the notices [which ][were ][issued ][under Section ][148A]and 148 of the Income [Tax ]Act, [196l (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 ][of ][the]grounds, that the notices issued under [Section 148A ][of ][the Act]and the subsequent [initiation ][ofproceedings ][under ][Section ][148 ][of]the Act by the [jurisdictional ][Assessing ][Officer, ][whereas ][in ][terms]of the amendment that [was ][brought to the Income Tax ][Act ][by ][way]of Finance Act,202l [w.e.f., ][01'04.2021 onwards, ][proceedings] under Section [148,{ ][of ][the ][Act ][as ][also ][under Section ][148 ][of ][the]Act ought to [have ][also been ][issued ][and ][proceeded ][in ][a ][faceless]manner4. The contention [of ][the ][petitioner ][is ][that ][the ][issue ][of]proceedings [being ][in ][violation ][ot'the ][Finance ][Act' ][2021 ][i'e'' ][the]impugned [notices ][under Section 148A ][and ][Section ][148 ][ofthe ][Act]not being [issued ][in ][a ][faceless ][manner, ][have already been dealt ][with]and decided [by ][this ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ] RAVINDRA [REDDY vs. ] [decided]on 14.09.2023 [whereby ][a ][batch ][of writ ][petitions ][were ][allowed ][and]the proceedings [initiated ][under Section 148A ][as also ][under Section]l48oftheActwereheldtobetaa*itnconsequentialreliefsontheground ofit being [in violation ][ofthe ][provisions ][ofsection ][15lA ][of]the Act [read ][with ][Notiflcation ][l8l2}22 ][dated2g'03'2022' ][The ][said]judgment passed by this Court [h" ][ulto ][been ][subsequently ][followed]in a large [number ][of ][writ ][petitions which ][were ][allowed on similar]terms 'l(2023) [156 ][taxmann ][com ][178 ][(Telaegana)l] 5. Down the line, we find that the same issue has also beenfind that the same issue has also beenthat the same issue has also beensame issue has also beenhas also beenbeendecided against the Revenue byvanous High Courts i.e.,by the Bombay High Courl in the case of HEXAWARETECHNOLOGIES LTD., vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX & OTHERS2, Gauhati High Court in rhe caseof RAM NARAYAN SAH vs. UNION OF INDIA3, punjab andHaryana High Court in the case of JATINDER SINGH 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 international taxation, Bombay High Court in the case ofABHIN ANILKUMAR SHAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,INTERNATIONAL TAXATION6 which is again on intemationaltaxation and central circle, High Court of Himachal pradesh in thecase of GOVIND SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERT,Gujarat High Court in the case of MANSUKHBHAI Down the line, we find that the same issue has also beenfind that the same issue has also beenthat the same issue has also beensame issue has also beenhas also beenbeen 'Tzoz+1464 [rrR ][430 ][(Bom)]'l(2024) [156 ][taxmann.com ]478 (Gauhati)l'l(2024) [165 ]taxmann.com 115 (Punjab & Haryana)l ' [2024) [1 ][67 ]taxmann.com 4l 1 (Telangana)] " 12024) [166 ]taxmarur.com 679 (Bombay)l '12024) [165 ]taxmann.com 113 @irqachal Pradesh)l Down the line, we find that the same issue has also beenfind that the same issue has also beenthat the same issue has also beensame issue has also beenhas also beenbeen 'Tzoz+1464 [rrR ][430 ][(Bom)]'l(2024) [156 ][taxmann.com ]478 (Gauhati)l'l(2024) [165 ]taxmann.com 115 (Punjab & Haryana)l ' [2024) [1 ][67 ]taxmann.com 4l 1 (Telangana)] " 12024) [166 ]taxmarur.com 679 (Bombay)l '12024) [165 ]taxmann.com 113 @irqachal Pradesh)l DAHYABHAI RADADIYA vs. INCOME TAx OFFICER,WARD 3(3Xr8, Jharkand High Court in rhe case of SHyAMSUNDAR SAW vs. UNION OF INDIAe, Rajasthan High Courr inthe case of SHARDA DEVI CHHAJER vs. INCOME TAXOFFICER & ANOTTIER 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 DALMIA vs. UNION OF rNDIA & 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 arelstill confronted with large filing ofidentical matters on daily basis ranging between 5 to 10 writpetitions. That upon the instructions being sought from theDepartment, they have been taking [-a ]solitary ground that thedecision of the Bombay High court in the case of HexawareTechnologies Ltd., (Z supra) as also the one which has beendecided by this Court in the case of Kanakalo Ravindra Reddy82024 SCC onLine Gui 4012'^2025 SCC Online Jhar2gT,, y2023 : RI-JD :4984_DBl (1 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.In addition, there are about 1200 SLps also filed arising out oftheCourt 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 interimorder granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in any of thesematters pending before it. Meanwhite, fiesh writ petitions ofidentical nature are being piled up betbre this Bench on daily basisand the pendency is getting increased on matter which otherwisehas already been dealt and decided by this very High Court itself. 8. On the one hand, even though the order of this Court thatwas passed as early as on 14.09.202j and more 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 ofnotice under Section l4gA and underSection 148 of the Act by the jurisdictional Assessing Ofhcer,rather the authorities concerned in the teeth of series of decisions 8. On the one hand, even though the order of this Court thatwas passed as early as on 14.09.202j and more 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 ofnotice under Section l4gA and underSection 148 of the Act by the jurisdictional Assessing Ofhcer,rather the authorities concerned in the teeth of series of decisions by all the major High [Courts ][in ][India ][are ][continuously still]initiating proceedings [under ]Section [148,4' ][of ][the ][Act ][and ][also]initiating proceedings [under ][Section ][148 ][of ][the ][Act ][in]contravention to [the ][amendments ][brought into the ][Income ][Tax Act]pursuant to the Finance [Lct,2020 ][as ][also ][the Finance ][Act202l']g. Upon a query being [put ][as ][to ][why ][can't ][this ][writ ][petition ][be]disposed of in the [teeth ][of ][the decision ][rendered ][by ][this Court ][in]the case of Kanakala [Ravindra ][Reddy ][(l ][supra), learned ][Standing]Counsel for the lncome [Tax ][Deparlment ][contends that those ][wouid]burden [the ][Income ][Tax ][Department ][where ][they]unnecessarily would be required to file [eQual ][number ][of ][SLPs before ][the]Hon'ble Supreme Court and it [would ][be ][further ][burdening ][the]exchequer of the Union of India. [It ][was ][also ][the contention ][of ][the]learned Standing Counsel that [no ][prejudice would ][be caused ][to ][the]interest of the [petitioners ][in ][case ][if ][tnis ][writ ][petition ][is ][kept pending]till the finalization of the [SLPs ][pending ][before ][the ][Hon'ble]Court [and ][the fact ][that the ][petitioner ][is ][already ][enjoying]Supreme the benef,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] S appropnate steps in ensuring that proceedings under Section 148Aof the Act as also the assessment orders under Section 148 of theAct are kept in a hold in the light of the 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 poncerned are still even now in2025 also initiating proceedings in contravention to the provisionsof Section I 5 I A of the Act and as a result by now, more than 600to 700 petitions have been already got piled up before this HighCourt on an issue which otherwise stands squarely covered by thejudgment of this Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy(1 supra). What is also surprising is the fact that though whileallowing the writ petitions in the case of Kanakula RuvindraReddy (l supra), the Division Bench while reserving the right ofthe Revenue, has also protccted the interest of the petitioners insofar as the liberty which rvas 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 Act, 2020 andthe Finance Act,202l. The petitioner assessee would be entitled tochallenge or raise the other legal objections if the Revenue initiatesfiesh 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 Courls already held to bebad.challenge or raise the other legal objections if the Revenue initiatesfiesh 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 Courls already held to bebad. 11. It appears that because dfthe aforesaid liberty that this HighCourt 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 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 --[\ ] .\ j Department would get the advantage of the liberty that is otherwiseprotected in favour of the Revenue for initiation of freshproceedings 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 far as interestof the assesses are concemed. As a consequence, the Income TaxDepartment gets an extended period of time for initiation of freshproceedings. 12. The alarming trend of docket explosion in this Court, despitethe clear precedent set in Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra), is amatter of grave concem. The Incope Tax Department's persistentinitiation of fresh proceedings, disregarding the established [judicial]pronouncements, has led to an unprecedented surge in litigationwith over 600-700 petitions piling up on the same issue. Thisdeliberate approach not only undermines [the ][principle ]ofjudicialprecedent but also strains the [judicial ]resources unnecessarily. TheDepartment'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 circumventlimitation periods, rather than [adhering ]to the established legal ( position. Such conduct raises senousquestions about theadministrative efficiency and the respect for [judicial]pronouncements, particularly when this Court has already provideda balanced approach by [preserving ]both the Revenue's [rights ][and]assesses lnterests.pronouncements, particularly when this Court has already provideda balanced approach by [preserving ]both the Revenue's [rights ][and]assesses lnterests. ( position. Such conduct raises senousquestions about theadministrative efficiency and the respect for [judicial]pronouncements, particularly when this Court has already provideda balanced approach by [preserving ]both the Revenue's [rights ][and]assesses lnterests.pronouncements, particularly when this Court has already provideda balanced approach by [preserving ]both the Revenue's [rights ][and]assesses lnterests. 13. Another aspect which needs to be considered is that in fact itshould have been realized by the Income Tax Department itself andshould have found out via media in ensuring that [proceedings]under Sections 148-4 and 148 should not have been issued in afaceless manner, at least till the Hon'ble Supreme Court decide thetwelve hundred (1200) odd SLPs which it is already seized of or, atleast the Income Tax Department should have found out someremedial steps to ensure that wherever the authorities intend toinitiate proceedings under Sections 148-A and 148, other than in afaceless manner, the proceedings should have been deferredwithout precipitating the matter further intimating 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 of India, and whichotherwise has to be by way of a policy decision and that too at thelevel of Central Board of Direct Taxes. Though the leamedStanding 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 further worse, the Income Tax Department is showingaudacity by issuing notices continuously under 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 ] [vs' ] COMMISSIONER, [TAX1r, ][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'' ][:] 148 through [the ][jurisdictional ][Assessing ][Officer ][whereas ][it ][ought]to have been only [in ][the ][faceless ][manner] 14. In the [case ][of ] [vs' ] COMMISSIONER, [TAX1r, ][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 ][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 categoricatly [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 ][oi ][the Supreme Court ][in]Union of lndia vs. [Kamlakshi Finance ][Gorporation ][Ltd'14' ][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]observations [made by ][the ][Supreme Court'] " 11zoz51 [170 ][taxmann.com 422 ][(Bornbay)l] '' 1t9281 [113 ] [589 ][(Bombay)] " 72Oz+1165 [taxmann.com ][581/300'Iaxman ][452 ][(Bombay)] to 1t9921 taxmann.com 16/55 ELT 433 (SC) "6. Sri Reddy is perhaps right in saying that theofficers were not actuated by any mala fides inpassing the impugned orders. They perhapsgenuinely felt that the claim of the assessee was nottenable and that, if it was accepted, the Revenuewould suffer. But what Sri Reddy overlooks is that weare not concerned here with the correctness orothenrvise of their conclusion or of any factualmalafides but with the fact that the officers, in reachingin 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, rightlycriticized this conduct of the Assistant Collectors andthe harassment to the assessee caused by the failureof these ofl'icers to give effect to the orders ofauthorities higher to them in the appellate hierarchy. ltcannot be too vehemently emphasized that it is ofulmost importance that, in disposing 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 andthe order of the Tribunal is binding upon the AssistantCollectors and the Appellate Collectors who functionunder the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The principles ofjudicial discipline require that the orders of the higherappellate authorities should be followed unreservedlyby the suborriinate authorities. The mere fact that theorder of the appellate authority is not ["acceptable" ]tothe department - in itself an objectionable phrase -and is the subject matter of [an ]appeal can furnish noground for not following it unless its operation hasbeen suspended by a competent court. lf this healthy rule is [not ][followed, ][the ][result ][will ][only ][be ][undue]harassment [to ][assesses ][and ][chaos ][in ][administration]of tax [laws.] rule is [not ][followed, ][the ][result ][will ][only ][be ][undue]harassment [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 ][learned]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 ][matters ][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]department should take these observations in theproper spirit. The observations of the High Courtshould be kept in mind in future arid the utmost regardshould be paid by the ad.judicating 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 an endeavour is being made whole heartedly to ensure not to generatefurther litigation on issues which have been laid to rest by alargefurther litigation on issues which have been laid to rest by alargenumber of High Courts all of whom have taken a consistent standthat the action of the Income Tax Department being violative of the I ( t' I Finance Act,2020 and Finance Act,202l . Now, in order to protectthe interest of the Revenue as also that of the assessee, it would betrite at this [juncfure, ]if we dispose of the writ petition with anobservation/direction that the disposal of the instant writ petition interms of the [judgment ]rendered by this High Court in the case ofKankanala Ravindrs 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 theconsidered 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 the various otherHigh Courts on the very same issue, the pendency of this HighCourt would further be burdened which otherwise can be decidedand disposed ofas a covered matter. 17. So far as the interest of the [Revenue ]is concerned, we are ofthe considered opinion that the interest [of ][the ]Revenue has alreadybeen 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 148 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 jurisdiclional 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 petilioner 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 jurisdiclional 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 petilioner 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, permitted the Revenue to proceedunder the substituted provisions, and this Court allowingthe petitions only on the procedural flaw, the right ,/^\ confered on the Revenue would remain reserved toproceed further if they so want from the stage of theorder of the Supreme Court in the case of AshishAgarurral, supra. 18. We would only fufther 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 Ravindru 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 Kanakals Ravindra Reddy (l supra).This, in other words, would mean that 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]1Sconcemed. As a consequence, the impugned notice underchallenge under Sections 148-4 and 148 stands set aside/quashed. II I a,:i\ The consequential orders, if any, also stand set aside/quashed insimilar terms as have been passed by this High Court in the case of Kankanala Ravindra Reddy (l supra). There shall be no order asto costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/. L. VIJAYA LAXMIASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTIOFFICER To1. 2. The Additional The lncome Tax Officer,.lncome Commissioner of tax lncome office, tax, Range-3, Ward No.10(i i.t ), To'wers, Hyderabad.t O_2_3, ACGuards, Hyderabad-500004.3. The Principal Chief Commissi_oner of lncome Tax, Ap and TS, [.lOth ]Floor, C_Block, IT Towers, 10-2-3, AC Guards, Hvderabad-500004.4. One CC to SRl. K CHAKRADHAR REDby ACvocate tOpUCl5. One CC to Ms. B. SAPNA REDDY, Jr. SC ['FOR ]['|NCOIVE ]TAXDEPARTIMENT 6. Two CD CopiesBIMSJP a-) HIGH COURT DATED:2810412025 (t..oC)2 5 [206]* ORDER WP.No.3491 of 2025 ALLOWING THE WRIT'PETITION WITHOUT COSTS t t