L For The v. Income-Tax Officert Decided On 14.09.2023 Whereby A Batch Of Writ Petitions Were Allowed And The Proceedings Initiated Under Section 148,4. As Also Under Sectio

[34471 HIGH COURT FOR THE STE OF TELANGANAAT HYDEAD(Special Originalurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SECOD DAY OF MAYTWO THOUSAND ANTWENTY FIVE PRESET THE HONOURABLE SRI JSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICEARSING RAO NANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION NO: 29378 0F 2024 Between: Ramanjulamma Mangali, S/o, Pakirapa Aged about 66 years, Occ Business,Rl/o. B 45, Dharmapuram, KannekalO, Dharmapuram, Nalgonda, 508374,Telangana, lndia. ...PETITIONERAND 1. Union of lndia, Ivlinistry qf Finance Repby its Secretary, 166-8 North Block,New Delhi - 110 001 .New Delhi - 110 001 . 001 .2. lncome Tax Officer, Ward 9(1), Hyderaad lT Towers, [Vlasab Tank,Hyderabad, Telangana - 500004lncome Tax Officer, Ward 9(1), Hyderaad lT Towers, [Vlasab Tank,Hyderabad, Telangana - 5000043. The Principal Commissioner of lncomef ax - 4, Hyderabad IT Towers, lt/asabTank, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500004Tank, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500004 4. The National Faceless Assessment Cetre lncome Tax Department, Ministryof Finance Govt. of India, New Delhi....RESPONDENTSof Finance Govt. of India, New Delhi....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Costitution of lndia praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filedtherewith, the High Court may bepleased to i. lssue.a Writ, Order or Directiomore particularly, one, in the natureof Writ of [Vlandamus, declaring the orderpassed by the Respondent No.2 inpassing the Order dated 05.04.2022 uls.148A(d) and Notice issued by theRespondent No.2 under Section 148 othe lncome Tax Act, ['l ]961 dated05.04.2022 Ss,illegal, arbitrary, bad in law, vid ab initio, violative of the principlesof natural justice and being violative of Articls 14, 19 and 265 of the Constitutionof lndia and consequently, ii. Set aside therder dated 05.04.2022 u/s. 14BA(d)and Notice issued by the Respondent No.2nder Section ['l ]48 of the lncome TaxAct, 1961 dated 05.04.2022 calling for the reurn of income of the Petitioner for AY2015-16 and any consequent proceedingslacking in jurisdiction. iii. Set asideand quash the assessment order dated 04. 3.2024 against the Petitioner for the A.Y. ['101 ]5-1 6 on [grounds ][of ][lack ][of ][jurisdiction of the Assessing ][Offtcer ][to ][proceed]and pass order after concluding [that ][the ][lncome ][escaping ][Assessment ][is less than]Rs. 50 lakhs in view of the [limitation imposed under ][Section ][149(1)(b) ][of ][the]lncome Tax Act. ['1961.] lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC [praying ][that ][in ][the ][circumstances stated ][in]the affidavit filed in support of the [petition, ][the ][High Court ][may ][be ][pleased ][to ][stay]the recovery of demand [pursuant ]to [the Assessment Order passed ][by ][the ][lncome]Tax Department under Section 147 [r/r,lrt ]Section [144 and ][Section ][1448 ][of ][the]lncome Tax Act, 1961 dated 04.03.2024 for Assessment [Year 2015-16 and ][direct]the Department to not take any coercive [steps ][for ][recovery ][of ][demand.] Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P.8OMA SHEKAR Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI B.MUKHERJEE, GOVT.Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 TO , 4: SRI K.SUDHAKAR [REDDY, SENIOR]SC FOR ITD The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRIJSTTCE P.SAM KOSHYANTHE HONOT]RABLE SRI J STICE NARSING RAONANDINDA WRIT PETITTON N .29378 0F 2024 ORDER: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.SaKoshy) Heard Mr. P. Soma Shekareddy, leamed counsel for thepetitioner, Mr. B. Mukherjee, Ied counsel representing theUnion of India for respondent No.and Mr. K. Sudhakar Reddy,leamed Senior Standing Counselr the lncome Tax Departmentfor respondent Nos.2 to 4. [''Perused]e record.Union of India for respondent No.and Mr. K. Sudhakar Reddy,leamed Senior Standing Counselr the lncome Tax Departmentfor respondent Nos.2 to 4. [''Perused]e record. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRIJSTTCE P.SAM KOSHYANTHE HONOT]RABLE SRI J STICE NARSING RAONANDINDA WRIT PETITTON N .29378 0F 2024 ORDER: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.SaKoshy) Heard Mr. P. Soma Shekareddy, leamed counsel for thepetitioner, Mr. B. Mukherjee, Ied counsel representing theUnion of India for respondent No.and Mr. K. Sudhakar Reddy,leamed Senior Standing Counselr the lncome Tax Departmentfor respondent Nos.2 to 4. [''Perused]e record.Union of India for respondent No.and Mr. K. Sudhakar Reddy,leamed Senior Standing Counselr the lncome Tax Departmentfor respondent Nos.2 to 4. [''Perused]e record. 2. This is a writ petition wherthe proceedings are eitherchallenged to the notices which weissued under Section l48Aand 148 of the Income Tax Act, 19 I (for short 'the Act') or theassessment orders those have beenassed under Section 147 ofthe Act which have been assailed 3. This writ petition is being takeup today only on one of thegrounds, that the notices issued un er Section 148,4' of the Actand the subsequent initiation ofproc edings under Section 148 ofthe Act by the [jurisdictional ]AssessiOfficer, whereas in termsof the amendment that was brought tthe lncome Tax Act by way of Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f., 01.04.2021 onwards, proceedingsunder Section 148,4. ofthe Act as also under Section 148 oftheAct ought to have also been issued and proceeded in a facelessmanner4. The contention contention of the petitionef is that the issue ofthe petitionef is that the issue ofpetitionef is that the issue ofis that the issue ofthat the issue ofissue ofofproceedings being in violation gf 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 148,4. 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 1 5 1A ofthe Act read with Notification 1812022 dated29.O3.2022. The saidjudgment passed by this Court has also been subsequently followedin a large number of writ petitions which were allowed on similarterms. The contention contention of the petitionef is that the issue ofthe petitionef is that the issue ofpetitionef is that the issue ofis that the issue ofthat the issue ofissue ofof ' l(2023) [56 ]taxmann.com 178 (Telangana)l 5Down the line, we findthe same issue has also beendecided against the Revenuey vanous High Courts i.e.,by the Bombay High Court ithe case of HEXAWARETECHNOLOGIES LTD., vs. A SISTANT COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX & OTIIERS2decided against the Revenuey vanous High Courts i.e.,by the Bombay High Court ithe case of HEXAWARETECHNOLOGIES LTD., vs. A SISTANT COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX & OTIIERS2Gauhati High Court in the caseof RAM NARAYAN SAII vs. U ION OF INDTA3, Punjab andof RAM NARAYAN SAII vs. U ION OF INDTA3, Punjab andHaryana High Court in the case of ATINDER SINGH BANGUvs. UNION OF INDIA4, and ielaana High Court in the case ofSRI VENKATARAMANA vs. UNION OF INDIA4, and ielaana High Court in the case ofSRI VENKATARAMANA REDDPATLOOLA vs. DEpU.fyCOMMISSIONER OF I]YCOMEAXs where the issue was invs. DEpU.fyCOMMISSIONER OF I]YCOMEAXs where the issue was inrespect of international taxation, Bobay High Courl in the case ofABHTN ANILKUMAR SHAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,INTERNATIONAL TAXATION6hich is again on intemationaltaxation and central circle, High Couof Himachal pradesh in thecase of GOVIND SINGII vs.OME TAX OFFICERT,Gujarat High Court in rheca eof MANSUKHBHATABHTN ANILKUMAR SHAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,INTERNATIONAL TAXATION6hich is again on intemationaltaxation and central circle, High Couof Himachal pradesh in thecase of GOVIND SINGII vs.OME TAX OFFICERT,Gujarat High Court in rheca eof MANSUKHBHAT 23 It[(]20202244l)464[I]56 taxmann. ITR 430 ( coBom)m 4 87 G(auhatl)lt(2024)I65 taxmanncomII5 (PunJ ab & Haryana)lt2024)I67 taxmannom4 II(reanganaltt22020 424))II6665 tax taxmannmann ccomom6I7139 (B(H macombahv)aldesh)l., DAIryABHAI [RADADIY'{ ][vs' ][{NCOI\IE ] [OFFICIIR']WARD 3(3X5)8, [Jharkand ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ] SUNDARSAWvs.UNIoNoFINDIAg,RajasthanHighCourtinthe case of [vs' INCOME ] OFFICER & [and ][batch ][of ][writ ][petitionsr0 ][which]stood decided [on ][19.03'2024' ][Similar views ][have ][also ][been ][taken]the [Division ][Bench ][of ][Calcutta ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]by GIRDHAR [vs' ] [& ] (M.A.T 1690 [of ][2023), ][decidBd ][on'25'09'2024']6. Even though [the ][same issue ][having ][been decided ][by ][a large]nurnber of [High ][Courts, ][we are ][still ][confronted ][with ][large ][filing ][of]identical [matters ][on ][daily ][basis ranging ][between ][5 ][to ][10 ][writ]That [upon ][the ][instructions ][being ][sought ][from ][the]petitions. Department, [they ][have ][been ][taking ][a ][solitary ][ground ][that ][the]decision of [the ][Bombay ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ][Hexaware]Technologies [Ltd., ][(2 ][supra) ][as ][also ][the ][one ][which ][has ][been]decided by [this ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ][Kanakala Ravindra ][Reddy]8202+ SCC online Guj 4012a'2025 [OnLine ][lhar287]' o 7zoz3 : R J-JD : 49 84-DBl (l supra) has,been subjectgd tohas,been subjectgd tosubjectgd to (l supra) has,been subjectgd tohas,been subjectgd tosubjectgd toallurge in a Special LeavePetition i.e., SLp No.3574 of 2024before the Hon'ble SupremeCourt and the Hon'ble Supreme Curt is seized of the matter.In addition, there are about 1200 SLs also filed arising out of thesame issue being decided by variousigh.Courts 7. To a query being a query being query being put to the Ito the Ithe I To a query being a query being query being put to the Ito the Ithe Ied counsel for the Revenue,they have categorically accepted thefact that there is no interimorder granted by the Hon,ble Supe Court in any of thesematters pending before it. Meanwe, fresh writ petitions ofidentical nature are being piled upre this Bench on daily basisand the pendency is getting increason matter which otherwisehas already been dealt and decided bys very High Court itself. 8. On the one hand, even thoughe order of this Courr thatwas passed as early as on 14.09.202and more 16 months havelapsed, till date, we do not find anymedial steps having beentaken by the Income Tax Departmenttake appropriate steps toeither hold back issuance of notice uer Section l48A and underSection 148 of the Act by the jurisctional Assessing Officer,rather the authorities concemed in theth of series of decisions* 8. On the one hand, even thoughe order of this Courr thatwas passed as early as on 14.09.202and more 16 months havelapsed, till date, we do not find anymedial steps having beentaken by the Income Tax Departmenttake appropriate steps toeither hold back issuance of notice uer Section l48A and underSection 148 of the Act by the jurisctional Assessing Officer,rather the authorities concemed in theth of series of decisions* by all the major High Courts1n India are continuously stillinitiating 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 Act,2020 as also.the Finance Act202l9. 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 [in]the case of Kanakula Ravindra Reddy (l supra), [learned ]StandingCounsel for the Income 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 of India. It was also the contention of theleamed Standing Counsel that no prejudiee would be caused to theinterest of the petitioners in case if this 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 benefrt 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 pceedings under Section 148Aof the Act as also the assessment oers under Section 148 oftheAct are kept in a hold in the light othe decisions dedcided by thevarious High Courts, it was submiby the leamed StandingCounsel that the said steps can onlye taken at the level of CBDTas any such steps would have to ben Pan India and cannot belimited to any of these jurisdictionaligh Courts 10. As a result of which. what welacing is steep increase oflitigation day in and day out even thgh various orders have beenpassed by this High Court allowingt petitions on the very sameissue. The lncome Tax authorities cocemed are still even now in2025 also initiating proceedings in cntravention to the provisionsof Section l51A of the Act and as ault by now, more than 600to 700 petitions have been already gt piled up before this HighCourt on an issue which otherwise sds squarely covered by thejudgment of this Court in the case oKanakala Ravindra Reddy(1 supra). What is also surprising ithe fact that though whileallowing the writ petitions in theof Kanakala RavindraReddy (l supra), the Division Benchwhile reserving the right ofthe Revenue, has also protected thinterestdll6 petitioners insotar as ihe h-bcrt,v ivhich v;as granted to the R-evenue iorinitiating fresh proceedings strictly in accordance with the amendedprovisions of the Act, as amended by the Finance Act,2020 andthe Finance Acq 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 u, rnuiiy other High Courts already held to bebad. 11. It appears that because ofthe aforesaid liberty that this High insotar as ihe h-bcrt,v ivhich v;as granted to the R-evenue iorinitiating fresh proceedings strictly in accordance with the amendedprovisions of the Act, as amended by the Finance Act,2020 andthe Finance Acq 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 u, rnuiiy other High Courts already held to bebad. 11. It appears that because ofthe aforesaid liberty that this High Court had granted permitting the Revenue for initiating freshproceedings as a one-time measure in a faceless manner, theIncome Tax Department wants to take ddvantage 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 HighCouits in which the SLPs are still pending, the Income Tax e liberty that is otherwiseDepartment [would ][get ][the ][advantage ][of]in favour of the [Revenu]for initiation of [fresh]protected proceedings from the [disposal ][ofthese]atters at a much later [stage]which would be advantageous [and ben]ficial to the Revenue [and]would be equally disadvantageous [and]trirhental so far as [interest]the [lncome Tax]of the assesses [are ][concemed. ][Asa ][co]sequence, time for initiation [of ][fresh]Department [gets an extended ][period ][of]proceedings. 12. The alarming [trend ][of ][docket ][exp]osion in this Court, [desPite]the clear [precedent ][set ][in ][Kanakala Ra]indra Reddy [(1 ][suPra), ][is ][a]matter of grave concern. [The ][Income]ax Department's Persistentinitiation of fresh [proceedings, disregar]ng the established [judicial]pronouncements, has [led ][to ][an ][unp]ented surge in [litigation]with over 600-700 [petitions ][piling ][u]on the same [issue. ][This]deliberate approach [not only ][undermi]s the principle ofjudicialprecedent but also strains [the ][judicial]sources unnecessarilY. [The]Departmentns strategy [of ][awaiting ][the]preme Court's decision [on]pending SLPs while [continuing ][to]initiate fresh [proceedings]to be a [calculated ][move ][to]buand circumventappears limitation periods, rather [than ][adhe]:"#'established legal s position. Such conduct raises serious questions about theadministrative efficiency and the respect for [judicial]pronouncements, particularly when this Court has already provideda balanced approach by preserwing both the Revenue's rights andassesses interests. 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 proceedingsunder 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 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 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 ttru, r$a decision if at all !I .,.// -/ LI !I .,.// -/ LI has to be tziken, has to be taken fore whole of India, and whichotherwise has to be by way of a polidecision and that too at thelevel of Central Board of Directaxes.Though the learnedStanding Counsel for the Income TDepartment contended thatthe Delhi High Court dismissed a wripetition of similar nature, onthe one hand when the High Cois struggling to reduce itspendency, such notices which areder challenge in this writpetition are forcing the assessee toock the doors of this HighCourt resulting in hling of trrindredsf new writ petitions which inthe long run not only affects the dispsal of the writ petitions butalso consumes substantial time ofhe Bench in hearing thesematters again and again on daily basiAdmittedly, in spite of thematter before the Hon'ble Supremeourt having been taken onmany occasions, the Hon'ble SupremeCourt which is seized of thematter has been reluctant in grantingy interim protection to thelncome Tax Department. Yet, thethorities concemed at theState level are not ready to accept theerdict passed by a majorityof High Courts of different States one same issue; and to makethings further worse, the Income Tx Department is' showingaudacity by issuing notices continuousVun@ctions [148-A ][and] 148 through the .iurisciictit-,nai A:sessing Officer wheieas it oughtto have been only in the faceless manner. 14. In the case of BANK OF INDIA vs. ASSISTANTCOMMISSIONER, INCOMB TAXIT, on an issue whether it wasjustifiable on the part of the Income Tax Department in notfollowing an order passed by tlfe 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. ITO13of which one of us (Justice G.S- Kulkarni) was a member, whereinthe Court categorically observed that the Revenue having not"accepted" the judgment of the High Court would not mean that tillthe same is set aside in a manner known to law, it would loose itsbinding force. Referring to the decision of the Supreme Court inUnion of India vs. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd.14, theCourt observed that the approach of the officials of Revenue oftreating decisions being ["not ]acceptable" was criticized by theSupreme Court. ln such decision, following are the relevantobservations made by the Supreme Court. tt tt 11ZOZS1 [170 ][taxmann.com 422 ][(Bombay)l]" 1t9281 [il3 ][trR ][589 ][(Bombay)]'3 120241165 [taxmann.com ][581/300 ][Taxman ][452 ][(Bombay)] 'o ltggZl [taxmann.com ][16/55 ] [433 (SC)] tt tt 11ZOZS1 [170 ][taxmann.com 422 ][(Bombay)l]" 1t9281 [il3 ][trR ][589 ][(Bombay)]'3 120241165 [taxmann.com ][581/300 ][Taxman ][452 ][(Bombay)] 'o ltggZl [taxmann.com ][16/55 ] [433 (SC)] "6. Sri Reddy is PerhaPs [right]in saying that [the]officers were not actuated [bY]any mala [fides ][in]passing the imPugned [orde]They PerhaPsgenuinely fett that the claim [of ][t]assessee was [not]tenable and that, if [it ][was ][acc]pted, the Revenuewould suffer. [But what Sri ][Redd]overlooks is [that ][we]are not concerned [here ][with]the correctness [or]otherwise of their [conclusion]or of any [factual]malafides but [with the fact that ][th]officers, in [reaching]in their conclusion, [bY-Pass.ed]appellate orders [in]regard to the same [issue ][which]were placed beforethem, one of the [Collector ][(APP]ls) and the other ofthe Tribunal. [The High ][Court ][ha], [in our view, ][rightlY]criticized this conduct [of ][the ][As]stant Collectors [and]the harassment [to ][the ][assessee]used by the [failure]of these officers to [give ][effe]t to the orders [of]authorities [higher ][to ][them ][in ][the]ppellate hierarchY. ltcannot be too [vehemently ][emp]sized that it is ofutmost imPortance [that, ][in]disposing of [the]quasijudicial issues before [them,]revenue officers [are]bound by the decisions [of ][the]ppellate authoritiesThe order of the [APPellte Colle]or is binding on [the]Assistant Collectors [working with]n his [jurisdiction ][and]the order of the [Tribunal is bindi]g upon the AssistantColleictors and the [APPellate ][C]lectors who [function]under the [jurisdiction ][of ][the ][Tribu]at. The [principles ][of]judicial discipline require that [th]orders of the [higher]appellate authorities [should ][be]llowed unreservedlYby the subordinate [authorities.]he mere fact [that the]order of the appellate [authority]s not ["acceptable' to]-the department - [in ][itself ][an ][o]ectionable [phrase ]and is the subject [matter of ][an]ppeal can furnish [no]ground for not following [it ][unl]s its operation [has]court. lf this [healthy]been suspended [bY ][a ][comPeten] ' rule is not followed, the result will only be undueharassment to assesses and chaos in administrationof tax laws. 12. \Ne 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 widesprefd, 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 cbservaticns of the High Courtshould be kept in mind in future and the utmost regardshould be paid by the adjudicating authorities and theaopellate authorities to the iequirements cf judicialdiscipline and the need foi giving effect to the ordersof the higher appellate autho;'ities which are bindingon them." 15. What is worrying this Bench more is the fact that anendeavour 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 -4/ ,//? 15 Finance Act,202Q and Finance Act,021 . Now, in order. to [protect]the interest of the Revenue as alsot of the assessee, it would betrite at this [juncture, ]if we disposof the writ petition with anobservation/direction that the disposof the instant writ petition interms of the [judgment ]rendered byhis High Court in the case ofKankanala Ravindra Reddy (l snp) [shall however ][be ][subject ][to]the outcome of the SLPs whichere filed by the Income TaxDepartment and which is pendingnsideration before the Hon'bleSupreme Court. -4/ ,//? 15 Finance Act,202Q and Finance Act,021 . Now, in order. to [protect]the interest of the Revenue as alsot of the assessee, it would betrite at this [juncture, ]if we disposof the writ petition with anobservation/direction that the disposof the instant writ petition interms of the [judgment ]rendered byhis High Court in the case ofKankanala Ravindra Reddy (l snp) [shall however ][be ][subject ][to]the outcome of the SLPs whichere filed by the Income TaxDepartment and which is pendingnsideration before the Hon'bleSupreme Court. 16. In the given facts and citances, this Bench is of theconsidered opinion that unless andntil we do not timely disposeof matters which are squarely covd by the decision of this Courtand which stands fortified by theecisions of the various otherHigh Courts on the very same isse, the pendency of this HighCourt would further be burdened wch otherwise can be decidedand disposed ofas a covered matter. 17. So far as the interest ofthe [R] enue is concemed, we are of the considered opinion that the intt of thehas alreadybeen considered and protected, [as]been obffi:paragraphs 36,3Tand38oftheorderwhich,forreadyreference,isreproducedhereunder: 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 ][set]aside/quashed. [As ][a ][coneequence, ][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 ][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 ][ploceed ][further ][and]decide the [other ][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 AgaMal, [supra, ][as ][a ][one-time ][measure]the [powers ][under ][Article ]['142 ][of ][the]exercising 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] conferred on the Revenue [wo]remarn reserved toproceed further if they so wantfrom the stage of theorder of the Supreme [Court]the case of AshishAgaruval, supra. 18. We would only further like toWe would only further like towould only further like tofurther like tolike toto 18. We would only further like toWe would only further like towould only further like tofurther like tolike totoe observations that sincewe are inclined to dispose of the int writ petition, conscious ofthe fact that the earlier [order ]of [this]High Court in the case ofKanakala Ravindra ReddY [(I ]{qrais subjected to challengebefore the Hon'ble [SuPreme Court]n SLP No.3574 of 2024,preferred by the Income [Tax ][DeP]ent, we make it clear thatallowing of the instant [writ ][petition ][i]subject to outcome of theaforesaid SLP [preferred by the Reven]against the decision of thisHigh Court in the case of [Kanakala]avindra Reddy (l stpra)This, in other words, [would ][mean ][that]either of the parties, if [they]so want, may move an [approPnate ]Peition seeking revival of [this]writ petition in the light of [the ][decisi]of the HSunremeT Court in the pending SLP [on ][the ][very ][s]e lssue. 19. Accordingly, the [instant ][writ]petition stands allowed [rn]favour of the assessee so [far ][as]e rssue of [jurisdiction]ISconcemed. As a consequence,e impugned notice [under]challenge under Sections 148-4 [and ][1][ 8 ][stands ][set ][aside/quashed.] II The consequential orders, if any, also stand set aside/quashed in similar terms as have been passed by this High Cou( in the case of Kanksnala Ravindra Reddy (l supra). There shall be no order as to costs Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed SD/. C. ISANT \ //TRUE \---j=-- ',,.6EcrtoN [oFFlcER] -B North [Block, ][New] To1.The Secretary, Secretary, [Union of ][lndia' ][Ministry of Finance ][1]1.The Secretary, Secretary, [Union of ][lndia' ][Ministry of Finance ][1] 1.The Secretary, Secretary, 2'":'*;li3^l3kcer, [ward ][e(1), ][Hvderabad ][lr ][rowers' ][Masab ][rank']iivJqJn'g T9191s311,^:9::?,0".","" r ax - 4,Hyderabad lr rowers, [Masab]2'":'*;li3^l3kcer, [ward ][e(1), ][Hvderabad ][lr ][rowers' ][Masab ][rank']iivJqJn'g T9191s311,^:9::?,0".","" r ax - 4,Hyderabad lr rowers, [Masab]316e Princioal [Commtsstone]I ncome [rax ][Department. ][Ministry]I ncome [rax ][Department. ][Ministry]4+i:-,ll*ijln:;[:'3lt.1:3#Lo3tn*" +i:-,ll*ijln:;[:'3lt.1:3#Lo3tn*" H#iff On" CC to :li',tii,x$^=unsff"qBi,.i8[t"r$3ft,T"affi'", [K.SUDHAK]Two CD CoPies :.-..On" CC to :li',tii,x$^=unsff"qBi,.i8[t"r$3ft,T"affi'", [K.SUDHAK]Two CD CoPies :.-.. 5 7 8 V il- :.-.."jo+*.qj, PSK.GJP .l HIGH DATED:0210512025 ORDERWP.No.29378 [of ][2024] tor[, ][TllE ][S;-][<r]e",i\I11 AUEnr6z\L)'.tr.. 1 [r;rrfl0] ALLOWING WITHOUT (p- 4D