'L(2023) [1 ][56 ][Taxmann.com ][178 ][(Telangana)L v. Assistant Commissionerof Income Tax & Others2, Gauhari High Court In The Caseof Ram Narayan Sah Vs. Union Of India3, Punjab Andharyana High Courl In The Case Of

\ HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD(Speciat Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF APRILTWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYAND THE HONOURABLE S"RI JUST{CE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION NO: 10714 0F 2025 Between: It//s. 1-122 sai Jyorhi. Ram Nagar, Krishna t\/inerals NYpc Ramaguniam and projects, Kahmnagar'soszts, A partnership firm having reiangina-,-rniiaits office at 5_Represented by_its Partner Mr. Manihikafla Venkata ["s*ary, ]s/o. Late. tv. Kistaiah,Aged about 65 Years, R/o. Hyderabad. ....PET|T|ONER AND 1. The National Faceless Assessment Centre, lncome{ax Department, NewDelhi, lndia.Delhi, lndia. 2. lncome Tax Officer, ITO Ward 1, Nirmal, Adilabad, Telangana. 3. The Assessment unit, t\Iinistry of Finance, Government of rndia, New Derhi. .....RESPONDENTS Petition Under Article 226 of the constitution of rndia praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may bepleased to rssue a writ, order or direction, more particularly in the nature of writ ofmandamus declaring order under section 14BA(d) dated 1.9-03-2 o24 bearing|rBA/AST/ 114BA 12023-24 t1o621}3g44(1), the notice dated .19-03-2024 uts. 148bearing DIN |rBA/ASTtsll4B-1 t2023-24t1o62886126(1) and the Reassessmentorder dated 17-o3-2o2s bearing DIN trBtuAST/sl14712o24-2st1074518763(1), asbeing void, illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, violate of Article 14 of theConstitution of lndia and consequenfly set aside the same. |.A.NO:1 OF 2025 Petition Under Section 15'l CPC praying that in the circumstances stated inthe affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may lle pleased to stayall further proceedings including collection of tax pursuant to ihe Reassessmentorder 17-03-2025 bearing DlN ITBA/A Sf ISI147I2O24-25I1O74578763 (1). Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI M.NAGA DEEPAK Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : Ms J.SUNITHA (JUNIOR SC FORtNcoME TAX) Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAlt, DEPUWSOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA The Court made the following ORDER TTIE HONOT]RABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSTTYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAONANDIKONDA W.P.No.10714 oB 202s ORDER: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice p.Sam Koshy) Heard Mr. M. Naga Deepak, leamed counsel for the petitioners and Ms. J.Sunitha, leamed Junior Standing Counsel forthe Income Tax Department for respondent No.2. perused therecord. 2. This is a writ petition where the proceedings are eitherchallenged to the notices which were issued under Section l4gAand 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short [.the ]Act') or theassessment orders those have been passed under Section 147 ofthe Act which have been assailed. 3. This writ petition is being taken up today only on one of thegrounds, that the notices issued under Section l4gA of the Actand the subsequent initiation ofproceedings under Section l4g ofthe Act by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, whereas in termsof the amendment that was brought to the Income Tax Act by wayof Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f., 01.04.2021 onwards, proceedings .t petitioners and Ms. J.Sunitha, leamed Junior Standing Counsel forthe Income Tax Department for respondent No.2. perused therecord. 2. This is a writ petition where the proceedings are eitherchallenged to the notices which were issued under Section l4gAand 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short [.the ]Act') or theassessment orders those have been passed under Section 147 ofthe Act which have been assailed. 3. This writ petition is being taken up today only on one of thegrounds, that the notices issued under Section l4gA of the Actand the subsequent initiation ofproceedings under Section l4g ofthe Act by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, whereas in termsof the amendment that was brought to the Income Tax Act by wayof Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f., 01.04.2021 onwards, proceedings .t under Section [148.4 ][ofthe ][Act ][as also ][under Section t18 ][ofthe]Act ought [to ][have ][also ][been issued ][and proceeded ][in ][zL ][faceless]manner.4. The contention of [the ][petitioner ][is ][that the ][issue of]proceedings being in [violation ][of ][the Financ" ][6s1, ][)[t"t'l ][i'e', ][the]notices [under Section 148A ][and ][Section ][148 ][ofthe ][Act]impugned not being issued [in ][a ][faceless ][manner, ][have ][already ][beer ][dealt ][with]and decided by [this ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ] RAVINDRA [vs. TNCOME-TAX OFFICE'II! ][decided]on14.09.2021 [whereby ][a ][batch ][of ][writ ][petitions were allowed ][and]the proceeclings [initiated ][under ][Section ][1484 ][as ][also ][un'ler ][Section]148 of the Act [were held to ][be ][bad ][with ][consequential ][reliefs ][on ][the]ground of it being in [violation of ][the ][provisions ][of ][Secti':n 151A ][of]the Act read [with ][Notification ][1812022 ][dated2g'03'202:ll ][The ][said]judgment passed by this Court [has ][also been ][subsequently ][followed]in a large number [of ][writ ][petitions ][which ][were ][allowec ][on ][similar]terms ) 5. Down the line, we find that the same issue has also line, we find that the same issue has also find that the same issue has also that the same issue has also same issue has also issue has also has also also beendecided against the Revenue by various High Courts i.e.,by the Bombay High Court in the case of HEXAWARETECTINOLOGIES LTD., vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX & OTHERS2, Gauhari High Court in the caseof RAM NARAYAN SAH vs. UNION OF INDIA3, punjab andHaryana High Courl 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 ofABI{IN ANILKUMAR SHAH vs. TNCoME 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 MANSUKIIBIIAI Down the line, we find that the same issue has also line, we find that the same issue has also find that the same issue has also that the same issue has also same issue has also issue has also has also also been '7zoz+1464 [430 ][(Bom)]'[Q024) 156 taxmann.com 478 (Gauhati)]' 1Q024) [165 ]taxmann.com 1 1 5 (punjab & Haryana)l' 12024) 167 taxmanir.com 41 I (Tetangana)l" 12024) 166 taxmam.com 679 (Bombay)l? [2024) 165 taxmann.com l 13 (Himachal pradesh)] Down the line, we find that the same issue has also line, we find that the same issue has also find that the same issue has also that the same issue has also same issue has also issue has also has also also been '7zoz+1464 [430 ][(Bom)]'[Q024) 156 taxmann.com 478 (Gauhati)]' 1Q024) [165 ]taxmann.com 1 1 5 (punjab & Haryana)l' 12024) 167 taxmanir.com 41 I (Tetangana)l" 12024) 166 taxmam.com 679 (Bombay)l? [2024) 165 taxmann.com l 13 (Himachal pradesh)] DAITYABIIAI [vs. ] [OFFICER']WARD 3(3X5)8, [Jharkand ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ] SUNDAR SAW [vs. ] [INDIAe, ][Rajasthan ][High ][Court in]the case ol- [vs' ] OFFICER & [and ][batch ][of ][writ ][petitic'nsl0 ][which]stooddecidedor [lg.03.2O24.Similarviewshavealsobeentaken]the Division [Bench ][of ][Calcutta ][High ][Court ][in ][lhe ][case ][ol]by GIRDHAR [vs' UNION ] [& ] (M.A.T 1690 ot2023), [decided ][ot25.09'2024']6. Even though the [same ][issue ][having ][been decided ][by ][a ][large]numberofHighCourts,wearestillconfrontedwithlar;gefilingofidentical nlatters on [daily ][basis ranging between ][5 ][to ][i ][0 ][writ]petitions. That upon [the ][instructions ][being ][sought ][from ][the]Department, they [have been ][taking ][a ][solitary ][grour'd ][that ][the]decision of [the ][Bombay ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][o1l ][Hexaware]Technologies Ltd., [(2 ][supra) ][as ][also ][the ][one ][which ][has ][been]decided by [this Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ][Kanakala ][Ravindra ][Reddy] tzo2+ scc online Guj 4012'2025 [Online ][Jhar287]'o 1zoz3 [: ] [: ][49 ][84-DBl] n (1 supra) has been subjected to challenge in a Special LeavePetition i.e., SLP No.3574 of 2024 before the Hon,ble SupremeCourl and the Hon'ble Supreme Court is seized of the matter.In addition, there are about 1200 SLps also filedarising 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. Meanwhile, fresh writ petitions ofidentical nature are being piled up before this Bench on daily basisand the pendency is getting increased on matter which otherwisehas already been dealt and decided by this very High Court itself.8. On the one hand, even though the order of this Court thatwas passed as early as on 14.09.2023 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 of notice under Section l48A and underSection 148 of the Act by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer,rather the authorities concemed in the teeth of series of decisions * ;&.*4a...&&;i&, * ;&.*4a...&&;i&, by alt the [major ][High ][Courts ][in ][India are ][continuously still]initiating [ploceedings ][under Section 148,{ ][of ][the ][Acl ][and ][also]initiating [proceedings ][under ][Section ][148 ][of ][the ][Act ][in]contravention [to the ][amendments ][brought ][into ][the ][Incotrte ][Tax ][Act]to [the ][Finance Lct,2020 ][as ][also ][the Finance ][L:t ][2021']pursuant g. Upon a [query being ][put ][as ][to ][why can't ][this ][writ ][petition ][be]of [in ][the ][teeth ][of ][the decision ][rendered ][by ][this ][Courl ][in]disposed the case [of ][Kanukala Ravintlra ][Reddy ][(l ][supra)' ][learned Standing]Counsel [for ][the ][Income ][Tax ][Department contends ][that ][tl-rose ][would]unnecessarily [burden ][the ][Income ][Tax ][Department rvhere ][they]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 lt ][was also ][the ][contr:ntion ][of ][the]leamed Standing [Counsel ][that ][no ][prejudice ][would ][be ][cirused ][to ][the]interest ofthe [petitioners ][in ][case ][if ][this ][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 benefit [of interim protection. ][Nonetheless, ][on ][the ][earlier ][query]of this Court [as ][to ][why ][the Income ][Tax ][Department ][have ][not come]out with a [mechanism ][to ][issue appropriate ][instructiorLs ][or ][to ][take] .1 appropriate steps in ensuring that proceedings under Section 14gAof the Act as also the assessment orders under Section l4g of theAct are kept in a hold in the light ofthe decisions dedcided by thevarious High Courts, it was submitted by the leamed StandingCounsel that the said steps can only be taken at the level of CBDTas any such steps would have to be taken pan India and cannot belimited to any of these jurisdictional High Courts. 10. As a result of which, what we are facing is steep increase oflitigation day in and day out even though various orders have beenpassed by this High Court allowing writ petitions on the very sameissue. The Income Tax authorities concemed are still even now in2025 also initiating proceedings in contravention to the provisionsof Section 151,4, 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 Kanakala RavindraReddy (1 supra), the Division Bench while reserving the right ofthe Revenue, has also protected the. interest of the petitioners .1..,. ::, insofar as [the ][liberty which ][was ][granted ][to ][the ][Revenue for]initiating [fresh proceedings ][strictly ][in ][accordance ][with ][the ][amended]of [the ][Act, ][as amended ][by ][the ][Finance ][Act' ][2020 ][and]provisions the Finance [Act,2O2l. ][The ][petitioner ][assessee ][would be entitled ][to]challenge [or ][raise ][the other ][lega1 ][objections ][if ][the ][Revenue ][initiates]fresh proceedings. [The ][Department ][has ][made ][no ][en'Jeavour ][in]the [saicl ][liberty ][that ][was ][reserved ][for ][the ][Revetrue' On ][the]avaiting contrary, [they ][have ][been ][still ][sticking ][on ][to ][the stand' ][which ][this]as [well ][as ][many ][other ][High ][Courts already held ][to ][be]High Courl bad. .1..,. ::, insofar as [the ][liberty which ][was ][granted ][to ][the ][Revenue for]initiating [fresh proceedings ][strictly ][in ][accordance ][with ][the ][amended]of [the ][Act, ][as amended ][by ][the ][Finance ][Act' ][2020 ][and]provisions the Finance [Act,2O2l. ][The ][petitioner ][assessee ][would be entitled ][to]challenge [or ][raise ][the other ][lega1 ][objections ][if ][the ][Revenue ][initiates]fresh proceedings. [The ][Department ][has ][made ][no ][en'Jeavour ][in]the [saicl ][liberty ][that ][was ][reserved ][for ][the ][Revetrue' On ][the]avaiting contrary, [they ][have ][been ][still ][sticking ][on ][to ][the stand' ][which ][this]as [well ][as ][many ][other ][High ][Courts already held ][to ][be]High Courl bad. I1. It appears [that ][because ][ofthe ][aforesaid ][liberty ][that ][this ][High]Court had [granted ][permitting ][the ][Revenue ][for ][init'iating ][fresh]proceedings as a [one-time ][measure ][in a ][faceless nranner' ][the]Income Tax [Department wants ][to ][take ][advantage ][of ][the ][same ][by]these [proceedings ][which would ][enable them ][to ][meet the]protracting limitation that [would ][otherwise ][come ][in ][the ][way' ][Likr;wise' ][if ][the]writ petition [is ][kept pending ][for ][a ][considerable ][long period ][of time]and hnally [at ][a ][later ][stage ][if ][the ][Hon'ble ][supreme Corrrt conflrms]the decision [taken ][by ][this High Court ][as ][also ][by the ][other ][High]Courts in [which ][the ][SLPs are ][still ][pending, ][the ] [ncome Tax] Department would get the advantage of the liberty that is otherwiseprotected in favour of the Revenue for initiation of freshprotected in favour of the Revenue for initiation of freshproceedings from the disposal of these matters at a much later stagewhich wouid 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 fieshproceedings.which wouid 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 fieshproceedings. 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 Income Tax Department,s persistentinitiation of fresh proceedings, disregarding the established judicialpronouncements, has led to an unprecedented surge in litigationwith over 600-700 petitions piling up on the same issue. Thisdeliberate approach not only undermines the principle 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 circumventtimitation periods, rather than adhering to the established legal 'position. Such [conduct ][raises ][serious qdestions ][ibout ][the]administrativeefficiencyandtherespectforjudicialpronouncements, [particularly ][when ][this ][Courl ][has ][already ][provided]a balanced [approach ][by ][preserving ][both the ][Revenue's ][rights ][and]assesses [interests.] 'position. Such [conduct ][raises ][serious qdestions ][ibout ][the]administrativeefficiencyandtherespectforjudicialpronouncements, [particularly ][when ][this ][Courl ][has ][already ][provided]a balanced [approach ][by ][preserving ][both the ][Revenue's ][rights ][and]assesses [interests.] 13.Anotheraspectwhichneedstobeconsideredisthatinfactitshould have [been ][realized ][by ][the Income ][Tax ][DepartmerLt ][itself ][and]should [have tbund ][out ][via ][media ][in ][ensuring ][that ][p'roceedings]under Sections [148-4 and ][148 ][should not ][have been ][issued ][in ][a]faceless manner, [at least ][till ][the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Court. ][decide ][the]twelve hundred [( ][1200) odd SLPs ][which it ][is ][already ][seized ][of ][or' ][at]least the lncome [Tax ][Department should ][have found ][out ][some]remedialStepstoensurethatwherevertheauthoritiesintendtoinitiate proceedings [under ][Sections ][148-4 and ][148, ][other ][tban ][in ][a]faceless manner, [the ][proceedings ][should have ][bet:n ][deferred]withoutprecipitatingthematterfurtherintimatingtheassesseethatthey shall initiate [appropriate proceedings ][only ][after ][the ][SLP's ][are]decided by the [Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Court on the very ][same ][issue']This again, the Income [Tax ][Department, ][has ][not ][been ][alle ][to ][give ][a]convincing reply, except [for ][the ][fact ][that such a decision ][if ][at ][all] /'1 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 Cour.t is struggling .to reduce itspendency, such notices which are under challenge in this writpetition .are furcing the assessee to knock the doors of this HighCourt resulting in filing of htrndreds 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 thernatter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court having been taken onrnany 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 concemed 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 l48throughthejuiisdictionalAssessingofficerwherelrsitoughtto have been [only in ][the ][faceless ][manner'] 14. In the [case ][of ] [OF INDIA vs' ] COMMISSIONER, [TAXIr, ][on an ][issue ][whe:ther ][it ][was]justihable on the part of the Income [Tax ][Departm':nt ][in ][not]an order [passed ][by ][the ][adjudicating authority rlnly ][on the]following ground that the appeals [are pending, the ][Division ][Bench ][of ][the]High Court of [Bombay held ][at paragraph ][No'25 ][as ][undet', ][viz ][, ][:] l48throughthejuiisdictionalAssessingofficerwherelrsitoughtto have been [only in ][the ][faceless ][manner'] 14. In the [case ][of ] [OF INDIA vs' ] COMMISSIONER, [TAXIr, ][on an ][issue ][whe:ther ][it ][was]justihable on the part of the Income [Tax ][Departm':nt ][in ][not]an order [passed ][by ][the ][adjudicating authority rlnly ][on the]following ground that the appeals [are pending, the ][Division ][Bench ][of ][the]High Court of [Bombay held ][at paragraph ][No'25 ][as ][undet', ][viz ][, ][:] "25. Mr. Paridwalla has [rightly ][drawn ][out ][attentiorL ][to ][the]decision of this [Court in ][Commissioner of lncome ][Tax ][v!;' ][Smt']Godavaridevi Sarafl2 [as ][also ][the ][recent decision ][of the ][co-]ordinate Bench of [this ][Court in Samp ][Furniture ][(P) ][Ltd' ][l" ][lTO13]of which one of [us (Justice G.S. Kulkarni) was ][a ][member, ][wherein]the Court categorically [observed ][that the ][Revenue ][havng ][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 krose ][its]binding force. [Referring ][to ][the ][decision of ][the ][Supreme ][(lourt ][in]Union of lndia vs. [Kamlakshi Finance Gorporation ][Ltcl'l4, ][the]Court observed that the [approach ][of ][the officials ][of ][Re'rrlnue of]treating decisions [being ]["not ][acceptable" ][was ][criticized ][by ][the]Supreme Court. [ln ][such ][decision, ][following ][are ][the ][lelevant]observations made [by ][the Supreme Court.] " [71z)zs1 170 ][taxrnann.com ][422 ][(Bombay)l] '' 119281 [113 ] [589 ][(Bombay)]t' 12Oz+1165 taxrnann.com 581/300 Taxman 452 (Bombay) 'o 719921!almann.com [16155ELT 433 ][(SC)] T " [71z)zs1 170 ][taxrnann.com ][422 ][(Bombay)l] '' 119281 [113 ] [589 ][(Bombay)]t' 12Oz+1165 taxrnann.com 581/300 Taxman 452 (Bombay) 'o 719921!almann.com [16155ELT 433 ][(SC)] T "6.Sri .Reddy is perhaps right in saying tfiat theofficers were not actuated by any mala fides inpassing the impugned orders. They perhapsgenuinely felt that the claim of the assessee was notlenable and that, if it was accepted, the Revenuewould suffer. But what Sri Reddy overlooks is that weare not concerned here with the correctness orwould suffer. But what Sri Reddy overlooks is that weare not concerned here with the correctness orotherwise of their conclusion or of any factualmalafides but with the fact that the officers, in reachingin their conclusion, by-passed two appellate orders inmalafides 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, righflycriticized this conduct of the Assistant Collectors andthe Tribunal. The High Court has, in our view, righflycriticized this conduct of the Assistant Collectors andthe harassment to the assessee caused by the failureof these officers to give effect to the orders ofauthorities higher to them in the appellate hierarchy. ltof these officers to give effect to the orders ofauthorities higher to them in the appellate hierarchy. ltcannot be too vehemen y emphasized that it is ofutmost 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 Appellte Collector is binding on theAssistant Collectors working within his jurisdiction andthe order of the Tribunat is binding upon the AssistantCollectors and the Appellate Collectors who functionunder the [jurisdiction ]of the Tribunal. The principles ofjudicial discipline reqtire that the orders of the hlgherappellate authorities should be followed unreservedlyCollectors and the Appellate Collectors who functionunder the [jurisdiction ]of the Tribunal. The principles ofjudicial discipline reqtire that the orders of the hlgherappellate authorities should be followed unreservedlyby the subordinate authorities. The mere fact that theorder of the appellate authority is not [,,acceplable', ]tothe department - in itself an objectionable phrase _order of the appellate authority is not [,,acceplable', ]tothe department - in itself an objectionable phrase _and is the subiect matter of an appeal can furnish noground for not following it unless its operation hasground 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 ][unduer]harassment to [assesses and chaos ][in ][adminiskation]of tax laws. rule is not followed, [the ][result ][will ][only ][be ][unduer]harassment to [assesses and chaos ][in ][adminiskation]of tax laws. 12. we have [dealt ][with ][this aspect ][at some ][length']because it has [been ][suggested ][by ][thb ][learne(i]Additional Solicitor [General ][that the ][observations]made by the [High Court, ][have ][been harsh ][on ][th':]officers. lt is clear [that ][the observations ][of ][the ][Hig ][r]Court, seemingly [vehement, ][and ][apparently]to [the ][Revenue, ][are ][only ][intended ][to ][curb]unpalatable a tendency in [revenue matters ][which, ][if ][allowed ][to]become widespread, [could result ][in ][considerable]harassment to [the ][assesses-public without ][any ][benelit]to the Revenue. [We ][lvould ][like ][to ][say that ][the]department should [take ][these ][observations ][in ][the]proper spirit. The observations [of ][the ][High ][Court]should be kept [in mind ][in ][future and the utmost ][regard]should be [paid ][by ][the ][adjudicating authorities and ][lf ][e]appellate authorities [to ][the ][requirements ][of ][judir;ial]discipline and the [need for giving ][effect ][to ][the orde's]of the higher appellate [authorities which ][are ][bind'rrg]on them." 15. What is [worrying ][this ][Bench ][more ][is ][the ][llct ][that ][an]endeavour [is ][being made ][whole ][heartedly ][to ][ensure ][not ][to ][generate]further litigation [on ][issues ][which ][have ][been ][laid to ][rest ][by ][a ][large]number o1- High [Courts ][all ][of ][whom have taken a ][consistent stand]that the action [of ][the ][Income ][Tax ][Department ][being ][violative ][oithe] 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 juncture, 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 Ravindru Reddy (l supra) shall however be subject tothe outcome of the SLPs which were flrled 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 of as 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 arld 38 [of ][the order ][which, ][for ][ready reference' is reproduced]hereunder: 36. For all the [aforesaid reasons, the impugned notices]issued and the [proceedings ][drawn by ][the ][respond'-'nt-]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]a [consequence, ][all ][the ][impugned]aside/quashed. [As ]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]nullif ied automaticallY. 36. For all the [aforesaid reasons, the impugned notices]issued and the [proceedings ][drawn by ][the ][respond'-'nt-]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]a [consequence, ][all ][the ][impugned]aside/quashed. [As ]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]nullif ied automaticallY. 37. The [preliminary objection raised by ][the ][petitioner ][is]sustained and all these [writ ][petitions ][stands ][allowerl on]this very [jurisdictional ][issue. Since ][the ][impugned ][no.:ices]and orders are [getting ][quashed ][on the ][point ][of]Jurisdiction, [we ][are ][not ][inclined ][to ][proceed further ][and]decide the other [issues raised ][by ][the ][petitioner ][r"'hich]stands reseryed to [be ][raised ][and ][contended ][tn ][an]appropriate [proceedings.] 38. Since the [Hon'ble Supreme Court ][had, ][in ][the case]of Ashish Agarwal, supra, [as ][a ][one-time ][measure]exercising the [powers ][under ][Article ][142 ][of ][the]Constitution of lndia, [permitted ][the ][Revenue ][to ][proceed]under the substituted [provisions, and ][this Court ][allcwing]the [petitions ]only [on ][the ][procedural ][flaw, ][the ][right] conferred 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 AshishAgarwal, supra.Agarwal, supra. 18. We would only further like to make observations that sincewe are inclined to dispose of the instant writ petition, conscious ofthe fact that the earlier order of this High court in the case ofKanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra) is subjected to challengebefore the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLp No.3574 of 2024,preferred by the Income Tax Department, we make it clear thatallowing of the instant writ petition is subject to outcome of theaforesaid SLP preferred by the Revenue against the decision ofthisHigh Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (1 srryra).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 isconcemed. As. a consequence, the impugned notice underchallenge under Sections 148-4 and 14g stands set aside/quashed. (( \ The consequential orders, if [any, also ][stand ][set ][aside/rluashed ][in] similar terms as have been [passed ][by ][this High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of] Kankanala Ravindra Reddy (l supra). [There shall ][be ][tro ][order ][as] to costs Consequently, miscellaneous [petitions pending, ][if ][any, shall] stand closed. sD/i<.BHAVANI SWAMYAqst$rANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// i1."$ECTION OFFICER To1. The National Faceless Assessment Centre, tncomlax De,partment, NewDelhi, lndia.1. The National Faceless Assessment Centre, tncomlax De,partment, NewDelhi, lndia. 2- The lncome Tax Officer, ITO Ward [1, ]Nirmal, Adilabad, T,:langana. 3. The Assessment Unit, tVlinistry of Finance, Government of [lndia, ][New Delhi.] 4. One CC to SRI IM.NAGA DEEPAK, Advocate IOPUC] 5. One CC to IVs. J.SUNITHA (JUNIOR SC FOR INCOME 1',\X) Advocate loPUCl6. One CC to SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUIVAR, DEPUTY SOL OITOR GENERALOF lNDlA, Advocate (OPUC)OF lNDlA, Advocate (OPUC) 7. Two CD Copies SAGJo HIGH COURT DATED:2410412025 ORDER WP.No.10714 of [2025] DISPOSING OF [THE W.P]WITHOUT COSTS. ,r{ 1HESoc)z1t [itjt]a-*ttl liP/\TC t