La No: 1 Of 2024 v. Raghu Ram

134471 HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD [-'"..'](Special Original Jurisdiction)MONDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF APRILTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TIVC ["*] PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYTHE HONOURABLE SRI UUSTilEDT.TNNSING RAO NANDIKONDAWRIT PETITION NO: 36123 OF 2024 Between: yu,,,,oi.6,;1"":|e-.4-j3/j":'ft Sri lndrasena Reddv Meredr:i?j:,:ii#,y33['Jf RxlJ#3:t333dluu ...PETITIONER AND1.Bfldge, Nalgonda Ilq]t"glp [Tax Officer, Ward ]_ 50800.1.[- ][i, ][tncome ]Tax Office, Near Rait UnderZAssessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre, lncome TaxJawahartat Nehru Siadium, Lrepartment, Ministrv of Finance, oeini Roo; _ iiii'ooi; Iri;. ;b],);x'Fioor, [-" ]" ' ' r'e_namp, ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Articre 226 0f the constitution of rndia praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may bepleased to pass an order or direction, especiafly one in the nature of wRrr oFMANDAMUS hording that the order passed by lst Respondent u/s.14BA(d) of theAct, dt.07.04.2023 with DtN and Notice No |TBA/AST/F t14BAt2O23_2411051934102(1) and the notice dated 07.04.2023 issued under section .r4B ofthe Act with DrN and Notice No.rrBA/AST/s/148 1t2023-24t1051934154(1) for theassessment year 2016-17, as being ilegar, arbitrary and passed in gross viorationof principres of naturar justice without apprication of mind, and consequenry setaside the same. IIl,lI lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition r-nrk;'Siectron 15'l CPC praying that in the oircrmstances stated inthe affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court rnay be pleased tosuspend the op:raiicr of the notice issued by the 1't Respondenj u/s.148 of theAct, dt.07 04.2t)23 'or the assessment year 20i6'17 with DIN and NoticeNo.ITBAJAST/5t14, 112023-2411051934154(1) and ail consequental proceedingsthe reto.the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court rnay be pleased tosuspend the op:raiicr of the notice issued by the 1't Respondenj u/s.148 of theAct, dt.07 04.2t)23 'or the assessment year 20i6'17 with DIN and NoticeNo.ITBAJAST/5t14, 112023-2411051934154(1) and ail consequental proceedingsthe reto. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI A. V. RAGHU RAM Counsel for the Res,;nndents: MS. BOKARO SAPNA REDDY(Jr. Sc FOR INCOME TAX)(Jr. Sc FOR INCOME TAX) The Court made, the ['ollowing: ]ORDER t TTIE [JUSTICE P'SAM KOSITY]rHE H,N,,RABL5HXWE [NAR'TNG ][RAo] PETITION[No.3]6l23 0F[2024] ORDER, [(per ][Hon'ble ][Sri ][Justice ][Narsing ][Rao ][Nandikonda)]for [the]Heard [Mr. ][A'V'Raghu ][Ram' ][leamed ][counsel]petitioner [and ][Ms' ][B'Sapna ][Reddy' leamed ][Junior ][Standing]Counsel [for ][the ][Income ][Tax ][Department ][for ][the ][respondents'] Perused [the ][record'] 2. This [is ][a ][writ ][petition ][where ][the ][proceedings ][are ][either]challenged [to ][the ][notices ][which ][were ][issued ][under Section ][148A]and [148 ][of ][the Income ][Tax ][Act' ][1961 ][(for ][short'the ][Act') ][orthe]assessment [orders ][those ][have been ][passed ][under Section ][147 ][of]the [Act ][which ][have been assailed'] This [[writ ][petition ]][[petition ]][[is ][being taken up today ]][[being taken up today ]][[only ]][on ][one ][of ][the] 3. This [[writ ][petition ]][[petition ]][[is ][being taken up today ]][[being taken up today ]][[only ]]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 ttte [aieiament ][that ][was ][brought ][to the ][Income Tax ][Act ][by way]of Finance [Lct' 2021w'e'f'' ][01'04'2021 onwards' ][proceedings] This [[writ ][petition ]][[petition ]][[is ][being taken up today ]][[being taken up today ]][[only ]][on ][one ][of ][the] 3. This [[writ ][petition ]][[petition ]][[is ][being taken up today ]][[being taken up today ]][[only ]]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 ttte [aieiament ][that ][was ][brought ][to the ][Income Tax ][Act ][by way]of Finance [Lct' 2021w'e'f'' ][01'04'2021 onwards' ][proceedings] under l;erli(rr I4gA of the Act as also under Section l.:.g of thealso under Section l.:.g of theAct ou11hL lt have also been issued and proceeilecl n a facelessmanner4. l'he r:,trtention of the petitioner is that trre rssue ofr:,trtention of the petitioner is that trre rssue ofof the petitioner is that trre rssue ofthe petitioner is that trre rssue ofpetitioner is that trre rssue ofis that trre rssue ofthat trre rssue ofrssue ofofbeen issued and proceeilecl n a facelessmanner4. l'he r:,trtention of the petitioner is that trre rssue ofr:,trtention of the petitioner is that trre rssue ofof the petitioner is that trre rssue ofthe petitioner is that trre rssue ofpetitioner is that trre rssue ofis that trre rssue ofthat trre rssue ofrssue ofofproceediri s L cing in violation of the Finance Ar:t, 2021 i.e., theAr:t, 2021 i.e., theimpugne,l iot rres under Section l4gA and Section l4g of the Actnot being ir s : r rl in a faceless manner, have already been de alt withand decijed by this Court in the case of KAN{KANALARAVINDR.{ REDDY vs. INCOME_TAX OFFICIIRi r:ecidedon 14.09.20.1-t .rhereby l4gA and Section l4g of the Actnot being ir s : r rl in a faceless manner, have already been de alt withand decijed by this Court in the case of KAN{KANALARAVINDR.{ REDDY vs. INCOME_TAX OFFICIIRi r:ecidedon 14.09.20.1-t .rhereby a batch of writ petitions were arlow,:d andwere arlow,:d andthe proceerlirrlls initiated under Section l4gA as also uncer Section148 of the,\r,t ..i t,re held to be bad with consequential rel,ef! ,rn theground of ir l:eing rn violation of the provisions of Sectio, I5lA ofthe Act reac r,.irl Nodfication lg/2022 dated 29.03.2()22, Tht, saidjudgment pas-ser ry this Court has also been subsequently, foiiowedin a large nLn.bcr c1- writ petitions which were allowt:d on sir.rilarterms.l4gA as also uncer Section148 of the,\r,t ..i t,re held to be bad with consequential rel,ef! ,rn theground of ir l:eing rn violation of the provisions of Sectio, I5lA ofthe Act reac r,.irl Nodfication lg/2022 dated 29.03.2()22, Tht, saidjudgment pas-ser ry this Court has also been subsequently, foiiowedin a large nLn.bcr c1- writ petitions which were allowt:d on sir.rilarterms. l'he r:,trtention of the petitioner is that trre rssue ofr:,trtention of the petitioner is that trre rssue ofof the petitioner is that trre rssue ofthe petitioner is that trre rssue ofpetitioner is that trre rssue ofis that trre rssue ofthat trre rssue ofrssue ofof '[Q023) 156 taxrnrnn.com l7g (Telangana)] ttaI-*tI lr l l'he r:,trtention of the petitioner is that trre rssue ofr:,trtention of the petitioner is that trre rssue ofof the petitioner is that trre rssue ofthe petitioner is that trre rssue ofpetitioner is that trre rssue ofis that trre rssue ofthat trre rssue ofrssue ofof '[Q023) 156 taxrnrnn.com l7g (Telangana)] ttaI-*tI lr l 5. Down the line, [we ][find ][that the ][same ][issue has ][also ][been]decided against [the ][Revenue ][by ][various ][High ][Courts ][i'e'']by the Bombay [High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ] TECHNOLOGIES [LTD., ][VS. ] OF INCOME [TAX & ][OTHERS2, ][Gauhati ][High Court in the ][case]of RAM [vs. ][UNION OF INDIA3, ][Punjab ][and]Haryana High [Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ] vs. UNION [INDIA4, ][and ][Telangana ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]SRI \.ENKATARAMANA [VS. ] COMMISSIONER [where ][the ][issue ][was ][in]respect of intemational [taxation, Bombay ][High ][Court in ][the ][case ][of]ABHIN ANTLKUMAR [VS. ] [OFFTCER']INTERNATIONAL [which is ][again ][on ][intemational]taxation and [central ][circle, High ][Court ][of ][Himachal ][Pradesh ][in ][the]case of GOVIND [vs' ] [OFFICERT']Gujarat High [Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ] ' Tzoz+1 [464 ] [430 (Bom)]'i}Ozq [156 ][taxmann.com 478 ][(Gauhati)l]" l(2024) [165 ][taxmann.com ] [l5 ][(Punjab ][& ][Haryana)l]' [2024) [67 ][taxmann.com ][41 ] [(Telangana)]]"12024) [166 ][taxmann.com ][679 ][(Bombay)l ]- .-'izOzqj [165 ][taxmann.com ][113 ][(Himachal ][Pradesh)l] DAIII.TTiUIIAI RADADIYA vs. INCOME ,r.AX ()FFICER,WARI) 3t.:it(5)s, Jharkand High Court in the case o1 SHyAMSUND4tt S,\W vs. TINION OF INDIAe, Rajasthan Hiph Court inthe care ot SHARDA DEVI CHIIAJER vs. INCOI,yIE TAXOFFICER S: ANOTIIER and batch of writ pebtionrr0 whichstood d:cirl:J on 19.03.2024. Similar views have also br:en takenby the Dr.i:;ion Bench of Calcutta High Court in the. case ofGIRDHAR r,OPAL DALMIA vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS(M.A.T t69()cf 2023), decided on25.09.2024.6. llerr tlcugh the same issue having been decided b,.,a largenumber c,J. Fr rir Courts, we are still confronted with large iling ofidentical rr atr j -s on daily basis ranging betweeu 5 to I0 writpetitions. ['-ha ]t upon the instructions being soughr from theDepartmc rt, .lrr:y irave been taking a solitary grourrd that thedecision rr1' 1lr,: Bombay High Court in the case ol_ He:arsareTechnolog.it,s i.td., (2 supra) as also the one which hair beendecided b1. his Court in the case of Kanakala Ruvindro ReddytZOZ+ 1 SCC,)il1 r,,, Cui 4012Y2025 SCC,)rrt [,rrr. ].thir2g7' "[202j: RJ_ rt,:.+e64_DB l t (i 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 fiied arising out ofthesame issue being decided by various High Courts. 7. To a query being put to the learned counsel for the Revenue,they have categorically accepted the fact that there is no 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 [that]was passed as early as on 14.09.2023 and more 16 months havelapsed, till date, we do not find any remedial steps [having ][been]taken by the Income Tax Department to take [appropriate ][steps to]either hold back issuance ofnotice under Section [148A ][and under]Section 148 of the Act by the [jurisdictional ][Assessing ][Officer,]rather the authorities concerned in the teeth of series of decisions 8. On the one hand, even though the order of this Court [that]was passed as early as on 14.09.2023 and more 16 months havelapsed, till date, we do not find any remedial steps [having ][been]taken by the Income Tax Department to take [appropriate ][steps to]either hold back issuance ofnotice under Section [148A ][and under]Section 148 of the Act by the [jurisdictional ][Assessing ][Officer,]rather the authorities concerned in the teeth of series of decisions by all th: rnajor High Courts in India are continu,>usiy stilllnrtlatli,s ',,r c ceedings under Section 14gA of the Act and alsornltlaturg proceedings under Section I4g of the Act incontravelti,l0 to the amendments brought into the In,:omi: Tax Actpursuar t c tre Finance Act, 2020 as also the Finance Act 2021.9. frprn I qucry being put as to why can,t this r,vrit potition bedispose,l li rr the teeth of the decision rendered by this Court inthe case cf ,4'd,nakala Rqvintlra Reddy (1 supra), learned StandingCounsel 1l l t re Income Tax Department contends thar tho se rvouldunneces ;a Li [y burden the Income Tax Departntent rvh ere theywould bc required to rrle equar number of SLps. before theHon'ble Suprt:me Court and it would be further brrrdening theexchequr:r o 1' llte Union of India. It was also the ,:ont,:nti<.,n of theleamed [lti nrl rLg C]ounsel that no prejudice would be causr:d to theinterest of ,hr: petitioners in case if this writ petition is [:ept pendingtill the [irLelization of the SLps pending before the lfon,bleSupreme Corrt and the fact that the petitioner is already e,njoyingthe benef't rt' [jrtcritn ]protection. Nonetheless, on lhe earlit:r queryof this Ccurt a; to rvhy the Income Tax Depaftment have n()t comeout with ir rrx;hanism to issue apgiopriate instructions or to take I appropriate [steps ][in ][ensuring that proceedings ][under Section ][l48A]ofthe Act [as ][also ][the ][assessment ][orders ][under Section ][148 ][ofthe]Act are kept in a [hold ][in ][the ][light ][ofthe ][decisions dedcided ][by ][the]various High Courts, [it ][was ][submitted ][by ][the ][leamed ][Standing]Counsel that [the said ][steps can ][only ][be taken ][at ][the level ][of ] as any such steps [would ][have ][to be ][taken Pan ][India ][and cannot ][be]limited to any [of ][these ][jurisdictional ][High Courts']10. As a [result ][of ][which, ][what ][we ][are ][facing is ][steep increase ][of]litigation day [in ][and day ][out ][even ][though various ][orders have ][been]passed by this High [Court ][allowing ][writ ][petitions ][on the ][very ][same]issue. The [[ncome ][Tax ][authorities ][concemed ][are ][still ][even ][now in]2025 also initiating [proceedings ][in ][contravention ][to ][the provisions]of Section [151.4 ][of ][the ][Act ][and ][as ][a result ][by ][now, more ][than 600]to 700 [petitions have been aiready ][got ][piled ][up before this High]court on an [issue ][which ][otherwise ][stands ][squarely covered ][by ][the]judgment of this Court in [the ][case ][of ][Kanakalu Ravindra ][Reddy](1 supra). What is [also surprising ][is ][the ][fact that ][though while]allowing the [writ ][petitions ][in ][the ][case ][of ][Kanakala ][Ravindra]Reddy (l supra), [the ][Division ][Bench ][while ][reserving the ][right ][of]the Revenue, [has ][also protected ][the ][interest ][of ][the ][petitioners] insofar rst3liberty whichwas granted to the ler,t:nue forinitiating 1''c:ir proceedings strictly in accordance rvith thr: i.mendedprovisions c.-1hc.Act, as amended by the Finance A,;t. 2020 andthe Financ: r\ct, 2021. The petitioner assessee worrld be ertitled tochalleng,: or rr.sc the other legal objections if the ltercnue initiatesfresh ploc :rr1ings. The Deparlment has made no ender rvour inavailing Ji: :i,id liberty that was reserved for the Revenue. On thecontrary, trrt: y [trave ]been still sticking on to the stanc, which thisHigh Co:r, ;: well as many other High Courls already held to bebad. insofar rst3liberty whichwas granted to the ler,t:nue forinitiating 1''c:ir proceedings strictly in accordance rvith thr: i.mendedprovisions c.-1hc.Act, as amended by the Finance A,;t. 2020 andthe Financ: r\ct, 2021. The petitioner assessee worrld be ertitled tochalleng,: or rr.sc the other legal objections if the ltercnue initiatesfresh ploc :rr1ings. The Deparlment has made no ender rvour inavailing Ji: :i,id liberty that was reserved for the Revenue. On thecontrary, trrt: y [trave ]been still sticking on to the stanc, which thisHigh Co:r, ;: well as many other High Courls already held to bebad. 11. It rrpp:ars that because ofthe aforesaid liberty ttLat tlris HighCourt hr.d :ranted permitting the Revenue for initiatilg freshproceedings t s a one-time measure in a facekrss ,nanner, theIncome [--ax ][),:pn66snt wants to take advantage of lhe rame byprotractirL-e t re se proceedings which would enable t.her to rneet thelimitatiorL thlt [,vould ]otherwise come in the way. Lik,:rvis e, if thewrit petition : kept pending for a considerable long period of timeand final y at r later stage if the Hon'ble Supreme Court c:onfirmsthe decistor tirken by this High Court as also by the oth,:r HighCourts irr v.hi,:h the SLPs are still pending, the Incolne Tax , Department would get the advantage of the liberty that is otherwiseprotected in favour of the Revenue for initiation of fteshproceedings 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 fieshproceedings 12. The alarming trend of docket explosion in this Courl, 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 of [judicial]precedent but also strains the judicial resources unnecessarily. TheDepaftment'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 positiol . _a LLr:h conduct raises serious questions altout theadrninistrrrtrr e cfficiency and the respect fo: judicialpronour corrc rrts, particularly when this Court has alre.ady provideda balan<:erl rrll troach by preserving both the Revenur:,s r ghts andassesses tr t lr I lts 13 Arcth:r aspect which needs to be considered is that in fact itshould har e teen realized by the Income Tax Departmenl i:self andshould I a.t, firund out via media in ensuring that pro,.:eedingsunder Sectiors 148-A and 14g should not have been issrred in afaceless rnirr11 lr'. at least till the Hon'ble Supreme,lort rle,cide thetwelve hrLnIi:l (1200) odd SLps which it is alread,r seized cf or, atleast the Ltr,) nle Tax Department should have lbun I or t someremedial stells to ensure that wherever the authc,ritie .s ir tend toinitiate pro< e.rlrngs under sections l4g-A and r4g othcr tl.an in afaceless .l;urner, the proceedings should have been cleferedwithout p'er:ir:itating the matter further intimating the arrses:.ee thatthey shall iliriate appropriate proceedings only after thc SLp,s aredecided by th: Hon,ble Supreme Court on the very same issue.This again, th: rrcome Tax Department, has not been abie to give aconvincinp rer,ly, except for the fact that such a decisirtn it.at all a a has to be taken, [has ]to [be ][taken ][for ][the ][whole ][oflndia, ][and ][which]otherwise has [to ]be by [way ]ofa [policy ][decision and ][that too ][at ][the]level of Central [Board ]of [Direct ][Taxes. ][Though ][the ][leamed]Standing Counsel [for ][the ][Income ][Tax ][Department ][contended ][that]the Delhi High Court dismissed [a ][writ ][petition ][of ][similar ][nature, ][on]the one hand when the High [Court ][is ][struggling ][to ][reduce ][its]pendency, such notices which are [under ][challenge ][in ][this ][writ]petition are forcing the assessee [to ][knock ][the ][doors ][of ][this High]Coufi resulting in filing of [hundreds ][of ][new ][writ ][petitions ][which in]the long run not only affects [the disposal ][of ][the ][writ ][petitions ][but]also consumes substantial [time ][of ][the ][Bench ][in ][hearing ][these]matters again and again on [daily ][basis. ][Admittedly, ][in ][spite ][of ][the]matter before the Hon'ble [Supreme ][Court having ][been taken on]many occasions, the Hon'ble [Supreme ][Court which ][is ][seized ][of ][the]matter has been reluctant [in ][granting any ][interim ][protection to ][the]Income Tax Department. [Yet, the ][authorities ][concemed ][at ][the]State level are not [ready ][to ][accept ][the verdict ][passed ][by ][a ][maj ][ority]of High Courts of [different ][States ][on the ][same issue; and ][to ][make]things further [worse, ][the ][Income ][Tax ][Department ][is ][showing]audacity by issuing [notices ][continuously under ][Sections ][148-A. ][and] 148 thro,rgh tre [jurisdictional ]Assessing [Officenvhet'eas ][it ][ought]to have bet'n only in the faceless [manner] 14. In th: oase of BANK OF TNDIA [vs. ][,A'SSIIJTANT]COMMISSt()\ER, INCOME TAXrr, [on ][an issue ][wreth,.:r ][it ][was]justifiabl:C I]the part of the Income Tax Deltarlrnenl in [not]followinll iLr crder passed by the adjudicating authcritl'only [on ][the]ground thr t Jr,: appeals are pending, the Divisic,n enclr of [tire]I{igh Cour of'}}ombay held at paragraph No.25 [as ][uncl:r, ][v ][2., ][:] "25. l,/r Paridwalla has rightly drawn out attentiorr to thedecir;ic n o' :his Court in Commissioner of lncome Tax [us. ] [mt.]Godavar clervi Sarafl2 as also the recent decision of the [co-]ordir ale ll : rch of this Court in Samp Furniture [(P) ]Ltd. [v. ][lT ][Ol3]of wlrich or1,) of us (Justice G.S. Kulkarni) was a menlber, [wherein]the l( ur: 0ategorically observed that the Revenur: havrng [not]"acc ]p le (l' the judgment of the High Court would not mean tte t tillthe s arn'; rs set aside in a manner known to law, [it ]wculd [loose ][its]bind n1 1orce. Referring to the decision of the Supreme [Cou ]1 [in]Union of rrdia vs. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation [Ltd.r4, ][the]Courl rt,r;r>rved that the approach of the ofJicials [o-' ][Re'renur': of]treat n1; rlor;isions being ["not ]acceptable" was criticizetl by [the]Suprerrr: 3ourt. ln such decision, following are the [relevant]obs€irvalil-r: made by the Supreme Court. " 11zOZS1 [70 ][raxmann.com 422 ][(Bombay)l][[--1589 ]][(Bombay)][[--1589 ]][(Bombay)] 11zOZS1 '' 119281 [113 ][[--1589 ]][(Bombay)] " 7ZOZll [[65 ][rermann.com ][581i300 ][Taxman ][452 (Bonrbay)] " 719921:a)lrarn.com [16155ELT ][433 ][(SC)] .a " 11zOZS1 [70 ][raxmann.com 422 ][(Bombay)l][[--1589 ]][(Bombay)][[--1589 ]][(Bombay)] 11zOZS1 '' 119281 [113 ][[--1589 ]][(Bombay)] " 7ZOZll [[65 ][rermann.com ][581i300 ][Taxman ][452 (Bonrbay)] " 719921:a)lrarn.com [16155ELT ][433 ][(SC)] .a "6. Sri Reddy is [perhaps ][right ][in ][saying ][that ][the]officers were not [actuated ][by ][any mala ][fides ][in]passing the impugned orders. [They ][perhaps]genuinely felt that the [claim ][of ][the ][assessee ][was ][not]tenable and [that, ][if ][it ][was ][accepted, ][the ][Revenue]would suffer. [But ][what ][Sri Reddy overlooks ][is ][that we]are not concerned [here ][with ][the ][correctness ][or]otheruise of [their ][conclusion ][or ][of ][any ][factual]malafides [but with the ][fact ][that the officers, in reaching]in their conclusion, [by-passed hvo appellate ][orders ][in]regard to the [same issue ][which ][were placed ][before]them, one of [the ][Collector (Appeals) ][and the other of]the Tribunal. [The ][High Court ][has, ][in ][our ][view, rightly]criticized this [conduct of the ][Assistant ][Collectors ][and]the harassment [to the ][assessee caused ][by ][the failure]of these officers [to ][give effect ][to ][the ][orders ][of]authorities [higher ][to them ][in ][the ][appellate ][hierarchy' lt]cannot be too [vehemenlly emphasized ][that ][it is ][of]utmost importance [that, ][in ][disposing ][of ][the]quasijudicial issues [before ][them, ][revenue ][officers ][are]bound by the [decisions ][of the ][appellate ][authorities']The order of the [Appellte Collector ][is ][binding ][on ][the]Assistant [Collectors working ][within ][his ][jurisdiction ][and]the order of [the Tribunal is binding upon ][the ][Assistant]Collectors and [the Appellate ][Collectors ][who ][function]under the [jurisdiction ][of the ][Tribunal ][The ][principles ][of]judicial discipline require [that ][the ][orders ][of ][the ][higher]appellate authorities [should ][be followed ][unreservedly]by the subordinate [authorities' ][The ][mere ][fact ][that the]order of the [appellate ][authority ][is ][not "acceptable" to]the department - [in ][itself ][an ][objectionable phrase ][-]and is the [subject matter ][of an ][appeal ][can furnish ][no]ground for not following [it ][unless ][its ][operation ][has]been suspended [by a ][competent ][court ][lf ][this healthy] 1rl3 is not followed, the resutt will only be ,Lndueh a [-rrssment ]to assesses and chaos in administrationo. ax laws.h a [-rrssment ]to assesses and chaos in administrationo. ax laws. 1:a We have dealt with this aspect at some lengtt,L0(iztuse it has been suggested by the lea.nedI [(i(litional ]Solicitor General that the observalionsnraJ3 by the High Court, have been harsh on theoflir:ers. lt is clear that the observations of the l_lighCourt, seemingly vehement, and apparenflyu rpalatable to the Revenue, are only intenderj to r;urca t(|r)dency in revenue matters which, if allowerj tobr-.: I re widespread, could result in considerablera'.tsisment to the assesses-public without an,r' benefrto tte Revenue. We would like to say lhat therJe ,prl lment should lake these observations in th€)rrr:per spirit. The observations of the High Courlr;horrlJ be kept in mind in future and the utmost regar0trhc r I,j be paid by the adjudicating authorities and thea pp,e,llate authorities to the requirements of judioialc is r;it ine and the need for giving effect to the, ord,:rsr f the higher appellate authorities which are bind ngc n tlrr:rn." 15. \\'liar i.r worying this Bench more is the lact rhat anendeavou r s being made whole heartedly to ensuro no1 to ! leneratefufiher litiga' ()n on issues which have been laid to rest by a largenumber ol ligh Courts all of whom have taken a consistent standthat the ar;tir I tFthe Income Tax Department being rrio.ativr: of the ( 15. \\'liar i.r worying this Bench more is the lact rhat anendeavou r s being made whole heartedly to ensuro no1 to ! leneratefufiher litiga' ()n on issues which have been laid to rest by a largenumber ol ligh Courts all of whom have taken a consistent standthat the ar;tir I tFthe Income Tax Department being rrio.ativr: of the ( Finance Act,2020 and [Finance ][Act,202l' ][Now, ][in ][order to ][protect]the interest of [the Revenue ][as ][also ][that of the ][assessee, ][it ][would ][be]trite at this [juncture, ][if ][we ][dispose ][of ][the ][writ ][petition ][with ][an]observation/direction [that ][the ][disposal ][of ][the ][instant ][writ ][petition ][in]terms of the [judgment ][rendered ][by this High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]Kankanala Ravindra [Reddy ][(1 ][supra) shall ][however be ][subject ][to]the outcome of the [SLPs ][which ][were ][frled ][by ][the ][Income Tax]and [which ][is ][pending ][consideration before ][the ][Hon'ble]Department Supreme Court. 16. In the [given ][facts ][and ][circumstances, ][this ][Bench ][is ][of ][the]considered opinion [that unless ][and ][until ][we ][do ][not ][timely ][dispose]of matters which [are squarely covered ][by ][the decision ][of ][this ][Court]andwhichstandsfortilredbythedecisionsofthevariousotherCourts on [the very ][same issue, ][the ][pendency ][of ][this ][High]High Court would further [be burdened ][which ][otherwise ][can ][be ][decided]and disposed of [as ][a ][covered matter'] 17. So far as the [interest ][of ][the ][Revenue ][is ][concerned, ][we ][are ][of]the considered [opinion ][that ][the interest of the ][Revenue ][has ][already]been considered [and protected, ][as ][has been ][observed ][in ][paragraphs] 36,31 rd I 8 of the order which, for ready reference i-. r:producedhereunrler ilr; For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned notic esi;sred and the proceedings drawn by the resp,)nde,rt-L)llanment is neither tenable, nor suslirin.rb e.l lr,; notices so issued and the procedure adcpte(j bei.tg, [(, ][se ][illegal, ]deserves to be and are accordingly. s,etas ijr:/quashed. As a consequence, all the, impugn,:)dcrCers getting quashed, the consequential orcjers irassr,rdbt tlre respondent-Department pursuant to the roticr::srss;rre:d under Section 147 and l4gwould alst g3tq-ashed and it is ordered accordingly. The reason \r',ea r) c uashing the consequential order is on the priDcipl<:sti zr1 when the initiation of the proceedings itself wz:sp oix:durally wrong, the subsequent orders alsr> qelsnu I fied automatically. 37 The preliminary objection raised by the pretitione: s;r:;lained and all these writ petitions stands allowed o-rh l; very jurisdictional issue. Since the impugned notrce srTrj orders are getting quashed on the pont oflu [isl ][ction, ]we are not inclined to proceed further anjrle c;ij: the other issues raised by the petrticner whrc rl,tzrris reserved to be raised and contended n a l.rpf ,rcpriate proceedings. il€. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, ir the casr.,c f [r,s ]hish Agarwal, supra, as a one{ime me lsLlr(,€xir'l)ising the powers under Article 142 of the(;or s t tution of lndia, permitted the Revenue hl prc ceeclunrler the substituted provisions, and this Courl allowinEtlre )etitions only on the procedural flaw, the righ, 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.order of the Supreme Court in the case of AshishAgarwal, supra. il€. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, ir the casr.,c f [r,s ]hish Agarwal, supra, as a one{ime me lsLlr(,€xir'l)ising the powers under Article 142 of the(;or s t tution of lndia, permitted the Revenue hl prc ceeclunrler the substituted provisions, and this Courl allowinEtlre )etitions only on the procedural flaw, the righ, 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.order of the Supreme Court in the case of AshishAgarwal, 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 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 olthisHigh Court in the case of Kanakala 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 isconcemed. As a consequence, the impugned notice underchallenge under Sections 148-4 and 148 stands set aside/quashed. The cons,:qurrtial orders, if any, also stand set asideiquar;hed insimilar terrs ari have been passed by this High Court in the case ofKankanala Ru,,indra Retldy (1 supra). There shall be no cr.der as to costs. t Con;eqtrrtly, miscellaneous petitions pending, if anv, shall stand closed To, SD/-K. SREE RA'MA MURTHY\oepurt' REGtSTRAR\-...-...'--.--.-._--._-..-//TRUE COPY//SECTLON OFFICER 1. The lncome T;> Jfficer, Ward [- ][1, ][lncome Tax ][O], [l{ear Rai ][Under]Bridge, Nalg,rnda 508001,Assdssmeni Lln t National Faceless [Assessment Centre, lnconre Tax]Department, Il4rrristry of Finance, [Room ]\9 [401 ], [2nd Floor. ] [amp,]Jawaharla lrle hr r- Siadium, Delhi [- ][1 ]['10 ][003.]One CC tc [tiri ]l\ V. Raghu Ram, [Advocate ] Bridge, Nalg,rnda 508001,Assdssmeni Lln t National Faceless [Assessment Centre, lnconre Tax]Department, Il4rrristry of Finance, [Room ]\9 [401 ], [2nd Floor. ] [amp,]Jawaharla lrle hr r- Siadium, Delhi [- ][1 ]['10 ][003.]One CC tc [tiri ]l\ V. Raghu Ram, [Advocate ] 2 One CC tc [,'ts. l]ckaro Sapna Reddy [(Jr. ] [for ][lncome ][Tax) ][()PUC]Two CD Ccp iesTwo CD Ccp ies 4. 5TJTJ BS HIGH COURT DATED:28 ntl;2025 ORDER WP.No.361?3 of 2024 ALLOWING T]{E WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COIJTSAA[b]lD{- \tI) -<'arrE ST.l ./-t o1't"'17.. ; ['i]{i'2 E [JuN ]2p5-t:!.,,. ilt. [_/].!. tI'i