La No: 1 Of 2025 v. A. Siva Kartikeya

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOORTH DAY OF APRILTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION NO: 7901 OF 2025 Between: Mr. Molugu Rajagopala charyulu, Sio. M. Gopala Krishnamacharyulu, aged41 years, Occ: Teacher, R/o. Muggulla Village, Ganapavaram Mandal, WestGodavari - 534 198, Andhra Pradesh ...PETITIONER AND 1Assessment Unit, lncome Tax Department, National e-Assessment Center,New Delhi, Room No.- 4O1 ,2nd Floor, E-Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium,New Delhi - 110 003.New Delhi, Room No.- 4O1 ,2nd Floor, E-Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium,New Delhi - 110 003. 2. The lncome Tax Officer, Ward - 1 1(1), Hyderabad, Signature Towers, Sy. Notj(P) of Kondapur, Opp. Botanical Gardens, Serilingampally, Kondapur - 500084, Telanganatj(P) of Kondapur, Opp. Botanical Gardens, Serilingampally, Kondapur - 500084, Telangana 3. The P;incipal Commissioner of lncome f ax - 2, Hyderabad, SignatureTowers. Sy. No. 6(P) of Kondapur, Opp. Botanical Gardens. Senlingampally.l(ondapur - 500 084, TelanganaTowers. Sy. No. 6(P) of Kondapur, Opp. Botanical Gardens. Senlingampally.l(ondapur - 500 084, Telangana ...RESPONDENTS Petiticn unde!' Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in thecrrcumsiances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Couri may bepleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order orDirectron. declaring the Assessment Order passed by the 1st Respondent, u/s 147r/w Scc 1448 oi the lncome Tax Act, 1961, dated 18.02.2025. bearing DlN.-iTBA/AST/Si14712024-2511073385756(1), for the Assessment Year 2O2O - 21 , asarbrtrary illegal, bad in law, void -ab -inltto, violative of the princrples of naturalJUStrce [apart from ][being ][violative ][of ][Articles ][14, ][19(1)(g) ]and 265 of [the]Constrtutron of lndia and Sec 148A of the lncome Tax Act. 1961, andconscclr.rr:ntly set aside the same in the interests of justice lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 1 51 CPC praying that in the c rcumstances stated inthe affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court nray be pleased to stay, [all ][further proceedings. including ][any ][recovery, pursuant ]tc the [notice ]u/s 148 ofthe Act, dated 24.03.2024, issued by the 2nd Respondent, vide DIN and Notice-ITBA/ASTiS/148 112023-2411063300732(1), for the Assessment Year 2020 - 21,pending disposal of the above \/Vrit Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI A. V. A. SIVA KARTIKEYA Counsel for the Respondents: MS. BOKARO SAPNA REDI)Y(Jr. SC FOR INCOME TAX) The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOTJRABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTTCE NARSING RAONANDIKONDAW.P.No.7901 OF 2025 ORDER, (per Hon'ble Srt Justice P.Sam Koshy) Heard Mr. A.V.A.Siva Kartikeya, learned counsel for thepetitioner and Ms. B.Sapna Reddy, learned Junior StandingCounsel for the Income Tax Department for respondent Nos,2Counsel for the Income Tax Department for respondent Nos,2and 3. Perused the record. 2. This is a writ petition where the proceedings are eitherchallenged to the notices which were issued under Section t48Aand 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ['the ]Act') or theassessment orders those have been passed under Scction 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 l48A ol the Actand the subsequent initiation ofproceedings under Section t48 ofthe Act by the [jurisdictional ]Assessing Officer, whereas in termsol the amendment that was brought to the lncome Tax Act by [way]oF Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f., 01.04.202 I onwards, [proceedings] 2. This is a writ petition where the proceedings are eitherchallenged to the notices which were issued under Section t48Aand 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ['the ]Act') or theassessment orders those have been passed under Scction 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 l48A ol the Actand the subsequent initiation ofproceedings under Section t48 ofthe Act by the [jurisdictional ]Assessing Officer, whereas in termsol the amendment that was brought to the lncome Tax Act by [way]oF Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f., 01.04.202 I onwards, [proceedings] under Section l48A of the Act as also under Sect.on 14g of theAct ought to have also been issued and proceederL in a facelessmanner.4. The contention of the petitioner is that the issue ofcontention of the petitioner is that the issue ofof the petitioner is that the issue ofthe petitioner is that the issue ofpetitioner is that the issue ofis that the issue ofthat the issue ofthe issue ofissue ofofAct ought to have also been issued and proceederL in a facelessmanner.4. The contention of the petitioner is that the issue ofcontention of the petitioner is that the issue ofof the petitioner is that the issue ofthe petitioner is that the issue ofpetitioner is that the issue ofis that the issue ofthat the issue ofthe issue ofissue ofofproceedings being in violation of the Finance Act. 2021 i.e., rheimpugned notices under Section l48A and Section l4g of the Actnot being issued in a faceless manner, have already l;een dealt withnot being issued in a faceless manner, have already l;een dealt withand declded by this Court in the case of XANKANALARAVINDRA REDDY vs. INCOME-TAX OFFITCER' decidedon 14.09.2023 whereby a batch of writ petitions were allowed andthe proceedings initiated under Section l48A as also under SectionRAVINDRA REDDY vs. INCOME-TAX OFFITCER' decidedon 14.09.2023 whereby a batch of writ petitions were allowed andthe proceedings initiated under Section l48A as also under Section148 olthe Act were hetd to be bad with consequentiar reliefs on theground ol it being in v.iolation o[the provisions of Se,ction l51A olthe Act read rvith Norification lStZOZz dated,29.O_7.2122. The saidjudgrnent passed by this Court has also been subsequr:ntly followedin a large number of writ petitions which were allov,ed on similarterms.the Act read rvith Norification lStZOZz dated,29.O_7.2122. The saidjudgrnent passed by this Court has also been subsequr:ntly followedin a large number of writ petitions which were allov,ed on similarterms. The contention of the petitioner is that the issue ofcontention of the petitioner is that the issue ofof the petitioner is that the issue ofthe petitioner is that the issue ofpetitioner is that the issue ofis that the issue ofthat the issue ofthe issue ofissue ofof '[(2023) [56 raxmann.corn 178 (Telangana)] 5. Down the line, we find that the same issue has also beendecided against the Revenue by various High Courts i.e.,by the Bombay High Court in the case of HEXAWARETECHNOLOGIES LTD., vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX & OTHERS2, Gauhati High Court in the caseof RAM NARAYAN SAH vs. IINION OF INDIA3, Punjab andHaryana High Court in the case of JATINDER SINGH BANGUvs. UNION OF INDIA4, and Telangana High Court in the case ofSRI VENKATARAMANA REDDY PATLOOLA vs. DEPUTYCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX5 where the issue was inrespect of intemational taxation, Bombay High Court in the case ofABHIN ANILKUMAR SHAH vS. INCOME TAX OFFICER,INTERNATIONAL TAXATION6 which is again on internationaltaxation and central circle, High Court of Himachal Pradesh in thecase of GOVIND SINGII vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERT,Gujarat High Court in the case of MANSUKHBHAI ' lzoz+1464 [I'tR ][430 ][(Bom)] ' f(2024) 156 taxnrann.com 478 (Gauhati)l " f(2024) 165 taxrnann.com ll5 @unjab &Haryata)l ' f2024) [167 ]taxmann.com 4l I (Telangana)l " f2024) 166 taxmann.com 679 (Bombay)l ' f2024) 165 taxmann.com 113 (Himachal Pradesh)l ' lzoz+1464 [I'tR ][430 ][(Bom)] ' f(2024) 156 taxnrann.com 478 (Gauhati)l " f(2024) 165 taxrnann.com ll5 @unjab &Haryata)l ' f2024) [167 ]taxmann.com 4l I (Telangana)l " f2024) 166 taxmann.com 679 (Bombay)l ' f2024) 165 taxmann.com 113 (Himachal Pradesh)l DAHYABHAI RADADIYA vs. INCOME TAx OFFICER,WARD 3(3X5)8, Jharkand High Court in rhe case of SHYAMSUNDAR SAW vs. UNION OF INDIAe, Rajasthan High Court inthe case of SHARDA DEVI CHHAJER vs. I|ICOME TAXOFFICER & ANOTHER and batch of writ peritionsro whichstood decided ot 19.03.2024. Similar views have also been takenby the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in the case ofGIRDHAR GOPAL DALMIA vs. UNION OF II{DIA & ORS(M.A.T 1690 of 2023), decided on25.09.2024.6. Even though the same issue having been deciCed by alargenumber of High Courts, we are still confronted with large filing ofidentical matters on daily basis ranging between 5 to 10 writpetitions. That upon the instructions being soujlht ffom theDepartment, thcy have been taking a solitary ground that thedecision o[ the Bombay High Court in the case of HexawareTechnologies Ltd., (2 supra) as also the one which has beendecided by this Court in the case of Kanukala Ravindra Reddy 82024 SCC Online Guj 4012'2025 SCC Online lhar 287'o12023, [:49 ][g4- ] l (l supra) has been subjected to challenge in a Special [Leave]Petition i.e., SLP No.3574 of 2024 before the [Hon'ble ][Supreme]Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court [is ][seized ][of ][the ][matter]In addition, there are about 1200 SLPs [also ][filed ][arising ][out ][ofthe]same issue being decided by various [High ][Courts.] '7. To a query being put to the learned [counsel ][for ][the ][Revenue,] they have categorically accepted the [fact that ][there ][is ][no ][interim]order granted by the Hon'ble [Supreme ][Court ][in ][any ][of ][these]matters pending before it. Meanwhile, [fresh ][writ ][petitions ][ol]identical nature are being [piled ]up before [this ][Bench on ][daily ][basis]and the pendency is [getting ][increased ][on matter ][which ][otherwise]has already been dealt and decided [by ][this ][very ][High ][Court itself'] 8. On the one hand, even though [the order ][of ][this Court ][that]was passed as early as on 14.09.2023 [atd more ][16 ][months ][have]lapsed, till date, we do not find [any remedial ][steps ][having ][been]taken by the lncome Tax [Department ][to ][take ][appropriate ][steps to]either hotd back issuance of [notice under Section 148A ][and ][under]Section 148 of the Act by the [jurisdictional ][Assessing ][Officer,]rather the authorities concemed in [the ][teeth ][of ][series ][of ][decisions] by all the major High Courts in India are cc ntinuously stilltnrtrating proceedings under Section l4gA of thr Act and alsorruhatlng proceedings under Section 14g of the Act incontravention to the amendments brought into the Income Tax Actpursuant to the Finance Act,2020 as also the Finance Act2OZl.9. Upon a query being put as to why can't this urrit petition bedisposed of in the teeth of the decision rendered by this Court inthe case of Kanakala 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 ol India. It rvas arso the co,tention of thelearned Standing counsel that no prejudice wor-rrd br,caused to theinterest of the petitioners in case itthis writ petition i:r kept pendingtill the finalization of the SLps pending beflore the Hon,bleSupreme Court and the t'act that the petitioner is alr,:acly enjoyingthe benefit of interim protection. Nonetheless, on thir earlier queryof this Court as to why the lncome Tax Department l:ave not comeout with a mechanism to issue appropriate instructi(,ns or to take appropriate steps in ensuring that proceedings under Section 148Aofthe Act as also the assessment orders under Section 148 oftheAct are kept in a hold in the light of the decisions dedcided by thevarious High Courts, it was submitted by the leamed StandingCounsel that the said steps can only be taken at the level of CBDTas any such steps would have to be taken Pan India and cannot beIimited to any of these [jurisdictional ]High Courts. 10. As a result o[ which, what we are facing is steep increase oflitigation Cay in and day out even though various orders have beenpassed by this High Coun allowing writ petitions on the very sameissue. The lncome Tax authorities concemed are still even now [in]2025 also initiating ;oroceedings in contravention to the [provisions]of Section l5lA ol the Act and as a result by now, more than [600]to 700 petitions have been already [got ][piled ]up before this [High]Court on an issue which otherwise stands squarely covered by thejudgment of this Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy(l supra). What is also surprising is the fact that though whileallowing the writ petitions in the case of Kanakala RavindraReddy (l supra), the Division Bench while reserving the right ofthe Revenue, has also protected the interest of the [petitioners] insofar as the liberty which was granted to the Revenue forinitiating fresh proceedings strictly in accordance w.th the amendedinitiating fresh proceedings strictly in accordance w.th the amendedprovisions of the Act, as amended by the Finance Act, 2020 andthe Finance Act,202l . The petitioner assessee would lte entitled tothe Finance Act,202l . The petitioner assessee would lte entitled tochallenge or raise the other legal objections ifthe Rr:venue initiatesfresh proceedings. The Department has made nc, endeavour inavailing the said liberty that was reserved for the Re vcnue. On thefresh proceedings. The Department has made nc, endeavour inavailing the said liberty that was reserved for the Re vcnue. On thecontrary, they have been still sticking on to the stand, which thisHigh Court as well as many other High Courts alreacly held to bebad.High Court as well as many other High Courts alreacly held to bebad. I 1. It appears that because o[ the aforesaid libe*y that this HighCourt had ['granted ]permitting the Revenue lor i ritiating freshCourt had ['granted ]permitting the Revenue lor i ritiating freshproceedings as a one-time measure in a flaceles: manner, theIncome Tax Department wants to take advantage ol'the same byprotracting these proceedings which would enable thcrn to rneet thelimitation that would otherwise come in the way. L kewise, if thewrit petition is kept pending for a considerable long reriod of,timeand finally at a later stage if the Hon'bte Supreme (our1 confirmsthe decision taken by this High Court as also by thc other HighIncome Tax Department wants to take advantage ol'the same byprotracting these proceedings which would enable thcrn to rneet thelimitation that would otherwise come in the way. L kewise, if thewrit petition is kept pending for a considerable long reriod of,timeand finally at a later stage if the Hon'bte Supreme (our1 confirmsthe decision taken by this High Court as also by thc other HighCourts in which the SLps are stilt pending, the lncorne Tax Department would get the advantage of the liberty that is otherwiseprotected in favour of the Revenue for initiation of freshproceedings from the disposal of these matters at a much later stagewhich would be advantageous and beneficial to the Revenue andwould be equally disadvantageous and detrimental so far as interestof the assesses are concerned. As a consequence, the Income TaxDepartment gets an extended period of time for initiation of freshproceedings.proceedings 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 concerned. As a consequence, the Income TaxDepartment gets an extended period of time for initiation of freshproceedings. 12. The alarming trend of docket explosion in this Court, despitethe clear precedent setin Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra), is amatter of grave concern. The Income Tax Department's persistentinitiation of fresh proceedings, di sregarding the established [judicial]pronouncements, has led to an unprecedented surge in litigationwith over 600-700 petitions piling up on the same issue. Thisdeliberate approach not only undermines the principle ofjudicialprecedent but also strains the judicial resources unnecessarily. TheDepartment's strategy of awaiting the Supreme Court's decision onpending SLPs white continuing to initiate fresh proceedingsappears to be a calculated move to buy time and circumventlimitation periods, rather than adhering to the established legal position. Such conduct raises serious questicns about theadministrative efficiency and the respect for judicialpronouncements, particularly when this Court has already provideda balanced approach by preserving both the Revenue's rights andassesses lnterests. 13. Another aspect which needs to be considered rs 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 matrner, at least till the Hon'ble Supreme Crturt decide thetwelve hundred (1200) odd SLPs which it is already ;eized ofor, arleast the Income Tax Department should have fo -rnd out sotneremedial steps to ensure that wherever the author ties intend toinitiate proceedings under Sections 148-A and 148, other than in afaceless manner, the proceedings should have ireen cief'enedwithout precipitating the matter further intimating thr: assessee thatthey shall initiate appropriate proceedings only after the SLp's aredecided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the very same issue.This again, the Income Tax Department, has not been able to give aconvincing reply, except for the fact that such a de<:ision if at att-^lr [/].\ has to be taken, has to be taken for the whole of India, and whichotherwise has to be by way of a policy decision and that too at thelevel of Central Board of Direct Taxes. Though the leamedStanding Counsel for the Income Tax Department contended thatthe Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition of similar nature, onthe one hand when the High Court is struggling to reduce itspendency, such notices which are under challenge in this writpetition are forcing the assessee to knock the doors of this HighCourt resulting in filing of hundreds of new writ petitions which inthe long run not only affects the disposal of the writ petitions butalso consumes substantial time of the Bench in hearing thesematters again and again on daily basis. Admittedly, in spite of thematter before the Hon'ble Supleme Court having been taken onmany occasions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court which is seized of thematter has been reluctant in granting any interim protection to theIncome Tax Department. Yet, the authorities concerned at theState level are not ready to accept the verdict passed by a majorityof tligh 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-A and I48 through the jurisdictional Assessing Officer whereas it oughtto have been only in the faceless manner. 14. In the case of BANK OF INDIA vs. ASSISTANT CON{MISSIONER, INCOME TAXrr, on an issue u,l.rerher it wasjustifiable on the part of the Income Tax Departmsnl in notfollowing an order passed by the a_djudicating authoritv only on theground that the appeals are pending, the Division Bench of thefollowing an order passed by the a_djudicating authoritv only on theground that the appeals are pending, the Division Bench of theHigh Court of Bombay held at paragraph No.25 as urider, viz., : "25. Mr. Paridwalla has righfly drawn out attent on to thedecision of this Court in Commissioner of lncome Tax vs. Smt.Godavaridevi Sarafl2 as also the recent decision r)f the co_ordinate Bench of this Court in Samp Furniture (p) Lt,J. v. lTO13of which one of us (Justice G.S. Kulkarni) was a membr,r, whereinthe Court categorically observed that the Revenue traving not''accepted" the judgment of the High Court would not moan that lillthe same is sel aside in a manner known to law, it woull loose itsbinding force. Referring to the decision of the Supreme Court inUnion of lndia vs. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation _td.,4, theCourt observed that the approach of lhe officials of R-.venue oftreating decisions being [.not ]acceptable" was criticizod by theSupreme Court. ln such decision, following are th() relevantobservations made by the Supreme Court. (2025) 170 raxmann.com 422 (Bombay)l19781 I l3 ITR 589 (Bombay)19781 I l3 ITR 589 (Bombay) .l20241 165 taxmann.com 581/300 Taxman 452 (Bomba r)19921 taxmann.com t6155 ELT 433 (SC) (2025) 170 raxmann.com 422 (Bombay)l19781 I l3 ITR 589 (Bombay)19781 I l3 ITR 589 (Bombay) .l20241 165 taxmann.com 581/300 Taxman 452 (Bomba r)19921 taxmann.com t6155 ELT 433 (SC) "6. Sri Reddy is perhaps right in saying that theofficers were not actuated by any mala fides inofficers were not actuated by any mala fides inpassing the impugned orders. They perhapsgenuinely felt that the claim of the assessee was nottenable and that, if it was accepted, the Revenuetenable and that, if it was accepted, the Revenuewould suffer. But what Sri Reddy overlooks is that weare not concemed 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 inregard to the same issue which were placed beforethem, one of the Collector (Appeals) and the other ofthe Tribunal. The High Court has, in our view, rightlycriticized this mnduct of the Assistant Collectors andthe harassment to the assessee caused by the failureof these olficers to give effect to the orders ofauthorities higher to them in the appellate hierarchy. ltcannot be too vehemently emphasized that it is ofutmost importance that, in disposing of thequasijudicial issues before them, revenue officers arebound by the decisions of the appellate authorities.are not concemed 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 inregard to the same issue which were placed beforethem, one of the Collector (Appeals) and the other ofthe Tribunal. The High Court has, in our view, rightlycriticized this mnduct of the Assistant Collectors andthe harassment to the assessee caused by the failureof these olficers to give effect to the orders ofauthorities higher to them in the appellate hierarchy. ltcannot be too vehemently 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 .lurisdiction andthe order of the Tribunal is binding upon the AssistantCollectors and the Appellate Collectors who functionunder the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The principles ofjudicial discipline require that the orders of the higherAssistant Collectors working within his .lurisdiction andthe order of the Tribunal is binding upon the AssistantCollectors and the Appellate Collectors who functionunder the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The principles ofjudicial discipline require that the orders of the higherappellate authorities should be followed unreservedlyby the subordinate authorities. The mere fact that theorder of the appellate authority is not ["acceptable" ]toorder of the appellate authority is not ["acceptable" ]tothe department - in itself an objectionable phrase -and is the subject matter of an appeal can furnish noand is the subject matter of an appeal can furnish noground for not following it unless its operation hasbeen suspended by a competent court. lf this healthybeen suspended by a competent court. lf this healthy rule is not followed, the result will only be rrndueharassment to assesses and chaos in administ?tionof tax laws. rule is not followed, the result will only be rrndueharassment to assesses and chaos in administ?tionof tax laws. 12. We have dealt with this aspect at some length,because it has been suggested by the leilmedAdditional Solicitor General that the observe tionsmade by the High Court, have been harsh orr theofficers. lt is clear that the observations of the HighCourt, seemingly vehement, and apparenflyunpalatable to the Revenue, are only intended to curba tendency in revenue mafters which, if allowerd tobecome widespread, muld result in conside [-able]harassment to the assesses-public without any bernefitto the Revenue. We would like to say thal thedepartment should take these observations in theproper spirit. The observations of the High Oourtshould t,e kept in mind in future and the utmost regardshould be paid by the adjudicating authorities anri theappellate authorities to the requirements of iu(licialdiscrpline and the need for giving effect to the ordersof the higher appellate authorities which are bindingon thern." 15 What is worrying this Bench more is the fact that anendeavour is bcing made whole heartedly to ensure not to generatefurther litigation on issues which have been laid to r3st by a largenurnber ol l{igh Courts all of whom have taken a consistent standthat the action of'the Income Tax Department being vrolative of the Finance Act,2020 and Finance Act,2O2l. Now, in order to protectthe interest ofthe Revenue as also that ofthe 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 Ravindra Reddy (l supra) shall however be subject tothe interest ofthe Revenue as also that ofthe 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 Ravindra Reddy (l supra) shall however be subject tothe outcome of the SLPs which were f,rled bv the Income TaxDepartment and which is pending consideration before the Hon'bleDepartment and which is pending consideration before the Hon'bleSupreme Court. 16. In the given facts and circumstances, this Bench is of the considered opinion that unless and until we do not timely disposeof matters which are squarely covered by the decisiorl of this Courtand which stands fortified by the decisions of the various otherHigh Courts on the very same issue, the pendency ol this HighCourt would further be burdened which otherwise can be decidedand disposed of as a covered matter.of matters which are squarely covered by the decisiorl of this Courtand which stands fortified by the decisions of the various otherHigh Courts on the very same issue, the pendency ol 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 of the considered opinion that the interest ofthe Revenue has alreadybeen considered and protected, as has been observed in paragraphs 36,37 and 38 olthe order which, for ready reference, is reproducedhereunder: 36. For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned noticesissued and the proceedings drawn by the respondent-Department is neither tenable, nor sustainable.The notices so issued and the procedure adopt€d beingper se illegal, deserves to be and are acoordingly setaside/quashed. As a consequence, all the impugnedorders getting quashed, the consequential orders passedby the respondent-Department pursuant to the noticesissued under Section 147 and 148 would als;o getquashed and it is ordered accordingly. The reajon weare quashing the consequential order is on the pr nciplesthat when the initiation of the proceedings itsolf wasprocedurally wrong, the subsetuent orders also getsnullified automatically. 36,37 and 38 olthe order which, for ready reference, is reproducedhereunder: 36. For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned noticesissued and the proceedings drawn by the respondent-Department is neither tenable, nor sustainable.The notices so issued and the procedure adopt€d beingper se illegal, deserves to be and are acoordingly setaside/quashed. As a consequence, all the impugnedorders getting quashed, the consequential orders passedby the respondent-Department pursuant to the noticesissued under Section 147 and 148 would als;o getquashed and it is ordered accordingly. The reajon weare quashing the consequential order is on the pr nciplesthat when the initiation of the proceedings itsolf wasprocedurally wrong, the subsetuent orders also getsnullified automatically. 37 The preliminary objection raised by the petit oner issustained and all these writ petitions stands allorved onthis very jurisdictional issue. Since the impugned roticesand orders are getting quashed on the point ofjurisdiction, we are not inclined to proceed further anddecide the other issues raised by the petitioner whichstands reserved to be raised and contended in anappropriate proceedings. 38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in th_. casecf Ashish Agarwal, supra, as a one{ime m{)asureexercising the powers under Article 142 cf theConstitution of lndia, permifted the Revenue to proceedunder the substituted provisions, and this Courl alrowingthe pelitrons onty 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 (I supra) is subjected to challengebefore thc t{on'ble Supreme Court in SLp No.3574 of 2024,preferred by the [ncome Tax Department, we make it clear thatallowing of the instant writ petition is subject to outcome of theaforesaid S [-P prelerred by the Revenue against the decision of thisHigh Court irr the case of Kanakala Rovindra Reddy (l supra).-l'his. in other rvords, would mean that either of the parties, if theyso \\,ant, rnay movc an appropriate petition seeking revival of thisn,rit petition in the light of the decision of the Hon,ble SupremeCourt in the pcnding SLP on the very same issue. 19. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands a[lowed inlavour ol the assessee so far as the issue of jurisdictionISconcemcd- As a consequence, the impugned notice underchallcngc undcr Sections 148-A and 148 stands set aside/quashed. The consequential orders, iI any, also stand set aside/quashed insimilar terms as have becn passed by this High Cou( in the case of Kankanala Ravindru Reddy (l supra). There shall be no order asto costs Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shatlstand closed.stand closed. SD/- AHME:D ABDULLAH KHANASSISTANT REGISTRARsecnAWorrrcen //TRUE COPY// To, 1Assessment Unit, lncome Tax Department, National e-F ssessment Center,New Delhi, Room No.- 4O1 .znd Floor. E-Ramp. Jawah:rrlal Nehru Stadium,New Delhi - 110 003New Delhi, Room No.- 4O1 .znd Floor. E-Ramp. Jawah:rrlal Nehru Stadium,New Delhi - 110 003 2The lncome Tax Officer, Ward - 11(1), Hyderabad. Signtture Towers, Sy. NoQ(P) [qf ][Kondapur, ][Opp. ][Botanical ][Gardens. ][Seriiingampatty, ][Kondapur ][--500]084, TelanganaQ(P) [qf ][Kondapur, ][Opp. ][Botanical ][Gardens. ][Seriiingampatty, ][Kondapur ][--500]084, Telangana JThe Principal Commissioner oI lncome f ax - 2. Hyderatad, SignatureTowers, Sy. No. 6(P) of Kondapur. Opp Botanicai Gard,rns, Serilingampally,Kondapur - 500 084, TelanqanaTowers, Sy. No. 6(P) of Kondapur. Opp Botanicai Gard,rns, Serilingampally,Kondapur - 500 084, Telanqana To, 1Assessment Unit, lncome Tax Department, National e-F ssessment Center,New Delhi, Room No.- 4O1 .znd Floor. E-Ramp. Jawah:rrlal Nehru Stadium,New Delhi - 110 003New Delhi, Room No.- 4O1 .znd Floor. E-Ramp. Jawah:rrlal Nehru Stadium,New Delhi - 110 003 2The lncome Tax Officer, Ward - 11(1), Hyderabad. Signtture Towers, Sy. NoQ(P) [qf ][Kondapur, ][Opp. ][Botanical ][Gardens. ][Seriiingampatty, ][Kondapur ][--500]084, TelanganaQ(P) [qf ][Kondapur, ][Opp. ][Botanical ][Gardens. ][Seriiingampatty, ][Kondapur ][--500]084, Telangana JThe Principal Commissioner oI lncome f ax - 2. Hyderatad, SignatureTowers, Sy. No. 6(P) of Kondapur. Opp Botanicai Gard,rns, Serilingampally,Kondapur - 500 084, TelanqanaTowers, Sy. No. 6(P) of Kondapur. Opp Botanicai Gard,rns, Serilingampally,Kondapur - 500 084, Telanqana 4One CC to Sri A. V. A. Siva Kartrkeya, Advocate [OPU(]IEOne CC to [Vls Bokaro Sapna Reddy (Jr SC for tncome Tax) TOPUC]EOne CC to [Vls Bokaro Sapna Reddy (Jr SC for tncome Tax) TOPUC] 6Two CD Copies TJGJP tLvGJP tLv HIGH COURT DATED:2 410412025 ORDER WP.No.7901 of 2025 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITIONWITHOUT COSTS ,"(cNco%k^,, -.4'.],1 O SEP 2U25\.-