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

[ [3447 ][]] HrGH [couRr ][.?+ ]IlEDEItlifl : l:::-"^-^(SPeciai'Original [[Jurisdiction']][[*']] [[Jurisdiction']]E Llt';NE5 [\i,?=:rN ] [l"*', ][[*']]E Llt';NE5 [\i,?=:rN ] [l"*', ][[*']] r H [u ] [r ] PRESENT THE [P'SAM ] THE [IUSTilSUNNSING ] NO:[1680][30F]2o25WRIT [rTlo][N] Between:"'*'["iit!,?qFiiiiifl AP PhotograPhers [u]Telangana. ,p',"';"f ffi ;:{,Eiit[Atit!#&q ?h:?.ufl ...PETiTiONER AND AND ^-?fi'ff .,'{h:"*:*',u"T8,I*ff - ^--^-+'-6nr [N2tional e-Assessmettt ]["=,"'- ][']8:fH[';]61'::fl''?]ffi [:['"'1P'"'tl:{]^-?fi'ff .,'{h:"*:*',u"T8,I*ff - ^--^-+'-6nr [N2tional e-Assessmettt ]["=,"'- ][']8:fH[';]61'::fl''?]ffi [:['"'1P'"'tl:{] j;'n'n'' [j:*liit*rt;"**-,t":*:"**T:^rtu3[::",3!],[["x?:?3i ]0-2-3' [c]3 rhe [p ][ri ][n ][cipa, ]n*1,:j,im;; [jl":S%lffi ][: ][+"L"tn"#?*'r ]Guards, [lvlasab ] [anK' ][rrvuEr ][ovsv ][- ][- ]3 rhe [p ][ri ][n ][cipa, ]n*1,:j,im;; [jl":S%lffi ][: ][+"L"tn"#?*'r ]Guards, [lvlasab ] [anK' ][rrvuEr ][ovsv ][- ][- ] ...RESPONDENTS Petition [under Article 226 ][of ][the ][Constitution ][of ][lndia praying ][that ][in ][the]circumstances [stated ][in ][the ][affidavit ][filed ][therewith' ][the ][High ][Court ][may ][be]pleased [to ][issue ][a ][Writ ][of ][Mandamus ][or ][any other ][appropriate ][Writ' ][Order ][or]Direction, [dectaring tnat ][*,e ][order ][passed ][by ][the ][1st ][*"t0"t1"^T^lf t-\',-:: ][t""]144 rlwsec [l44B ][of ][the ][lncome ][Tax ][Act' ]['1961' ][dated ][01'03'2025' bearing ] for the [Assessment ][Yex ][2020 ][- ][21]No.. [t[t1472n24-?5/1073897613(1)' ]as arbitrary, [iffegaf ]' [Uad ][in ][law' ][void-ab-initio' violative ][of the ][principles ][of ][natural]iustice, [apart ][t'orn ][U"ing ][violative ][of ][Articles ][14' ][19(1Xg) ][and ][265 ][of ][the]14BA [of ][the ][lncome ][Tax ][Act' ][1961' ][and ][to]Constitution [of ][lndia ][l"i ]'"t consequently [set ][aside ][the ][same in ][the ][interests ][of ][iustice'] lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under section i51 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated rnthe affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to stayall further proceedings, including any recovery, pursuant to the order passed bythe ['lst ]Respondent, u/s 147 rlw sec. 144 r/w Sec. 1448 of the lncome Tax Act,196'1, dated 01 .03.202s, bearing DIN No.. ITBA/AST/S/14712024-2511073897613(1), for the Assessment year 2o2o -21 pending disposar of theabove Writ Petition pending disposal of the above Writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI A. V. A. SIVA KART|KEYA Counsel for the Respondents: MS. BOKARO SAPNA REDDY(sENtOR SC TNCOME TAX)(sENtOR SC TNCOME TAX) The Court made the following: ORDER THE [SRI JU5}'IICE P'SAM ] ANDTHE IIONOURABLE [JI.]S ] NANDIKONDA wRlr PETIL!-oN.-YrJo[803][ of ][2025] ORDER, [(per Hon'bLe ][Sri ][Justice ][Nat'sin!' Pdo ][Nundikanda)] Heard [Mr"A'V'A'Siva Kariii-':ya' ][Iearned ][counsel ][for ][the]petitioner [and ][Ms' ][B'Sapna ][Retia-r'' learned ][Senior ][Standing]Counsel [for ][the ][lncome ][Tax ][I)ep:ri ][trnenr ][appearitrg ][for ][the]respondents. [Pertlsed ][tbe ][lecotd'] 2. This is [a ]'"vrit [petition whetc ][rtlt- ][pic'i:t'eC ][ings ][are ][either]challenged [to ][the notices ][which ][r'vere ][issuerl ][utrcler ][Section ][148A]andl48oftheIncomeTaxAct,t.)tl'(iorshott.theAct')ortheassessment [orders those have ][beerl ][i ]['assecl ][r:nclel ][Scctio' ][t ][47 ][of]the Act [which ][have been assailed.] This writ writ [[petition ][is ][being ]][[is ][being ]][[being ]][[tal''r-rt ]][[trp ][totla;'oniy ][on one of the]][[totla;'oniy ][on one of the]][[on one of the]] Heard [Mr"A'V'A'Siva Kariii-':ya' ][Iearned ][counsel ][for ][the]petitioner [and ][Ms' ][B'Sapna ][Retia-r'' learned ][Senior ][Standing]Counsel [for ][the ][lncome ][Tax ][I)ep:ri ][trnenr ][appearitrg ][for ][the]respondents. [Pertlsed ][tbe ][lecotd'] 2. This is [a ]'"vrit [petition whetc ][rtlt- ][pic'i:t'eC ][ings ][are ][either]challenged [to ][the notices ][which ][r'vere ][issuerl ][utrcler ][Section ][148A]andl48oftheIncomeTaxAct,t.)tl'(iorshott.theAct')ortheassessment [orders those have ][beerl ][i ]['assecl ][r:nclel ][Scctio' ][t ][47 ][of]the Act [which ][have been assailed.] This writ writ [[petition ][is ][being ]][[is ][being ]][[being ]][[tal''r-rt ]][[trp ][totla;'oniy ][on one of the]][[totla;'oniy ][on one of the]][[on one of the]] 3. This writ writ [[petition ][is ][being ]][[is ][being ]][[being ]][[tal''r-rt ]][[trp ][totla;'oniy ][on one of the]][[totla;'oniy ][on one of the]][[on one of the]]grounds, [that ][the ][notices ][issue'l ][uncllri Se'':tioti ][148,{ ][of ][the ][Act]and the [subsequent ][initiation of ][proc':c'lrrtgs ][utlrlet Section ][148 ][of]the Act [by ][the ][jurisdictiona'l ][Assessioq ][Otiic.:r' ][*'ircreas ][in ][terms]of the [amendment ][that ][rvas ][brought ][to ][the ][lrrconre'i'ax ][Act ][by way] of Finance [AcE ][*121 ][w'e'f'' ][0i't)4 ][2-021 ][onwards' ][proceedings] under Section 148,4 of the Acr as also under Section l4g of theAct ought to have also been issued and proceeded in a facelessmanner. 4. The ccntention of the petitioner is that the issue ofproceedings being in violation of' the Financ e Act, 2021 i.e., theimpugned notices undcr Section I4gA and Section l4g of the Actnot being issrred in a f'aceless tnanner, have already been dealt withand decided b; this Coult in the case of IC{NKANALARAVINDRA REDDY vs. INCOME_TAX OFFICERT decidedon 14.09.2023 .r4iereby a barc,h ol writ petitions were allowed andthe proceedings initiated uncier Section 1.4gA as also under Section148 of the Act r.r,.ere held to be bad with consequcntial reliefi on theground of it being in violation of the provisions of Section 15 1A ofthe Act read with Notification 1gl2o22 dated 29.03.2022. The saidjudgment passed by this courl has also been subsequentty fo[owedin a large nurnber of writ petitions rvhich rvere aflowed on similarterms. ' [(2023) 156 raxmann.corn I 7g (l.elangana)] 5. Down [the ][line, ][we ][find ][ti-rat ][the ][same ][issue has ][also ][been]decided [against ][the ][Revenue ][by ][various ][High ][Courts i'e'']the [Bombay ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ] by TECHNOLOGIES [LTD', ][vs' ASSISTAN'I COMMISSIONER]OF INCOME [& ][OTHERS2, ][Gauhati ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case]of RAM NARAYAN [vs' ] [INDIAT' ][Punjab ][and]Haryana [High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][o1'JATINDER SINGH BANGU]vs. UNION OF [INDIA4, ][and ][l.elangana Fligh ][Court ][in the ][case ][of]SRI VENKATARAMANA [VS. ] COMMTSSIONER [wherc ][the ][issue was ][in]respect [of ][intemational taxation, ][Bornbay ][High Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]ABHIN [SHAH vs' ] [OFFICER']INTERNATIONAL [w'hich ][is ][again ][on ][intemational]taxation [and central ][circle, High ][Court ][ol'Ilirnachal ][Pradesh ][in ][the]case of GOVIND [vs' ] [OFFICERT']Gujarat [High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ] 'lzoz+1464 [430 ][(Bom)]' llzoZil [1 ][56 ][taxmann.com ][478 ][(Gauhati)l]'11ZOZ+1165 [taxmann.com ][115 ][(Punjab ][& ][Ilaryana)l]'[2024) [167 ][taxmann.com ][411 ][(Telangana)l]'12024\ [166 ][taxmann.oQtrI679 ][(Bomhal ][tl]'l2)24i [165 ][taxmann.uim ] [l3 ][(Hinrachal I'radesh)l] DAHYABHAI RADADIYA vs. INCOME TAx OFFICER,WARD 3(3)(5)8, .tharkand High Courr in the case of SHyAMSUNDAR SAW vs. UNION OF. INDIAe, Rajasthan High Court inthe case of SHARDA DEVI CIIHAJER vs. INCOME TAXOFFICER & ANOTHER and batch of writ petitionsr0 whichstood decided on 19.03.2024. Similar views have also been takenby the Division Bench of Caicutta High Court in the case ofGIRDIIAR GOPAL DALMIA vs. UNION oF INDIA & oRS(M.A.T 1690 of 2}23\.clecided on25.09.2024.6. Even tliough ihe same issue having been decided by a largenumber of High Courts, rve are still conironted with large filing olidentical matters on daily basis ranging betrveen 5 to I0 writpetltlons. That upon the instructions being sought from theDepartment, the_rz have been taking a solitary ground that thedecision of the Bo*rbay High court in the case of HerawareTechnologies Lt(t., (2 supr.a) as also the one which has beendecided by this Courl in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Retldy 82024 SCC Onl-ine Guj 4012'2025 SCC Online .Iliar 2g7to 72023 [: ] :49 84-DBl (1 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']h addition, [there are ][about 1200 ][SLPs also ][fiied ][arising ][outofthe]same [issue ][being ][decided ][by ][various High ][Coufis'] 7. To a [query ][being ][put ][to ][the ][learned counsel ][for the ][Revenue']they [have ][categorically ][accepted ][the ][iact that ][there ][is no ][interim]order [granted ][by ][the ][Hon'ble ][Suprcme ][Couft ][in ][any ][of ][these]matters [pending ][before ][it' ][Meanwhile' ][tiesh ][writ ][petitions ][of]identical [nature ][are ][being ][piled ][up bcfore ][this ][Bench ][on daily ][basis]and [the pendency ][is ][getting ][increased ][on ][matter ][which ][otherwise]has arready [been deart ][and ][decided by ][this very Higtr ][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 ][have]tapsed, [till ][date' ][we ][do ][not find ][an,v ][rerreclial ][steps ][having ][been]taken [by the lncome Tax ][Department ][to ][take appropriate ][steps ][to]either [hold ][back ][issuance ][of ][notice under Section 1484' ][and under]Section [148 ][of ][the ][Act by ][the ][jurisdictional ][Assessing ][Officer']rather [the ][authorities concemed ][in ][the teeth ][of ][selies ][of ][decisions] by atl the major High (_-ourrs in India are continuously stillinitiating proceedings under Section l4gA of the Act and alsoinitiating pr.oceedings uncler. Section l4g of the Act incontravention to the arnendments brought into the Income Tax Actpursuant to the Finance Act,2020 as also the Finance Act 202L -9' upon a query being put as to why can't this writ petition bedisposed of in the teeth of the clecision rendered by this Court inthe case of Ktnokoln Ravindra Retldy (l supra), leamed Standingcounsel fo. tho Incorrre Tax Departmenl contends that those wouldumecessarily burden tl-ie Income Tax Department where theywould be required to fi [e equal nuriber of SLps before thel lon'ble Suprerne Court and iL would be fufther burdening theexchequer of the tinion of India. It was also the contention of theleamed Standing Corrnsel that no prejudice rvould be caused to theinterest of the petitioners in case if this writ petition is kept pendingtill the finalization of the SLps pending before the Hon,bleSupreme Cour-1 and the facl tbat the petitioner is already enjoyingthe benefit of interim protection. Nonetheless, on the earlier queryof this Court as tb why the Income Tax Deparlment have not comeout with a nrechrnisrn lo issuc rppropriate instructions or to take .{ .{ appropriate [steps ][in ][ensuring ][that ][proceedings ][under Section ][148A]of the Act [as ][also the ][assessment ][orders ][under Section ][148 ][of ][the]Act are kept [in ][a ][hold ][in ][the ][light ][ofthe ][decisions dedcided ][by ][the]various High [Courts, ][it ][was ][submitte<l ][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 ][tligh ][Courts'] 10. As [a ][result ][of which, ][what ][rve ][ale ][t-acing ][is steep ][increase ][of]litigation [day ][in ][and ][day ][out ][even ][though various ][orders have ][been]passed by this [High ][Court ][allowing ][rvrit petitions ][on ][the ][very ][same]issue. The [Income ][Tax ][authorities ][concemtd ][are ][still ][even ][now ][in]2025 also [initiating ][proceedings ][in ][contravention ][io ][the ][provisions]ofSectionl5lAoftheActandasaresultbynow,morethan600to 700 [petitions ][have been ][alread-v ][got ][piled ][up before ][this ][High]courl on [an ][issue ][which ][otherwise ][stands ][squarelv covered ][by ][the]judgment of this Court [in ][the ][case ][of ][Kunakala ][Rovindra ][Reddy]What [is ][also surprising ][is the ][fact ][that ][though while](1 supra). allowing the [writ ][petitions ][in ][the ][case ][of ][Kunakala ][Ravindra]Reddy (l supra), [the ][Division ][Bench ][rvhile ][reser-v'ing ][the ][right ][of]the Revenue, has [also ][protected ][the ][interest ][of ][tl,e ][petitioners] insofar as tl:e liber.r-y rvjrich ,"r,as granted to the Revenue forinitiating lresh proceedings st.ictly in accorda,ce with the amendedprovisions ol the Act, as amended by the F.inanc e Act, 2020 andinitiating lresh proceedings st.ictly in accorda,ce with the amendedprovisions ol the Act, as amended by the F.inanc e Act, 2020 andthe Finance .\ct, 20),1 . The pcrLitioner assessee would be entitled tochallenge or raise the other iegal objections if the Revenue initiatesfresh proceedings. 1'he Depar.tment has made no endeavour inavailing thc saicl iiberty that was resen ed for the Revenue. On thecontrary, they have been sliil sticki,g on to the stand, which thiscontrary, they have been sliil sticki,g on to the stand, which thisHigh Courr as well as rnany other High Courts already held to bebad.bad. 11. It appears that because of the afortsaid liberly that this HighCourt had gr.anred pern,ritlinsi the Revenue for initiating freshproceedings as a one-ttme lrcasure in a faceleSs manner, theIncome Tax l)epartrnent \,\ants to take advantage of the sarne byprotracti,g thcse p*rceedings v,,hich rvould enable them to meet thelimitation thar \\ould olher$/ise come in the way. Likewise, ilthewrit petition is kept pending tbr a considerable long period of timeand finally a1 a later stage if thc Hon,ble Supreme Court confirmsthe decision taken by this l.ligh Court as also by the other HighCourts in whiclL the SI.,ps are still pending, the Income Tax 11. It appears that because of the afortsaid liberly that this HighCourt had gr.anred pern,ritlinsi the Revenue for initiating freshproceedings as a one-ttme lrcasure in a faceleSs manner, theIncome Tax l)epartrnent \,\ants to take advantage of the sarne byprotracti,g thcse p*rceedings v,,hich rvould enable them to meet thelimitation thar \\ould olher$/ise come in the way. Likewise, ilthewrit petition is kept pending tbr a considerable long period of timeand finally a1 a later stage if thc Hon,ble Supreme Court confirmsthe decision taken by this l.ligh Court as also by the other HighCourts in whiclL the SI.,ps are still pending, the Income Tax Department [would ][get ][the ][advantage ][of ][the liberty that ][is ][otherwise]protected [in ][favour ][of ][the ][Reverrue ][for ][initiation ][of ][ftesh]proceedings [from ][the disposal ][of ][these matters ][at ][a ][much ][later ][stage]which [would be ][advantageous ][and ][beneficial ][to ][the ][Revenue ][and]would [be ][equally ][disadvantageous ][and ][derimintal ][so ][tar ][as ][interest]ofthe [assesses ][are ][concemed' As ][a ][consequence' ][the Income Tax]Depadment [gets ][an ][extended ][period ][ol ][tirne ][for ][initiation ][of ][fresh]Proceedings' this [court' ][desPite]12. [The ][alarming ][trend of docket explosion tn]the [clear ][precedent sel\l ][Kanakdla ][Rtrvintlra ][Reddy ][ll ][supra)' ][is ][a]mattet [of ][grave concem' The Income ][Tpx ][Departmends persistent]initiation [of ][fresh proceedings' disregarding the ][established ][judicial]pronouncements' [has led ][to ][an ][unprecedent'ed ][surge ][in ][litigation]with [over ][600-700 petitions ][piling up ][ott the ][same ][issue' ][This]deliberate [approach ][not ][only ][undermines ][the ][principle of judicial]precedent [but ][also strains the ][judicial ][resources ][unnecessarily' ][The]Departmenf [s strategy ][of ][awaiting the ][Supreme ][Courf s decision on]pending [SLPs ][while ][continuing ][to ][initiate ][fresh ][proceedings]appears [to ][be- ][a ][calculated move ][to ][buy ][time ][and ][circumvent]periods, [rather ][than ][adhering ][to ][the ][established legal]'mitation posrtlon. Such conducllaises serious questions abouttheadministrativeellicioncy and therespect for judicialpronouncements. parlicular.ly when this Court has already provideda balanced approach b.,, prese.ving both the Revenue,s rights andassesses interesls. 13. Another aslrect which needs to be considered is that in fact itshould have beern realize<J irv tfus 1n.o_" Tax Department itself andshould have lbuncl oui .;!a rnedia in ensuring that proceedingsunder Sections 148_,{ arrd I:lg should not have been issued in afaceress manrlerj.t leasl iiii rhe Ilon'ble supreme court decide thetwelve hundred (1200) oc*l SLps ,r.hich it is already seized of or, atIeast the Incotlc l_ax l)cjrarintent should have Ibund out someremedial step_rs 1.l ensrrre titar rvherever the authorities intend toinitiate proceeclings undel sections r4g-A and r4g, other than in afaceless manner. the proc:crdings should have been deferredwithout precipitaring the l',atref lunher intimating the assessee thatthey shall initiate appropriarc procee<lings only after the SLp,s aredecided by the lJon,ble Suprerne Court on the very same issue.This again, the Incorie .I.ax i)epartrnent, has not been able convincing to give areply, except fbi t,e fact that such a decision if at all ) ,,, ) ,,, has to be [taken, ][has ][to ][be ][taken ][for ][the ][whole ][of India' ][and ][which]otherwise [has ][to ][be ][by ][way of ][a ][policy ][decisiorr arld that ][too ][at the]level of [Central Board ][of ][Direct ][Taxes' ][Though ][the ][learned]Standing [Counsel ][lor the ][Income ][Tar ][Department ][contended that]the Delhi [High Court ][dismissed ][a ][rvrit ][petition of similar nature' ][on]the one [hand ][when ][the High ][Couil ][is ][struggling ][to ][reduce ][its]pendency, [such notices ][which ][are ][under challenge ][in ][this ][writ]are [forcing the ][assessee ][to ][knock the ][doors ][of ][this ][High]petition Courl [resulting ][in frling ][of ][hundreds ][of ][nerv ][writ ][petitions ][which ][in]the long [run ][not only ][affects ][the ][disposal ][of ][the ][rvlit ][petitions but]also consumes [substantial ][time ][of ][the ][Bench ][in ][hearing ][these]mattersagainandagainondailybasis.Admittedly,inspiteofthematterbeforetheHon,blesupremeCotrrthavingbeentakenonmany [occasions, the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Court which is ][seized ][of ][the]matter [has ][been ][reluctant ][in ][granting any ][interim ][protection to ][the]Income [Tax ][L)epaftment' ][Yet' ][tire ][authorities ][concemed ][at ][the]State levei [are ][not ][ready ][to ][accept the ][verdict ][passed ][by ][a ][majority]of High [Courts ][of ][difl'erent ][States ][on ][the ][same ][issue; and ][to ][make]furrher [worse, ][the ][lncome ][Tax ][Deparfinent ][is ][showing]things audacity by [issuing ][notices ][continuously ][under Sections ][148-4 ][and] 148 through the .f urisdictiorrai Assessing Officer whereas it oughtto have been oniy in the faceiess manner. 14. In rhc case ot IIANK OF INDIA vsASSISTANTCOMMTSSIONER, INC]ONfE TAXn, on an issue whether.it wasjustifiable on the part ol the Income Tax Department in notfollowing an ordcr passed by the adjudicating authority only on theground that the appears ar:e pending, the Division Bench of theHigh court orBornb.y herd at paragraph No.25 as under, viz.. : "25 Mr' [paridwaira ]llas righry drawn out attention to thedecision of this Couft in Conrnrissioner of lncome Tax vs. Smt.ordinate Bench Godavaridevi Saraf,z of this C(as also the recent decision of the co_orwhich one or us (.,,,,i":: s iil:.ffi:tJ:jiiil, the Court categoiically cbserved that the Revenue Llll,having not'accepted,,the judgment of the High Court would not mean that tillthe same is set aside in abindins rorce Rererrins,J,'r:T:::::::,i'"-;lJ::: :ffi :Union of lnrtia vs. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd.,4, theCourt observed that the approach of the officials of Revenue oftreattng decisions being ,,nct acceptable,, was criticiz6d by theSupreme Cour-t. ln such decision, following are the relevantobservations made by the Supreme Court. ',)lr.1o:tr l70 lrxnrann.cor)) l70 lrxnrann.cor)) lrxnrann.cor)) .lf I { B(,nrbay)J ',)lr.1o:tr l70 lrxnrann.cor)) l70 lrxnrann.cor)) lrxnrann.cor)) ',:ll978l I il I I tr i89 rBorntr:r).i " [2024] 165 taxmarrn.corr 55l/300,faxman 452 (Bombay) 'o llgg2lt xmanr:,cor lrt si I i i.ljj (SC) ',)lr.1o:tr l70 lrxnrann.cor)) l70 lrxnrann.cor)) lrxnrann.cor)) .lf I { B(,nrbay)J ',)lr.1o:tr l70 lrxnrann.cor)) l70 lrxnrann.cor)) lrxnrann.cor)) ',:ll978l I il I I tr i89 rBorntr:r).i " [2024] 165 taxmarrn.corr 55l/300,faxman 452 (Bombay) 'o llgg2lt xmanr:,cor lrt si I i i.ljj (SC) "6. Sri Reddyis [perhaPs ][right ][in ][saYing ][that ][the]officers [were]not actuated [bY anY mala ][fides ][in]passing theimpugned orders. [TheY ][PerhaPS]that [the claim of ][ti.le ][assessee ][was ][not]genuinely felt tenable [and ][that, ][if ][it ][was ][accepted' ][the ][Revenue]would suffer. [But what ][Sri ][Reddy cverlooks ][is ][that ][we]are not concerned [here ][with ][the ][correctness ][or]otheMise [of ][their ][conclusion ][or ][of ][any ][factual]malafides [but ][with ][the fact ][that ][the ][or-ficers ][in ][reaching]in their [conclusion, by-passed ][twc ][appellate ][orders ][in]regard to [the same ][issue which ][were ][placed ][befo!-e]them, one [of the ][Collector (Apoeals) ][and the other ][of]the Tribunal. [The ][High ][Coud has' ][in ][our ][vrew' ][rightly]criticized this [conduct of ][the ][Assistant ][Collectors ][anci]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 ][vehemently emphasized ][that ][it ][is ][of]utmost [importance ][that, ][in ][disposing ][of ][the]issues [before ][them' ][revenue ][officers ][are]quasuudicial bound by [the ][decisions ][of ][the ][appellate ][authorities]The order [of ][the ][Appellte Collector ][is ][binding ][on ][the]Assistant [Collectors working within his iurisdiction ][and]the order [of ][the Tribunal ][is ][binCing ][upon ][the ][Assistant]Collectors [and ][the ][Appellate Coliectors ][urho ][function]under the iurisdiction [of ][the ][Trlt'unal ][The principles of]ludicial [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]I rule is nct followed the resutt will only be undueharassrnent to assesses and chaos in edministrationof tax iaws. 12tdJe have dealt with this aspect at some length,because it has been suggested bythe learnedAdditional Solicitor General that theobservationsmade by the High Court, have been harsh on theofficers. lt is clear that the observations of the HighCourt, seemingiy r'ehement, and apparenflyunpalatsble to the Revenr-re, are only intended to curba tendgncy in revenue i.natters which, if aliowed tobecome widespreal, could resuit in considerableharassment to the assesses-public without any benefitto the Revenue. $Je uiould like to say that thedepartment shouid taKe these observations in theproper spirit. The observations 6f the High Courtshould be kept in rnincl in future and the utmost regardshouic be paid by the adjuoicating authorities and theappeliate authoritres to the requirements of judicialdiscipline and the need for giving effect to the ordersof the higher appellate authorities which are bindingon them." I 5' what is \\'crrying trris Bench more is the tact that anendeavour is being made ivhole heartedly to ensure not to generatefurther litigation on issues which have been laid to rest by a largenumber of High u-ourts all ol ra,hom have taken a consistent standthat the action olthe Income Tax Department being violative of theendeavour is being made ivhole heartedly to ensure not to generatefurther litigation on issues which have been laid to rest by a largenumber of High u-ourts all ol ra,hom have taken a consistent standthat the action olthe Income Tax Department being violative of the ! I 5' what is \\'crrying trris Bench more is the tact that anendeavour is being made ivhole heartedly to ensure not to generatefurther litigation on issues which have been laid to rest by a largenumber of High u-ourts all ol ra,hom have taken a consistent standthat the action olthe Income Tax Department being violative of theendeavour is being made ivhole heartedly to ensure not to generatefurther litigation on issues which have been laid to rest by a largenumber of High u-ourts all ol ra,hom have taken a consistent standthat the action olthe Income Tax Department being violative of the ! Finance [Act,2020and ][Finance ][Act'2021' Now' ][in ][order ][to ][protect]the interest [of the ][Revenue ][as ][also ][thai ][ofthe ][assessee' ][it would ][be]trite at [this juncture, ][if ][we ][dispose ][ol ][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 ][Retldy ][(l ][supra) ][shall however ][be ][subject ][to]the outcome [of ][the SLPs ][whicir uere ][filed ][by the ][lncome ][Tax]Department [and ][which is ][pending consideration before the ][llon'ble]Supreme [Court'] 16. In [the ][given ][tacts ][and circumstances' ][this ][Bench ][is ][of ][the]considered [opinion ][that ][unless and ][ttntil ][rve ][do ][not ][timely ][dispose]of matters [which ][are ][squarely covered ][b-v ][the ][decision of ][this Court]and [which ][stands ][fortified by the ][r'lecisions ][of ][the ][various ][other]Cour-ts [on ][the ][very ][same ][issue' ][the ][pendency ][of this ][High]High Court [would ][further ][be burdened ][ivnich ][othetwise ][can ][be ][decided]and disposed [of ][as ][a ][covered matter'] 17. So [far ][as ][the ][interest ][of the ][Rel enue ][is ][concemed' ][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, 37 and 38 of rl.re order which, for reacly reference, is reproducedhereunderhereunder 36. For all the afoiesaid reasons, the impugned noticesissued and the proceedings drawn by the respondent_Department is netther tenable, nor sustarnable.The notices so lssued and the procedure adopted beingper se illegal, deserves to be and are accordingly setaside/quashed. As a consequence, all the impugnedorders getting quashed, the consequential orders passedby the respondenlDeDadment pursuant to the noticesissued unde,- Section [.i4Z ]and 14g wculd also getquashed and it rs orderecl accordingiy. The reason weare quashing the consequential order is on the principlesthat when the initiaticn of the proceedings itself wasprocedurally wrong, the subsequent orders also getsnuiiified automaticaiiy. 37. The preliminary objection raised by the petitioner issustained and all these rvrit petitions slands allowed onthis very jurisdictional issue. Since the impugned noticesand orders are getting quashed on the point ofjurisdiction, we are not inciined to proceed further anddecide the other rssues raised by the petitioner whichstands reserved to be raisedand contended in anapproDriate proceeCi j.tgs. 20 20Since the Hon'ble Srroreme Court had, in the caseof AshishAgarwal, supra, as a one-timemeasureexercisingthe powers under Article 142of theConstitution of lndia, per.mitted the Revenue to proceedunder the substituteC provisions, and this Court allowingthe petitions only cn the proceduralflaw, the right conferred [on ][the ][Revenue ][r''/ould ][remain reseNed ][to]proceed [further ][if ][they ][so ][want ][from the ][stage of ][the]order of [the ][Supreme ][Court ][in the ][case ][of ][Ashish]Agarwal, [suPra] 20 20Since the Hon'ble Srroreme Court had, in the caseof AshishAgarwal, supra, as a one-timemeasureexercisingthe powers under Article 142of theConstitution of lndia, per.mitted the Revenue to proceedunder the substituteC provisions, and this Court allowingthe petitions only cn the proceduralflaw, the right conferred [on ][the ][Revenue ][r''/ould ][remain reseNed ][to]proceed [further ][if ][they ][so ][want ][from the ][stage of ][the]order of [the ][Supreme ][Court ][in the ][case ][of ][Ashish]Agarwal, [suPra] 18. [We ][would ][only furlher ][like ][to ][inake ][obsewations ][that ][since]we are [incrined ][to ][dispose ][of ][the ][i.srant ][rvrit ][petition, ][conscious ][of]the fact [that ][the ][earlier order ][of ][tiris High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]Kantrkala [Ravindra ][ReddY ][(l][ supla) ][is ][subjected ][to ][challenge]before [the ][Flon'bie ][Supreme ][Couri ][in ][StP ][No'3574 ][of ][2024'])preferred [by ][the ][Income ][Tax Departn''L'rlt' q'e ][rnake ][it ][clear ][that]allowing [of ][the ][instant ][writ ][petition ][is ][subject ][to ][outcome ][of ][the]aforesaid [SLP preferred by the Revenue ][against ][the ][decision ][of ][this]High [Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ][Kanakatu ][Rtvindra ][-Rerldy ][(1 ][supra)']This, [in ][other ][words' would ][mean that ][either ][of ][the parties' ][if ][they]so want, [may move an approptiate ][petition ][seeking ][revival ][of ][this]writ [petition ][in ][the ][tight of the ][decision ][ol ][thc ][Hon'ble ][Supreme]Court [in ][the ][pending SLP ][on ][thc ][vct ][v ][sanrc issue'] star.rds [allowed][ rn]19. [Accordingty, ][the ][instant ][wrir ][petttton]1Sfavour [of ][the ][assessee ][so ][far ][as ][tirc ][issuc][ of ][jurisdiction]concemed. [As ][a ][consequence'][ the ][iniPugned ][notice ][under]anrl 148 [stands set aside/quashed']challenge [under ][Sections ][148--A]n (t The consequential orders, if an1.,, also stand set aside/quashed insimilar terms as have Lreen p;s:e<.i by this Higli Courl in the case ofKankonsla Rcviurlru Redli, {.1 supr.a). There shalI be no or.der asto costs. Consequentl-y, rniscr:llaneous petitions pending. if any, shallstand closed DEPSuD#lRJAISi[^'5//TRUE COPY/' W'SECTTON OFFICER SECTTON \To,1. Assessment Unit, Income Tax, Department, National e-Assessment Center,New Delhi, Room No.. 4O1 ,2nd Floor, E-Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium,New Delhi - 1 10 003. 2. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 6(1), Hyderabad, l.T.Towers, 10-2-3, AC Guards, lvlasab Tank, Hyderabad - 500 044, Telangana.3- The Principal Commissioner of lncome Tax-I, LT. Towers, 10-2-3, A.C.Guards, l/asab Tank, Hyderabad - 500 004, Telangana. 4. One CC to Sri A. V. A. Siva Ka(ikeya, Advocate 5. One CC to Ms. Bokaro Sapna Reddy (Senior SC lncome Tax) 6. Two CD CopiesTJaBS HIGH COURT DATED:19t0612O25 '-=:='"- [:: \]-r. 7/|{st 'r'r [t;n- ]-', o ' [,-'][..]i'-l/, [-.-]i 10 SEP 205),. .i;j''i.. ,Ji".. ORDERWP.No.16803 of 2025 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITIONWITHOUT COSTS ,{\\t, I i