Leamed Counsel ][For ][The]Petitioner And Ms. J.sunitha, [Learne{ Junior ][Standing Counsel ][For]The [Ncome [Tax ][Department ][For ][Respondent ][Nos.l ][To ] v. Income Tax Officer

HIGH COURTFOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDEAABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF APR,IJ-TWO THOUSAND A]1ID TWENTY FIVE PRES$NrTHE HONOURABLE SRr JpSTTCE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICEiNARSING RAO NANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION NO: 7528 OF 2025 Between: SRIKRISHNA EXIM LLP, Rep. By.lPradeep [Kumar ][Sio ][Shiv Charan ][Occ.]Designated Partner and Authorizqd Signatory Aged about 58 years,Occ.Business, Office at. 8-2-62612Road No. ['10, ]Khairatabad, Hyderabad,500034 ...PETITIONER AND 1. lncome Tax Officer, Ward 8(1), Hydelabad 514, sth Floor, Signature Towers,Kondapur, Kothaguda Opp Botanical Gardens, Serilingampally Mandal R.R.District, HyderabadKondapur, Kothaguda Opp Botanical Gardens, Serilingampally Mandal R.R.District, Hyderabad 2. The Principal Commissioner of lncome Tax - ll Hyderabad, lT Towers, MasabTank, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500004.Tank, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500004.3. The National Faceless Assessment Centre lncome Tax Department, Ministryof Finance Govt. of lndia, New Delhiof Finance Govt. of lndia, New Delhi4. Union of lndia, tVinistry of Finance Rep- by its Secretary, 166-8 North Block,New Delhi - 1 10 001.New Delhi - 1 10 001. .-.RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may bepleased to i. lssue a Writ, Order or DirectiQn more particularly, one, in the natureof Writ of Mandamus, declaring the ordqr passed by the Respondent No.2 inpassing the Order dated 14.03.2024 uls. 148A(d) and Notice issued by theRespondent No.2 under Section 148 of the lncome Tax Act, 1961 dated27.O3.2024 as illegal, arbitrary, bad in law, void ab initio, violative of theprinciples of natural justice and being violative of Articles 14,19 and 265 of theConstitution of lndia and consequently, ii.,Set aside the Order dated 14.$.m24u/s. 148A(d) and Notice issued by the Respondent No.2 under Section 1 48 of thelncome Tax Act, 1961 dated 27.O3.2O24 calling for the return of income of the Petitioner for AY 2O2O-21 and any consequent proceedingsAS lacking injurisd ictionjurisd iction lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in lhe circumstances statedin the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the Hi17h Court may be pleasedto stay the proceedings of the Petitioner's case for AY 1>-020-21 and not proceedto stay the proceedings of the Petitioner's case for AY 1>-020-21 and not proceedwith passing of the Assessment Order and further dire,lt the Department to nottake any coercive stepstake any coercive steps Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. P. SOMA SHEKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1to3: Ms J. SUNITHA(JUN|OR SC FOR TNCOME TAX)Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR,DY. SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA The Court made the following: ORDER TIIE IIONOURABLE [JI.ISTTCE ][P.SAM ] ANDTEE HONOURABLE [JI{STICE ] NANDIKONDA w.P.No.752E OB 2025 ORDER [(per ]Hon'ble [Sri ][Justice ][P.Sam ][Koshy)] Heard Mr. P.Soma Shekar [RfddV, ][leamed counsel ][for ][the]petitioner and Ms. J.Sunitha, [learne{ Junior ][Standing Counsel ][for]the [ncome [Tax ][Department ][for ][respondent ][Nos.l ][to ][3' ][Perused]the record. 2. This is a writ [petition ][wherp ][the ][proceedings ][are ][either]challenged to the [notices ][which weie ][issued ][under ][Section ][l48A]and 148 of the [Income ][Tax ][Act, ][t96t ][(for ][short 'the ][Act') ][or ][the]assessment orders [those ][have ][been ][passed ][under Section ][147 ][of]the Act which [have ][been assailed.] The Court made the following: ORDER TIIE IIONOURABLE [JI.ISTTCE ][P.SAM ] ANDTEE HONOURABLE [JI{STICE ] NANDIKONDA w.P.No.752E OB 2025 ORDER [(per ]Hon'ble [Sri ][Justice ][P.Sam ][Koshy)] Heard Mr. P.Soma Shekar [RfddV, ][leamed counsel ][for ][the]petitioner and Ms. J.Sunitha, [learne{ Junior ][Standing Counsel ][for]the [ncome [Tax ][Department ][for ][respondent ][Nos.l ][to ][3' ][Perused]the record. 2. This is a writ [petition ][wherp ][the ][proceedings ][are ][either]challenged to the [notices ][which weie ][issued ][under ][Section ][l48A]and 148 of the [Income ][Tax ][Act, ][t96t ][(for ][short 'the ][Act') ][or ][the]assessment orders [those ][have ][been ][passed ][under Section ][147 ][of]the Act which [have ][been assailed.] 3. This writ petition [is ][being ][taken up ][today ][only ][on one ][of ][the]grounds, that the notices [issued ][unfler ][Section ][l48A ][of ][the ][Act]and the subsequent [initiation ][of ][progeedings ][under Section ][148 ][of]tbe Act by the [jurisdictional ][Assessing ][Olficer' ][whereas ][in ][terms]of the amendment [that ][was ][brought (o ][the ][lncome Tax ][Act ][by ][way]of Finance Act, [2021 ][w.e.f., 01.0{.2021 ][onwards, ][proceedings]( under Section l48A of the [Act ][as ][also ][under Sr:ction ][148 ][of ][the]Act ought to have also been [issued and proceeded ][in ][a ][faceless]manner.4. The contention of the [petitioner ]is [that ][the ][issue ][of]proceedings being in violation of the [Finance ][,\ct,2021 ][i.e., ][the]impugned notices under Section [l48A ][and ][Section ][148 ][of ][the Act]not being issued in a faceless manner, [have already been dealt ][with]and decided by this Court in the [case ][oll ] RAVINDRA REDDY vs. INCOME-TAX [decided]oa 14.09.2023 whereby [a ]batch [of ][writ ][petitions ][were ][allowed ][and]the proceedings initiated under Section [148A ][as ][also ][under ][Section]148 of the Act were held to be bad [with ][consequt:ntial reliefs on ][the]ground of it being in violation of the [provisions ][of ][Section ][l5 ] [of]the Act read with Notification 1812022 [dated ][29.03.2022. ][The ][said]judgment passed by this Court has also been sub;equently [followed]in a large number of writ [petitions which were allowed ][on ][similar]terms. 'l(2023) [156 ][taxmann.com ][178 ][(Teiangana)l] 5. Down the line, we find that the same issue has also beendecided against the Revenuebyvanous High Courts i.e.,by the Bombay High Court in the case of HEXAIilARETECHNOLOGIES LTD., vs. AS$ISTANT COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX & OTHERS2, Gauhati High Court in the caseof RAM NARAYAN SAH vs. UNION 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 REDDF PATLOOLA vs. DEPUTYCOMIVtrSSIONER OF INCOME TAXS where the issue was inrespect of international taxation, Bombay High Court in the case ofABHIN ANILKUMAR SHAH vs.iINCOIVIE TAX OFFICER,INTERNATIONAL TAXATION6 lvhich is again on intemationaltaxation and central circle, High Coqrt of Himachal Pradesh in thecase of GOVIND SINGH vs. IICOME TAX OFFICERT,IGujarat High Court in the0aseoI MANSUKHBHAI 'lzoz+1464 [rrR ][430 ][(Bom) ]I'l(2024) [156 ][taxmann.com 478 ][(Cauhati)l]'l(2024) [165 ][taxmann.com ][115 ][(Punjab ][& ][Haryana)l] ' 12024) [167 ][taxmann.com ][4l ] [(Telangana)l] "12024) [166 ][taxmann.com ][679 (Bomba1,)l] '[2024) [165 ]taxmann.com [l3 ][(HimachFl ][Pradesh)]] 'lzoz+1464 [rrR ][430 ][(Bom) ]I'l(2024) [156 ][taxmann.com 478 ][(Cauhati)l]'l(2024) [165 ][taxmann.com ][115 ][(Punjab ][& ][Haryana)l] ' 12024) [167 ][taxmann.com ][4l ] [(Telangana)l] "12024) [166 ][taxmann.com ][679 (Bomba1,)l] '[2024) [165 ]taxmann.com [l3 ][(HimachFl ][Pradesh)]] DAIIYABHAI RADADTYA vs. INCOME TAx OFFICE&WARD 3(3XO8, Jharkand High Court in the [r:ase ]of SHYAMSUNDAR SAW vs. UNION OF INDIAe, Rajasthan [High ][Court ][in]the case of SHARDA DEVI CHEAJER vs. INCOME TAXOFFICER & ANOTIIER and batch of writ [petitionsro ][which]stood decided on 19.03.2024. Similar views hav,: also been takenby the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in the case ofGIRDHAR GOPAL DALMIA vs.IIMON Ot'INDIA & ORS(M.A.T 1690 ot2023), decided on 25.09.2024.6. Even though the same issue having been decided by a largenumber of High Courts, we are still confronted w'ith large filing ofidentical matters on daily basis ranging between 5 to l0 [writ]petitions. That upon the instructions being r;ought ffom theDepartment, they have been taking a solitary ground that thedecision of the Bombay High Court in the ceLse of HewtwareTechnologies Ltd., (2 supra) as also the one which has beendecided by this Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy *202+ sCC online Guj 4012'2025 Online [Jhar 287]o ' 12023 [: ][RJ-JD:4984-DBl] ( (1 supra) has been srbjected to phallenge in a Special LeavePetition i.e., SLP No.3574 of 202! before the Hon'ble SupremeCourt and the Hon'ble Supreme Gourt is seized of the matter.In addition, there are about 1200 SlPs also fited arising out [ofthe]same issue being decided by variousiHigh Courts. 7. To a query being put to the leamed counsel for the Revenue,they have categorically accepted thp fact that there [is ][no ][interim]order granted by the Hon'ble Sugreme [Court ][in ][any ][of ][these]matters pending before it. Meanyhile, [fresh ][writ ][petitions ][of]identical nature are being piled up bgfore this [Bench on ][daily ][basis]and the pendency is [getting ]increaspd [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 and more [16 months ][have]tapsed, till date, we do not find anf, remediat steps [having ][been]taken by the Income Tax Departmett to take appropriate [steps to]either hold back issuance of notice inder [Section ][t48A ][and ][under]Section 148 of the Act by the [jurlsdictional ][Assessing ][Officer,]rather the authorities concerned in the teeth of series of decisions by all the major High Courts in India are continuously stillinitiating proceedings under Section l48A of the Act and alsoinitiating proceedings under Section 148 of the Act incontravention to the amendments brought into the Income Tax Actpursuant to the Finance Act, 2020 as also the Finance Act 2021. 9. Upon a query being put as to why can,t this writ petition bedisposed of in the teeth of the decision rendered by this Court inthe case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra.t, Ieamed StandingCounsel for the Income Tax Department contends that those wouldunnecessarily burden the Income Tax Depanment where theywould be required to hle equal number of SLps before theHon'ble Supreme Court and it would be further burdening theexchequer ol thc Union of India. It was also thr: contention of theleamed Standing Counsel that no prejudice wou [d be caused to theinterest of the petitioners in case if this wdt petition is kept pendingtill the finalization of the SLPs pending before the Hon'bleSupreme Court and the lact that the petitioner is already enjoyingthe beneht ol interim protection. Nonetheless, on the earlier queryof this Court as to why the Income Tax Department have not comeout with a mechanism to issue appropriate insh.uctions or to take/t,2 appropriate [steps ][in ][ensuring that prpceedings under Section ][l48A]of the Act [as ][also ][the ][assessment opders ][under ][Section ][148 ][ofthe]Act are [kept ][in ][a ][hotd ][in ][the ][light ][ofthe ][decisions dedcided ][by ][the]various High [Courts, ][it ][was ][submitted ][by ][the ][leamed ][Standing]Counsel [that the ][said ][steps ][can ][onlylbe ][taken ][at ][the ][level ][of CBDT]as any such [steps ][would ][have to be taken ][Pan ][India ][and cannot ][be]limited to any [of ][these ][jurisdictionallHigh ][Courts'] 10. As a [result ][of ][which, what w6 ][are ][facing is ][steep ][increase ][of]titigation 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 [Income ][Tax authorities ][poncerned are ][still ][even ][now ][in]2025 also [initiating ][proceedings ][in ][contravention ][to ][the provisions]ofsectionl5lAoftheActandaspresultbynow,morethan600to 700 [petitions have ][been ][already ][got piled ][up ][belore ][this ][High]Courtonanissuewhichotherwisestandssquarelycoveredbythejudgment of this Court [in ][the ][case ][of ][Kanakala Ravindra ][Reddy]What [is ][also surprisinp ][is ][the fact ][that though while](l supra). allowing [the ][writ ][petitions ][in ][thp ][case ][ol ][Kanaksla ][Ravindra]Reddy (l [supra), ][the ][Division ][Beuch ][while ][reserving the ][right ][of]the Revenue, [has also ][protected ][the ][interest ][of ][the ][petitioners] insofar as the liberty which was granted to the Revenue forinitiating fresh proceedings strictly in accordanc,: with the amendedprovisions of the Act, as amended by the Finance Act, 2020 andthe Finance Act, 2021. The petitioner assessee vrould be entitled tochallenge or raise the other legal objections if the Revenue initiatesfresh proceedings. The Department has made no endeavour inavailing the said liberty that was reserved for thr: Revenue. On thecontrary, they have been still sticking on to tho stand, which thisHigh Court as well as many other High Courts already held to bebad I l. It appears that because ofthe aforesaid litrcrfy that this HighCourt had granted permitting the Revenue f,cr initiating freshCourt had granted permitting the Revenue f,cr initiating freshproceedings as a one-time measure in a faceless manner, theIncome Tax Department wants to take advantage of the same byprotracting these proceedings which would enabl e them to meet thelimitation that would otherwise come in the way. Likewise, if thewrit petition is kept pending for a considerable l,cng period of timeand hnally at a later stage if the Hon'ble Suprerne Court confirmsthe decision taken by this High Court as also [.by ]the other HighIncome Tax Department wants to take advantage of the same byprotracting these proceedings which would enabl e them to meet thelimitation that would otherwise come in the way. Likewise, if thewrit petition is kept pending for a considerable l,cng period of timeand hnally at a later stage if the Hon'ble Suprerne Court confirmsthe decision taken by this High Court as also [.by ]the other HighCourts in which the SLPs are stilt pending, the Income Tax Department would get the advantago of the liberty that is otherwiseprotected in favour of the Revpnue for initiation of fteshproceedings from the disposal of thepe matters at a much later stagewhich would be advantageous and jbeneficial to the Revenue andwould be equally disadvantageous a+d detrimental so far as interestof the assesses are concerned. As a consequence, the Income TaxDepartment gets an extended periogof time for initiation of freshproceedings. Department would get the advantago of the liberty that is otherwiseprotected in favour of the Revpnue for initiation of fteshproceedings from the disposal of thepe matters at a much later stagewhich would be advantageous and jbeneficial to the Revenue andwould be equally disadvantageous a+d detrimental so far as interestof the assesses are concerned. As a consequence, the Income TaxDepartment gets an extended periogof time for initiation of freshproceedings. 12. The alarming trend of docket Qxplosion in this Court, despitethe clear precedent setin Kanakala $.avindra Reddy (l supra), is amatter of grave concern. The Inco(e Tax Department's persistentinitiation of fresh proceedings, disre$arding the established [judicial]pronouncements, has led to an unppecedented surge in litigationwith over 600-700 petitions piling up on the same issue. Thisdcliberate approach not only under$ines the principle of judicialprecedent but also strains the judiciaf resources unnecessarily. I'heDepartment's strategy of awaiting th( Supreme Court's decision onpending SLPs while continuing tp initiate fresh proceedingsappears to be a calculated move (o buy time and circumventlirnitation periods, rather than adhefing to the established legal position. Such conduct raises serious questions about theadministrative efficiency and the respect for judicialpronouncements, particularly when this Court hzrs already provideda balanced approach by preserving both the Rr:venue's rights andassesses rnterestsadministrative efficiency and the respect for judicialpronouncements, particularly when this Court hzrs already provideda balanced approach by preserving both the Rr:venue's rights andassesses rnterests 13. Another aspect which needs to be considered is that in fact itshould have been realized by the Income Tax Department itself andshould have found out via media in ensurin6l that proceedingsunder Sections 148-A and 148 should not hav,: been issued in afaceless manner, at [east till the [Ion'ble SuprenLe Court decide thetwelve hundred ( I 200) odd S LPs which it is already seized of or, atleast the Income Tax Department should hav,: found out someremedial steps to ensure that w herever the authorities intend toinitiate proceedings under Sections 148-A and 148, other than in afaceless manner, the proceedings should have been deferredwithout precipitating rhe marrer further intimatirLg the assessee thatthey shall initiate appropnate proceedings only rafter the SLP's aredecided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on tht: very same issue.This again, the Income Tax Department, has not been able to give aconvincing reply, except fbr the fact that such a decision if at alt has to be taken, has to be taken [for ]frre [whole ][of ][India, ][and ][which]otherwise has to be by way of a [poligy ]decision [and that ][too ][at the]level of Central Board ol Direct ['lfaxes. ][Though ]the [leamed]Standing Counsel for the Income [Tax ][Department contended that]the Delhi High Court dismissed [a ][wri[ ][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]Court 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 befbre the Hon'ble SuPreme[Court having ][been ][taken ][on]many occasions, the t{on'ble [Supremg ][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 ][thl ][verdict ][passed ][by ][a ][majority]of High Courts [of ][different ][States ][on the ][same ][issue; and ][to ][make]things further [worse, ]the [lncome ]fax [Department ][is ][showing]audacity by [issuing ][notices ][continuoufly ][under Sections 148-A ][and] 148 through the [jurisdictional ]Assessing Officer whereas it oughtto have been only in the faceless manner. 14. In the case of BANK OF INDIA ['vs. ]ASSISTANTCOMMISSIOI\ER, INCOME TAXrr, on an issue whether it wasjustifiable on the part of the Income Tax Department in notfollowing an order passed by the adjudicating aulhority only on theground that the appeals are pending, the Division Bench of theHigh Court of Bombay held at paragraph No.25 as under, viz., [:] "25. Mr. Paridwalla has rightly drawn out attention to thedecision of this Court in Commissioner of lncomr: [Tax ]vs. Smt.Godavaridevi Sarafl2 as also the recent decison of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Samp Furniture [(F') ]Ltd. v. lTOl3of which one of us [(Justice ]G.S. Kulkarni) was a member, [wherein]the Court categorically observed that the Reverue having not"accepted" the judgment of the High Court would not mean that tillthe same is set aside in a manner known to law, it would loose itsbinding force. Referring to the decision of the Surrreme Court inUnion of lndia vs. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd.14, theCourt observed that the approach of the officials of Revenue oftreating decisions being ["not ]acceptable" was criticized by theSupreme Court. ln such decision, following are the [relevant]observations made by the Supreme Court. tt 11ZOZS'1170 [taxmann.com 422 ][(Bombay)l]t2 1t9l81l13 ITR 589 (Bombay) '3 IZOZ+1165 [taxmann.com 581/300 ][Tarman ][452 ][(Bombay)] '3 IZOZ+1165 'o 1l99z1taxmann.coml6/55 [413 ][(SC) ]'o 1l99z1taxmann.coml6/55 [413 ][(SC) ] tt 11ZOZS'1170 [taxmann.com 422 ][(Bombay)l]t2 1t9l81l13 ITR 589 (Bombay) '3 IZOZ+1165 [taxmann.com 581/300 ][Tarman ][452 ][(Bombay)] '3 IZOZ+1165 'o 1l99z1taxmann.coml6/55 [413 ][(SC) ]'o 1l99z1taxmann.coml6/55 [413 ][(SC) ] "6. Sri Reddy is perhaps ripht in saylng that theofficers were not actuated iby any mala fides [in]passing the imp:gned orflers. They [perhaps]officers were not actuated iby any mala fides [in]passing the imp:gned orflers. They [perhaps]genuinely felt that the claim [qf ]the assess@ was nottenable and that, if it was Eccepted, the [Revenue]would suffer. But what Sri Repdy overlooks [is ]that [we]are not concerned here wfth the conectness orotherwise of their conclusipn or of any [factual]malafides but with the fact thaf the officers, [in reaching]in their conclusion, by-passe-d two appellate orders [in]regard to the same issue wflich were [placed before]them, one of the Collector [(Appeals) ]and the [other ]ofthe Tribunal. The Hrgh Courti [has, in our view, rightly]criticized this conduct of the fssistant [Collectors ][and]the harassment to the assessPe caused by the [failure]of these officers to [give ]eiffect to the orders ofauthorities higher to them in tfle appellate hierarchy. ltcannot be too vehemently [qnphasized ]that it is ofutmost importance that, iin disposing of [the]quasijudicral issues before thgm, revenue officers arebound by the decisions of t$e appellate [authorities.]The order of the Appellte Collector is [binding ]on [the]Assistant Collectors working lyithin his [jurisdiction and]the order of the Tribunal [is ]birfding [upon the Assistant]Collectors and the Appellate tCollectors who [function]under the [jurisdictron ]of the [Trf ]bunal. [The principles ][of]judicial discipline require that ithe orders of the higherappellate authorities should [bie ][followed unreservedly]by the subordinate authorities, [The ][mere ][fact that the]order of the appellate authori[y is not ["acceptable" ]tothe department - in itself ani objectionable [phrase ]-and is the subiect matter of an appeal [can furnish no]ground for not following it lhless its operation [has]been suspended by a competpnt court. [lf ]this [healthy]tenable and that, if it was Eccepted, the [Revenue]would suffer. But what Sri Repdy overlooks [is ]that [we]are not concerned here wfth the conectness orotherwise of their conclusipn or of any [factual]malafides but with the fact thaf the officers, [in reaching]in their conclusion, by-passe-d two appellate orders [in]regard to the same issue wflich were [placed before]them, one of the Collector [(Appeals) ]and the [other ]ofthe Tribunal. The Hrgh Courti [has, in our view, rightly]criticized this conduct of the fssistant [Collectors ][and]the harassment to the assessPe caused by the [failure]of these officers to [give ]eiffect to the orders ofauthorities higher to them in tfle appellate hierarchy. ltcannot be too vehemently [qnphasized ]that it is ofutmost importance that, iin disposing of [the]quasijudicral issues before thgm, revenue officers arebound by the decisions of t$e appellate [authorities.]The order of the Appellte Collector is [binding ]on [the]Assistant Collectors working lyithin his [jurisdiction and]the order of the Tribunal [is ]birfding [upon the Assistant]Collectors and the Appellate tCollectors who [function]under the [jurisdictron ]of the [Trf ]bunal. [The principles ][of]judicial discipline require that ithe orders of the higherappellate authorities should [bie ][followed unreservedly]by the subordinate authorities, [The ][mere ][fact that the]order of the appellate authori[y is not ["acceptable" ]tothe department - in itself ani objectionable [phrase ]-and is the subiect matter of an appeal [can furnish no]ground for not following it lhless its operation [has]been suspended by a competpnt court. [lf ]this [healthy] rule is not followed, the.result will only ee undueharassment to assesses and chaos in adrrinistrationof tax laws. rule is not followed, the.result will only ee undueharassment to assesses and chaos in adrrinistrationof tax laws. 12. We have dealt with this aspect at sonre length,because it has been suggested by tho learnedAdditional Solicitor General that the obr;ervationsmade by the High Court, have been harsih on theofficers. lt is clear that the observations ol the HighCourt, seemingly vehement, and zrpparentlyunpalatable to the Revenue, are only intended to curba tendency in revenue matters which, if allowed tobemme widespread, could result in considerableharassment to the assesses-public without any benefitto the Revenue. We would like to say that thedepartment should take these observations in theproper spirit. The observations of the H gh Courtshould be kept in mind in future and the utmost regardshould be paid by the adjudicating authorities and theappellate authorities to the requirements of [judicial]discipline and the need for giving effect to the ordersof the higher appellate authorities which are bindrngon them." 15. What is worrying this Bench more is the lact that anendeavour is being made whole heartedly to ensrrre not to generatefurther litigation on issues which have been laid to rest by a largenumber of High Courts all of whom have taken a consistent standthat the action of the Income Tax Department being violative of the IIIlili Finance Act,2O20 [and ][Finance ][Act,202l' ][Now, ][in ][order ][to protect]the interest of [the ][Revenue ][as ][also ][that ][of ][the ][assess@, ][it ][would ][be]trite at this [junchrr€, ][if ][we ][dispose ][of ][the ][wdt ][petition ][with ][an]observation/direction [that ][the ][disposal ][ofthe ][instant ][writ ][petition ][in]terms of the [judgment ][rendered ][by ]this [High Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]Kankanala [Ravindra ][Reddy ][(l ][rrp.[) ][,hull ][however be subject ][to]the outcome of [the ][SLPs ][which ][wlere ][filed ][by ][the ][Income ][Tax]and [which ][is pending copsideration before ][the ][Hon'ble]Department Supreme Court. 16. In the [given ][facts and ][circur+stances, ][this ][Bench ][is ][of ][the]considered opinion [that unless and ][until ][we do not ][timely ][dispose]of matters which [are ][squarely ][coverqd by ][the ][decision ][of this Court]and which stands [fortified ][by ][the ]{ecisions [ol ][the various ][other]High Courts on [the ][very ][same ][issr.ie, ][the ][pendency ][of ][this ][High]Court would [further be ][burdencd ][*fich ][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 ][intertst o[ ][the ][Revenue has already]been considered [and ][protected, ][as h4s ][been observed ][in ][paragraphs] 36,37 and 38 ofthe orderwhich, forreadyreferertce, is reproduced hereunder: 36. For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned noticesissued and the proceedings drawn by the r:spondent-Department is neither tenable, nor sustainable.The notices so issued and the procedure adc,pted beingper se illegal, deserves to be and are acccrdingly setaside/quashed. As a consequence, all the impugnedorders getting quashed, the consequential orders passedby the respondent-Department pursuant to lhe noticesissued under Section 147 and 148 would also getquashed and it is ordered accordingly. The reason weare [quashing ]the consequential order is on the principlesthat when the initiation of the proceedings itself wasprocedurally wrong, the subsequent orders also getsnullified automatically. 37. The preliminary objection raised by the petitioner issustained and all these writ petitions stands allowed onthis very [jurisdictional ]issue. Since the impugned noticesand orders are gefting quashed on the pornt ofjurisdiction, we are not inclined to proceed lurther anddecide the other issues raised by the petitioner whichstands reserved to be raised and contenled in anappropriate proceedings. 37. The preliminary objection raised by the petitioner issustained and all these writ petitions stands allowed onthis very [jurisdictional ]issue. Since the impugned noticesand orders are gefting quashed on the pornt ofjurisdiction, we are not inclined to proceed lurther anddecide the other issues raised by the petitioner whichstands reserved to be raised and contenled in anappropriate proceedings. 38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the caseof Ashish Agarwal, supra, as a one{ime measureexercising the powers under Article 142 of theConstitution of lndia, permitted the Revenue to proceedunder the substituted provisions, and this Court allowingthe petitions only on the procedural flaw, the right confened on the Revenue would remain reser\ed toprooe€d further if they so wtsnt from the stage of theorder of the Supreme Cotlrt in the case of AshishAgarwal, supra. 18. We would only further like tq make observations that sincew€ are inclined to dispose of the ingant writ petition, conscious ofthe fact that the earlier order of t is 4High Court in the case ofKanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra) is subjected to challengebefore the Hon'ble Supreme Coutt in SLP No.3574 of 2024,preferred by the Income Tax Depafment, we make it clear thatallowing of the instant writ petitior] is subject to outcome of theaforesaid SLP preferred by the Reve{rue against the decision of thisHigh Court in the case of Kanakalg Ravindro Reddy (l supra).This, in other words, would mean thpt either of the [parties, ]if theyso want, may move an appropriate pctition seeking revival [of ][this]writ petition in the light of the decision ol'the [{on'ble SupremeCourt in the pending SLP on the very same [issue.] 19. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands allowedlnfavour of the assessee so far as [lthe ]issue ol [jurisdiction]lsconcemed. As a consequence, fhe [impugned ][notice ][under]challenge under Sections 148-A and 148 stands set aside/quashed. , The consequential orders, if any, also stand set aside/quashed in similar terms as have been passed by this High Court in the case of Kankanala Ravindra Reddy (l supra). There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pencling, if any, shalt stand closed sp/- L. vTJAYA LAXMTISTANT REGISTRARISTANT REGISTRAR\.,,'\',r [q ]SECTION OFFICERr [q ]SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To,1 The lncome Tax Officer, Ward 8(1), Hyderabad'' Ll514. sth Floor. SionatureTowers, Kondapur, Kothaguda Opp Botanical €ardens, SerilingimpallyMandal R.R District, HyderabadTowers, Kondapur, Kothaguda Opp Botanical €ardens, SerilingimpallyMandal R.R District, Hyderabad2. The Principal Commissioner of lncome Tax- ll Hycerabad, lT Towers. IVlasabTank. Hyderabad, Telangana - 500004.Tank. Hyderabad, Telangana - 500004.3. The National Faceless Assessment Centrelncomer Tax Department, Ministryof Finance Govt. of lndia, New Delhiof Finance Govt. of lndia, New Delhi4. The Secretary, Union of lndia, Ministry ofFinance, 166-8 North Block, NewDelhi - 1 10 001 .Delhi - 1 10 001 . 5. One CC to SRl. .P. SOMA SHEIGR REDDY, Advocare tOpUCl6 One CC to Ms. J. SUNITHA (JUNIOR SC FOR TNCOIMETAX) 1OeuC17. One CC to SRI. GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DY. SoLICITOR GENERAL oFrNDrAloPUCl6 One CC to Ms. J. SUNITHA (JUNIOR SC FOR TNCOIMETAX) 1OeuC17. One CC to SRI. GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DY. SoLICITOR GENERAL oFrNDrAloPUCl rNDrAloPUCl8 Two CD Copres BMoGJGJ HIGH COURT DATED:2410412025 ..a,{HE S 14.,:r: <') '('i ri2 3 AUG [2025] ORDER WP.No.7528 ot 2025 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS09\L