Lranner v. The Contention Contention Of T[-Re Petitioner T[-Re Petitioner Petitioner Is That Tl're Issue Ofthat Tl're Issue Oftl're Issue Ofissue Ofof

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYOERABAD(Special Original J urisdiction) TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF APRILTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION NO: 11780 OF 2023 Between: [t4r. Ganapathi Baddam, S/o B.Chinna Reddy, aged 65 years, Occ-Agriculturist, Kothapally Village, Balkonda, Nizamabad [- ]503 217 , Telangana. ...PETITIONER AND 1The lncome Tax Officer [- ]Ward ['1 ], Nizamabad, lncome Tax Officer, 6-2-156/3,Subhash Nagar, Nizamabad, Telangana - 503 002.Subhash Nagar, Nizamabad, Telangana - 503 002. 2The Principal Chief Commissioner of lncome Tax, Andhra Pradesh andTelangana, Hyderabad Room No. 922,9tn Floor, B-BIock, l.T.Towers, 10-2-3,AC Guards, Hyderabad - 500 004, Telangana.Telangana, Hyderabad Room No. 922,9tn Floor, B-BIock, l.T.Towers, 10-2-3,AC Guards, Hyderabad - 500 004, Telangana. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia [praying ]that in thecircumstances stated rn the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may [be]pleased to issue a Writ of lVlandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order orDirection, declaring a. the order [passed ]by the 1st Respondent, u/s 148A(d) of thelncome Tax Act, ['1961 ], dated 28.03.2023, bearing DIN and Notice [No.]ITBA/AST/F/I48A12022-2311051448170(1), for the Assessment Year 2016 [- ][17,]and b. the notice issued by the 1st Respondent, u/s 148 of the lncome Tax Act,1961, dated 28.03.2023, bearing DIN and Notice No. ITBA/AST/S/148-112022'2311051477823('1 ), for the Assessment Year 2016 [- ]17, as arbitrary, illegal, barredby limitation, bad in law, void-ab-initio, violative of the [principles ]of natural [justice,]apart from being violative of Articles 1a, l9(t )(g) and 265 of the Constitution [of]lndia and Sec 148A of the lncome Tax Act, [1 ]961 , and consequently set [aside ][the]same in the interests of [justice] :t tSjr&g_-ff.:- ,rr,' lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the r;ircumstances stated inthe affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court rnay be pleased to stayall further proceedings, including any recovery, pursuant to the notice issued bythe 1st Respondent, u/s 148 of the lncome Tax Act, 1961 , dated 28.03.2023,bearing DIN and Notice No. ITBA/AST/S/148-112022-2311051477823(1),'fot theAssessment Year 2016 - 17, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. A V A SIVA KARTIKEYA Counsel for the Respondents: Ms. SUNDARI R PISUPATI (SR.SC FOR INCOMETAX DEPARTMENT) The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAONANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION No.I1780 of 2023 ORDERT @er IIon'ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy) Heard Mr. A.V.A.Siva Kafiikeya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Sundali R Pisupathi, learned Senior StandingCounsel for the Income Tax Deparlment for the respondents.Perused the record.Counsel for the Income Tax Deparlment for the respondents.Perused the record. 2. This is a writ petition where the proceedings are eitherchallenged to the notices which were issued under Section 148,4.and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for shorl 'the Act') ol theassessment orders those have been passed under Section 147 ofthe Act which have been assailed. 3. This writ petition is being taken up today only on one of thegrounds, that the notices issued under Section l48A of the Actand the subsequent initiation ofproceedings under Section 148 ofthe Act by the [jurisdictional ]Assessing Officer, whereas in tetmsof the amendment that was brought to the Income Tax Act by wayof Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f., 01.04.2021 onwards, proceedings under Section 148,{ of the Act as also under Section 148 of theAct ought to have also been issued and proceedeci in a facelessAct ought to have also been issued and proceedeci in a faceless lranner. 3. This writ petition is being taken up today only on one of thegrounds, that the notices issued under Section l48A of the Actand the subsequent initiation ofproceedings under Section 148 ofthe Act by the [jurisdictional ]Assessing Officer, whereas in tetmsof the amendment that was brought to the Income Tax Act by wayof Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f., 01.04.2021 onwards, proceedings under Section 148,{ of the Act as also under Section 148 of theAct ought to have also been issued and proceedeci in a facelessAct ought to have also been issued and proceedeci in a faceless lranner. 4. The contention contention of t[-re petitioner t[-re petitioner petitioner is that tl're issue ofthat tl're issue oftl're issue ofissue ofofproceedings being in violation ol the Finance Act. 202 I i.e ., theimpugned notices under Section 148,4 and Section I48 of the Actnot being issued in a faceless manner, have alreadv bc,:n dealt withand dccided by this Courl in the case of IiANKANALARAVINDRA ITEDDY vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICllllr decidedon 14.09.2023 whereby a batch of writ petitions $€,r'e allorved andthe proceedings initiated under Section f48A as also undel Section148 olthe Act rvere held to be bad with consequentirl reliels on theground of it being in violation of the plovisions of SecLion 151A ofthe Act read with Notification 1812022 dated 29.03.]0-12. T'he saidjudgment passed by this Court has also been subseqr.Lerrtly lollowedin a large number of writ petitions which were allorve,d on similarterms The contention contention of t[-re petitioner t[-re petitioner petitioner is that tl're issue ofthat tl're issue oftl're issue ofissue ofof '1Q023) [156 ]taxmann.com [178 ][(Telangana)l] 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 INCOI\IE TAX & OTHERSz, Gauhati [High ]Court [in ][the ][case]of RAM NARAYAN SAH vs. UNION OF INDIAs, Punjab andHalyana High Court in the case of JATINDER SINGH BANGUvs. UNION OF INDIA4, and Telangar.ra High Courl in the case ofSRI VF],NKATARAMANA REDDY PATLOOLA VS. DEPUTYCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX5 where the issue [was ][in]respect of international taxation, Bombay High Court in the case ofABHIN ANILKUMAR SHAH VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER,INTERNATIONAL TAXATION6 r,vhich is again on intcmationaltaxation and central circte, High Coult of Hin.rachal Pradesh in thecase of GOVIND SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERT,Gujarat High Court in the case of MANSUI(HBHAI 'Tzoz+1464 [430 ][(Bom)]'l(2024) [156 ][taxmann.corn 478 ][(Gauhati)l]'[(2024) 165 taxmann.com I l5 [(Punjab ]& Haryana)]'12024) [167 ][taxmann.corn ][41 ][1 ][(Telangana)l] " [2024) [166 ]taxmann.com [679 ][(Bombay)l] ' 12024) 165 taxmann.com I 13 [(Himaclial ][Pradesh)l] DAHYABHAI RADADIYA vs. INCOME TITX OFFICER,WARD 3(3xrrr, Jharkand High Court in the case 01'SHYAMSUNDAR SAW vs. UNION OF INDIAe, Rajasthan Iligh Court inthe case of SHARDA DEVI CHHAJBR vs. I\COME TAXOFFICER & ANOTHER and batch of writ p,:titionsro whichstood dccided on 19.03.2024. Similar views have also been takenby lhe Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in the casc ofGIRDHAR GOPAL DALMIA vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS(M.A.T l6q0 ul'1023). decided on25.09.2024.6. Evert though the same issue l.raving been dec id,:d by a largenumber of High Courts, we are still conhonted wit i lrarge filing ofidentical matters on daily basis ranging betweel [j; ]to l0 r,vritpetitions. That upon the instructions being so:rght from t[reDepadment, they have been taking a solitary grouncl that thedecision of the Bombay High Court in the case, af HexuwareTechnologies Ltd., (2 supra) as also the one u.hich has beendccided by this Court in the case of Kanakula Ruvindra Reddy t2024 SCC OnLino Guj 4012' [2025 ][S('C ]OnL inc Jhar 287' n yzo23, RJ-JD : 49 84-DB l .;. t2024 SCC OnLino Guj 4012' [2025 ][S('C ]OnL inc Jhar 287' n yzo23, RJ-JD : 49 84-DB l .;. (1 supra) has been subjected to challenge in a Special LeavePetition i.e., SLP No.3574 of 2024 before the Hon'ble SupremeCou( and the Hon'ble Supreme Court is seized of the matterIn addition, there are about 1200 SLPs also filed arising out of thesame issue being decided by various High Courts.Petition i.e., SLP No.3574 of 2024 before the Hon'ble SupremeCou( and the Hon'ble Supreme Court is seized of the matterIn addition, there are about 1200 SLPs also filed arising out of thesame issue being decided by various High Courts. 1. To a query being put to the learned counsel for the Revenue,they l.rave categorically accepted the fact that there is no interimordel granted by the Hon'ble Supleme Court in any of thesematters pending before it" Meanwhile, fresh rvrit petitions ofidentical nature are being piled up before this Bench on daily basisand the pendency is getting increased on matter which otherwisel.ras already been dealt and decided by this very lligh Court itself. 8. On the one hand, even though the order of this Courl thatwas passed as early as on 14.09.2023 and more i6 months havelapsed, till date, we do not find any remedial steps having beentaken by the Income Tax Department to take appropriate steps toeither hold back issuance of notice under Section 148A and underSection 148 of the Act by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer,rather the authorities concemed in the teeth of series of decisions by all the majol High Courls in India are cc ntinuously stillinitiating proceedings under Section 148A of the .A,ct and alsoinitiating proceedings under Section 148 o,' the Act incontravention to the arnendments brought into the ncome Tax Actpursuant to the Finance Act,2020 as also the Finant:e .\ct 20219. Upon a query being put as to why can't this wit petition bedisposed of in the teeth of the decision rendered by this Court inthe case of Kantkolo Rovindra Reddy (1 supra), l,:arned StandingCounsel for the Income Tax Departrnent contends thar those wouldunnecessarily bulden the Incorne Tax Deparln-re:nt. w lrele theywould be required to file equal nuliber of SLPs before theHon'ble Supreme Coult and it would be furlher burdening theexchequel of the Union of India. It was also the c()ntention ol thclearned Standing Counsel that no prejudice would [>e r:sused to theinterest of the petitioners in case if this writ petition is kept pendingtitl the fir.ralization of the SLPs pending beior.e the Hon'bleSupreme Court and the fact that the petitioner is aLready enjoyingthe benefit of interim protection. Nonetheless, on t.-re ear.lier queryof this Court as to why the Income Tax Deparlmenl have not comeout with a mechanism to issue appropriate instrucr.igrs or to take w t.'rr.,ii:6y -r' appropriate steps in ensuring that proceedings under Section l48Aof the Act as also the assessment orders under Section 148 of theAct are kept in a hold in the light of the decisions decided by thevarious High Courts, it was submitted by the learned StandingCounsel that the said steps can only be taken at the level of CBDTas any such steps would have to be taken Pan India and cannot belimited to any of these [jurisdictional ]High Courts w t.'rr.,ii:6y -r' appropriate steps in ensuring that proceedings under Section l48Aof the Act as also the assessment orders under Section 148 of theAct are kept in a hold in the light of the decisions decided by thevarious High Courts, it was submitted by the learned StandingCounsel that the said steps can only be taken at the level of CBDTas any such steps would have to be taken Pan India and cannot belimited to any of these [jurisdictional ]High Courts 10. As a result of which, what we are facing is steep increase ollitigation day in and day out even though various orders have beenpassed by this High Court allowing rvrit petitions on the very sameISSUC The Income Tax authorities concemed are still even now in2025 also initiating proceedings in contravention to the provisionsof Scction 15lA of the Act and as a result by now, more than 600to 700 petitions have been already got piled up before this HighCourt on an issue which otherwise stands squarely covered by thejudgrnent of this Court in the case of Kanakola Ravindra Reddy(1 supra). What is also surprising is the fact that though whileallowing the writ petitions in the case of Kanakala RavindraReddy (1 supra),.the Division Bench while reserwing the right ofthe Revenue, has also protected the interest of the petitioners insofar as the liberty which was granted to the Revenue forinitiating fi'esh proceedings strictly in accordance with the amendcdinitiating fi'esh proceedings strictly in accordance with the amendcdprovisions of the Act, as amended by the Finance Act. 2020 andthe Finance Act,202l. lhe petitioner assessee would be entitled tochallenge or raise the other legal objections if the Rev:nue initiatcsfresh proceedings. The Department has made nr endeavour inavailing the said libety that was leserved fbr the R::venue. On thecontrary, tl.rey havc been still sticking on to the stanrl, which thisHigh Court as u,e[[ as rnany othel High Courts already held to bebad.availing the said libety that was leserved fbr the R::venue. On thecontrary, tl.rey havc been still sticking on to the stanrl, which thisHigh Court as u,e[[ as rnany othel High Courts already held to bebad. I l. It appears that becausc of the aforesaid liberty that this I-{ighCourt had granted permitting the Revenue for initiating tieshCourt had granted permitting the Revenue for initiating tieshproceedings as a one-time measure in a facelerts manner, theIncome Tax Department wants to take advantage of the sarne byprotracting these proceedings which would enable thel'n to rneet thclirnitation that would otherwise come in the way. t-il.ewise. if thewrit petition is kept pending for a considerable lon1t period of timeand finally at a later stage if the Hon'ble Supreme Courl confimrsthe decision taken by this High Couft as also by the other HighCourts in which the SLPs are stili pending, the Income Taxprotracting these proceedings which would enable thel'n to rneet thclirnitation that would otherwise come in the way. t-il.ewise. if thewrit petition is kept pending for a considerable lon1t period of timeand finally at a later stage if the Hon'ble Supreme Courl confimrsthe decision taken by this High Couft as also by the other HighCourts in which the SLPs are stili pending, the Income Tax \& Department would get the advantage of the liberly that is otherwiseprotected in favour of the Revenue for initiation of freshproceedings from the disposal ofthese matters at a much later stagewhich would be advantageous and beneficial to the Revenue andwould be equally disadvantageous and detrimental so far as interestof the assesses are concemed. As a consequence, the Income TaxDepartment gets an extended period of time for initiation of freshproceedings \& Department would get the advantage of the liberly that is otherwiseprotected in favour of the Revenue for initiation of freshproceedings from the disposal ofthese matters at a much later stagewhich would be advantageous and beneficial to the Revenue andwould be equally disadvantageous and detrimental so far as interestof the assesses are concemed. As a consequence, the Income TaxDepartment gets an extended period of time for initiation of freshproceedings 12. The alarrning trend of docket explosion in this Court, despitethe clear precedent ser in Kantkulu Ruvindra Reddy (l supra), is amatter of grave concern. The Income Tax Deparlment's persistentinitiation of h'esh proceedings, disregarding 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 of [j ]udicialprecedent but also strains the judicial resources unnecessarily. TheDepartment's strategy of awaiting the Supreme Court's decision onpending SLPs while continuing to initiate fresh proceedingsappears to be a calculated move to buy time and 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 Courl has alreadv providcda balanced approach by preserving both the ReverLue's lights andassesses tnterestsassesses tnterests 13. Another aspect which needs to be considered is :hat in fact itshould have becn realized by the Ltcornc Tax Depar.mi:nt itself andshouid have found out via rnedia in ensuling that proceedingsunder Sections 148-,4. and 148 should not have b<:en issued in afaceless manner, at least tilt the l]on'ble Supreme Court decide thetwelve hundred (1200) odd SLPs u,hich it is already seized olor, atleast the Lrcome Tax Deparlment should have fcrund out sotneremedial steps to ensure that wherever the autholiti:s intend toinitiate proceedings under Sections 148-A and 148, other than in afaceless manner, the proceedings should have been deferredwithout precipitating the matter furlher intimating tLre assessee thatthey shall initiate appropriate proceedings only afte:- the SLP's aredecided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the very same1SSUe.This again, the Incorne Tax Depaftment, has not bee t able to give aconvincing reply, except for the fact that such a de:ci:;ion if at alt rww w .,1./ -.' :, l 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 fol the Income Tax Deparlrnent contended [that]the 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 ale under challenge in this writpetition are fbrcing thc assessee to knock the doors of this HighCourt resulting in filing of hrrndreds of new wtit [petitions ][which ][in]the 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 themattcr befbre the Ilon'ble Suprerne Court having been taken or.rmany occasions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court which is seized of thematter has been reluctant in granting any interim protection to theIncome Tax Department. Yet, the authorities concemed at theState level are not ready to accept the verdict passed by a majorityof High Courts of diflerent States on the same issue; and to makethings further worse, the Income Tax DepartmentIS showingaudacity by issuing notices continuously under Sections 148-4 [and] 148 through the jurisdictional Assessing Olllcer u,heleas it oughtto have been only in the faceless manner 14. In the case of BANK OF INDIA vs. ASSISTANT 148 through the jurisdictional Assessing Olllcer u,heleas it oughtto have been only in the faceless manner 14. In the case of BANK OF INDIA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, INCOME TAXIT, on an issue.*herhel it wasjustifiable on the part of the Incorne Tax Depafiment ln notfollowing an order passed by the adjudicating authoriti,only on rheground that the appeals are pending, the Division f]ench of theHigh Court of Bornbay held at palagraph No.25 as r ndcr', viz., : "25. tvlr. Paridwalla has rightly drawn out attention to thedecisron of this Court in Commissioner of lncome Tax vs. Smt.Godavaridevi Sarafl2 as also the tecent decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Samp Furniture (P) L.td. v. lTOl3of which one of us (Justice G.S. Kulkarni) was a meml)er whereinthe Court categorically observed that the Revenue having not"accepted" the judgment of the High Court would not r.rean that tillthe same is set aside in a manner known to law, rt wo.lld loose itsbinding force. Referring to the decision of the Supreme Court inUnion of lndia vs. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd.14, theCourt observed that the approach of the officials of Re,renue oftreating decisions being "not acceptable" was criticzed by theSupreme Court. ln such decision, following are the relevantobservations made by the Supreme Court. tt 71ZOZS1 [170 ][taxrnann.com 422 ][(Bornbay)l]'' 1tozsl [113 ] [589 ][(Bornbay)]t3 1ZO2+1165 taxmann.com taxmann.com 581/300 I'axman 452 (Bomtral') 1ZO2+1165 taxmann.com taxmann.com 581/300 'o 1l9921raxmann.com [l6/55 ] [433 ][(SC) ]. { I "6. Sri Reddy is perhaps right in saying that theofficers 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 Revenuewould suffer. But what Sri Reddy overlooks is that weare not concerned here with the correctness orotherwise of their conclusion or of any factualmalafides but with the fact that the officers, in reachingin their conclusion, by-passed two appellate orders 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 conduct of the Assistant Collectors andthe harassment to the assessee catrsed by the failureof these officers to grve effect to the orders ofauthorities higher to them in the appellate hierarchy. ltcannot be too vehemently emphasized that it is ofutmost rmportance that, in disposing of thequasijudicial issues before them, revenue officers arebound by the decisions of the appellate authorities.The order of the Appellte Collector is binding on theAssistant Collectors working within his [jurisdiction ]andthe order of the Trrbunal 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" tothe department - in itself an objeclionable phrase -and 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 healthy rule is not followed, the result will only be .lnclueharassment to assesses and chaos in administrationof tax laws. rule is not followed, the result will only be .lnclueharassment to assesses and chaos in administrationof tax laws. 12. We have dealt with this aspect at some l,lngth,because rt has been suggested by the IearrredAdditional Solicitor General that the observationsmade by the High Court, have been harsh cn heofficers. lt is clear that the observations of the H ghCourt, seemingly vehement, and app.rrentlyunpalatable to the Revenue, are only intended to curba tendency in revenue matters which, if allo\ ed tobecome widespread, could result in consideracleharassment to the assesses-public wilhout any ben,:fitto the Revenue. We would like to say that thedepartment should take these observations in theproper spirit. The observations 6f the High Courtshould be kept in mrnd in future and the utmost regardshould be paid by the adjudicating authorities and theappellate authorities to the requirements of judic,jaldiscipline and the need for giving effect to the ordersof the higher appellate authorities which are bind ngon them." I 5. What is wolTying this Bench more is thr: lact that anendeavour is being made whole heartedly to ensur.e not to generatefurther litigation on issues which have been laid to res;t by a largenumber of High Courts all of whom have taken a con:;istent standfurther litigation on issues which have been laid to res;t by a largenumber of High Courts all of whom have taken a con:;istent standthat the action of the Income Tax Deparlment being [',,iolative ]of the I Finance Act, 2020 and Finanoe Act, 2021. Now, in order to protectthe interest of the Revenue as also that of the assessee, it would betrite at this [juncture, ]if we dispose of the writ petition with anobservationidirection that the disposal ofthe instant writ petition interms of the [judgment ]rendered by this High Court in the case ofKankanala Ravindru Reddy (l supra) shall however be subject tothe outcome of the SLPs which werc filed by the Income TaxDepartment and which is pending consideration before the Hon'bleSupreme Courl. 16. In the given facts and circumstances, this Bench is of theconsidered opinion that unless and until we do not timely disposeof matters which are squarely covered by the decision of this Courtand which stands fortified by the decisions of the various otherHigh Courts on the very same issue, the pendency of this HighCourl would further be burdened which otherwise can be decidedand disposed ofas a covered matter. Il . So far as the interest of the Revenue is concerned, we are ofthe considered opinion that the interest of the Revenue has alreadybeen considered and protected, as has been observed in paragraphs 36,37 arrd 38 ofthe order which, for ready referenc,:, is reproduced hereunder: 36. For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugneC noticesissued and the proceedings drawn by the respondent-Department is neither tenable, nor sustainable.The notices so issued and the procedure adopted beingper se illegal, deserves to be and are accorcingly setaside/quashed. As a consequence, all the irnpugnedorders getting quashed, the consequential orders passedby the respondent-Department pursuanl to tho noticesissued under Section 147 and 148 would elsc 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 alsc getsnullified automatically. 37. The preliminary objection raised by the pe:iticner issustained and all these writ petitions stands al owed onthis very [jurisdictional ]issue. Since the impugne I noticesand orders are getting qua_shed on the po nt ofjunsdiction, 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. 37. The preliminary objection raised by the pe:iticner issustained and all these writ petitions stands al owed onthis very [jurisdictional ]issue. Since the impugne I noticesand orders are getting qua_shed on the po nt ofjunsdiction, 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 the caseof Ashish Aganival, supra, as a onetime measureexercising the powers under Article 142 01' theConstitution of lndia, permitted the Revenue to proceedunder the substituted provisions, and this Court allowingthe petitions only on the procedural flaw, [t ]he right fj 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. 18. We would only furlher like to make observaLions that sincewe are inclined to dispose of the instant writ petition, conscious ofthe lact that the earlier order ol this High Court in the case ofKanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra) is subjected to challengebefore the Hon'ble Suprcrne Courl in SLP No.3574 of 2024,pret-erred by the Income ['['ax ]Deparlment, we make it clear thatallowing of the instant writ petition is subject to outcome of theaforesaid SLP preferred by the Revenue against the decision of thisHigh Court in the case of Kanakals Ravindrs Reddy (1 supra).This, in other words, would mean that either of the parties, if theyso want, may move an appropriate petition seeking revival of thiswrit petition in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supr.emeCourt in the pending SLP on the very same issue. 19. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands allowed infavour of the assessee so far as the issue of jurisdictionISconcerned. As_ a consequence, the impugned notice underchallenge under Sections 148-4 and 148 stands set aside/quashed. The consequcntial orders, if any, also stand set as;id,:/quashed in similar terms as have been passed by this High Coul in the case of Kankanalt Rovindrt Reddy (l supra). There shall bc no order as - Xi.rc,l\ . r" Liiirzlr" LiiirzlLiiirzl \ . r" Liiirzlr" LiiirzlLiiirzl.. arttt ,: :.[.]!}1I\:; to costs Consequently, rniscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- P. F,ADMANABHA REDDYDEPUTY REGISTRARSECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, 1The lncome Tax Officer - Wgrg 1, Nizamabad, lncome Tax Officer, 6-2_156/3,Subhash Nagar, Nizamabad, Telangana - 503 002.Subhash Nagar, Nizamabad, Telangana - 503 002. 2The Principal Chief Commissioner of lncome Tax, Andrra pradesh andf9{,Srn, [Hyderabad ][Room ][No, 922, ][gthFloor, ][B-Block, ][t ][f.foweri ][tO_Z-e]AC Guards, Hyderabad - 500 004, Telangana.f9{,Srn, [Hyderabad ][Room ][No, 922, ][gthFloor, ][B-Block, ][t ][f.foweri ][tO_Z-e]AC Guards, Hyderabad - 500 004, Telangana. 3One CC to SRl. A V A SIVA KART|KEYA Advocate tCpLlCI 4One CC to l'/s SUNDARI R PtSUpATt (SR.SC FOR il.JC()N4E TAXDEPARTTVENT) DEPARTTVENT) 5Two CD CopiesKKSaaGJP HIGH COURT DATED:2910412025 ORDER WP.No.11780 of 2023 :\03 sEI, 26r,i?;tr..!ot'(:j.:2- ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITIONWITHOUT COSTS