Manner v. The Income Tax Officer

HIGH COURT FOR AT HYDERABAD(Special Original [Jurisdiction)] THURSDAY ,THE FIRST TWO THOUSAND PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI [P'SAM ] ANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI WRIT PETITION NO[:27539 ] [2024] Between: Primarv Aqricultural Cooperative [Credit Society Kandukuru ][Re-p ][Py]C'Eo"'' tts'' [-o]'- ]tne [-Sobietv ][Jaggavarapur -Suryaprakash ]-Reddy'S/o.LaxmareddyJaggavarapu, [Occupation- B-qiness ][Aged about ][sbyears']ilo:i;ilrir;',t"fiioo.. [rrijnoir ][xtlrmam ][507164, ][Telangana ][India ] AACAP'l 220E Assessment [ear- ][201 ][9-20] ...PETITIONER AND 1The income Tax Officer, [ward ][1, ][Khamm6hlncome-Tax ][Office,Rajeev ][Gunt']irf U Ch"*t, Near Kinnerasani [Theatre, ][Kharhmam ][Telangana ][State]irf U Ch"*t, Near Kinnerasani [Theatre, ][Kharhmam ][Telangana ][State] 2. The Principal Chief [Commissioner ][of ][lncome ][Tax ][Tela]dAP,28,28,Hyderabad, lT Towers, [AC Guards, ][Masab ][Tank, ][HYde][ rbbad ][- ][5]TelanganaTelangana 3. The National [Faceless Assessment Center, lncome ][Tax ][Department' New]DelhiDelhi 4. The central Board [of ][Direct Taxes, Represented ][by_ ][its ][chairman, ][Department]- ;i'R.;;;;, rvrinislrv ot Finance, Goveinment of lndia, Secretariat Buildings'New Delhi - 110 [001.]- ;i'R.;;;;, rvrinislrv ot Finance, Goveinment of lndia, Secretariat Buildings'New Delhi - 110 [001.] 5. " The Union of lndia, [Represented by ][its ][Secretary to-the Government']D;pad;"ioin"renr'e, Ministry oi Finance, Neiw Delhi -110 001'D;pad;"ioin"renr'e, Ministry oi Finance, Neiw Delhi -110 001' ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article [226 ][of ][lhe ][constitution ][of ][lndia praying ][that in ][the]circumstances [stated ][in ][the ][affidavit ][filed ][therewith, ][the ][High ][court ][may ][be]pleased to issue an appropriate [writ, order ][or ][direction more particularly ][one- ][in the]nature of writ of [Mandamus, declaring the impugned notice ][dated. ][05.04.2023 ][for]x,.v zolg_zo [passed u/s ][148A(d) of ][the ][Act ][vidsolt',t ][No. ITBA/ASTlFl148Al2023-]24t1O51B6BSi1(1)and [the ][consequential ][notice ][uis ][148 dated ][05.04 ][2023 ][vide]DtN No. tTBTAST/S/t4B_1t2023-24t1051875909(1), [issued ][by ][the ][JAO(Ist]Lspondent) instead [of ][FAO(3rd ][respondent), ][as ]illegal, and contrary [to ][the]pior"ion. of lncome-tax Act and [contrary to ][the ]-void, [Principles of ][Natural ][Justice] Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. THANNERU Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to [4: ][Ms.BOKARO SAPNA ] [(Jr. ] FOR TNCOME TAX) Counsel for the Respondent NO.5: SRI SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INIDA The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAONANDIKONDA WRIT PETITIONNo.27539 of 2024 ORDER: [(per ]Hon'ble Sri Jusrice P.Sam Koshy) Heard Mr. ['l.Chaintanya ]Kumar, learned counsel for the:.-''..*?r4'.i;:J-.r.-i,}.',t,!.s&j&;;4.}1i+':-:...;:*::r-.-:+j,.-::/j:]..}.;.-l-.+,1.':.,e$,E9@:ipetitioner and Ms.B.Sapna Reddy, learned Junior StandingCounsel lor the Income Tax Department 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,{and 148 olthe Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short'the Act') ortheassessment 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 148,{ of the Actand the subsequent initiation ofproceedings under Section 148 ofthe Act by the [jurisdictional ]Assessing Officer, whereas in termsof the amendment that was brought to the Income Tax Act by wayof Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f., 01.04.2021 onwards,.proceedings 2. This is a writ petition where the proceedings are eitherchallenged to the notices which were issued under Section 148,{and 148 olthe Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short'the Act') ortheassessment 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 148,{ of the Actand the subsequent initiation ofproceedings under Section 148 ofthe Act by the [jurisdictional ]Assessing Officer, whereas in termsof 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 1484. ofthe Act as also under Section 148 oftheAct ought to have also been issued and proceeded in a facelessAct ought to have also been issued and proceeded in a faceless manner 4. The contention contention of the petitioner is that the issue ofthe petitioner is that the issue ofpetitioner is that the issue ofis that the issue ofthat the issue ofthe issue ofissue ofofproceedings being in violation of the Financ e Act, 2021 i.e., theimpugned notices under Section l48A and Section 148 of the Actnot being issued in a faceless manner, have already been dealt withand decided by this Courr in rhe case of KANKANALARAVINDRA REDDY vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICERT decidedon 14.09.2023 whereby a batch of writ petitions were allowed andthe proceedings initiated under Section 148.4 as also under Section148 of the Act were held to be bad with consequential reliefs on theground of it being in violation of the provisions of Section l5l A ofthe Act read with Notification 18,'2022 d,ated 29.03.2022. The saidjudgment passed by this Court has also been subsequently followedin a large number of rvrit petitions which were allowed on similarterms. The contention contention of the petitioner is that the issue ofthe petitioner is that the issue ofpetitioner is that the issue ofis that the issue ofthat the issue ofthe issue ofissue ofof ,IQ-*.-,arrfl .corn l 78 (Telangana)] 5. Down the line, we frnd that the same issue has also beendecided against the Revenue byvanous High Courts i.e.,by the Bombay High Courl in the case of HEXAWARETECHNOLOGIES LTD., vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX & OTHERS2, Gauhati High Court [in the ][case]of RAM NARAYAN SAH vs. UNION OF INDIA3, Punjab andHaryana High Court in the case of JATINDER SINGH vs. UNION OF INDIA4, and Telangana High Cour.t in the [case ]ofSRI VENKATARAMANA REDDY PATLOOLA [VS. ] COMNIISSIONER 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 which is again on intemationaltaxation and central circle, High Couft of Himachal Pradesh [in ][the]case of GOVIND SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERT,Gujarat High Cour.t in the case of MANSUKHBHAI ' lzoz+1464 [430 ][(Bom)]'l(2024) [156 ][taxmann.com ][478 ][(Gauhati)l]^ l(2024) [165 ][taxmann.com ] [l5 ][(Punjab ][& ][Haryana)l]'[2024) [167 ][taxmann.com ][4l ] [(Telangana)]] "[2024) [166 ][taxmann.com ][679 ][(Bombay)]] '12024) [165 ][taxmann.com ][113 ][(llimachal ][Pradesh)l] ,.,:i - -, ..!r{r;,_nFqr1Er.;ai:&, _i+ I : ' lzoz+1464 [430 ][(Bom)]'l(2024) [156 ][taxmann.com ][478 ][(Gauhati)l]^ l(2024) [165 ][taxmann.com ] [l5 ][(Punjab ][& ][Haryana)l]'[2024) [167 ][taxmann.com ][4l ] [(Telangana)]] "[2024) [166 ][taxmann.com ][679 ][(Bombay)]] '12024) [165 ][taxmann.com ][113 ][(llimachal ][Pradesh)l] ,.,:i - -, ..!r{r;,_nFqr1Er.;ai:&, _i+ I : DAHYABHAI RADADIYA vs. INCoME TAx OFFICER,WARD 3(3X5)8, Jharkand High Courr in the case of SHyAMSUNDAR SAW vs. UNION OF INDIAe, Rajasthan l1igh Courr inthe case of SHARDA DEVI CHHAJER vs. INCOME TAXOFFICER & ANOTHER and batch of writ peritionsro whichstood decided on 19.03.2024. Similar views have also been takenby the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in the case ofGIRDHAR GOPAL DALMIA vs. UNTON OF INDIA & ORS(M.A.T 1690 of 2023). decided on25.09.2024.6. Even though the same issue having been decided by a largenumber of High Courts, we are still confronted with large filing ofidentical matters on daily basis ranging betrveen 5 to 10 writpetitions. That upon the instructions being sought frorn theDepartment, they have been taking a solitary ground that thedecision of the Bombay High Court in the case of HexawareTechnologies Ltd., (2 supra) as also the one rvhich has beendecided by this Court in the case of Kanakalo Rtvindra RetfuIy 82024 SCc Online Guj 4012'2025 SCC Online Jhar287I o y2023 : RJ-JD :49 84-DBl has [been ][subjected ][to ][challenge ][in ][a ][Special ][Leave](1 supra) Petition i.e., [SLP No.3574 ][of ][2024 ][before the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme]Court and [the ][Hon'b1e ][Supreme ][Court ][is ][seized ][of ][the ][matter']In addition, [there ][are ][about ][1200 ][SLPs ][also frled arising ][out of ][the]same issue [being decided by various ][High ][Courts]7. To a query [being put ][to ][the ][learned ][counsel ][for ][the ][Revenue']have [categorically ][accepted ][the ][lact ][that there ][is no ][interim]they order [granted ][by ][the Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Courl ][in ][any ][of ][these]matters [pending before ][it. ][Meanwhile, fresh ][writ ][petitions ][of]identical nature [are ][being ][piled up ][belore ][this ][Bench on ][daily ][basis]and the [pendency ][is ][getting ][increased ][on ][matter ][which ][otherwise]has already [been ][dealt and decided by this ][very ][High ][Court ][itself']8. On the one [hand, ][even ][though ][the order ][of ][this ][Court ][that]was passed [as ][early ][as ][on ][14'09'2023 and ][more ][16 months ][have]till [date, ][we do not ][find ][any ][remedial ][steps ][having ][been]lapsed, taken by [the ][lncome ][Tax ][Department ][to take ][appropriate ][steps ][to]either hold [back ][issuance ][of ][notice ][under ][Section 148A and ][under]Section [148 ][of ][the ][Act ][by ][the ][jurisdictional ][Assessing ][Officer']rather the [authorities concemed ][in ][the teeth ][of ][series ][of ][decisions] by alt the major High Courts in India are continuously stillinitiating proceedings under Section l4gA of the Act and alsoinitiating proceedings under Section I4g of the Act incontravention to the amendments .l.ax brought into .the lncome Actpursuant to the Finance Act,2020 as also the Finance Act 2021 .9' Upon a query being put as to why can't this rvrit petitior-r bedisposed of in the teeth of the decision rendered by this Court inthe case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra), leamed StandingCounsel for the Income Tax Department contends that those wouldunnecessarily burden the Income Tax Department where theywould be required to fire equal number of sLI,s before theHon'ble Supreme Court and it rvould be further burdening thelooeIeamed Standing Counsel that no prejudice would be caused ro theinterest of the petitioners in case if this writ petition is kept pendingtill the finalization of the SLps pending before the Hon,bleSupreme Court and the fact that the petitioner is already enjoyingthe benefit of interim protection. Nonetheless, on the earlier queryof this Court as to why the Income Tax Department have not comeout witha mechanism to issue appropriate instructions or to take appropriate steps in ensuring that proceedings under Section 148Aof the Act as also the assessment orders under Section 148 of theAct are kept in a hold in the light of the decisions dedcided by thevarious High Courls, it was submitted by the learned StandingCounsel that the said steps can only be taken at the level ofCBDTof the Act as also the assessment orders under Section 148 of theAct are kept in a hold in the light of the decisions dedcided by thevarious High Courls, it was submitted by the learned StandingCounsel that the said steps can only be taken at the level ofCBDTas any such steps would have to be taken Pan India and cannot belimited to any of these jurisdictional High Courtslimited to any of these jurisdictional High Courts 10. As a result of which, what we are lacing is steep increase oflitigation day in and day out even though various orders have beenpassed by this High Courl allowing writ petitions on the very sameissue. The Income Tax authorities concemed are still even now in2025 also initiating proceedings in contravention to the provisionsof Section 1 5 1A 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 thejudgment of this Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy(1 supra). What is also surprising is the fact that though whileallowing the writ petitions in the case of Kanakala RavindraReddy (l supra), the Division Bench [,iyhile ]reserving the right ofthe Revenue, has also protected the interest of the petitioners insofar as the liberty which u,as granted to the Revenue forinitiating fresh proceedings strictly in accordance with the amendedprovisions of the Act, as amended by the Finance Act, 2020 andinitiating fresh proceedings strictly in accordance with the amendedprovisions of the Act, as amended by the Finance Act, 2020 andthe Finance Act,2021. The petitioner assessee wourd be entitled tochallenge or raise the other legal objections if the Revenue initiatesfresh proceedings. The Department has made no endeavour inavailing the said liberly that was.eserwed for.the Revenue. on theavailing the said liberly that was.eserwed for.the Revenue. on thecontrary, they have been still sticking on to the stand, which tl.ris:r!:.:r'r.'. [.-- ]-,-,":, :!€ ,t;;,ftr*xriJilii.iidifTi.iiE_Fi:r+iqb*.uts.a,.et5tl"is"-'ffi,i_,-y'&ir,6;,fii;f bad.:r!:.:r'r.'. [.-- ]-,-,":, :!€ ,t;;,ftr*xriJilii.iidifTi.iiE_Fi:r+iqb*.uts.a,.et5tl"is"-'ffi,i_,-y'&ir,6;,fii;f bad. 11. It appears that because ofthe aforesaid liberty that this HighCourt had granted permitting the Revenue for initiating lreshproceedings as a one-time measure in a faceless manner., theIncome Tax Department wants to take advantage of the samc byprotractir.rg these proceedings which would enable them to meet thelimitation that would otherwise come in the way. Likewise, if thewrit petition is kept pending for a considerable long period of timeand finally at a later stage if the Hon,ble Supreme Court confirmsthe decision taken by this High Court as also by the other l-lighCourts in which the SLps are still pending, the Income Tax Department would get the advantage of the liberty that is other.wiseprotected in favour of the Revenue for initiation of freshproceedings from the disposal of these matters at a much later stagewhich would be advantageous and beneficial to the Revenue andwould be equally disadvantageous and detrimental so far as interestof the assesses are concemed. As a consequence, the Income TaxDepafiment gets an extended period of time for initiation of freshproceedings Department would get the advantage of the liberty that is other.wiseprotected in favour of the Revenue for initiation of freshproceedings from the disposal of these matters at a much later stagewhich would be advantageous and beneficial to the Revenue andwould be equally disadvantageous and detrimental so far as interestof the assesses are concemed. As a consequence, the Income TaxDepafiment gets an extended period of time for initiation of freshproceedings 12. The alarming trend of docket explosion in this Court, despitethe clear precedent set in Kanakals Rsvindra [Reddy ](l [supra), ][is ][a]matter of grave concem. The lncome Tax Department's [persistent]initiation of fresh 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 judicial]precedent but also strains the [judicial ]resources unnecessarily. TheDepaftment's strategy of awaiting the Supreme Court's decision [on]pending 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 --rr- r --I.;+i-rJ position. Such conduct raises serious questions about theadministrative efficiency and the respect lor judicialpronouncements, particularly when this Court has already provided a balance_d approach by preserving both thef Effra!x=tl.'*f.'*;i*rcaF-!r3.1.r-i,rt,.FFrLrrassesses in terests.f Effra!x=tl.'*f.'*;i*rcaF-!r3.1.r-i,rt,.FFrLrrassesses in terests. Revenue's ri ts and 13. Another aspect which needs to be considered is that in fact itshould have beer.r realized by the [ncome Tax Department itserf andshould have found out via rneclia in ensuring that proceedingsunder Sections r4g-A and r4g shourd not have been issued in afaceless manner, at least till the F[on'bre supreme court decide the. :..-.i?-: , -twelve hundred (1200) odd SLps which it is already seized ofor, atleast the Income Tax Department should have found out solrreremediar steps to ensure that wherever the authorities intend toinitiate proceedings under Sections 14g-A and 14g, other than in afaceless manner, the proceedings should have been deterredwithout precipitating the matter firrther intimating the assessee thatthey shall initiate appropriate proceedings onry after the SLp,s aredecided by the Hon,ble Supreme Court on the very same issue.This again, the Income Tax Department, has not been able to give aconvincing reply, except for the fact that such a decision if at alr has to be [taken, has ][to ][be ][taken ][for ][the ][whole ][of India' ][and ][which]otherwise [has ][to ][be ][by ][way ][of ][a ][policy ][decision ][and that ][too ][at ][the]level of Central [Board ][of ][Direct ][Taxes' ][Though ][the ][leamed]Standing [Counsel ][for ][the Income ][Tax ][Department ][contended ][that]the Delhi [High ][Court ][dismissed ][a ][writ ][petition ][of similar ][nature' ][on]theonehandwhentheHighCourtisstrugglingtoreduceitspendency, [such notices ][which ][are ][under challenge ][in ][this ][writ]are [lorcing ][the ][assessee ][to ][knock ][the ][doors ][of ][this ][High]petition Courl resulting [in ][filing of ][hundreds ][of ][new ][writ ][petitions ][which ][in]the tong [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 daity ][basis' ][Admittedly' in ][spite ][of ][the]matterbeforetheHon,bleSupremeCourthavingbeentakenonmany occasions, [the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Court ][which ][is ][seized ][of ][the]matter has [been ][reluctant ][in ][granting any ][interim ][protection ][to ][the]Income [Tax Department' Yet, the ][authorities ][concemed ][at ][the]State level [are ][not ][ready ][to ][accept ][the verdict ][passed ][by ][a ][majority]Courts [of ][different ][States ][on the ][same issue; and ][to ][make]of High fufiher [worse, ][the ][Income ][Tax ][Department ][is ][showing]things audacity [by ][issuing ][notices ][continuously under ][Sections ][148-4 ][and] gE "ara!=, -.,..' =:ai;.l'l_rru WIrB alr_ul url p.bs'u Uy trltr autuuruat,,rg aUUrUtlt_V OI y.01l LrIC., 148 through the jurisdictional Assessing Officer whereas it oughtto have becn only in the faceless manner.to have becn only in the faceless manner. 14. In the case of BANK OF INDIA vs. ASSISTANTCOMMISSIONER, INCOME TAXr,, on an issue whether it wasjustifiable on the part of the Income Tax Department in notfollowing an order passed by the adjudicating authority 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. [vlr. [paridwalla ]has righfly drawn out attention to thedecrsion of this Court in Commissioner of lncome Tax vs. Smt-Godavaridevi Sarafl2 as also the recent decision of the co_ordinate Bench of this Court in Samp Furniture (p) Ltd. v. lTOr3of which one of us (Justice G.S. Kulkarni) was a member, whereinthe Court categorically observed that the Revenue 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 Supreme Court inUnion of lndia vs. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd.14, theCourt observed that the approach of the officials of Revenue oftreating decisions being l,not acceptable,. was criticized by theSupreme Court. ln such decision, following are the relevantobservations made by the Supreme Court. t,t,!\20?11 170 raxmann.com 422 (Bombay)l170 raxmann.com 422 (Bombay)l '' [ 19781 I l3 ITR 589 (Bombay) '.' 120241165 taxmann.com 581/300 l.axman 452 (Bombay) 'o TtOgZl [taxmann.com ]16/55 ELT 433 (SC) t,t,!\20?11 170 raxmann.com 422 (Bombay)l170 raxmann.com 422 (Bombay)l '' [ 19781 I l3 ITR 589 (Bombay) '.' 120241165 taxmann.com 581/300 l.axman 452 (Bombay) 'o TtOgZl [taxmann.com ]16/55 ELT 433 (SC) "6. Sri Reddy is perhaps right in saying that theofficers were not actuated by any mala fides [in]passing 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 [or]otherwise of their conclusion or of any [factual]malafides but with the fact that the officers, [in ][reaching]in their conclusion, by-passed two appellate orders [in]regard to the same issue which were [placed ][before]them, one of the Collector [(Appeals) ]and the other [of]the Tribunal. The High Court has, [in ]our [view, rightly]criticized this conduct of the Assistant Collectors [and]the harassment to the assessee caused by [the failure]of these officers to give effect to the orders [of]authorities higher to them in the appellate hierarchy. [lt]cannot be too vehemently emphasized that it is ofutmost importance that, in disposing of [the]quasijudicial issues before them, revenue officers arebound by the decisions of the appellate authorities.The order of the Appellte Collector is binding on [the]Assistant Collectors working within his [jurisdiction ][and]the order of the Tribunal is binding upon the [Assistant]Collectors and the Appellate Collectors who [function]under the [jurisdiction ]of the Tribunal. The [principles ]ofjudicial discipline require that the orders of the higherappellate authoritres should be followed [unreservedly]by the subordinate authorittes. [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 hasbeen suspended by a competent court. [lf ][this healthy] - rule is not followed, the result will only be undueharassment to assesses and chaos in administrationof tax laws. 12. We have dealt with this aspect at sorne length,because it has been suggested by the learnedAdditional Solicitor General that the observationsmade by the High Court, have been harsh on theofficers. lt is clear that the observations of the HighCourt, seemingly vehement, and apparenflyunpalatable to the Revenue, are only intended to curba tendency in revenue matters which, if allowed tobecome 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 High Courtshould be kept in mind in future and the utmost regardshould be paid by the adjudicating authorities and theappellate authorities to the requirements of judicialdiscipline and the need for giving effect to lhe ordersof the higher appellate authorities which are bindingon them." 15. What is wonying this Bench more is the fact that anendeavour is being made whole heartedry to ensure not to generate n on-issu6s*whieh,.have.4een,.laid=te.,{€s6,b.y.a*la+go,:re:i*'7-e&dnn,.ri?z-r..a..number of High courts all of whom have taken a consistent standthat the action of the Income Tax Department being violative of the 15. What is wonying this Bench more is the fact that anendeavour is being made whole heartedry to ensure not to generate n on-issu6s*whieh,.have.4een,.laid=te.,{€s6,b.y.a*la+go,:re:i*'7-e&dnn,.ri?z-r..a..number of High courts all of whom have taken a consistent standthat the action of the Income Tax Department being violative of the Finance Act,2020 and Finance Act,202l. 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 anobservation/direction that the disposal of the instant writ petition interms of the [judgment ]rendered by this High Courl in the case ofKankonala Ravindra Reddy (l supra) shall however be subject tothe outcome of the SLPs which were filed by the Income TaxDepartment and which is pending consideration before the Hon'bleSupreme Cour1.the interest of the Revenue as also that of the assessee, it would betrite at this [juncture, ]if we dispose of the writ petition with anobservation/direction that the disposal of the instant writ petition interms of the [judgment ]rendered by this High Courl in the case ofKankonala Ravindra Reddy (l supra) shall however be subject tothe outcome of the SLPs which were filed by the Income TaxDepartment and which is pending consideration before the Hon'bleSupreme Cour1. 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 otherI{igh 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. 17 . So far as the interest of the Revenue is concemed, we are ofthe considered opinion that the interest of the Revenue has alreadybeen considered and protected, as has been observed in paragraphsthe considered opinion that the interest of the Revenue has alreadybeen considered and protected, as has been observed in paragraphs 36,37 and 38 ofthe order which, for ready reference, is reproduced hereunder: 36. For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned noticesissued and the proceedings drawn by the -respondent_Department is neither tenable, nor sustainable.The notices so issued and the procedure adopted beingper se illegal, deserves to be and are accordingly setEk*:-i?i!c!!i=lEi'.i4ti, n-:j_ursivcr . [aside/quashed. ][v ]turrDurulrurrgr rosr,rc. [As ][a ][consequence, ].jr rr,c ,,i", [all ],, , ,,,,,,r.,t, the ,",a, impuqned],,u"u,-__,orders getting quashed, the consequentiai orAeii piJseJby the respondent-Department pursuant to the noticesissued under Section 147 and 14g 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 getting quashed on the point ofjurisdiction, we are not inclined to proceed further anddecide the other issues raised by the petitioner whichstands reserved to be raised and contended in anappropriate proceedings. 38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the caseof Ashish Agarual, supra, as a one-time 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 rjght @dr conferred on [the ][Revenue ][would remain reserved ][to]proceed further if they so [want from ][the ][stage ][of ][the]Agarwal, supra. 38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the caseof Ashish Agarual, supra, as a one-time 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 rjght @dr conferred on [the ][Revenue ][would remain reserved ][to]proceed further if they so [want from ][the ][stage ][of ][the]Agarwal, supra. 18. We would only [fufiher like to ][make ][observations that ][since]we are inclined [to ][dispose ][of ][the ][instant ][writ ][petition, ][conscious ][of]the fact that the [earlier order ][of ][this High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]Kanakala Ravindra [Reddy ][(l ][supra) ][is ][subjected ][to ][challenge]before the Hon'ble [Supreme ][Court ][in ][SLP No'3574 ][of ][2024']the Income [Tax Department, we ][make ][it ][clear that]preferred by 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 ][Kanakala ][Ruvindra Reddy ][(l ][supra)']This, in other words, [would ][mean ][that ][either ][of ][the ][parties, ][if ][they]so want, may [move ][an appropriate ][petition ][seeking ][revival ][of ][this]writ petition in the [light ][of ][the decision ][of ][the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme]Court in the [pending ] [on ][the ][very ][same ][issue'] 19. Accordingly, [the ][instant ][writ ][petition ][stands ][allowed]1nfavour of the [assessee ][so far ][as ][the ][issue ][of ][jurisdiction]tsconcerned. As a [consequence, ][the ][impugned ][notice ][under]under Sections [148-A ][and ][148 stands set ][aside/quashed']challenge ,rI 1 The consequential orders, if any, also stand set aside/quashed insimilar terms as have been passed by this High Court in the case olKankanala Ravindra Reddy (l supra). There shall be no order asto costs. Consequently, miscellaneotrs petitions pending, if any, shaU stand closed. SD/-B. REKHA RANIASSISTANT REGISTRAR//TRUE COPY//SECN OFFICERTo, 1The income tax officer, ward [.1, ]Khammam/ lncome Tax Office. Raieev GuntKalrv unowk. Near Kinnerasani Theatre, Khammam Telangana StiteKalrv unowk. Near Kinnerasani Theatre, Khammam Telangana Stite2Il:lrl1r9ieql_Cjief [Commissioner of tncome Tax Tetangana and ] [p,]IyoeraDad, [il ][towers, ] [Guards, ][Masab ][Tank, ]Hyderibad [_ ]500 O2g,TelanganaIl:lrl1r9ieql_Cjief [Commissioner of tncome Tax Tetangana and ] [p,]IyoeraDad, [il ][towers, ] [Guards, ][Masab ][Tank, ]Hyderibad [_ ]500 O2g,Telangana3The National Faceless Assessment Center, lncome Tax Department, NewDelhiDelhi 4The central Board of Direct raxes, Represented by its chairman, Departmentof Revenue, Ministry of Finance, covei-nment oirniii, s""r"tari;i B;i6i;g;."'New Delhi - 110 00i.of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, covei-nment oirniii, s""r"tari;i B;i6i;g;."'New Delhi - 110 00i. 5 Il9^U-j1l_:f lndia, Represented by its Secretary to the Government,uepanment ot Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Ndw Delhi _1 10 001 .uepanment ot Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Ndw Delhi _1 10 001 .6. One CC to SRl. THANNERU CHA|TANYA KUMAR Advocate T One CC to SRI. BOKARO SAPNA REDDY (Jr SC FOR TNCOME TAX)loPUClloPUCl one cc to sri Gadi Praveen Kumar, Deputy soricitor Generar of India [opUC][opUC] Two CD Copies KKSBSFK HIGH COURT DATED:01 l05t20?s ORDER WP.No.27539 of Z0Z4 _ siAI6'c(.l' -r"ll2 5 [rlJB ][206]'.. [l^],lll;-! *.,/0s"Ti'.'-:. ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITIONWITHOUT COSTS?c.)_{,^5u I