Manner v. The Income Tax Officer

IN THE HIGH COURT THE (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JUNETWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.AM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING WRIT PETITION NO: 14731 OF [2025] Between: Sri Rajkumar [\/uduru, S/o. Sri Chennaiah, [n9e-q ][qbpt.?9-y99f9'..O-ccupation.]Busine'ss, Ponugodu, Ponugodu [B.O, Warangal ][- ][506134. ][PAN.AIMXPH4058G] ...PETITIONER AND 1The lncome Tax Officer, Ward [-'1, ]lncome [Tax Office, ]['1-8-610, ][3rd ][Floor]t\ilayuri Complex, Opp. TSNPCL Bhawan, [Nakkalagutta, ][Hanamkonda,]Warangal - 506001.t\ilayuri Complex, Opp. TSNPCL Bhawan, [Nakkalagutta, ][Hanamkonda,]Warangal - 506001. 2- Assessment Unit, National Faceless [Assessment]Centre, lncome TaxDepartment, N/inistry of Finance, [Room ][No. ][401 ][,]2nd Floor, E-Ramp,Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, Delhi [1 ][10 ][003.]Department, N/inistry of Finance, [Room ][No. ][401 ][,]2nd Floor, E-Ramp,Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, Delhi [1 ][10 ][003.] ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of [the ][Constitution ][of ][lndia ][praying ][that ][in ][the]circumstances stated in the affidavit [filed ][therewith, ][the ][High ][Court may ][be]pleased to pass an order or direction, especially [one ][in ][the ][nature ][of ] TVANDAMUS holding that the notice [dated 08.03.2024 issued ][by ]['lst ][Respondent]under section 148 0f the Act with [and ][Notice ][No.ITBA/AST/S/148 ][112023-]24t1062245028(1) as being without iurisdiction, [arbitrary, illegal, bad ][in ][law' ][void]ab initio, apart from being viotative [of ][provisions ][of ][section ][14BA ][and ][section ]['149]of the Act and also contrary to the [circular issued ][by ][CBDT and provisions ][of]section 151A of the Act, and consequently [set aside ][the ][notice ][under ][section ][148]dated 08.03.2024 and the assessment order [passed by ][1st ][Respondent for asst']year 2020-21 under section 147 r.w.s 144 of the Act, dt.17.03.2025. lA NO:1 OF 2025 Petltion under Section 151 CPC praying that in the {)ircumstances stated inthe affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court ray be pleased to stayall pending penalty proceedings including stay of collectio r of tax demand raisedby 1st Respondent for the Ay.2O20-21 . Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI A.V.RAGHU RAM c o u n s e r f o r t h e R e s po n d e n ts : t.;."."Js8,ittT# [1.R ]i ["] The Court made the following: ORDER -.-r?.i_Fa- THE [P'SAM ] ANDTHE HONOURABLE [JUS'IICII ] NANDIKONDA I rrf 2025 WRIT [P]ETITIO [No.l4] ORDER, [(per ][tlon'ble ][Sri ][Justice ][P Sarn ][Kosh1.)] Heard Mr. [A.V.Raghu ][Ram, ][learnecl ][counsel ][for ][the]and [Ms-B'Sapna ][Reddy' ][leatred ][Senior ][Standing]petitioner Counsel [for ][the ][Income ][Tax ][Depattmettt][ lbr ][the ][resPondents.]Perused [the ][record] This is a is a a [[writ ][petition ]][[petition ]][[where ][thc ][lrrrri:ccdings ][are ][either]][[thc ][lrrrri:ccdings ][are ][either]][[lrrrri:ccdings ][are ][either]][[are ][either]][[either]] c o u n s e r f o r t h e R e s po n d e n ts : t.;."."Js8,ittT# [1.R ]i ["] The Court made the following: ORDER -.-r?.i_Fa- THE [P'SAM ] ANDTHE HONOURABLE [JUS'IICII ] NANDIKONDA I rrf 2025 WRIT [P]ETITIO [No.l4] ORDER, [(per ][tlon'ble ][Sri ][Justice ][P Sarn ][Kosh1.)] Heard Mr. [A.V.Raghu ][Ram, ][learnecl ][counsel ][for ][the]and [Ms-B'Sapna ][Reddy' ][leatred ][Senior ][Standing]petitioner Counsel [for ][the ][Income ][Tax ][Depattmettt][ lbr ][the ][resPondents.]Perused [the ][record] This is a is a a [[writ ][petition ]][[petition ]][[where ][thc ][lrrrri:ccdings ][are ][either]][[thc ][lrrrri:ccdings ][are ][either]][[lrrrri:ccdings ][are ][either]][[are ][either]][[either]] 2. This is a is a a [[writ ][petition ]][[petition ]][[where ][thc ][lrrrri:ccdings ][are ][either]][[thc ][lrrrri:ccdings ][are ][either]][[lrrrri:ccdings ][are ][either]][[are ][either]][[either]]'der [Section ][148A]challenged [to ][the ][notices ][rvhich ][were isst'tt.i ][t't ]and 148 [of ][the Income ][lax ][Act' ][1961 ][(t-oistrort'the ][Act') ][orthe]assessment [orders ][those have ][been passeti i:lrcier ][Section ][147 ][of]the Act [which ][have ][been assailed']3. This writ [petition ][is ][being ][taken up ][toda-v ][only ][on one of the]that [the notices ][issued ][under ][Secti''rn ][1 ]['l8A ][ol ][the ][Act]grounds, and the [subsequent ][initiation ][of ][proceedings ][uniler Section ]['148 ][of]the Act [by ][the ][jurisdictional ][Assessing ][O[liccL' ][whereas ][in ][terms]of the amendment [that ][was ][brought ][to the ][hlcorne ][Tax ][Act ][by ][way]iinuards, Proceedingsof Finance [Act, 2021 ][w'e'f" ][01'04'2021] under Seclior-r I 48.4 of' thc Act as also under Ser:tion I 48 of theAct ought to harir: also l:reen issued and proceed3d in a faceless manner. 4. The contc,rtri'ri of the petitioner is tl-r,rt the issue ofproceedings beinq irr violation of the Finance Act, 202 I i.e., theimpugncd rroticcs irrr<lel Section l48A and Section 148 of the Actnot being issrred ii: .r lacelcss manner, have already' been dealt withand deciricil hi rlr!s Courl in the case of KANKANALARAVINDIt,,\ R[.[]il]' vs. INCOME-TAX OFI.'ICERT decidedon I4.C9.201I v,li.'r'.:lr,r' u lratclr of writ petitions \!,ere allowed andthe proceedings i;riti.;ied under Sectiorr 148A as also under Section148 of the z\ct w'elc i,clci to be bad with consequential reliefs on theground ot'iL hein6r ir: r'iolation of the provisions of Scction l51A ofthe Act read rvith l';ciiiir:ation 1812022 dated 29.0-r.2022. The saidjudgment pl-;sed b, .nis Courl has also been subse,qucntly followedin a large n urnbcr [,-,,' ]['"r,rit ]pctitions which were allowed on similarterms ' [(2023) [5 ][(r ][taxmitr ][rt ][-c' ][r: ][n ] [7 ][8 ][('f clangana)]] 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 c3s,,: of HEXAWARETECHNOLOGIES LTD., vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX & OTHERS2, Gauhati lligh Court in the caseof RAM NARAYAN SAH vs. UNION OF INDIA3. Punjab andHaryana High Court in the case of JATTNDER SINGH BANGUvs. UNION OF INDIA4, and Telangana I{igh Court in the case ofSRMNKATARAMANA REDDY PAI'LOOLA vs. DEPUTYCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX5 rri:r're the issue was inrespect of intemational taxation, Bornbay IJigh Court in the case ofABHIN ANILKUMAR SHAH vs. INCOi',IE TAX OFFICER,INTERNATIONAL TAXATION6 which i:; again on intemationaltaxation and central circle, Fligh Courl of'Jlinrachal Pladesh in thecase ol GOVIND SINGH vs. INCOillE ['I'AX ]OFFICERT,Gujarat High Court in the case ol- iIIANSUKHBHAI'lzoz+1464 [430 ][(Bom)]'[(2024) [156 ]taxmann.com 478 [(Gauhati)l]'[(2024) [165 ]taxmann.com 115 (Punjab & Ilarrana)]' [2024) [167 ]taxmann.com 4 I I (1'elangana)]" 12024) [166 t.axmann.com ]679 (Bombay)l'[2024) [165 ]taxmann.corn 113 (Himachal Pradc:;h,t] DAHYABI{AI P.AD.\I}(YA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 3(3)(5)8, .lharkancl Iligh Court in the c:rse ol'SIIYAMSUNDAR SAW vs. tjNION OF INDIAe, Rajasth:rn High Court inthe case ol'SHi\lil),{ DEVI CI{HAJER vs. TNCOME TAXOFFICEII & AN(,TtnI;f{ and batch of rvrir Jretitionsro whichstood decided on i9.()3.2014. Similar r.iews have also been takenby the Di.,,ision B,:rich o1- Calcutta Fligh Courf irr the case ofGIRDHAR [(;OPAL ]IIALMIA vs. IINION OF INDTA & ORS(M.A.1' 1690 of 2(rl-i ), r{ccided on 25.09.2024. 6Even thoueir :hi ::irn'rc issue having been de:ided Lry a largenumber of High [('orirt.s, ]u,e are still confronted rvith Jarge filing ofidentical ntatters ,.;j ,,iaily basis ranging betwee r 5 to l0 writpetitions. ['Hrat ]Lrlr-.r tlie instructions being scught from theidentical ntatters ,.;j ,,iaily basis ranging betwee r 5 to l0 writpetitions. ['Hrat ]Lrlr-.r tlie instructions being scught from theDepaftmcnt. thei, t, rr e bcen taking a solitary llround that thedecision o1' 1he [Jr:r,rb:rv lligh Court in the casr: <tf HerawareTechnologies Ltd., [(:'. ]supra) as also the one v,,hich has beendecision o1' 1he [Jr:r,rb:rv lligh Court in the casr: <tf HerawareTechnologies Ltd., [(:'. ]supra) as also the one v,,hich has beendecided by this C.''url in the case of Ktnakala llovinttra Reddy 82024 SCC ()n[.ine (,Lrj 4{)12'2025 SCC Onl.iric liir:r 287to 12023 [: ] [l) ][:4984-i,r ]ti I has [been ][subjected ][to ][challenqe ][in ][a ][Special ][Leave](l supra) Petition i.e., [No.3574 ][of ][2024 ][before ][thc ][llon'ble ][Supreme]Court and [the Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Court ][i: ][sr:ized ][of ][the ][matter']In addition, there [are ][about ][1200 SLPs ][also ][liicd ][arising out of ][the]same issue being [decided by various ][l{igh ][('ourts]7. To a query being [put ][to ][the learned ][cottttscl ][for ][the l{evenue']have [categorically ][accepted ][the ][l-ac ][t ][that ][there ][is no ][interim]they order granted [by ][the ] [ton'bte ][Supreme ][( ]''rttt [in ][any ][of ][these]matters [pending before ][it. ][Meanwhile. ][fi ][esh ][writ ][petitions ][of]identical nature [are ][being ][piled ][up ][before this ][Rench on ][daily ][basis]and the [pendency ][is ][getting ][increasecl ][oh ][rratter which ][otherwise]has already [been ][dealt ][and ][decided ][by ][tlt*s ][very ][Irligh ][Court itself']8. On the one [hand, even though ][the ][oirler ][of ][this ][Court that]was passed as [early ][as ][on ][14.09'2023 and ][rrtore ] [rnonths have]till [date, ][we ][do ][not find ][any ][remetlial ][steps ][having ][been]lapsed, taken by [the ][Income ][Tax ][Department ][to ][takc appropriate ][steps ][to]either hold [back ][issuance ][of ][notice under Section 148A ][and ][under]Section [148 ][of ][the ][Act.by ][the ][jurisdictiorial ][Assessing ][Officer']rather the [authorities concemed ][in the ][teettr ][ol ][series ][of ][decisions] by all thc n.rajor llrgh Courts in India are continuously stillinitiating proceecling::r under Section l48A o1' t rc Act and alsoinitiating procecdirrg,s under Section 148 of the Act incontravention to thLr arr-lendments brought into the Incor.ne Tax Actpursuant to the Iiinancc AcL. 2020 as also the Finarce Act 2021.9. Upon a quci'. br:ing put as to why can't thi; writ petition bedisposed of in thc [1r:.:1li ]o1'the decision rendercd b1' this Court inthe case ol' Kunaku!,t Rovindra Reddy (l supra), lcamed StandingCounsel for the Incorn,-: l'ax Depaftment contends lhat those u,ouldunnecessalily bur<lcii the Income Tax Deparln ent where thevwould be requireti to lile equal number of S,l.l's before theHon'ble Supremc [('orirt ]and it would be lurthe r buldening theexchequer of the t. iiiou ol lndia. It was also the r:ontention of theleamed Standing [(.'trr.:ttsel ]that no prejudice u,ould be caused to theinterest of the petitio,rer':; in case if this writ petitiorr is kept pendingtill thc finalizaticir ,rl' thc SLPs pending bcfr,rc thc' Hon'bleSupreme Court and the f'act that the petitioner is rlready enjoyingthe benefit of inlelirn prolection. Nonetheless, on thc earlier queryof this Court as.to '.r,ir), the Income Tax Departmerrt lravc not comeout with a nrechanisrrt to issue appropriate instru,:tions or to take appropriate steps [in ][ensuring ][that ][proceedings ][under Section ][l48A]of the Act as also [the ][assessment ][orders ][undet' ][Section ][148 ][of the]Act are kept in a hold [in ][the ][light ][ofthe ][decisions dedcided ][by ][the]various High Courts, it [was ][submitted b;- ][the ][leamed ][Standing]Counsel that the said steps [can ][only ][be taken ][at ][the ][level ][of ] as any such steps would [have ][to ][be ][taken ][Pen ][India ][and cannot ][be]limited to any of [these ][jurisdictional High ][Courts.] 10. As a result of [which, ][what ][we ][are ][l'acitrr.t ][is ][steep ][increase ][of]in [and day ][out ][even ][though varil)us ][orders ][have been]litigation day passed by this High Court [allowing ][writ ][ptrtititxs ][on the ][very ][same]issue. The Income ['l ax authorities ][concerncd are ][still ][even now ][in]2025 also initiating [proceedings ][in contraveltion ][to the provisions]of Section 151A [of ][the ][Act ][and ][as ][a ][result ][by ][now, more ][than 600]to 700 petitions [have ][been ][already ][got ][piled ][up ][betbre this ][High]Court on an issue [which ][otherwise ][stands squarely covered ][by ][the]judgment of this Court in the [case ][of ][Ksnokulo ][Ravindru ][Reddy](1 supra). What is also surprising [is ][the ][[acL ][ihat ][though while]allowing the writ [petitions ][in ][the ][case ][ctl ][Kanakalo ][Ruvindra]Reddy (1 supra), [the ][Division ][Bench ][rvhile leserving the ][right ][of]the Revenue, has also [protected ][the ][intclest ][of ][the ][petitioners] insofar as lhe libertli 'which was granted to t he Revenue forinitiating liesh procerc)ings strictly in accordance rvith the amendedplovisions of the lct. as amended by the Financ e Act, 2020 andthe Finance Act, 201 I. [-flie ]petitioner assessee rvould be entitled tochallenge or raise ttr': other legal objections if the Revenue initiatesfresh proceedings. ['l'he ]f)epartment has made no endeavour inavailirrg the said lii''crt-r, that was reserved for the l{evenue. On thecontrary, they havt: l,i:en still sticking on to the stand, which thisHigh Court as u,eli :r-s rnany other l{igh Courts already held to bebad. insofar as lhe libertli 'which was granted to t he Revenue forinitiating liesh procerc)ings strictly in accordance rvith the amendedplovisions of the lct. as amended by the Financ e Act, 2020 andthe Finance Act, 201 I. [-flie ]petitioner assessee rvould be entitled tochallenge or raise ttr': other legal objections if the Revenue initiatesfresh proceedings. ['l'he ]f)epartment has made no endeavour inavailirrg the said lii''crt-r, that was reserved for the l{evenue. On thecontrary, they havt: l,i:en still sticking on to the stand, which thisHigh Court as u,eli :r-s rnany other l{igh Courts already held to bebad. 11. It appears thar because ofthe aforesaid liberty that this HighCourl had grant.rrip,elrnil-ting the Revenue fbr initiating freshproceedings as a o;re-time measure in a facel:ss manner, theIncome ['l'ax ]Depailrnt:lti wants to take advantag€ of the same byprotracting these p'roceedings which would enable them to meet thelimitation that woriirl othenvise come in the u,ay. Likervise, if thewrit petition is kept pending for a considerable long period of timeand finally at a late.t" stage iI'the Hon'ble Supremt: Court confirmsthe decision taken b.v this High Court as also b1 the other HighCourls in rvhich the SLPs are still pending, the Income Tax Department would [get ]the advantage [of ][the ][liberty ][that ][is ][otherwise]protected in favour of the Revenue lor initiation [of ][fresh]proceedings from the disposal of these mattcr [s ][at a ][much later ][stage]which would be advantageous and [beneficial ][to ][the ][Revenue ][and]would be equally disadvantageous and [detrimenlal ][so ][far ][as ][interest]of the assesses are concemed. [As ][a ][consequence, ][the ][Income ][Tax]Department gets an extended [period ][of ][tit.tr.: ][il't' ][initiation of ][fresh]proceedings. 12. The alarming trend of [docket ][explosion in this Court, ][despite]the clear precedent set in [Kanakals Ravindra ][Reddy ][(l ][supra), ][is ][a]matter of grave concem. [The Income ][Tax ][Department's persistent]initiation of fresh proceedings, [disregarding ][ttrt: established ][judicial]pronouncements, has led to [an ][unprecedetrteil ][surge ][in ][litigation]with over 600-700 [petitions ][piling up ][on ][lh.e ][same ][issue' ][This]deliberate approach not [only ][undermines ][thc ][principle ][of judicial]precedent but also strains [the ][judicial ][resouries ][umece ][ssarily' The]Department's strategy [of ][awaiting the ][Suprenle ][Coud's ][decision ][on]pending SLPs while continuing to [initilte ][iresh ][proceedings]appears to be a [' ]calculated [move ][to ][buy ][time ][and ][circumvent]limitation periods, rather [than ][adhering ][to ][the ][established legal] position. Such conduct raises serious questions about theadministrative elliciency and the respecl for judicialpronouncernents, palticuiarly when this Court has already provideda balanced approacir by preserving both the Revr:nue's rights andassesses interests. 13. Another asp$li \yhich needs to be considere I is that in fact itshould havc been n:rli,:cd t-ry the Income Tax DepzLrlment itself andshould har,e founr: ,.rLrl v ia media in ensuring ['.hat ]proceedingsunder Sectioirs I l ll- [,\ ]ancl 148 should not have reen issued in afaceless ln.rnner, a1 i,:rrs1 till the Hon'ble Supreme Court decide thetwelve hundred ( I 2t)ii [j ]odd SLPs whicir it is already seized of or, atleast the I)rcr)me ['i'it:- ]i)epatlment should have lound out someremeciial steps to irirslilc that u,herever the authrrities intend toinitiate ploceedinl.l, ,.111,1.. Scctions 148-A and l4ti, other than in afacelcss nranner, lrr should have been deferredllroceedings witliout precipitatinri iiir-- rnatter further intimating the assessee thatthey shall ir.ritiate applopriate proceedings only after the SLP's aredecided by the Hol'bic Supreme Couft on the rery sameISSUeThis again, the Income Tax Department, has not been able to give aconvincing repl.v. cxcept for the fact that such a rlecision if at all has to be [taken, ][has ][to ][be ][taken ][for ][the ][whole ][of India' ][and ][which]otherwise [has ][to ][be ][by way ][of ][a ][policy ][dccision ][and that ][too ][at ][the]level of [Central ][Board ][of ][Direct ][Taxes. ][l ][hough ][the ][leamed]Standing [Counsel ][for ][the ][Income ][Tax ][Deparrrnent ][contended that]the Delhi [High ][Court ][dismissed ][a ][writ ][petition ][oI ][similar ][nature' on]the one [hand ][when ][the ][High ][Courl ][is ][stlugl:ling ][to ][reduce ][its]pendency, [such ][notices ][which ][are under ][cl:allenge ][in ][this ][writ]are [forcing the ][assessee ][to ][knock the ][doors ][o1'this High]petition Court resulting [in ][filing ][of ][hundreds ][of ][new ii ]"t [petitions which ][in]the long [run not only ][affects ][the ][disposal ][of ][the ][writ ][petitions but]also consumes [substantial ][time ][of ][the.Rench ][in ][hearing ][these]matters again [and again on ][daily ][basis' ][Adtllttedly' ][in spite of ][the]matterbeloretheHon,bleSupremeCotrl.tlrlr',.Lngbeentakenonmany occasions, [the ][Hon'ble ][Suprerne ][Court ][''r'irich ][is seized ][of ][tl-re]matter [has ][been ][reluctant ][in ][granting ][any intl:rim ][protection ][to ][the]lncome [Tax Department' ][Yet, ][the ][authorilies ][concemed ][at ][the]State level [are ][not ][ready ][to ][accept the ][vertlict ][1'rssed ][by ][a majority]of High [Courts ][of ][different ][States ][on the ][santc ][issue; ][and to ][make]things further [worse, ][the ][Income ][Tax ][L)cl-'artment ][is ][showing]audacity [by ][issuing notices ][continuously ][ttirc're ][t ][Sections ][1 ][48-A ][and] 148 through the.julr:;dictional Assessing Officer r.vhereas it oughtto have been only' in lhc i'aceless manner.to have been only' in lhc i'aceless manner. 14. In thc' casc ,;t' BANK OF INDIA vrr. ASSISTANTCOMMISSIONEI(" INCOME TAXrr. on an issrre whether it wasjustifiable on the ;::ri o1' the lncome Tax Deltartment ln notfollorving en ordr-'r-n:::rscd hy the adjudicating authority only on theground that thr ;l.rr,:i ls ale pcnding, the Division Bench of theHigh Court of Bortri.ii,. hcld at paragraph No.25 as under, viz., : "25. [4r F]a. air1,atla has rightly drawn out attontton to thedecision of thrs uor:,-i in Commissioner of lncome Tax vs. Smt.Godavaridevi Sarat" as also the recent decistol of the co-ordinate Bencir of this Court in Samp Purniture (P) Ltd. v. lTOl3of which one of [,.rs ](Juslice G S Kulkarni) was a mertber, whereinthe Couri caterr.r;::,: ally observed that the Revenu: havrng not"accepted' the Jii, j, tr ent of the High Court would not mean that tillthe sarne [is ]sei aslds in a manner known to law, it wculd loose itsbinding force R.,ftr:r-rng to the decision of the Suprame Court inUnion of lndia vs. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd.l{, theCourt observeii tirar lhe approach of the officials o Revenue oftreating; decisrons L;eir.ie "not acceptable" was critioized by theSupreme Cour-t ii-r such decision, following are the relevantobservations maCc by the Supreme Court. '] t{zOZSl [170 ][raxrrranrr.conr ][422 ][(Bombay)l] '' 1t9zs1 [l ][l.l ][t ][l'R 5fi9 ][(tlouriray)] " 1202+116-5 [taxma;rn.corn ]-5til/300 [J-axman ][452 (Bonrbay)] to TlgSZl taxmann.clrnr i(ii-<5 ELT 433 (SC)TlgSZl taxmann.clrnr i(ii-<5 ELT 433 (SC) '] t{zOZSl [170 ][raxrrranrr.conr ][422 ][(Bombay)l] '' 1t9zs1 [l ][l.l ][t ][l'R 5fi9 ][(tlouriray)] " 1202+116-5 [taxma;rn.corn ]-5til/300 [J-axman ][452 (Bonrbay)] to TlgSZl taxmann.clrnr i(ii-<5 ELT 433 (SC)TlgSZl taxmann.clrnr i(ii-<5 ELT 433 (SC) "6. Sri Reddy is [perhaps ]right in [saying ][that ][the]officers were not [actuated ][by ][any ][mala ][fides ][in]passing the impugned orders. [l'hey ][perhaps]genuinely felt that the claim of the [assessee ][was ][not]tenable and that, if it [was ][accepted' ][the ][Revenue]would suffer. But [what ][Sri ][Reddy overlooks ][is ][that ][we]are not concerned [here ][with ][the ][cQrlectness ][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 vrere placed ][befoi-e]them, one of the [Collector (Appeals) and ][the ][other of]the Tribunal. The [High Court ][has, in oi;r view, ][rightly]criticized this conduct [of ][the Assistant ][Coiiectors ][and]the harassment to [the ][assessee ][causeci try ][the ][failure]of these officers to [give ][effect ][to ][the ][orders ][of]authorities higher [to ][them ][in ][the appellate ][hicrarchy ][lt]cannot be too [vehemently emphasized ][that ][it ][is ][of]utmost importance [that' ][in ][d'isposing ][of ][the]quasijudicial issues before them, [revenue ][officers ][are]bound by the decisions [of ][the ][appellaie ][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 ]'qssistantCollectors and the [Appellate Collectors ][who ][function]under the [jurisdiction of the ][Tribunal. ][The plrnciples ][of]judicial discipline require lhat the [orders ][cf the ][higher]appellate authorities [should be followed ][unreservedly]by the subordinate [authorities. The ][mere ][fact ][that the]order of the appellate [authority ][is ][not ]["acceptable" to]the department - [in ][itself an ][objectionable phrase ][-]and is the subject [matter of an appeal ][can ][furnish ][no]ground for not following [it ][unless ][its ][operation ][has]been suspended [by ][a ][competent ][court ][lf ][this ][healthy] rule is not iollovved, the result will only be undueharassmeiit tc assesses and chaos in admin strationof tax lau,/s. 12 We have dealt with this aspect at some length,because it nas been suggested by .the learnedAdditionai Siclir;itor General that the obse vationsmade by the lJigh Court, have been harsh on theofficers. ii !s clear that the observations of the HighCourt, ss.rningly vehement, and apl)arentlyunpalatabi,- io ttre Revenue, are only intended lo curba tendency i,i levenue matters which, if allc wed totlecorne !,.1r,.i.]spread, could result in consrderableharassrnent to the assesses-public without any benefitto the Revc-nrre We would lrke to say tlat thedepartment should take these observations in theproper splri: The observations. of the Higlr Courtshould be ke.t in mind in future and the utmos': regardshould be paid b\/ the adjuCicating authorities and theappellate aLiti',or-iiies to the requirements of [judicial]disGpline a,-rd ihe need for giving effect to th€ ordersc,1'the highrrr appellate authorities which are bindingon {henr "" 15. What is rl,'(--,r1 '" ;ng this Bench more is the fact that anendeavour is being uia<le whole heartedly to ensur3 not to generatefuither litigation on issues r.vhich have been laid to rest by a largenumber of High Co,,irLs all of whom have taken a consistent standthat the action of tire Income Tax Department bein13 violative of the 15. What is rl,'(--,r1 '" ;ng this Bench more is the fact that anendeavour is being uia<le whole heartedly to ensur3 not to generatefuither litigation on issues r.vhich have been laid to rest by a largenumber of High Co,,irLs all of whom have taken a consistent standthat the action of tire Income Tax Department bein13 violative of the Finance [Act,2O20 ][and ][Finance ][Act,2021' ][Nr"u', ][in ][order ][to ][protect]the interest [of ][the Revenue ][as ][also ][that ][of ][the ][llssessee' ][it would ][be]trite at this [juncture, ][if ][we ][dispose ][of ][thc ][r'r ][rit ][petition ][with ][an]observation/direction [that ][the ][disposal ][ofthe ][instant ][writ ][petition ][in]terms of the [judgment ][rendered ][by this ][Fligh Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]Kankanala Ravindra [Retltly ][(l ][supra) ][shall horvever ][be ][subject ][to]the outcome [of ][the ][SLPs rvhich ][were ][filed ][Lr1' ][the ][lncome ][Tax]Depaftment [and ][which ][is pending considelatiorr before the ][Hon'ble]Supreme Court. 16. In the [given facts ][and circumstanccs, ][Lhis ][Rench ][is of ][the]considered [opinion that ][unless and ][until ][we ][do ][not ][timely ][dispose]of matters [which ][are ][squarely covered ][by ][the ][decision ][of ][this Coutt]and which [stands ][fortified by ][the ][decisions ][ol'the ][various ][other]Courts [on ][the ][very ][same issue, ][the ][pendency ][of ][this ][High]High Court would [further ][be ][burdened ][which ][othcrrvise can ][be decided]and disposed [of ][as a ][covered ][matter'] 17. So far [as ][the ][interest ][of ][the ][Revenue is ][concemcd' we ][are ][of]the considered [opinion ][that ][the ][interest ][of ][the ][Revenue ][has ][already]been considered [and ][protected, ][as has ][been ][obselved in ][paragraphs] 36, 37 and 38 of the c:dg;- 1vfiish, for ready referen:e, is reproducedhereunder: 36 For ::il liro aforesaid reasons, the imougned noticesissued and the proceedrngs drawn by the r€sponden!Departmenl is neither tenable. nor sustainable.The notices so issued and the procedure adol)ted beingper se illeglr deserves to be and are accordtngly setaside/qua-si,:r,i As a consequence, all the impugnedorciers geit,n:t quashed, the consequential ordr rs oassedby the res pordent-Department pursuant to tlte noticesissued L..rrrcJ:." Seclron 147 and 148 would also getquashed ar,d ri is ordered accordingly. The reason weare quashinir ihe consequential order is on the principlesthat v/hen the rnitiation of the proceedings itself wasprocedurall_v ,riong the subsequent orders also getsnullified autornatically 37 The oreirninary objectron raised by the p,-,trtioner issustained arr.J all these writ petrtions stands ellowed onthis very Ju!'isdrcticnal issue Since the impugn()d notrcesand order-., ire getting quashed on the point ofjurisdiction, ,,r,e are not inclned to proceed frtrther anddecide the oth?r rssues raised by the petitio rer whichstands reservercl to be raised and contended in anappropriate [proceedtngs.] 38 Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, irr the caseof Ashish Aga.rwal, supra, as a one{ime measureexercisine r. powers under Article 142 of theConslituti,,.n cf lndia, permitted the Revenue to proceedunder ihe sribstituted provisions, and this Courl allowingthe petitrons only on the procedural flaw, the right ;r.!r conferred on the Revenue would [remain ][reserved to]proceed further if they so want from the stage of theorder of the Supreme Couft in the case [of Ashish]Agarwal, supra. 38 Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, irr the caseof Ashish Aga.rwal, supra, as a one{ime measureexercisine r. powers under Article 142 of theConslituti,,.n cf lndia, permitted the Revenue to proceedunder ihe sribstituted provisions, and this Courl allowingthe petitrons only on the procedural flaw, the right ;r.!r conferred on the Revenue would [remain ][reserved to]proceed further if they so want from the stage of theorder of the Supreme Couft in the case [of Ashish]Agarwal, supra. 18. We would only further like to make ob:;.rvations [that ][since]we are inclined to dispose of the instant writ [pctition, ][conscious ][of]the fact that the earlier order of this [Fligh ][('ourt ][in ][tjre ][case ][of]Kanaksla Ravindro Reddy (l [supra) ][is ][sub.iected ][to ][challenge]before the Hon'ble Supreme Courl [in ]SLt' [No.3574 ][of ][2024,]preferred by the Income 1'ax Depaftmetlt, [tvi: lnake ][it ][clear ][that]allowing of the instant writ [petition ][is ][subiecr ][to ][outcome ][of ][the]aforesaid SLP preferred by [the Revenue against ][rhe ][decision ][of ][this]High Court in the case of Kanakala [Rtviniltc ][Retkly ][(l ][supra).]This, in other words, would mean [that either ][oi ][the parties, ][if ][they]so want, may move an appropriate [petition ][sceliing ][revival of ][this]writ petition in the light of the decision of [iirc Hon'ble ][Supreme]Court in the pending SLP on [the ][very ][satnc ][is:',,te.] 19. Accordingly, the instant [writ petition ][stands ][allowed ][rn]favour of the assessee so far as the [issue ][of ][jurisdiction]ISconcemed. As a consequence, the [impugned ][notice ][under]challenge under Sections 148-4 and [stands ][set ][aside/quashed.] The consequentill ordels, if any, also stand set [e ]side/quashed insimilar tenns as havr: bc-r:n [passed ]by this lJigh CorLrt in the case of Kankanah Ravindrol Redil1, (l supra). There shall be no order as to costs ConsequenLll,. nijscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed SD/. T. JAYASREEDEPUTY REGISTRARSEheOFFICERDEPUTY REGISTRARSEheOFFICER //TRUE COPY// OFFICER To, 1. The lncome Tax officer, ward- -.1, lncome Tax office. 1_g-610, 3rd Floorffi3,,.5ffiiffj;6.?pp [rst,Fcr ][a;,*,,, ][ruIi#il! ][ur ][ra ][Ha ][na ][mko ][nda,]ffi3,,.5ffiiffj;6.?pp [rst,Fcr ][a;,*,,, ][ruIi#il! ][ur ][ra ][Ha ][na ][mko ][nda,] 2. The Assessment Department, ft,4inistrv Unit or National Faceless Assessmenl Centre, lncome Financ.e, Roorn N;. ;6'i:'zio ' [-,']rtoor, E_Ramp.TaxJawaharlat Nehru Sfadium, Oefni r io Ooa. '" Jawaharlat Nehru Sfadium, Oefni r io Ooa. '" 3. One CC to SRt A.V.RAGHU RAM, Advocate. to SRt A.V.RAGHU RAM, Advocate. SRt A.V.RAGHU RAM, Advocate. A.V.RAGHU RAM, Advocate. CC to SRt A.V.RAGHU RAM, Advocate. to SRt A.V.RAGHU RAM, Advocate. SRt A.V.RAGHU RAM, Advocate. A.V.RAGHU RAM, Advocate. - to tMs.BoKARo SAPNA REDDY, (sr SC FOR tNCoME fl&"r""? rAX).fl&"r""? rAX). 5Two CD Copiesoasxoasx GJP HIGH COURT DATED:0910612025 c'k.((-?,:'I-)\-,1lt sit 20ffi:i\r1/, ORDERWP.No.14731 of 2025 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITIONWITHOUT COSTS \\