> Not Being Issued In A Faceless Manner, Have Already Been Dealt With And Decided By This Court In The Case Ol Kankanala Ravindra Reddy v. Income-Tax Officei.t Decided On 14.09.2023 Whereby A Batch Of Writ Petitions Were Allowed And

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF APRILTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 29115 OF 2024 Between: N//s Vijaya Diagnostic Centre Limited, [(formerly, M/s Viiaya ][Diagno_stic ][Centre]Privat6 limited), 6- 3- 883/F, Near Topaz Building, [B_uilding, ][Punjagutta']Hyderabad - 5b0 082, Telangana. Represented [by ][its ][Company ][Secretary]and Compliance Officer, Mr. Hansraj [Singh, S/o Mr. Sheetal ][Singh.] ...PETITIONER AND 1The Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax, [Circle ][8(1), ][Hyderabad,]Signature Towers, Opposite Botanical Gardens, [Sy, ][N9. ][6(P) ][of ][K9(ap^u1,]Syi No. 37(P) of Kothaguda, Serilingampally [Mandal, ][Hyderabad ][- ][500 ][084,]Ranga Reddy District, Telangana.Signature Towers, Opposite Botanical Gardens, [Sy, ][N9. ][6(P) ][of ][K9(ap^u1,]Syi No. 37(P) of Kothaguda, Serilingampally [Mandal, ][Hyderabad ][- ][500 ][084,]Ranga Reddy District, Telangana. 2The Chief Commissioner of lncome Tax, Hyderabad, [l. T. ][Towers ]' [10- ][2- ][3']AC Guards, Hyderabad [- ]500 004, [Telangana.]AC Guards, Hyderabad [- ]500 004, [Telangana.]JAdditional / Joint / Deputy / Assistant Commissioner [of ][lncome ][Tax ][/ ][lncome]Tax Officer, National d- Assessment Centre, [Delhi, Room No. 401, ][2nd ][Floor,]E- Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, [New ][Delhi ][- ][110 003.]Tax Officer, National d- Assessment Centre, [Delhi, Room No. 401, ][2nd ][Floor,]E- Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, [New ][Delhi ][- ][110 003.] ...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 issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate [Writ, ][Order ][or]Direction, declaring that the notice issued [by ][the ][1st ][Respondent, ][u/s ][148 ][of ][the]lncome Tax Act, 1961, dated 26.08.2024, [bearing DIN: ][|TBAiASTlMll4S-112024-]25t1067990295(1 ), for the Assessment [Year 2018 ][- ][1 ]I [as arbitrary, ][illegal' ][bad ][in]law, void- ab- initio, birred by limitation, [violative ][of ][the ][principles ][of ][natural]justice, apart from being violative of Articles 1a, 19(1Xg) and 265 of [the]Constitution of lndia, and consequently [set ][aside ][the ][same ][in ][the ][interests ][of]justice. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances statedin the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased tostay all further proceedings, including any recovery, pursuant to the notice issuedby the 1st Respondent, uls 148 of the lncome Tax Act, 1961, dated 26.08.2024,bearing DIN:ITBA/ASTll{i|148_112024-2511067990295(1), for the AssessmentYear 2018 - 19, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI A.V.A.SIVA KARTIKEYA Counsel forthe Respondents: Ms. B.SAPNA REDDY, Jr. SC FOR lT DEPT. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAONANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION No.29115 of 2024 ORDER: @er l-lon'ble Sri Justice P.Sam k;shy) Hcard Mr. A.V.A.Siva Karlikeya, learned counsel for [the]petitioner and Ms. B.Sapna Reddy, leamed Junior StandingCounsel lor the Income Tax Deparlment for [the ][respondents]Peruscd the record. 2. 'lhis is a writ petition where the proceedings are eitherchallenged to the notices which were issued under Section [l48A]and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [(for ]short 'the Act') [or ][the]assessment orders those have been passed under Section 147 ofthe Act which have been assailed. Counsel forthe Respondents: Ms. B.SAPNA REDDY, Jr. SC FOR lT DEPT. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAONANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION No.29115 of 2024 ORDER: @er l-lon'ble Sri Justice P.Sam k;shy) Hcard Mr. A.V.A.Siva Karlikeya, learned counsel for [the]petitioner and Ms. B.Sapna Reddy, leamed Junior StandingCounsel lor the Income Tax Deparlment for [the ][respondents]Peruscd the record. 2. 'lhis is a writ petition where the proceedings are eitherchallenged to the notices which were issued under Section [l48A]and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [(for ]short 'the Act') [or ][the]assessment 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 [the]grounds, that the notices issued under Section 148,{ of the Actand the subsequent initiation of proceedings under Section [148 ][of]the Act by the [jurisdictional ]Assessing Officer, whereas in [tetms]of the arnendment that was brought to the Incorne Tax Act by [way]of Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f., 01.04.2021 onwards, proceedings under Section 148A ol the Act as also under Scction l4g of thcAct ought to have also been issued and proceeded in a facelessmannel4. The contention contention of the petitioner is that the issue olthe petitioner is that the issue olpetitioner is that the issue olis that the issue olthat the issue olissue ololAct ought to have also been issued and proceeded in a facelessmannel4. The contention contention of the petitioner is that the issue olthe petitioner is that the issue olpetitioner is that the issue olis that the issue olthat the issue olissue ololproceedings being in violation of the Finance Act, 2021 i.e., theimpugned notices under Section l48A and Section 148 of the Actimpugned notices under Section l48A and Section 148 of the Actnot being issued in a faceless manner, have already been dealt withand decided by this Court in the case ol KANKANALARAVINDRA REDDY vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICE|i.T decidedon 14.09.2023 whereby a batch of writ petitions were allowed andand decided by this Court in the case ol KANKANALARAVINDRA REDDY vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICE|i.T decidedon 14.09.2023 whereby a batch of writ petitions were allowed andthe proceedings initiated under Section l48A as also under SectionI48 of the Act were held to be bad with consequcntial reliefs on theI48 of the Act were held to be bad with consequcntial reliefs on theground of it being in violation olthe provisions of Secrion l51A olthe Act read with Notification 18/2022 dated 29.03.2022. The saidjudgment passed by this Court has also been subsequently loltowedin a large number of writ petitions which were allowed on similar.telms.judgment passed by this Court has also been subsequently loltowedin a large number of writ petitions which were allowed on similar.telms. The contention contention of the petitioner is that the issue olthe petitioner is that the issue olpetitioner is that the issue olis that the issue olthat the issue olissue olol '[(2023) [156 ]taxmann.com 178 ('l'elangana)] 5. Down the line, we find that the same issue has also beendecided against the Revenue byvanousHigh Courts i.e.,by the Bombay High Court in the case of HEXAWARETECHNOLOGTES LTD., vS. ASSISTANT 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 REDDY PAT'LOOLA vs. DEPUTYCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX5 where the issue was inrespect of international taxation, Bombay High Couft in the case ofABHIN ANILKUMAR STIAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,INTERNATIONAL TAXATION6 which is again on intemationaltaxation and central circle, Fligh Courl of Himachal Pradesh in thecase of GOVIND SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERi,Gujarat High Court in the case of MANSUKHBHAI 'Tzoz+1464 [430 ][(Bom)]'l(2024) [156 ][taxmann.com ][478 ][(Gauhati)l]^ l(2024) 165 taxmann.com 1 l5 (Punjab & Haryana)l'12024) [167 ]taxmann.com [41 ][1 ][(Telangana)l] " 12024) 166 taxmann.oom 679 (Bombay)l ' 12024) 165 taxmann.com [1 ]13 (Himachal [Pradesh)l] DAHYABHAI RADADIYA [VS. ]INCOME [OFFICEIT,]WARD 3(3XO8, Jharkand [High Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ] SUNDAR SAW [vs. ] [INDIAe, ][Rajasthan ][High Courl ][in]the case of SHARDA DEVI CHHAJER [vs. ] OFFICER & ANOTHER and [batch ][of writ ][petitionsro ][which]stood decided on 19.03.2024. Similar [views ][have also ][been ][taken]by the Division Bench of Calcutta High [Court ][in ][the ][case ][ol]GIRDHAR GOPAL DALMIA [vs. ] [& ] (M.A.T 1690 of 2023), decided on25.09.2024.6. Even though the same issue having been [decided by a ][large]number of High Courts, we are still confronted [with ][large ][filing of]identical matters on daily basis [ranging ][between ][5 ][to ] [0 ][writ]petitions. That upon the ir.rstructions being sougl.rt from [the]Depafiment, they have been taking a solitary [ground ][that ][the]decision of the Bombay High Court in the [case ][of ][Haruware]Technologies Ltd., (2 supra) as [also ][the ][one ][which ][has ][been]decided by this Courl in the case of [Kanakala Rnvindra ][Reddy] t2024 scc online Gg 4012'2025 [Online ][Jhar287]I o 12023.. [RJ-.ID ][:49 ][84-DBl] (l supra) has been subjected to [challenge ][in ][a ][Special ][Leave]Petition i.e., SLP [No.3574 ][of ] [before ][the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme]Court and the Hon'ble [Supreme ][Court ][is ][seized ][of ][the ][matter']In addition, there are [about ][1200 SLPs ][also ][hled ][arising ][out ][ofthe]same issue being [decided by ][various ][High ][Courts.] 7. To a query being [put ][to the ][leamed counsel ][for ][the Revenue,]they have categorically [accepted ][the ][fact ][that ][there is ][no ][interim]order granted by [the Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Court ][in ][any ][of ][these]rnatters pending [before ]it. [Meanwhile, fresh ][writ ][petitions ][of]identical nature are [being piled up ][before 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 ][itsell]8. On the one [hand, ][even ][though ][the ][order ][of ][this Couft ][that]was passed as early as on [14.09.2023 and ][more ][16 ][months ][have]lapsed, till date, [we ][do ][not ][find ][any remedial ][steps ][having ][been]taken by the Income 1-ax [Depaftment ][to ][take appropriate ][steps to]either hold back issuance [of ][notice under ][Section 1484 ][and ][under]Section 148 of the Act [by ][the jurisdictional ][Assessing ][Officer,]rather the authorities concemed [in ][the teeth ][of ][series ][of ][decisions] by atl the major High Courts in India are continuously stillinitiating proceedings under Section l48A of the Act and alsoinitiating proccedings under Section 148 of the Acr incontravention to the arnendments brought into the Income Tax Actpursuant to the Finance Act,2020 as also the Finance Act 20219. Upon a query being put as to why can't this writ petitior.r bedisposed of in the teeth of the decision rendered by this Court inthe case of Kontkda Ravindra Reddy (l supra), leamed StandineCounsel for the Incon-re Tax Department contends that those wou ldunnecessarily burden the Income Tax Departrr-rent where thcywould be required to file cqual number of SLPs before theHon'ble Supreme Courl and it would be further burdening theexchequer of the Union of India. It was also the contention of tl.relcamed Standing Counsel that no prejudice would be caused to theinterest of the petitioners in case if this writ petition is kept pendingtill the finalization of the SLPs pending before the Hon'bleSupreme Court and the fact that the petitioner is already enjoyingthe benefit of interim protection. Nonetheless, on the earlier quer1,of this Court as to why the Income Tax Department have not comeout with a mechanism to issue appropriate instructions or to take 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 leamed 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 ]I{igh Courts. 10. As a result of which, what we are facing is steep increase oflitigation day in and day out even though various orders have beenpassed by this High Court allowing writ petitions on thc very sameissue. The Income Tax authorities concemed are still even now in2025 also initiating proceedings in contravention to the provisionsol' Section I 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 Kanskala Ravindra Redtly(l 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 reserving the right oflhe Revenue, has also protected the interest of the petitioners insofar as the tiberty [which ][was ][granted ][to ][the ][Revenue ][lor]fresh [proceedings ][strictly ][in ][accordance ][with ][the ][amended]initiating provisions of the Act, [as ][amended ][by ][the Finance ][Act, ][2020 ][and]the Finance Act,2021. [The ][petitioner ][assessee ][would ][be ][entitled ][to]challenge or raise the [other ][legal ][objections ][if ][the Revenue ][initiates]fresh proceedings. [The ][Department has ][made ][no ][endeavour ][in]said [liberty ][that ][was reserved ][for ][the ][Revenue' ][On ][the]availing the contrary, they have [been ][still ][sticking ][on ][to ][the ][stand, ][which ][this]High Court as well as [many ][other ][High ][Courts already held ][to ][be]bad 11. It appears that [because ][ofthe ][aforesaid ][liberty ][that this ][High]Court had [grar.rted ][permitting ][the ][Revenue ][for ][initiating ][fresh]proceedings as a one-time [lneasure ][in a ][faceless ][manner, ][the]Income Tax Department [wants ][to ][take ][advantage ][of ][the ][same ][by]protracting these proce edings [which ][would ][enable ][them ][to ][meet the]limitation that [would ][otherwise ][cotne ][in ][the ][way' ][Likewise. ][il ][the]writ petition is [kept pending ][for ][a ][considerable ][long period ][of ][time]and finally at a later [stage ][if ][the ][I{on'ble ][Supreme ][Courl ][confirms]the decision taken by this [High ][Court ][as ][also ][by the ][other ][High]Courts in which the [SLPs are ][still ][pending, ][the ][Income ][Tax] 11. It appears that [because ][ofthe ][aforesaid ][liberty ][that this ][High]Court had [grar.rted ][permitting ][the ][Revenue ][for ][initiating ][fresh]proceedings as a one-time [lneasure ][in a ][faceless ][manner, ][the]Income Tax Department [wants ][to ][take ][advantage ][of ][the ][same ][by]protracting these proce edings [which ][would ][enable ][them ][to ][meet the]limitation that [would ][otherwise ][cotne ][in ][the ][way' ][Likewise. ][il ][the]writ petition is [kept pending ][for ][a ][considerable ][long period ][of ][time]and finally at a later [stage ][if ][the ][I{on'ble ][Supreme ][Courl ][confirms]the decision taken by this [High ][Court ][as ][also ][by the ][other ][High]Courts in which the [SLPs are ][still ][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 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 TaxDepartment gets an extended period of time for initiation of freshproceedings. 12. The alanning trend of docket explosion in this Court, despitetlre clear precedent set in Kanakala Ravindru Redtly [(1 ]supra), is amatter of grave concem. The Incotne Tax Department's persistentinitiation of fresh proceedings, disregarding the established [j ]udicialpronouncements, has led to an unprecedented surge in litigationwith over 600-700 petitions piling up on the same issue. Thisdeliberate approach not only undermines thc principle of [judicial]precedent 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 ri calculated move to buy time and circumventlimitation periods, rather than adhering to the established legal position. Such conduct raises [serious questions ][about ][the]administrative efhciency and [the ][respect ][for ].iudicialpronouncements, parlicularly ['when ][this ][Court ][has ][already ][provided]a balanced approach by [preserving ][both ][the ][Revenue's ][rights ][and]assesses interests. 13. Another aspect [which ][needs ][to ][be considered ][is ][that ][in ][fact ][it]should have been realized [by ][the ][Income ][Tax Department itself ][and]should have found out [via ][media ][in ][ensuring ][that ][proceedings]under Sections 148-4 and [148 ][should not have ][been ][issued ][in ][a]faceless manner, at ieast till [the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Courl ][decide ][the]twelve hundred [( ]1200) odd SLPs [which ][it ][is ][already seized ][of or, ][at]least tl-re Incotnc Tax Department [should ][l-rave ][found ][out ][some]remedial steps to ensure [that ][wherever ][the ][authorities intend ][to]initiate proceedings under [Sections ][148-A ][and ][148, ][other ][than ][in ][a]faceless mamer, the [proceedings ][should ][have ][been ][deferred]without precipitating the [matter ][further intimating ][the ][assessee ][that]they shall initiate appropriate [proceedings ][only ][after ][the ][SLP's ][are]decided 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 all ia.. [..,...-.,..-,-] ia.. [..,...-.,..-,-] 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 thelcvel of Central Board of Direct Taxes. Though the leamedStanding Counsel for the Income Tax Department contended thatthe 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 are under challenge in this writpctition are forcing the assessee to knock the doors of this I-IighCourt resulting in filing of hundreds of new writ petitions which inthe long run not only affects the disposal of the writ petitions butalso consurnes substantial time of the Bench in hearing thesernatters again and again on daily basis. Admittedly, in spite of thernatter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court having been taken onmany 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 concerned at theState level are not ready to accept the verdict passed by a majorityol High Courts of different States on the same issue; and to makethings further worse, the Income Tax Department is showingaudacity by issuing notices continuously under Sections 148-4 and 148 through the [jurisdictional ][Assessing ][Officer ][whereas ][it ][ought]to have been only in the [faceless manner.] 14. In the case of BANK [vs. ] COMMISSIONER, INCOME [TAXrr, ][on ][an ][issue ][whether ][it ][was]justifiable on the parl of the Income Tax Department in [not]following an order passed by [the adjudicating authority ][only ][on ][the]ground that the appeals are [pending, ]the [Division ][Bench ][of ][the]High Court of Bombay held at [paragraph ][No.25 ][as ][under, ][viz., ][:] "25. Mr. Paridwalla has rightly drawn [out ][attention ][to ][the]decision 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. ][lTO13]of which one of us [(Justice ]G.S. [Kulkarni) was a member, wherein]the 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 ][its]binding force. Referring to the decision [of ]the [Supreme Court ][in]Union of lndia vs. Kamlakshi Finance [Corporation ][Ltd.14, the]Court observed that the approach [of ][the ][officials ][of ][Revenue ][of]treating decisions being ["not ]acceptable" [was ][criticized ][by ][the]Supreme Court. ln such decision, [following ][are the ][relevant]observations made by the Supreme [Court.] " 11zozs| [170 ][taxmann.com 422 ][(Bombay)l] '' [119281 ][il3 ] [589 ][(Bombay)] t3 lzoz+1 165 taxmann.com 581/300 Taxman 452 (Bombay)lzoz+1 165 taxmann.com 581/300 Taxman 452 (Bombay) 'o llggZl [taxmann.com ][16/55 ] [433 ][(SC)] " 11zozs| [170 ][taxmann.com 422 ][(Bombay)l] '' [119281 ][il3 ] [589 ][(Bombay)] t3 lzoz+1 165 taxmann.com 581/300 Taxman 452 (Bombay)lzoz+1 165 taxmann.com 581/300 Taxman 452 (Bombay) 'o llggZl [taxmann.com ][16/55 ] [433 ][(SC)] "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 cgrreetness orotherwise of their conclusion or of any factuatmalafides but with the fact that the officers, in reachingare not concerned here with the cgrreetness orotherwise of their conclusion or of any factuatmalafides 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, righflycriticized this conduct of the Assistant Collectors andthe harassment to the assessee caused by the failureof these officers tor give effect to the orders ofauthorities higher to them in the appellate hierarchy. ltthem, one of the Collector (Appeals) and the other ofthe Tribunal. The High Court has, in our view, righflycriticized this conduct of the Assistant Collectors andthe harassment to the assessee caused by the failureof these officers tor give effect to the orders ofauthorities higher to them in the appellate hierarchy. ltcannot be too vehemently emphasized that it is ofutmost importance that, in disposing of thequasijudicial issues before them, revenue officers arequasijudicial 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 Appellte Collector is binding on theAssistant Collectors working within his jurisdiction andthe order of the Tribunal is binding upon the AssistantCollectors and the Appellate Collectors who functionCollectors 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 unreservedlyjudicial 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" toorder of the appellate authority is not "acceptable" tothe department - in itself an objectionable phrase -and is the subject matter of an appeal can furnish noand 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 ][undue]harassment to assesses [and chaos ][in ][administration]of tax taws. 12. We have dealt with this [aspect ][at ][some ][length,]because it has been [suggested ][by the ][learned]Additional Solicitor General [that ][the ][observations]made by the High Court, [have been harsh ][on ][the]officers. lt is clear that [the observations ][of the ][High]Court, seemingly vehement, [and ][apparently]unpalatable to the [Revenue, are only intended to curb]a tendency in revenue [matters ][which, ][if ][allowed ][to]become widespread, could [result ][in ][considerable]harassment to the assesses-public [without ][any ][benefit]to the Revenue. We [would ][like ][to ][say that ][the]department should take [these ][observations ][in ][the]proper spirit. The observations of the High [Court]should be kept in [mind in future and ][the ][utmost ][regard]should be paid by the [adjudicating authorities and ][the]appellate authorities to the [requirements ][of ][judicial]discipline and the need [for givlng ][effect ][to the ][orders]of the higher appellate [authorities ][which ][are ][binding]on them." 1 5. What is worrying this [Bench ][more ][is ][the fact ][that ][an]endeavour is being made [whole ][heartedly ][to ][ensure ][not ][to ][generate]further litigation [on ][issttes ][which ][have been ][laid to ][rest ][by ][a large]number of High Courls [all ][of ][whom have taken a ][consistent ][stand]that the action of the Income [Tax ][Deparlment ][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 Court in the case ofKunkanala Ravindra Reddy (l supra) shall however be subject tothe outcome of the SLPs which were filed by the Income TaxDepaftrnent and which is pending consideration before the Hon'bleSupreme Court. 16. ln 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 forlified by the decisions of the various otherHigh Courts on the very same issue, the pendency of this HighCourt would further be burdened which otherwise can be decidedand disposed of as a covered matter. 17. So far as the interest of the Revenue is concerned, we are ofthe considered opinion that the interest ofthe Revenue has alreadybeen considered and protected, as has been observed in paragraphs 36,37 and38 ol ttre order which, [fol ][ready reference, ][is ][reproduced]hereunder: 36. For all the aforesaid [reasons, ]the [impugned notices]issued and the proceedings drawn by the [respondent-]Department is neither tenable, nor [sustainable.]The notices so issued and the [procedure ][adopted ][being]per se illegal, deserves to be and are accordingly setaside/quashed. As a consequence, [all the ][impugned]orders [getting quashed, ]the [consequential orders passed]by the respondent-Department [pursuant ]to the [notices]issued under Section 147 and [.148 ]would also [get]quashed and it is ordered accordingly. The reason weare [quashing ]the consequential order [is ][on ]the [principles]that when the initiation of the [proceedings ][itself ][was]procedurally wrong, the subsequent orders also [gets]nullified automatically. 37. The [preliminary ]objection [raised by ]the [petitioner ][is]sustained and all these writ [petitions ]stands allowed [on]this very [jurisdictional ]issue. [Since ]the [impugned notices]and orders are [getting ][quashed ]on the [point ][of]jurisdiction, we are not inclined to proceed further anddecide the other issues raised by the [petitioner ][which]stands reserved to be raised and [contended ][in ][an]appropriate [proceedings.] 38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme [Court had, ][in ][the case]of Ashish Agarwal, supra, as a [one{ime ][measure]exercising the [powers ][under ][Article ][142 ][of ][the]Constitution of lndia, [permitted ][the ][Revenue ][to ][proceed]under the substituted [provisions, and this ][Court ][allowing]the petitions only [on ][the ][procedural ][flaw, ][the ][right] \ {. conferred on the Revenue would remain reserved toproceed further if they so want from the stage of theorder of lhe Supreme Court in the case of AshishAgarwal, supra. 38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme [Court had, ][in ][the case]of Ashish Agarwal, supra, as a [one{ime ][measure]exercising the [powers ][under ][Article ][142 ][of ][the]Constitution of lndia, [permitted ][the ][Revenue ][to ][proceed]under the substituted [provisions, and this ][Court ][allowing]the petitions only [on ][the ][procedural ][flaw, ][the ][right] \ {. conferred on the Revenue would remain reserved toproceed further if they so want from the stage of theorder of lhe Supreme Court in the case of AshishAgarwal, supra. 18. We would only furlher like to make observations that sincewe are inclined to dispose of the instant writ petition, conscious ofthe fact that the ear.lier order of this High Court in the case ofKanakala Ravindra Reddy (1 supra) is subjected to challengebefore the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLp No.3574 of 2024,preferred by the Income Tax Department, we make it ciear 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 Konukalo Ravinclrs Reddy (l 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 SupremeCourt 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 jurisdiction isconcemed. As [.a ]consequence, the impugned notice underchallenge under Sectio.'s 148-A and 148 stands set aside/quashed. The consequential orders, if any, also stand set aside/quashed [in]sirnilar terms as have been passed by this High Courl [in ][the ][case ][of]Kankanokr Ravindra Reddy (l supra). There shall be no order [as] to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed SD/-B.G.VYJAYANTHISSTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY//SECTION OFFICERSECTION OFFICER To 1 . The Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax, Circle 8(1 ), Hyderabad,Signature Towers, Opposite Botanical Gardens, Sy. No.6(P) of Kondapur,Sy. No. 37(P) of Kothaguda, Serilingampally [Vlandal, Hyderabad - 500 084,Ranga Reddy District, Telangana.Signature Towers, Opposite Botanical Gardens, Sy. No.6(P) of Kondapur,Sy. No. 37(P) of Kothaguda, Serilingampally [Vlandal, Hyderabad - 500 084,Ranga Reddy District, Telangana. 2. The Chief Commissioner of lncome Tax, Hyderabad, l. T. Towers, 10- 2- 3,AC Guards, Hyderabad - 500 004, Telangana.AC Guards, Hyderabad - 500 004, Telangana. 3. The Additional / Joint / Deputy / Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax /lncome Tax Officer, National e- Assessment Centre, Delhi, Room No. 401,2nd Floor, E- Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, New Delhi - 110 003.lncome Tax Officer, National e- Assessment Centre, Delhi, Room No. 401,2nd Floor, E- Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, New Delhi - 110 003. 4. One CC to SRI A.V.A.SIVA KARTIKEYA, Advocate 5. One CC to Ms. B.SAPNA REDDY, Jr. SC FOR lT DEPT. 6. Two CD Copies BSRYBSK M. HIGH COURT DATED: 2910412025 ORDERWP.No.29115 of 2024 ALI-OWING THE WRIT [PETITION,]WITHOUT COSTS 7t-.6\b 'l l-ia Sia9B-/€o(i(Jt-1-2 a ,tuu p5'.)\--^ 71, ,-1'1 I ..'/.,.,_---r-