Of Finance Ac 2021 W.e.f., 01.04.2021 Onuards. Proceedingsunder Section L48A Olthe Act As Also Under Section 148 Oftheact Ought To Have Also Been Issued And Pro v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax

HIGH COURT FOR THE STA E OP TELANGANAAT HYDERAAD(Special Original J risdiction) IVONDAY ,THE TWENTY EIHTH DAY OF APRILTWO THOUSAND ANDTWENTY FIVE PRESEN THE HONOURABLE SRI JUTICE P.SAM KOSHYANOTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NRSING RAO NANDIKONDAWRIT PETITION PETITION NO:6306 0F 2024 WRIT PETITION PETITION NO: Between: AMTUL FAHEEM, WO. ZAFARUSSNAIN, Aged about 48years,Occupatron. Business, Rlo. 22-7 [-5051]2,Purani Haveli Main Road Hyderabad50000'l,Hyderabad Telangana, lndia.N. AANPF1803H Assessment Year2015-'16 ...PETITIONER AND 1The Assistant Commissioner of incomeax, Circle 9(1),Hyderabad lTTOWER, AC Guards, Masab Tank, Hydrabad, Telangana, 500084TOWER, AC Guards, Masab Tank, Hydrabad, Telangana, 500084 2. The Principal Chief Commissioner, of [ln]me Tax -Telangana and A.P,Hyderabad. lT Towers, AC Guards, Maab Tank, Hyderabad [- ]500 028,Telangana.Hyderabad. lT Towers, AC Guards, Maab Tank, Hyderabad [- ]500 028,Telangana. 3. The Central Board of Direct Taxes, Repsented by its Chairman, DePartmentof Revenue, I\ilinistry of Finance, Goverment of lndia, Secretariat Buildings,New Delhi - ['1 ]10 001of Revenue, I\ilinistry of Finance, Goverment of lndia, Secretariat Buildings,New Delhi - ['1 ]10 001 4. The National Faceless Assessment Ceter, lncome Tax Department, [New]Delhi.Delhi.5 The Union of lndia, Represented by itsecretary to the Government,Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finnce, New Delhi - ['1 ]10 001.Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finnce, New Delhi - ['1 ]10 001. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Artrcle 226 ol lhe Costitution of lndia [praying ]that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed thewith, the High Court may be Pleasedto issue an appropriate writ, order or directiomore pa(icularly one in the nature [of]Writ of lvlandamus or any other appropriaterit, Order, or Direction, declaring theorder passed by the lncome Tax Authoritis (National Faceless E-AssessmentCentre completed the assessment U/S [147 ][r]s 144 read with section 1448 of [the]lncome Tax Act. 196'1 vide DIN and [N]tice Nodated 19-01-2024rrBA/AST/S/1 47 t2023- 24 t [1 ]059939547 [(1 ])or the assessment [year ][2015-16]determining the total income of Rs. 52,95,441-as arbitrary, illegal, bad in [law,]without [jurisdiction, ]vord-ab-rnitio, violative [o]the principles of natural iustice [apart] ..,'from being violatrve of Articles [1a, 19(1)(g) ][and 265 of the Constitution ][of ][lndia ][and]Sec. i48A of the lncome [Tax ][Act, ][1961 ], [and ][consequently ][set aside the same ][in]the interests of [justice]Sec. i48A of the lncome [Tax ][Act, ][1961 ], [and ][consequently ][set aside the same ][in]the interests of [justice] Counsel for the Petitioner: [SRl. THANNERU ] Counsel for the Respondent [nos.1 ][to ][4: ][Ms. BOKARO SAPNA ] [(Jr' ] FOR INCOME TAX) counset forthe Respondent [No.5: ] [B. MUKHERJEE ] The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSICE NARSING RAONANDIKONA WRIT PETITION No.206 0F 2024 , (pcr Hon hle Sri Justice Narsing RaNarulikonda) Heard Mr.Thanneru ChaitanyKumar, leamed counselfor the petitioner, Ms.B.Sapna [Redd] , [learned ][Junior ][Standing]Counsel for the [Income ][Tax ][Departme][ t ][for ][respondent ][Nos.l ][to ][4]and Mr. B. Mukherjee, [leamed ][couns][ I ][representing ][the Union ][of]India for respondent [No.5. ][Perused the][ record] 2. This is a writ petition wherehe proceedings are eitherchallenged to the notices [which ][were]ssued under Section 148.4and 148 o[the [Income ][Tax ]Act, [1961][ (for ][short ]['the ][Act') ][or ][the]assessment orders [those have ][been]ssed under Section 147 ofthe Act which have been assailed. THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSICE NARSING RAONANDIKONA WRIT PETITION No.206 0F 2024 , (pcr Hon hle Sri Justice Narsing RaNarulikonda) Heard Mr.Thanneru ChaitanyKumar, leamed counselfor the petitioner, Ms.B.Sapna [Redd] , [learned ][Junior ][Standing]Counsel for the [Income ][Tax ][Departme][ t ][for ][respondent ][Nos.l ][to ][4]and Mr. B. Mukherjee, [leamed ][couns][ I ][representing ][the Union ][of]India for respondent [No.5. ][Perused the][ record] 2. This is a writ petition wherehe proceedings are eitherchallenged to the notices [which ][were]ssued under Section 148.4and 148 o[the [Income ][Tax ]Act, [1961][ (for ][short ]['the ][Act') ][or ][the]assessment orders [those have ][been]ssed under Section 147 ofthe Act which have been assailed. 3. This writ petition is being takenp today only on one ofthegrounds, that the notices issued undeSection 148,{ of the Actand the subsequent [initiation of ][pro]dings under Section 148 ofthe Act by the [j ]urisdictional [Assessin]Officer, whereas in terms of the amendmen)Pat was brought to[he ][Income ][Tax ][Act ][by ][way] of Finance Ac| 2021 w.e.f., 01.04.2021 onuards. proceedingsunder Section l48A olthe Act as also under Section 148 oftheAct ought to have also been issued and proceeded in a facelessmanner. 4. The contention contention of the petitioner the petitioner petitioner is that the issue ofthat the issue ofissue ofofproceedings being in violation of the Finance Act,2021 i.e., theimpugned notices under Section 148A 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-'IAX OF-FICERI decidedon 14.09.2023 whereby a batch of writ petitions were allowed andthe proceedings initiated under Section 148A as also under Section148 olthe Act were held to be bad with consequential relieti on theground of it being in violation ofthe provisions of Section I 5lA ofthe Act read with Notification 1812022 dated 29.03.2022. The saidjudgment passed by this Court has also been subsequently followedin a large number of writ petitions which were allorvcd on similarterms The contention contention of the petitioner the petitioner petitioner is that the issue ofthat the issue ofissue ofof ' l(2023) [1 ]56 taxmann.com 178 (Telangana)l 5. Down the line, we find that te same issue has also beendecided against the Revenue byvanous High Courts i.e.,by the Bombay [{igh Court ine case of HEXAWARETECHNOLOGIES LTD., vs. ASSITANT COMMTSSIONEROF INCOME TAX & OTHERS2,uhati High Court in the caseofRAM NARAYAN SAH vs. UNIN OF INDIA3, Punjab andHaryana High Court in the case of JTINDER SINGH BANGUvs. UNION OF INDIAI, and Telangna High Court in the case ofSRI VENKATARAMANA REDDPATLOOLA vs. DEPUTYCOMNIISSIONER OF INCOMEAXs where the issue was inrespect of intemational taxation, Bomay High Court in the case ofABHIN ANILKUMAR SHAII VS.NCOME TAX OFFICER,INTERNATI ONA L TAXAT I O N6hich is again on internationaltaxation and central circle, High Couof Himachal Pradesh in thecase of GOVIND SINGH vs. ICOME TAX OFFICERT,Gujarat High Court in the cse of MANSUKHBHAI '1zoz11464 [430 ][(Bom)]'[(2024) [156 ][taxmann.com 478 (Gauhati]l'l(2024) [165 ][taxmann.com ][115 ][(Punjab]Haryana)l' 12024) [1 ][67 ][taxmann.com ][41 ] [(Telanga])l62 204)166 taxmann679 B(ombav[2024)I65 taxmann[v].comI3(H mAC ah Pradesh)l '1zoz11464 [430 ][(Bom)]'[(2024) [156 ][taxmann.com 478 (Gauhati]l'l(2024) [165 ][taxmann.com ][115 ][(Punjab]Haryana)l' 12024) [1 ][67 ][taxmann.com ][41 ] [(Telanga])l62 204)166 taxmann679 B(ombav[2024)I65 taxmann[v].comI3(H mAC ah Pradesh)l DAHYABHAI RADADTYA vs. INCOME ].AX OFFICE,R,WARD 3(3X5)E, Jharkand High Court in the case of SHyAMSUNDAR SAW vs. UNION OF INDIAe, Rajasthan High Court inthe case of SHARDA DEVI CHHAJER vs. INCOME TAXOFFICER & ANOTHER and batch of writ petitionsr0 whichWARD 3(3X5)E, Jharkand High Court in the case of SHyAMSUNDAR SAW vs. UNION OF INDIAe, Rajasthan High Court inthe case of SHARDA DEVI CHHAJER vs. INCOME TAXOFFICER & ANOTHER and batch of writ petitionsr0 whichstood decided on 19.03.2024. Similar views have also been takenby the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in the case ofby the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in the case ofGIRDHAR GOPAL DALMIA vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS(M.A.T 1690 of 2023), decided on25.09.20246. 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 between 5 to l0 writ(M.A.T 1690 of 2023), decided on25.09.20246. 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 between 5 to l0 writpetitions. That upon the instructions being sought from theDepartment, they have been taking a solitary ground that thedecision of the Bombay High Court in the case ol HerawareTechnologies Ltd., (2 supra) as also the one which has beentdecide( by this Court in the case of Kanakals Ravindra RedtlyTechnologies Ltd., (2 supra) as also the one which has beentdecide( by this Court in the case of Kanakals Ravindra Redtly tz02+ SCC Online Guj 4012'2025 SCC Online Jhar287o ' 72023 [: RJ-JD ][: ][49 ][8 ][4- ]DB l .l (l supra) has been subjected subjected to cc (l supra) has been subjected subjected to ccallenge in a Special LeavePetition i.e., SLP No.3574 of 2024before the Hon'ble SupremeCourt and the Hon'ble Supreme Curt is seized of the matter.In addition, there are about 1200 SLs also filed arising out of thesame issue being decided by variousigh Courts. 7. To a query being put to the leaed counsel for the Revenue,they have categorically accepted thelaot that there is no intenmorder granted by the Hon'ble Supme Court in any of thesematters pending before it. Meanwile, fresh writ petitions ofidentical nature are being piled up beore this Bench on daily basisand the pendency is getting increason matter which otherwisehas already been dealt and decided bythis very High Court.itself. 8. On the one hand, even thougthe order of this Court thatwas passed as early as on 14.09.202and more I 6 months havelapsed, till date, we do not find anyremedial steps having beentaken by the Income Tax Departmento take appropriate steps toeither hold back issuance of notice uder Section 1484. and underSection 148 of the Act by the [juri]dictional Assessing Officer,rather the authorities concerned in thteeth of series of decisions 8. On the one hand, even thougthe order of this Court thatwas passed as early as on 14.09.202and more I 6 months havelapsed, till date, we do not find anyremedial steps having beentaken by the Income Tax Departmento take appropriate steps toeither hold back issuance of notice uder Section 1484. and underSection 148 of the Act by the [juri]dictional Assessing Officer,rather the authorities concerned in thteeth of series of decisions by ati the majcr iiigh Coui-ts in India are continuously stillinitiating proceedings under Section l48A of thc Act and alsoinitiating proceedings under Section 148 ol thc Act incontravention to the amendments brought into the Income Tax Actpursuant to the Finance Act,2020 as also the Financc Act 20219. Upon a query being put as to why can't this r,r'rit petition bedisposed of in the teeth of the decision rendered by this Court inthe case of Kanukala Ravindra Reddy (l supra), leamed StandingCounsel for the Income Tax Department contends that those wouldunnecessarily burden the lncome Tax Department where theywould be required to hle equal number of S LPs belore theHon'ble Supreme Court and it would be further burdening theexchequer of the Union of India. It was also the contention ol theleamed 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 thc Ilon'bteSupreme 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 rvith a mechanism to issue appropriate instructions or to take appropnate steps in ensuring that pceedings under Section l48Aof the Act as also the assessment ors under Section 148 oftheAct are kept in a hold in the light ofhe decisions dedcided by thevarious High Courts, it was submited by the leamed StandingCounsel that the said steps can onlye taken at the level of CBDTas any such steps would have to beken Pan India and cannot belimited to any of these jurisdictionaligh Courts 10. As a result of which, what wefacing is steep increase oflitigation day in and day out even thugh various orders have beenpassed by this High Court allowingrit petitions on the very sameissue. The Income Tax authorities ccemed are still even now in2025 also initiating proceedings in cntravention to the provisionsof Section I 5 I A of the Act and as aesult by now, more than 600to 700 petitions have been alreadyot piled up before this HighCourt on an issue which otherwise sds squarely covered by thejudgment of this Court in the casef Kanakala Ravindra Reddy(l supra). What is also surprisings the fact that though whileallowing the writ petitions in these of Kanakala RavindraReddy (l supra), the Division Bencwhile reserving the right ofthe Revenue, has also protected tinterest ol the petitioners insofar as the liberry which was granted to the Revenue forinitiating fresh proceedings strictly in accordance with the amendedprovisions of the Act, as amended by the Finance Act, 2020 andthe Finance Act,202l. The petitioner assessee would be entitled tochallenge or raise the other legal objections il the Revenue initiatesfresh proceedings. The Department has made no endeavour inavailing the said liberty that was reserved for the Revenue. On thecontrary, they have been still sticking on to the stand, which thisHigh Court as well as many other High Courts already hetd to bebad. insofar as the liberry which was granted to the Revenue forinitiating fresh proceedings strictly in accordance with the amendedprovisions of the Act, as amended by the Finance Act, 2020 andthe Finance Act,202l. The petitioner assessee would be entitled tochallenge or raise the other legal objections il the Revenue initiatesfresh proceedings. The Department has made no endeavour inavailing the said liberty that was reserved for the Revenue. On thecontrary, they have been still sticking on to the stand, which thisHigh Court as well as many other High Courts already hetd to bebad. 1 L It appcars that because of the aforesaid liberty that this HighCourt had granted permitting the Revenue for initiating freshproceedings as a one-time measure in a faceless manner, thelncome Tax Department wants to take advantage of the same byprotracting these proceedings which would enable them to meet thelimitation that would otherwise come in the way. Likewise, if thewrit petition is kept pending fbr 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 HighCourts in which the SI-Ps are still pending, the Income Tax Department would [get ]the advantagef the liberty that is otherwiseprotected in favour of the Rev ue for [initiation ][ol ][fiesh]proceedings from the disposal ofthematters at a much later stagewhich would be advantageous andeneficial to the Revenue andwould be equally disadvantageousdetrimental so far as interestof the assesses are concemed. [As ][a]onsequence, the lncome f axDepartment gets an extended [period][ of ][time ][for ][initiation ][of ][fiesh]proceedings 12. The alarming trend [of ][docket]xplosion in this Court, despitethe clear precedent set in [Kanakala]avindra Reddy (l supra), [rs ][a]matter of grave concern. [The ][Inco]e Tax Department's [persistent]initiation of fresh proceedings, [disre][ arding ][the ][established ][judicial]pronouncements, has led to an [u]recedented surge in litigationwith over 600-700 [petitions ][pilin]up on the same issue. [This]deliberate approach [not ][onlY ][un]ines the principle of [judiciat]precedent but also strains the [judici]resources unnecessarily. [The]Department's strategy of awaitingSupreme Court's [decision ][on]pending SLPs while continuingo initiate fresh [proceedings]to be a [calculated ][move][ to ][buy time ][and ][circumvent]appears Imltat on penodsrather than [a]ering to the established legat I posltion. Such coi-iciuct ratses serious questions about theadministrative elficiency and the respect for judiciaipronouncements, particularly when this Court has already provideda balanced approach by preserving both the Revenue's rights andassesses tnterests. 13. Another aspect which needs to be considered is that in fact itshould have been realized by the income Tax Department itself andshould havc fbund crur via media in ensuring that proceedingsunder Sections !48.A and 148 should not have been issued in afaceless man,er, at l.ast till the Hon,ble Supreme flourt decide ihetwelve hundrcd (1200) odd SLps rvhich it is atready seized ofor, atleast the lncome Ta;i Department should have found out someremedial steps to ensure that wherever the authorities intend toinitiate proceedings under Sections 148-A and l4g, other than in afaceless manner, the proceedings should have been deferredwithout pree ipitating the matter further intimating the assessee thatthey shall initiare appropriate proceedings only 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 fcr thc fact that such a decision if at all has to be taken, has to be [taken ][for]e whole of India, and whichotherwise has to be by way of a polidecision and that too at thelevel of Central Board of Directaxes.Though the leamedStanding Counsel for the Income TDepartment contended thatthe Delhi High Court dismissed a [wri]petition of similar nature, onthe one hand when the High Couis struggling to reduce itspendency, such notices which arender challenge in this writpetition are forcing the assessee toock the doors of this HighCourt resulting in hling of hundredsf new writ petitions which inthe long run not only affects the dissal of the writ petitions butalso consumes substantial time ofthe Bench in hearing thesematters again and again on daily bassAdmittedly, in spite of thematter before the Hon'ble SupremeCourt having been taken onmany occasions, the Hon'ble SupreCourt which is seized of thematter has been reluctant in [grantin]any interim protection to theIncome Tax Department. Yet, thauthorities concerned at theState level are not ready to accept te verdict passed by a majorityof High Courts of different States [o]the same issue; and to makethings further worse, the IncomeTax Department is showingaudacity by issuing notices [continu]sly under Sections 148-A and 148 through the jurisdictional Assessing Officer whereas it oughtto have been only in the faceless manner. 14. In the casc ol BANK OF INDIA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, INCOME TAXrr, on an issue rvhether it wasjustifiable on the part of the Income Tax Department rn notfollowing an order passed by the adjudicating authority only on theground that the appeals arc pending, the Division Bench of theHigh Court of Bombay held at paragraph No.25 as under, viz., : "25. tvlr. Paridwalla has rightly drawn out attention to thedecrsion of this Court in Commissioner of lncome Tax vs. Smt.Godavaridevi Sarafr2 as also the recent decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Samp Furniture (P) Ltd. v. lTOl3of 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 toose 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 "not acceptable" was criticized by theSupreme Court. ln such decision, following are the relevantobservations made by the Supreme Courl. " [11Z0ZS1 ][170 ][taxmann.com ][422 ][(Bombay)l] '2 1t9281 [l3 ] [589 ][(Bombay)] t3 TZOZ+1 [165 ][taxmann.com ]581i300 Taxman 452 (Bombay)TZOZ+1 [165 ][taxmann.com ]581i300 Taxman 452 (Bombay)to lt}gZl taxmann.corn l6155 ELT 433 (SC)lt}gZl taxmann.corn l6155 ELT 433 (SC) t " [11Z0ZS1 ][170 ][taxmann.com ][422 ][(Bombay)l] '2 1t9281 [l3 ] [589 ][(Bombay)] t3 TZOZ+1 [165 ][taxmann.com ]581i300 Taxman 452 (Bombay)TZOZ+1 [165 ][taxmann.com ]581i300 Taxman 452 (Bombay)to lt}gZl taxmann.corn l6155 ELT 433 (SC)lt}gZl taxmann.corn l6155 ELT 433 (SC) t "6. Sri Reddy is perhaps rigt in saying that theofficers were not actuatedy any mala fides inpassing the impugned ordrsThey perhapspassing the impugned ordrsThey perhapsgenuinely felt that the claim ofthe assessee was nottenable and that, if it was apted, the Revenuetenable and that, if it was apted, the Revenuewould suffer. But what Sri Redy overlooks is lhat weare not concerned here witthe correctness orare not concerned here witthe correctness orotherwise of their conclusioor of any factualmalafides but with the fact thathe officers, in reachingin their conclusion, by-passedappellate orders inmalafides but with the fact thathe officers, in reachingin their conclusion, by-passedappellate orders inregard to the same issue whih were placed beforethem, one of the Collector (Apls) and the other ofthe Tribunal. The High Courtas, in our view, rightlythem, one of the Collector (Apls) and the other ofthe Tribunal. The High Courtas, in our view, rightlycriticized this conduct of thesistant Collectors andthe harassment to the assesscaused by the failureof these officers to give ect to the orders ofauthorities higher to them in theappellate hierarchy. ltcannot be too vehemenfly ehasized that it is ofthe harassment to the assesscaused by the failureof these officers to give ect to the orders ofauthorities higher to them in theappellate hierarchy. ltcannot be too vehemenfly ehasized that it is ofutmost imporlance that, idisposing of thequasijudicial issues before the, [revenue ]officers arebound by the decisions of theappellate authorities.The order of the Appellte Collr is binding on theAssistant Collectors working witin his [jurisdiction ]andthe order of the Tribunal is bindng upon the AssistantCollectors and the Appellate Cllectors who functionThe order of the Appellte Collr is binding on theAssistant Collectors working witin his [jurisdiction ]andthe order of the Tribunal is bindng upon the AssistantCollectors and the Appellate Cllectors who functionunder the jurisdiction of the Tribnal. The principles ofjudicial discipline require that torders of the higherappellate authorities should beollowed unreservedlyjudicial discipline require that torders of the higherappellate authorities should beollowed unreservedlyby the subordinate authorities.e mere fact that theorder of the appellate authorityis not "acceptable" tothe department - in itself anectionable phrase -and is the subject matter of anppeal can furnish noand is the subject matter of anppeal can furnish noground for not following it unlss its operation hasbeen suspended by a compete t court. lf this healthybeen suspended by a compete t court. lf this healthy rule is not followed, the result will only be [undue]harassment to assesses and chaos [in ][administration]of tax laws. 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 Courl, 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 sprrit. The observations of the High Courtshould 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 JUdicialdiscipline and the need for giving effect to the [orders]of the higher appellate authorities which are bindingon them." 15. 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 issues which [have ][been ][laid ]to rest by a [large]number of High Courts all of whom have taken a consistent standthat the action of the Income Tax Department being violative of the ilI "..] Finance Act,2020 and Finance Act,2 I . [. ]Now, in order to protectthe interest of the Revenue as also tofthe assessee, it would betrite at this juncture, if we disposeof the writ petition with anobservation/direction that the disposof the instant writ petition interms of the judgment rendered byis High Court in the case ofKankanala Ravindru observation/direction that the disposof the instant writ petition interms of the judgment rendered byis High Court in the case ofKankanala Ravindru Reddy (l suprashall however be subject tothe outcome of the SLps which wefiled by the Income TaxDepartment and which is pending conideration before the Hon,bleSupreme Court. 16. In the given facts and circumthe given facts and circumgiven facts and circumfacts and circumcircum In the given facts and circumthe given facts and circumgiven facts and circumfacts and circumcircumnces, this Bench is of theconsidered opinion that unless and uil we do not timely disposeof matters which are squarely coveredby the decision of this Courtand which stands fortified by the deisions of the various otherHigh Courts on the very same issuethe pendency of this HighCourt would further be burdened whih otherwise can be decidedand disposed of as a covered matter. 17. So far as the interest far as the interest as the interest the interest interest of the Revthe Rev So far as the interest far as the interest as the interest the interest interest of the Revthe Revnue is concemed, we are ofthe considered opinion that the interesof the Revenue has alreadybeen considered and protected, as hasobserved in paragraphs 36,37 and 38 cfthe order which, for ready reference, is reproducedhereunder: 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 setaside/quashed. As a consequence, all the impugnedorders getting quashed, the consequential orders passedby the respondent-Department pursuanl to the noticesissued under Section 147 and 148 would also getquashed and it is ordered accordingly. The reason weare quashing the consequential order is on the principlesthat when the initiation of the proceedings itself wasprocedurally wrong, the subsequent orders also getsnullified automatically. 37. The [preliminary ]objection raised by the [petitioner ]issustained and all these writ petitions stands allowed onthis very [jurisdictional ]issue. Since the impugned noticesand orders are 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 Agarwal, supra, as a one{ime measureexercising the [powers ]under Article 142 of theConstitution of lndia, [permitted ]the Revenue to proceedunder the substrtuted [provisions, ]and this Cou( allowingthe petitions only on the procedural flaw, the right \ \\ ?t conferred on the Revenueuld remain reserved toProceed [further ][if ]they so [wa]t from the stage of theorder of the Supreme Couin the case of AshishAgarwal, supra. 18. We would only further like tofurther like tolike toto 38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the caseof Ashish Agarwal, supra, as a one{ime measureexercising the [powers ]under Article 142 of theConstitution of lndia, [permitted ]the Revenue to proceedunder the substrtuted [provisions, ]and this Cou( allowingthe petitions only on the procedural flaw, the right \ \\ ?t conferred on the Revenueuld remain reserved toProceed [further ][if ]they so [wa]t from the stage of theorder of the Supreme Couin the case of AshishAgarwal, supra. 18. We would only further like tofurther like tolike toto 18. We would only further like tofurther like tolike totomake observations that sincewe are inclined to dispose of the instt writ petition, conscious ofthe lact that the earlier order of ths High Court in the case ofKanakala Ravindra Reddy (l sup) [is ][subjected ]to challengebefore the Hon'ble Supreme Couin SLP No.3574 of 2024,preferred by the Income Tax Departent,we make it clear thatallowing of the instant writ petitionis subject to outcome of theaforesaid SLP preferred by the Revene against the decision of thisHigh Court in the case of KanakRavindra Reddy (l supra).This, in other words, would mean tht either of the parties, if theyso want, may move an appropriate ptition seeking revival of thiswrit petition in the light of the deciion of the Hon'ble SupremeCourt in the pending SLP on the veryame lssue. 19. Accordingly, the instant writAccordingly, the instant writthe instant writinstant writ 19. Accordingly, the instant writAccordingly, the instant writthe instant writinstant writpetition stands allowed infavour of the assessee so far ashe issue of jurisdictionrsconcemed. As a consequence,eimpugned notice underchallenge under Sections 148-A and48 stands set aside/quashed. ( ( II The consequentiaI orders, if any, also stand set aside/quashed insimilar terms as have been passed by this High Court in the case ofKankanala Ravindra Reddy (l supra). There shafl be no order asto costs Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending. il.any, shall stand closed. A LAXMI-AGISTRAR //TRUE COPY' OFFICER To,The Assistant Commissioner of income tax, Circle s1)j,/nyoeraoao rrTOWER, AC Guards, tVtasab Tank, Hyderabad, Tednijaria, 500084/The Assistant Commissioner of income tax, Circle s1)j,/nyoeraoao rrTOWER, AC Guards, tVtasab Tank, Hyderabad, Tednijaria, 500084/2The Principal Clief Commissioner, of lncome Tax -Telangana and A.p,flyderabad, [lT ][Towers, ] [Guards, Masab ][Tank, Hydera"bad ]SOb O2g,Telangana.flyderabad, [lT ][Towers, ] [Guards, Masab ][Tank, Hydera"bad ]SOb O2g,Telangana.2The chairman central Board of Direct Taxes, Represented by its chairman,Department of Revenue, Mr1lstry of Finance. Government of india, secreiaiiatBuildings, New Dethi - ['t'10 ]OO I. [']Department of Revenue, Mr1lstry of Finance. Government of india, secreiaiiatBuildings, New Dethi - ['t'10 ]OO I. ['] 4The National Faceless Assessment Center, lncome Tax Department, NewNational Faceless Assessment Center, lncome Tax Department, NewDelhi.EThe Secretary to -the Government, Department of Revenue. IVlinistry ofFrnance. Union of lndia New Delhi -.1 10 001.The Secretary to -the Government, Department of Revenue. IVlinistry ofFrnance. Union of lndia New Delhi -.1 10 001. bOne CC to SRI THANNERU CHA|TANYA KUMAR Advocate 7_O_ry [to ][Ms ] [(Jr ]SC FOR TNCOME TAX)loPUClloPUCloOne Cc To Sri B.Mukheriee Advocate oTwo CD Copies,oTwo CD Copies,KKS CD w BS HIGH COURT DATED:2810412025 ORDERWP.No.26306 of 2024 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITIONWITHOUT COSTS B[a^] / 1lSl.rirRC.('/c-!)13 AUE 2Mi;l-,.t ./,,[.,/].7'