Of Finance Act, 2021 W.e.f., 01.04.202 I Onwards, Proceedings Under Section 14Ga Of The Act As Also Under Section L4G Of The Act Ought To Have Also Been Issued v. Income_Tax Officert Decided On 14.09.2023 Whereby A Batch Of Writ Petitions Were Alowed And The Pro

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JUNETWO THOUSAND AND TWENW FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRl JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY THE HoNoURABLE SRI uusTHeDrunnsINc RAo NANDTKoNDA WRIT PETITION NO: 17303 0F 2025 Between: Mrs. Likitha Sodaoaka. plo.^.y_r_.p-qparao Sodapaka, aged 37 years.occ: House wife, R/o to-z-^ipsijs1i07; Nei ii,iJ,i j Apt.,'sn:r.itni rGJ"i,Masab Tank, Hyderabad - SOO 028, fetaiigjna [--'-] ...PETlTIONER AND 1' Assegsment Unit, rncome Tax Department, Nationar e-Assessrnent center,New Derhi, Room No. 401,2nd roor, ernimp,-.liwanarill rveii. strii,ir,'New Delhi - 110 003.New Derhi, Room No. 401,2nd roor, ernimp,-.liwanarill rveii. strii,ir,'New Delhi - 110 003. 2 Ihq lncome Tax Officer, W"rg].(), Hyderabad, Signature Towers,!v. [No.6(P) of Kondapur, ][Sy ][azlei ][bt ][koinisrd'aldpp. ]a6tiii"ii ["G"ro"ns,]Sertingampaily Mandat. Rahga Re'doy OiitriEt,ltliOL'riUaa _ sOO oAq [-""-']Telangana.!v. [No.6(P) of Kondapur, ][Sy ][azlei ][bt ][koinisrd'aldpp. ]a6tiii"ii ["G"ro"ns,]Sertingampaily Mandat. Rahga Re'doy OiitriEt,ltliOL'riUaa _ sOO oAq [-""-']Telangana. 3. J!e-P^rinciqal_Commissioner '10-2-3, of lncome _ 1, Hyderabad, lncome Tax Towers,"""'"'A.C. Guards, Masab Tank, Hyoera'oat _ sob otia, ii,rt"6;. A.C. Guards, Masab Tank, Hyoera'oat _ sob otia, ii,rt"6;. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Articre 226 of the constitution of rndia praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit fired trerewith, the High :court may bepleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order orDirection, declaring that the order passed uts 147 r/w sec. 144 rtw sec. 1448 ofthe lncome Tax Act, 1961, dated SO.O1 .2024, bearing DIN No.lrBA/AST/s/147r2023-24t1a60291034(1), by the 1st Respondent, for theAssessment Year 201 B - 19 b.the consequentiar penarties, revied u/s. 2z2A (1) (d)the lncome Tax Act, 1961, dated SO.O1 .2024, bearing DIN No.lrBA/AST/s/147r2023-24t1a60291034(1), by the 1st Respondent, for theAssessment Year 201 B - 19 b.the consequentiar penarties, revied u/s. 2z2A (1) (d)and 271AAQ1) of the lncome Tax Act, '1961 dated 24.06.2024 aN 28.06.2024,vide DIN No.'s1TBtupNUFt272A(1)(dy2O24_2st1O6SgZ4S3S(1) and|rBA/PNL/F/271AAc(1)12024-2s/1066200357(1). forthe Assessment year 201B -vide DIN No.'s1TBtupNUFt272A(1)(dy2O24_2st1O6SgZ4S3S(1) and|rBA/PNL/F/271AAc(1)12024-2s/1066200357(1). forthe Assessment year 201B - lgasarbitrary,illegal,badinlaw'void-ab-initio'violativeoftheprinciplesofnatural [justice, ][apart ][from ][being viorative ][of ][Articres ][14. ][19(1)(9) ][and ][265 ][of ][the]Constitution [of lndia ][and Sec ][148A ][of the ][lncome Tax ][Act ][1961' and consequently]set aside [the ][same ][in ][the ][interests ][of justice'] lA NO: [1] OF[2025] Petition [under Section ][151 ] [praying ][that ][in ][the ][circumstances ][stated ][in]the affidavit [fired ][in ][support ][of ][the ][petition, ][the ][High ][court ][may ][be ][pleased ][to ][stay]all further [proceedings, including ][any ][recovery' pursuant ][to ][notice issued ][by ][the]2nd Respondent, [u/s ][l43 ][of ][the ][lncome Tax ][Act' ][1961 ][' ][dated ][27 ]['O4 ][2022' ][bearing]DIN No. [ITBA/AST/S/148-1t2022- ][2311042880718(1)' ][for ][the ][Assessment ][Year]2018-lg,pendingdisposaloftheaboveWritPetition;'pendingdisposaloftheabove Writ [Petition'] Counsel [for ][the ][Petitioner: ] [A' ][V' ][A' ] Counsel [for ][the ResPondents:][ MS. ] (sENloR Sc lNcoME [TAX)] The Court [made ][the ][following: ] THE HONOURABLE [P.SAM ] ANDTHE HONOURABLE NANDIKONDAWRTT PETTTIO[N No.17303 ] [2025] BDEB, [(per ][Hon'ble ][Sri ][Justice ][Narsing ][Rao ][Nandikonda)] Heard Mr. [A.V.A.Siva ][Kartikeya, ][Ieamed ][counsel ][for ][the] Counsel [for ][the ][Petitioner: ] [A' ][V' ][A' ] Counsel [for ][the ResPondents:][ MS. ] (sENloR Sc lNcoME [TAX)] The Court [made ][the ][following: ] THE HONOURABLE [P.SAM ] ANDTHE HONOURABLE NANDIKONDAWRTT PETTTIO[N No.17303 ] [2025] BDEB, [(per ][Hon'ble ][Sri ][Justice ][Narsing ][Rao ][Nandikonda)] Heard Mr. [A.V.A.Siva ][Kartikeya, ][Ieamed ][counsel ][for ][the] petitioner and Ms. [B.Sapna ][Reddy' ][learned ][Senior ][Standing]Counsel for the [Income ][Tax ][Department ][for ][the ][respondents']Perused the record. 2. This is a writ [petition ][where ][the ][proceedings ][are ][either]challenged to the [notices ][which ][were ][issued ][under Section ][148A]and 148 of the lncome [Tax ][Act, ][196l ][(for short'the ][Act') ][or ][the]assessment orders [those ][have ][been ][passed ][under Section ][147 ][of]the 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 ][l48A ][of ][the Act]and the subsequent initiation [ofproceedings ][under ][Section ][148 ][of]the Act by the [jurisdictional ][Assessing ][Offrcer, ][whereas ][in ][terms]of the amendment that was brought [to the Income ][Tax ][Act ][by way] of Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f., 01.04.202 I onwards, proceedingsunder Section 14gA of the Act as also under Section l4g of theAct ought to have also been issued and proceeded in a facelessmanner. 4. The contention of the petitioner is that the issue contention of the petitioner is that the issue of the petitioner is that the issue the petitioner is that the issue petitioner is that the issue is that the issue that the issue issue ofproceedings being in violation of the Financ e Act, 2021 i.e., theimpugned notices under Section l4gA and Section l4g ofthe Actnot being issued in a faceless manner, have already been dealt withand decided by this Court in the case of KANKANALARAVINDRA REDDY vs. INCOME_TAX OFFICERT decidedon 14.09.2023 whereby a batch of writ petitions were alowed andthe proceedings initiated under Section r4gA as also under Section148 of the Act were held to be bad with consequential reliefs on theground of it being in violation of the provisions of Section 1 5 l A ofthe Act read with Notification lg/2022 dated 29.03.2022. The saidjudgment passed by this Court has also been subsequently followedin a large number of writ petitions which were allowed on similar\.terms. .--- [- ] The contention of the petitioner is that the issue contention of the petitioner is that the issue of the petitioner is that the issue the petitioner is that the issue petitioner is that the issue is that the issue that the issue issue of '[(2023) 156 taxmann.com I 7g (Telangana)l 5. Down the line, we find that the same issue has also beenfind that the same issue has also beenthat the same issue has also beenthe same issue has also beensame issue has also beenalso beenbeendecided against the Revenue by various High Courts i.e.,by the Bombay High Court in the case of HEXAWARETECHNOLOGIES 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 PATLOOLA vs. DEPUTYCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX5 where the issue was inrespect of intemational taxation, Bombay High Court in the case ofABHIN ANILKUMAR SHAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,INTERNATIONAL TAXATION6 which is again on intemationaltaxation and central circle, High Court of Himachal Pradesh in thecase of GOVIND SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERT,Gujarat High Court in the case of MANSUKHBHAI Down the line, we find that the same issue has also beenfind that the same issue has also beenthat the same issue has also beenthe same issue has also beensame issue has also beenalso beenbeen Down the line, we find that the same issue has also beenfind that the same issue has also beenthat the same issue has also beenthe same issue has also beensame issue has also beenalso beenbeen 2 1zozt1464 ITR 430 (Bom)'IQ024) [156 ][taxmann.com 478 ][(Gauhati)l]^ l(2024) [165 ][taxmann.com ][115 ][(Punjab ]& Haryana)l' [2024) [167 ][taxmann ][colr ][4 ] [(Telangana)]]" [2024) [166 ][taxmann.com ]679 [(Bombay)]]'[2024) [165 ][taxmann.com ]I 13 (Himachal Pradesh)] ,-'-_ DAHYABHAI RADADIYA vs. INCOME TAx OFFICER,OFFICER, WARD 3(3Xr8, Jharkand High Court in the case of SHyAMSUNDAR SAW vs. UNION OF INDIAe, Rajasthan High Court inthe case of SHARDA DEVI CHIIAJER vs. TNCOME TAXOFFICER & ANOTHER and batch of writ petitionsro whichstood decided on 19.03.2024. Similar views have also been takenby the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in the case ofGIRDHAR GOPAL DALMIA vs. UNION OF rNDIA & ORS(M.A.T 1690 of 2023), decided on25.09.2024.6. Even though the same issue having been decided by a largenumber of High Courts, we are still confronted with large filing ofidentical matters on daily basis ranging between 5 to i 0 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 of HexawareTechnologies Ltd., (2 supra) as also the one which has beendecided by this Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy\\szoz+ scc online Guj 4012"2025 SCC Online lhar 287o ' 12023, RJ-JD :49 84-DBl (l supra) has been subjected to challenge in a Special LeavePetition i.e., SLP No.3574 of 2024 before the Hon'ble SupremeCourt and the Hon'ble Supreme Court is seized of the matter.In addition, there are about 1200 SLPs also filed arising out ofthesame issue being decided by various High Courts7. To a query being put to the learned 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 thesematters pending before it. Meanwhile, [fresh ]writ [petitions ]ofidentical nature are being piled up before this Bench on daily basisand the pendency is getting increased on matter which otherwisehas already been dealt and decided by this very High Court itself.8. On the one hand, even though the order of this Court thatwas passed as early as on 14.09.2023 and more 16 months havelapsed, till date, we do not find any remedial steps having beentaken by the Income Tax Department to take appropriate 'steps toeither hold back issuance ofnotice under Section l48A and underSection 148 of the Act by the [jurisdictional ]Assessing Offrcer,rather the authorities concemed in the teeth of series of decisions by all the major High Courrs in India are continuously stillinitiating proceedings under Section 14gA of the Act and alsoinitiating proceedings under Section l4g of the Acr incontravention to the amendments brought into the Income Tax Actpursuant to the Finance Act" 2020 as also the Finance Act 202r . 9. Upon a query being put as to why can,t this writ petition bedisposed of in the teeth of the decision rendered by this Court inthe case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (I supra), leamed StandingCounsel for the Income Tax Department contends that those wouldunnecessarily burden the Income Tax Department where theywould be required to rrre equal number of SLps before theHon'ble Supreme Court and it would be further burdening theexchequer of the Union of India. It was also the contention of 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 the Hon,bleSupreme Court and the fact that the petitioner is already enjoyingthe benefit of interim protection. Nonetheless, on the earlier queryof this court as to why the Income Tax Department have not comeout with a mechanism to issue agpropriate instructions or to take appropriate steps in ensuring that proceedings under Section 14EAof the Act as also the assessment orders under Section 148 of theAct are kept in a hold in the light of the decisions dedcided by thevarious High 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 [jurisdictionat ]High 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 the very sameissue. The Income Tax authorities concemed are sti even now in2025 also initiating proceedings in contravention to the provisionsof Section I 5 I A of the Act and as a result by now, more than 600to 700 petitions have been already got piled up before this HighCourt on an issue which otherwise stands squarely covered by thejudgment of this Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy(l supra). What is also surprising is the fact that though whileallowing the writ petitions in the case of Kanakala RavindraReddy (l supra), the Division Bench while reserving the right ofthe Revenue, has also protected the interest of the petitioners insofar as the liberty which was granted to the Revenue forinitiating fresh proceedings strictly in accordance with the amendedprovisions of the Act, as amended by the Financ e Act, 2020 andthe Finance Act,202l. The petitioner assessee would be entitled tochallenge or raise the other legal objections if 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 thisI{igh Court as well as many other High Courts already held to bebad. I l. It appears that because appears that because that because because ofthe aforesaid liberty that this Highaforesaid liberty that this Highliberty that this Highthat this HighCourt had granted permitting the Revenue for initiating freshproceedings as a one-time measure in a faceless manner, theIncome 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 for a considerable long period of timeand finally at a later stage if the Hon,ble Supreme Court confirmsthe decision taken by this High Court as also by the other HighIncome 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 for a considerable long period of timeand finally at a later stage if the Hon,ble Supreme Court confirmsthe decision taken by this High Court as also by the other HighCourts in which the SLps are still pending, the Income Tax It appears that because appears that because that because because ofthe aforesaid liberty that this Highaforesaid liberty that this Highliberty that this Highthat this High It appears that because appears that because that because because ofthe aforesaid liberty that this Highaforesaid liberty that this Highliberty that this Highthat this High Department would get the advantage of the liberty that is otherwiseget the advantage of the liberty that is otherwiseprotected in favour of the Revenue for initiation of freshproceedings from the disposal of these mafters at a much later stagewhich would be advanrageous and beneficial to the Revenue andwould be equalry disadvantageous and detrimentar so far as interestof the assesses are concemed. As stagewhich would be advanrageous and beneficial to the Revenue andwould be equalry disadvantageous and detrimentar 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 alarming trend of docket explosion in this Court, despitethe clear precedent set in Kanokala Ravindra Reddy (lsupra), is aproceedings.12. The alarming trend of docket explosion in this Court, despitethe clear precedent set in Kanokala Ravindra Reddy (lsupra), is amatter of grave concem. The Income Tax Department,s persistentinitiation of fresh proceedings, disregarding the established judicialgrave concem. The Income Tax Department,s persistentinitiation of fresh proceedings, disregarding the established judicialpronouncements, has led to an unprecedented surge in litigationwith over 600-700 petitions piring up on the same issue. Thisdeliberate approach not only undermines the principre of judiciarwith over 600-700 petitions piring up on the same issue. Thisdeliberate approach not only undermines the principre of judiciarprecedent but also strains the judicial resources unnecessarily. TheDepartment,s strategy of awaiting the Department,s strategy of awaiting the Supreme Court,s decision onpending SLps while continuing to initiate fresh proceedingsappears to be a calculated move to buy time and circumventlimitation periods, rather than limitation periods, rather than adhering to the established legallegal position. Such conduct raises serious questions about theadministrative efficiency and the respect for j udicialpronouncements, particularly when this Court has already provideda balanced approach by preserving both the Revenue's rights andassesses interests. 13. Another aspect which needs to be considered is that in fact itshould have been realized by the Income Tax Department itself andshould have found out via media in ensuring that proceedingsunder Sections 148-4 and 148 should not have been issued in afaceless manner, at least till the Hon'ble Supreme Court decide thetwelve hundred (1200) odd SLPs which it is already seized of or, atleast the Income Tax Department should have found out someremedial steps to ensure that wherever the authorities intend toinitiate proceedings under Sections 148-4 and 148, other than in afaceless manner, the proceedings should have been deferredwithout precipitating the matter further intimating the assessee thatthey shall initiate 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 for the fact that such a decision if at all t -t:* has to be taken, has to be taken for the whole of India, and which t -t:* has to be taken, has to be taken for the whole of India, and which otherwise has to be by way of a policy decision and that too at thelevel 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 natur€, onthe one hand when the High Court is struggling to reduce itspendency, such notices which are under challenge in this writpetition are forcing the assessee to knock the doors of this Highcourt resulting in filing of hundreds of new writ petitions which inthe long run not only affects the disposal of the writ petitions butalso consumes substantial time of the Bench in hearing thesematters again and again on daily basis. Admittedly, in spite of thematter 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 concemed at theState level are not ready to accept the verdict passed by a majorityof High Courts of different States on the same issue; and to makethings further worse, the Income Tax Department is showingaudacity by issuing ."::il"ously under Secrions 148_4 and""ri":r 148 through the jurisdictional Assessing Officer whereas it oughtto have been only in the faceless manner. 14. In the case of BANK OF INDIA vs. ASSISTANTCOMMISSIONER, INCOME TAX|r, on an issue whether it wasjustifiable on the part of the Income Tax Department in notfollowing an order passed by the adjudicating authority only on theground that the appeals are pending, the Division Bench of theHigh Court of Bombay held at paragraph No.25 as under, viz., : "25. Mr. paridwalla has righfly drawn out attention to thedecision 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. lTO13of which one of us (Justice G.S_ Kulkarni) was a member, whereinthe Court categorically observed that the Revenue having not"accepted' the judgment of the High Court would not mean that tillthe same is set aside in a manner known to law, it would loose itsbinding force. Referring to the decision of the Supreme Court inUnion of lndia vs. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd.14, theCourt observed that the approach of the officials of Revenue oftreating decisions being [,,not ]acceptable,, was criticized by theSupreme Court_ ln such decision, following are the relevantobservations made by the Supreme Court. t,t,l\20?1) 170 raxmann.com 422 (Bombay)l '' Ll978l I I3 ITR 589 (Bombay) 1.3 IZOZ+1165 taxmann.com 5gl/300 Taxman 452 (Bombay)'o ltg}Zltaxmann.com [16/55 ]ELT 433 (SC) ; r{ t,t,l\20?1) 170 raxmann.com 422 (Bombay)l '' Ll978l I I3 ITR 589 (Bombay) 1.3 IZOZ+1165 taxmann.com 5gl/300 Taxman 452 (Bombay)'o ltg}Zltaxmann.com [16/55 ]ELT 433 (SC) ; r{ "6. Sri Reddy is perhaps right in saying that [the]officers were [not ][actuated ][by ][any ][mala ][fides ][in]passing the impugned orders. [They ][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 ][correctness ][or]otherwise of [their ][conclusion ][or ][of ][any ][faotual]malafides but [with ][the ][fact ][that ][the ][officers, in reaching]in their conclusion, [by-passed two ][app'ellate ][orders ][in]regard to the same [issue ][which were placed ][before]them, one of the [Collector (Appeals) and ][the ][other ][of]the Tribunal. [The ][High Court has, ][in ][our ][view, ][rightly]criticized this conduct [of ][the Assistant Collectors ][and]the harassment [to the assessee caused ][by ][the failure]of these officers to [give ][effect ][to ][the ][orders of]authorities higher [to ][them ][in ][the ][appellate ][hierarchy. ][It]cannot be too [vehemently emphasized ][that ][it ][is ][of]utmost importance [that, ][in ][disposing ][of ][the]quasijudicial issues before them, [revenue officers ][are]bound by the decisions [of the ][appellate ][authorities.]The order of the Appellte [Collector ][is ][binding on the]Assistant Collectors [working within ][his ][jurisdiction and]the order of the [Tribunal ][is ][binding upon the Assistant]Collectors and the [Appellate Collectors ][who ][function]under the [jurisdiction ][of the ][Tribunal. ][The principles ][of]judicial discipline require that the orders of 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]-officers were [not ][actuated ][by ][any ][mala ][fides ][in]passing the impugned orders. [They ][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 ][correctness ][or]otherwise of [their ][conclusion ][or ][of ][any ][faotual]malafides but [with ][the ][fact ][that ][the ][officers, in reaching]in their conclusion, [by-passed two ][app'ellate ][orders ][in]regard to the same [issue ][which were placed ][before]them, one of the [Collector (Appeals) and ][the ][other ][of]the Tribunal. [The ][High Court has, ][in ][our ][view, ][rightly]criticized this conduct [of ][the Assistant Collectors ][and]the harassment [to the assessee caused ][by ][the failure]of these officers to [give ][effect ][to ][the ][orders of]authorities higher [to ][them ][in ][the ][appellate ][hierarchy. ][It]cannot be too [vehemently emphasized ][that ][it ][is ][of]utmost importance [that, ][in ][disposing ][of ][the]quasijudicial issues before them, [revenue officers ][are]bound by the decisions [of the ][appellate ][authorities.]The order of the Appellte [Collector ][is ][binding on the]Assistant Collectors [working within ][his ][jurisdiction and]the order of the [Tribunal ][is ][binding upon the Assistant]Collectors and the [Appellate Collectors ][who ][function]under the [jurisdiction ][of the ][Tribunal. ][The principles ][of]judicial discipline require that the orders of 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]and is the subject matter of an [appeal can furnish no]ground for not following it unless its operation hasbeen suspended by a competent court. lf this [healthy]been suspended by a competent court. lf this [healthy] rule is not followed, the result will only be undueharassment to assesses and chaos in administrationof tax laws.of tax laws. 12We have dealt with this aspect at some length,because it has been suggested bythe learnedAdditional Solicitor General that theobservationsmade by the High Court, have been harsh on thebecause it has been suggested bythe learnedAdditional Solicitor General that theobservationsmade by the High Court, have been harsh on theofficers. lt is clear that the observations of the HighCourt, seemingly vehement, and apparenflyunpalatable to the Revenue, are only intended to curba tendency in revenue matters whlch, if allowed toCourt, seemingly vehement, and apparenflyunpalatable to the Revenue, are only intended to curba tendency in revenue matters whlch, if allowed tobecome widespread, could result in considerableharassment to the assesses_public without any benefitto the Revenue. We would like to say that theharassment to the assesses_public without any benefitto the Revenue. We would like to say that thedepartment should take these observations in theproper spirit. The observations of the High Courtshould be kept in mind in future and the utmost regardshould be paid by the adjudicating authorities and theshould be kept in mind in future and the utmost regardshould be paid by the adjudicating authorities and theappellate authorities to the requirements of judicialdiscipline and the need for giving effect to the ordersof the higher appellate authorities which are bindingon them."of the higher appellate authorities which are bindingon them." 15' what is worrying this Bench more is the fact that anendeavour is being made whole heartedly to ensure not to generatefurther litigation on issues which have been laid to rest by a largenumber of High Courts all of whom have taken a consistent standthat the action of the Income Tax Department being violative of the Finance Act, 2020 and Finance Act,, 2021. Now, in order to protectthe interest of the Revenue as also that of the assess€e, it would betrite at this [juncture, ]if we dispose of the writ petition with anobservatior/direction that the disposal of the instant writ petition interms of the [judgment ]rendered by this High Court in the case ofKankanala Ravindra Reddy (l supra) shall however be subject tothe outcome of the SLPs which were filed by the Income TaxDepartment and which is pending consideration before the Hon,bleSupreme Court. 16. In the given facts and circumstances, this Bench is of theconsidered opinion that unless and until we do not timely disposeof matters which are squarely covered by the decision of this Courtand which stands fortified by the decisions of the various otherHigh Courts on the very same issue, the pendency of this HighCourt would further be burdened which otherwise can be decidedand disposed ofas a covered matter. 17. So far as the interest of the Revenue is concemed, we are ofthe considered opinion that the interest of the Revenue has alreadybeen considered and protected, as has been observed in paragraphs-\ 36,37 and 38 ofthe 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 pursuant 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. 36,37 and 38 ofthe 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 pursuant 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 gefting 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 Agafwal, supra, as a one-time measureexercising the powers under Article 142 of theConstitution of lndia, permitted the Revenue to proceedunder the substituted provisions, and this Court allowingthe petitions only on the procedural flaw, the right confered on the Revenue would remain reserved toproceed further if they so want from the stage of theorder of the Supreme Court in the case of AshishAgarwal, supra. 18. We would only further like to make observations that sincewe are inclined to dispose of the instant writ petition, conscious ofthe fact that the earlier order of this High Court in the case ofKanakals Ravindra Reddy (l 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 clear thatallowing of the instant writ petition is subject to outcome of theaforesaid SLP preferred by the Revenue against the decision ofthisHigh Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (1 supra).This, in other words, would mean that either of the parties, if theyso want, may move an appropriate petition seeking revival of thiswrit petition in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble 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 jurisdictionlsconcemed. As a consequence, the impugned notice underchallenge under Sections 148-4 and 148 stands set aside/quashed. tI The consequential orders, if any, also stand set aside/quashed insimilar terms as have been passed by this High Court in the case of Kankanala Ravindra Reddy (l supra). There shall be no order asto costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/. A.H.S. ASSISTANT (WSECTTON OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To. + ,^^616r'-'1. Ar"".arent Unit, lncome Tax Department' National e-Assessment [Centet ]'New Delhi, [noom ][uolio-r,'zno ][116or.lE-namp' ][Jawahadal ][Nehru ][Stadium']New Delhi [- ][110 003.]z. ii" rnJo." iii [bml"t, ][Ward 7(1), ][Hyderabad ][sionature Towers' ][Sv ][No']6(P) or Kondaprr, [s;::?iii;i(oities'4a' ]oip' [edtanicat ][Ga-r!e-qs,]5Eiilsffi;lti [rr,rb"8li'Aafigi'neoJi ][oisinct,'Hvderabad - ][500 ][084']Telangana.3. The Principal [Commissioner ][of ][lncome - ][1'. ][Hyderabad' ][lncoge ][Tax Towers']" io-i:i, A.6lcuaros, uisao Tank, Hvderabai' - soo 004' Telansana'a. o"ne- o"ne- cU [ib- ][sri A' ][v.'n. ][Siva ][Kartikeyl,-Advocite ] [[lhcome ]][Tax) ][[oPUC]] a. o"ne- o"ne- cU 5. One CC [to ][Ms. ][B"k;;5;il.;H"do'vls"nio.. ] [[lhcome ]][Tax) ][[oPUC]] 6. Two CD [CoPies] TJPVL lA HIGH COURT DATED:2310612025 ORDER WP.No.17303 of 2025 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITIONWITHOUT COSTS @Wa; a. o"ne- o"ne- cU 5. One CC [to ][Ms. ][B"k;;5;il.;H"do'vls"nio.. ] [[lhcome ]][Tax) ][[oPUC]] 6. Two CD [CoPies] TJPVL lA HIGH COURT DATED:2310612025 ORDER WP.No.17303 of 2025 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITIONWITHOUT COSTS @Wa; \ [.,8. ]s i-.irib\{C,.)11 AIJE 2U5\a-.\.\\t^";11,;''