Of Finance Act, 2021 [W.e.f., ][01.04.2021 ][Onwards, ][Proceedings v. ' L(2023) [156 ]Taxmann.com 178 (Telangana)L

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JUNETWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO WRIT PETITION NO: ['17071 ]OF 2025 Between: IMukkamula Sathaiah, S/o. Mukkamula Ramaiah Occ. Business, [Aged. About]50 years Fi/o. H. No 1-.72 Shobandaripuram [Village, ][Ramannapet ][M]BhongiriDivn, Nalgonda 508'1 13, BALPM6976P ...PETITIONER AND 1lncome Tax Officer, Ward 1,Suryapet lT Towers, Ac Guards, Masab [Tank,]500004500004 2The Principal Commissioner of lncome Tax - l, Hyderabad lT Towers, [Ac]Guards, Masab Tank, 500004Guards, Masab Tank, 500004 3The National Faceless Assessment Centre, lncome Tax Depa(ment [Ministry]of Finance Govt. of lndia, New Delhi.of Finance Govt. of lndia, New Delhi. 4Union of lndia, Ministry of Finance Rep. by its Secretary, ['166-8 ][North ][Block,]New Delhi - ['l ]10 001 .New Delhi - ['l ]10 001 . ...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 i. lssue a Writ, Order or Direction more [particularly, one, in the nature ][of ][Writ of]Mandamus, setting aside the order [passed ]by the Respondent [No.1 ][under ][Section]14BA(d) dated 12.03.2024 and Notice issued u/s 148 of [the ][lncome ][Tax ][Act' ][1961]dated ['13.03.20241or ]AY 2020-21 , as being without [jurisdiction ][illegal, ][arbitrary, ][bad]in law, void ab initio, and being violative of the [principles ][of ][natural ][justice ][and]Articles'14,19 and 265 of the Constitution of lndia as [the same is ][issued ][by ][the]Jurisdictional Assessing Officer i.e. Respondent No.1 [after ][introduction ][of ][the]faceless assessment of lncome escaping assessment [scheme, ]and [any]consequent [proceedings ]as lacking in [jurisdiction Declare ][the ][action ][of ][the]Respondent No. 1 in passing the Assessment Order [dated15.O2.2}25consequent]to notice u/s 1 48 dated 12.03.2024 as being [illegal and ][bad in ][law ][and ][set aside] the Assessment Order dated 15.02.2025and consequent proceedings as the orderwas passed without any jurisdiction Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. P SRIKANTH RAO Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: Ms. BOKARO SAPNA REDDY (SENIORsc rNcoME TAx) Counsel for the Respondent NO.4: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR DY.SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA The Court made the following: ORDER 'THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE [P.SAM ] ANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE [Z]NANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION No.17071 OF [2025 ][z] 9BDEB, [(per ][Hon'ble ][Sri ][Justice ][Narsing ][Rao ][Nandikonda ][)] Heard Mr. P.Srikanth [Rao, ][learned counsel ][for ][the ][petitioner]and Ms. B. Sapna Reddy, [learned Senior Standing Counsel ][for ][the]Income Tax Department [for ][respondent ][Nos. ] [to ][3. 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 Income [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 [jurisdiet(rnal ][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., ][01.04.2021 ][onwards, ][proceedings] 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 Income [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 [jurisdiet(rnal ][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., ][01.04.2021 ][onwards, ][proceedings] under Section 148A of the Act as also under Section 148 of theAct ought to have also been issued and proceeded in a facelessmanner.4. The contcntion of the petitioner is that the issue ofproceedings being in violation of the Finance At:t,2021 i.e., theimpugned notices under Section 148A and Sectiorr 148 of the Actnot being issued in a faceless manner, have alreadl,been dealt withand decided by this Cou( in the case o1' KANKANALARAVINDRA RIIDDY vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICERT decidedon 14.09.2023 whereby a batch of writ petitions were allowed andthe proceedings initiated under Section 148A as also under Section148 of the Act wcre held to be bad with consequential reliefs on theground of itbeing inviolationof the provisions of Section 15lA olthe Act read with Notification 1812022 dated 29.03.2022. The saidjudgment passed by this Court has also been subsequently folbwedin a large number of writ petitions which were allowed on sirnilarterms. ' l(2023) [156 ]taxmann.com 178 (Telangana)l 5. Down the line, we find that [the ][same ][issue has also ][been]decided against the Revenue by [various ][High ][Courts ][i'e.,]by the Bombay High Court in the [case ]of TECHNOLOGIES LTD., VS. OF INCOME TAX & OTHERS2, [Gauhati ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case]of RAM NARAYAN SAH [vs. ][UNION OF INDIA3, ][Punjab ][and]Haryana High Court in the case of JATINDER vs. UNION OF INDIA4, and [Telangana ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]SRI VENKATARAMANA [VS. ] COMMISSIONER OF INCOME [where ][the ][issue ][was ][in]respect of international taxation, [Bombay ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]ABHIN ANILKUMAR SIIAH [VS. ] [OFFICER,]INTERNATIONAL TAXATION6 [which ][is again on ][intemational]taxation and central circle, [High Court of Himachal ][Pradesh ][in ][the]case of GOVIND SINGH [vs. ] [OFFICERT,]Gujarat High Court in the case of 'lzoz+1464 [ITR 430 (Bom)]'l(2024) [156 ][taxmann.com ][478 (Gauhati)l] ^ l(2024) [165 ][taxmann.com ][115 ][(Punjab ][& ][Haryana)l] ' 12024) [67 ][taxmane.cpm ][41 ] [(Telangana)l] " [2024) [166 ][taxmann.com 679 ][(Bombay)]] ' 12024) [165 ][taxmann.com ] [13 ][(Hirnachal ][Pradesh)l] DAHYABHAI RADADIYA vs. INCOME T{x OFFICBR,WARD 3(3X5)8, Jharkand High Court in rhe case of SHyAMSIINDAR SAW vs. UNION OF INDIAe, Rajasthan High Court inthe case ol SI{ARDA DEVI CHHAJER vs. INCOME TAXOI.'FICER & ANOTHER and batch of wrir petitionsro rvhichstood 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 TNDIA & ORS(M.A.T 1690 of 2023), decided on25.09.2024.6. Even though the same issue having been decide-d by a largenumber of High Courts, we are still confionted wittr large filing ofidentical matters on daily basis ranging between 5 to 10 writpetitions. That upon the instructions being sought from l.heDepartment, they have been taking a solitary ground that thedecision of the Bombay High Court in the case ol. Hexuw,areTechnologies Ltd., (2 supra) as also the one which has beendecided by this Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy 8202+ SCC Online Guj 4012'2025 Online lhar 2g7'o 12023 [: ] [:49 ]84-DB l .'-l:i 8202+ SCC Online Guj 4012'2025 Online lhar 2g7'o 12023 [: ] [:49 ]84-DB l .'-l:i (1 supra) has been subjected to challenge in a [Special ][Leave]Petition i.e., SLP No.3574 of [2024 ][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 [filed ][arising out ][ofthe]same issue being decided by [various ][High ][Courts.] 7. 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 ][these]matters 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 aiready been dealt and decided by this [very High Court ][itself.] 8. On the one hand, even though [the ][order ][of this ][Court ][that]was passed as early as on 14.09.2023 [and ][more ][16 ][months ][have]lapsed, till date, we do not find [any ][remedial ][steps ][having ][been]taken by the Income Tax [Department ][to take ][appropriate ][steps to]either hold back issuance of notice [under Section 148A ][and ][under]Section 148 of the Act by the [jurisdictional ][Assessing Offtcer,]rather the authorities concemed [in ][the ][teeth ][of ][series ][of ][decisions] by all the rnajor High Courts in India are continuously stillinitiating proceedings under Section 148,4, of tile Act and alsoinitiating proceedings under Section 148 of the Act incontravention to the amendments brought into the Income Tax Actpursuant to the Finance Act,2020 as also the Finance Act 2021 . 9. Upon a query being put as to why can't this u,rit petition bedisposed of in the teeth of the decision rendered by this Court inthe case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra), ..eamed StandingCounsel for the Income Tax Department contends that those wouldunnecessarily burden the Income Tax Department rvhere theywould be required to file 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 rtf thelearned Standing Counsel that no prejudice would be caused ro theinterest of the petitioners in case if this writ petition is kept pendingtill the finalization of the SLPs pending before the Hon'bleSupreme Court and the fact that the petitioner is already enjoyingthe benefit of interim protection. Nonetheless, on the earlier queryof this Court as to why the Income Tax Department have not comeout with a mechanism to issue appropriate instructions or to take appropriate steps in ensuring that [proceedings ][under Section ][1484]of the Act as also the assessment orders [under Section ][148 ][of ][the]Act are kept in a hold in the light ofthe decisions [dedcided ][by ][the]various High Courts, it was submitted by [the ][learned ][Standing]Counsel that the said steps can only [be taken at the ][level ][of ] as any such steps would have to be [taken Pan ][India ][and ][cannot ][be]limited to any of these [jurisdictional High ][Courts.] appropriate steps in ensuring that [proceedings ][under Section ][1484]of the Act as also the assessment orders [under Section ][148 ][of ][the]Act are kept in a hold in the light ofthe decisions [dedcided ][by ][the]various High Courts, it was submitted by [the ][learned ][Standing]Counsel that the said steps can only [be taken at the ][level ][of ] as any such steps would have to be [taken Pan ][India ][and ][cannot ][be]limited to any of these [jurisdictional High ][Courts.] 10. As a result of which, what [we ]are [facing ][is ][steep increase ][of]litigation day in and day out even though [various ][orders ][have been]passed by this High Court allowing writ [petitions ][on ][the very ][same]issue. The Income Tax authorities [concerned are ][still ][even ][now ][in]2025 also initiating proceedings in contravention [to ][the provisions]of Section 151A of the Act and as [a ][result ][by ][now, more ][than 600]to 700 petitions have been already [got piled up ][before this ][High]Court on an issue which [otherwise ][stands ][squarely ][covered ][by ][the]judgment of this Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy(l supra). What is also surprising is [the ][fact ][that ][though ][while]allowing the writ petitions in the [case ][of ][Kanakala ][Ravindra]Reddy (l supra), the Division Bench [while ][reserving ][the ][right ][of]the Revenue, has also protected the [interest ]of [the ][petitioners] insofar as the liberty which was granted to the Reventre forinitiating fresh proceedings strictly in accordance u,ith the amendedinitiating fresh proceedings strictly in accordance u,ith the amendedprovisions of the Act, as amended by the Financ: Act,2020 andthe Finance Act,202l. The petitioner assessee would be entitled tochallenge or raise the other legal objections if the Revenue initiateschallenge 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 R o,enue. C)n thecontrary, they have been still sticking on to the s:and, whicl.r thisHigh Court as well as many other High Courts alrcady held to bebad.availing the said liberty that was reserved for the R o,enue. C)n thecontrary, they have been still sticking on to the s:and, whicl.r thisHigh Court as well as many other High Courts alrcady held to bebad. I 1. It appears that because of the aforesaid liberry lhat this FlighCourt had granted permitting the Revenue for initiating freshproceedings as a one-time measure in a facele.;s manner, theIncome Tax Department wants to take advantage of the same byprotracting these proceedings which would enable them to mei:t 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 Ccrurt conlirmsthe decision taken by this High Court as also by the other HighCourts in which the SLPs are still pending, thc [ncome Tax Department would get the advantage [of ][the ][liberty ][that ][is ][otherwise]protected in favour of the Revenue for initiation of [fresh]proceedings from the disposal of these matters at [a ][much later ][stage]which would be advantageous and beneficial [to ][the ][Revenue and]would be equally disadvantageous and detrimental [so ][far ][as ][interest]of the assesses are concemed. [As a ][consequence, the ][Income ][Tax]Depaftment gets an extended [period ][of ][time ][for ][initiation of ][fiesh]proceedings. Department would get the advantage [of ][the ][liberty ][that ][is ][otherwise]protected in favour of the Revenue for initiation of [fresh]proceedings from the disposal of these matters at [a ][much later ][stage]which would be advantageous and beneficial [to ][the ][Revenue and]would be equally disadvantageous and detrimental [so ][far ][as ][interest]of the assesses are concemed. [As a ][consequence, the ][Income ][Tax]Depaftment gets an extended [period ][of ][time ][for ][initiation of ][fiesh]proceedings. 12. The alarming trend of docket explosion [in ][this ][Court, ][despite]the clear precedent setin Kanakals [Ravindra ][Reddy ][(l ][supra), ][is ][a]matter of grave concern. The Income [Tax ][Department's persistent]initiation of fresh proceedings, disregarding [the ][established ][judicial]pronouncements, has led to an unprecedented [surge ][in ][litigation]with over 600-700 petitions [piling ]up [on ][the ][same issue. ][This]deliberate approach not only undermines [the principle ][of judicial]precedent but also strains the [judicial ]resources unnecessarily. [The]Department's strategy of awaiting [the ][Supreme ][Court's decision ][on]pending SLPs while continuing to initiate [fresh ][proceedings]appears to be a calculated move to buy time [and ][circumvent]limitation periods, rather than adhering to the established [legal] position. Such conduct raises serious questions aborrt theadministrative efficiency and the respecl for [judicial]pronouncements, particularly when this Court has already provideda balanced approach by preserving both the Revr:nue's rights andassesses lnterests 13. Another aspect which needs to be considererl is that in fact itshould have been realized by the Income Tax Depa rlment itself andshould have found out via media in ensuring that procecdingsunder Sections 148-4, and 148 should not have been issue<l in afaceless manner, at least till the Hon'ble Supreme Court decidc thetwelve hundred [( ]1200) odd SLPs which it is alreadv seizcd of or, atleast the Income Tax Department should havc tbund out someremedial steps to ensure that wherever the authorities intend toinitiate proceedings under Sections 148-A and 148, other than in afaceless manner, the proceedings should have been del'erredwithout precipitating the matter further intimating the assessee thatthey shall initiate appropriate proceedings only aftt:r the SLP's aredecided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the veq, same issueThis again, the lncome Tax Department, has not becn able to give aconvincing reply, except for the fact that such a decision if at all -:^.=-; has to be taken, has to be taken [for ][the ][whole ][of ][India, ][and ][which]otherwise has to be by way ofa [policy ][decision ][and ][that too ][at ][the]level of Central Board of Direct Taxes. Though the learnedStanding Counsel for the Income Tax Department [contended ][that]the Delhi High Court dismissed a [writ ][petition ][of ][similar ][nature, ][on]the one hand when the High Court is struggling [to ][reduce ][its]pendency, such notices which are under challenge [in ][this ][writ]petition are forcing the assessee to knock the doors of [this ][High]Court resulting in f,rling of hundreds of [new ][writ ][petitions ][which in]the long run not only affects the disposal [of ][the ][writ ][petitions ][but]also consumes substantial time of the [Bench ][in ][hearing ][these]matters again and again on daily basis. [Admittedly, ][in ][spite ][of ][the]matter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court [having ][been taken ][on]many occasions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court [which ][is seized ][of ][the]matter has been reluctant in [granting ]any [interim ][protection to ][the]Income Tax Department. Yet, the authorities [concemed ][at ][the]State level are not ready to accept the [verdict ][passed ][by ][a ][majority]of High Courts of different States on the [same ][issue; ][and to ][make]things further worse, the Income Tax Department [is ][showing]audacity by issuing notices continuously under [Sections ][148-A ][and] 148 through the [jurisdictional ]Assessing Officelwhereas it oughtto have been only in the faceless manner 14 In the case of BANK OF INDIA r.s. ASSISI'ANTCOMMISSIONER, INCOME TAXrr, on an issue rvhether it wasjustifiable on the part of the Income Tax Deltafiment ln notfollowing an order passed by the adjudicating authority only on theground thal the appeals are pending, the Division Bench ol'theHigh Courl of Ilombay held at paragraph No.25 as under, viz. "25. Mr. Paridwalla has rightly drawn out attention to th€rdecision 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. lTOli'of which one of us (Justice G.S. Kulkami) was a merrber, whereirthe Court categorically observed that the Revenuer having no1"accepted" the judgment of the High Court would not .nean that tiltthe same rs set asrde in a manner known to law, il 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. l' [trZOzsl ][170 ][raxnranx.com 422 ][(Bombay)l]'" |97811 l3 ITR 589 (Bombay)t3 1zOZ41 [165 ][taxmann.com ]581/300 Taxman 452 (Bombay)'o TtggZl [taxmann.com ][t6l55 ]ELT 433 (SC) \--,- [- ] l' [trZOzsl ][170 ][raxnranx.com 422 ][(Bombay)l]'" |97811 l3 ITR 589 (Bombay)t3 1zOZ41 [165 ][taxmann.com ]581/300 Taxman 452 (Bombay)'o TtggZl [taxmann.com ][t6l55 ]ELT 433 (SC) \--,- [- ] "6. Sri Reddy is perhaps right in saying that theofficers were not actuated [by ][any ][mala ][fides ][in]passing the impugned orders. They [perhaps]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 [factual]malafides but with the fact that the officers, [in reaching]in their conclusion, by-passed two [appellate ][orders ][in]regard to the same issue which were [placed ][before]them, one of the Collector [(Appeals) ]and the [other ][of]the Tribunal. The High Court [has, ][in our ][view, ][rightly]criticized this conduct of the Assistanl [Collectors ][and]the harassment to the assessee caused by [the failure]of these officers to give effect to the orders [of]authorities higher to them [in ][the appellate ][hierarchy. ][lt]cannot be too vehemently emphasized [that ][it ][is ][of]utmost importance that, in disposing of [the]quasijudicial issues before them, revenue officers arebound by the decisions of the appellate [authorities.]The order of the Appellte Collector is binding [on ][the]Assistant Collectors working within [his ][jurisdiction ][and]the order of the Tribunal [is binding upon the Assistant]Collectors and the Appellate Collectors [who ][function]under the [jurisdiction ]of the Tribunal. [The principles ][of]iudicial [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]-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 [factual]malafides but with the fact that the officers, [in reaching]in their conclusion, by-passed two [appellate ][orders ][in]regard to the same issue which were [placed ][before]them, one of the Collector [(Appeals) ]and the [other ][of]the Tribunal. The High Court [has, ][in our ][view, ][rightly]criticized this conduct of the Assistanl [Collectors ][and]the harassment to the assessee caused by [the failure]of these officers to give effect to the orders [of]authorities higher to them [in ][the appellate ][hierarchy. ][lt]cannot be too vehemently emphasized [that ][it ][is ][of]utmost importance that, in disposing of [the]quasijudicial issues before them, revenue officers arebound by the decisions of the appellate [authorities.]The order of the Appellte Collector is binding [on ][the]Assistant Collectors working within [his ][jurisdiction ][and]the order of the Tribunal [is binding upon the Assistant]Collectors and the Appellate Collectors [who ][function]under the [jurisdiction ]of the Tribunal. [The principles ][of]iudicial [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 [obiectionable phrase ]and is the subiect matter of an appeal [can furnish ][no]ground for not following it unless its operation [has]been suspended by a competent court. [lf this ][healthy]and is the subiect matter of an appeal [can furnish ][no]ground for not following it unless its operation [has]been suspended by a competent court. [lf this ][healthy] \ rule is not followed, the result will only b€ undueharassment lo assesses and chaos in administrationof tax laws. \ rule is not followed, the result will only b€ undueharassment lo assesses and chaos in administrationof tax laws. 12. We have dealt with this aspect at some length,because it has been suggested by the learnedAdditional Solicitor General that the observationsmade by the High Court, have been harsh on theofficers. lt is clear that the observations of the HighCourt, seemrngly vehement, and apparenflyunpalatable to the Revenue, are only intended to curba tendency in revenue matters which, if allowed tobecome widespread, could result in consirjerableharassment to the assesses-public without any benefitto the Revenue. We would like to say that thedepartment should take these observations in theproper spirit. The observations of the High Courtshould be kept in mind in future and the utmost regardshould be paid by the adjudicating authorities and theappellate aulhorities to the requirements of ludicialdiscipline and the need for giving effect to the ordersof the higher appellate authorities which are trindingon 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 (:onsistent standthat the action of the Income Tax Department being violative of the Finance Act, 2020 and Finance Act,202l. Now, in order to protectthe interest of the Revenue as also that of the assessce, 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 ofKankanula Ravindra Reddy (l supra) shall however be subject tothe outcome of the SLPs which were frled by the Income Taxthe interest of the Revenue as also that of the assessce, 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 ofKankanula Ravindra Reddy (l supra) shall however be subject tothe outcome of the SLPs which were frled by the Income TaxDepartment and which is pending consideration before the Hon'bleSupreme Court.Supreme 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 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 of the Revenue has alreadybeen considered and protected, as has been observed in paragraphs 36,37 and 38 ofthe order which, for ready referenr:e, 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 ths noticesissued under Section 147 and 148 would also getquashed and it is ordered accordingly. The r€rason weare quashing the consequential order is on the principlesthat when the initiation of lhe proceedings irself wasprocedurally wrong, the subsequent orders also getsnullified automatically. 36,37 and 38 ofthe order which, for ready referenr:e, 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 ths noticesissued under Section 147 and 148 would also getquashed and it is ordered accordingly. The r€rason weare quashing the consequential order is on the principlesthat when the initiation of lhe proceedings irself 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 lurisdictional issue. Since the impugned noticesand orders are getting quashed on the pornt ofjurisdiction, we are not inclined to proceed further anddecide the other issues raised by the petitionr-'r 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 substituted provisions, and this Court allowingthe petitions only on the procedural flaw, the right conferred on the Revenue would [remain ][reserved ][to]proceed further if they so want from the stage of theorder of the Supreme Court in the case [ofAshish]Agarwal, supra. 18. We would only further like to make observations [that ][since]we are inclined to dispose of the instant writ [petition, ][conscious ][of]the fact that the earlier order of this [High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]Kanukala Ravindra Reddy (l supra) [is ][subjected ][to ][challenge]before the Hon'ble Supreme [Court ][in ] [No.3574 ][of ][2024,]preferred by the Income Tax Department, [we ][make ][it ][clear ][that]allowing of the instant [writ ][petition ][is ][subject ][to ][outcome ][of ][the]aforesaid SLP preferred by the [Revenue ][against ][the decision ][ofthis]High Court in the case of Kanakala [Ravindra ][Reddy ][(l ][wpra)]This, in other words, would mean that [either ][of ][the ][parties, ][if ][they]so want, may move an appropriate [petition ][seeking ][revival ][of ][this]writ petition in the light of the decision [of ][the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme]Court in the pending SLP on the very [same ][issue.] 19. Accordingly, the [instant ][writ ][petition ][stands ][allowed ][in]favour of the assessee so [far ][as ][the ][issue ][of ][jurisdiction]ISconcemed. As a consequence, [the ][impugned ][notice ][under]challenge under Sections [148-,{ ][and ][148 ][stands ][set ][aside/quashed] I! \ The consequential orders, if any, also stand set aside/quashed insimilar terms as have been passed by this High Cout in the case ofKankanala Ravindra Rcdrty (l supra). There shail bc no order asto costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed SD/.L.LAKSHMI BABUDEPUTY REFISTRAR//TRUE COPY//IIt-SECNOFFICER,p To,'1 . The lncome Tax Officer, Ward 1,Suryapet lT Towers, A,c Guards, MasabTank, 500004'1 . The lncome Tax Officer, Ward 1,Suryapet lT Towers, A,c Guards, MasabTank, 500004 2. T!. Principal 9qlni..lglqt of tncome Tax - t, Hyderatrad lT Towers, AcGuards, Masab Tank, 500004Guards, Masab Tank, 500004 3. The National Faceless Assessment centre, lncome Tar< Department Ministryof Finance Govt. of lndia, New Delhi.of Finance Govt. of lndia, New Delhi. 4 Ing pe91e^t1ry, Union of tndia, t\,4inistry of Finance 166_8 North Block, NewDelhi - ['1 ]10 001Delhi - ['1 ]10 001 5. One CC to SRI P SRTKANTH RAO Advocate tOpUCl 6. One CC to Ms BOKARO SAPNA REDDY (SEN|OR SC TNCOME TAX)toPUCltoPUCl 7. one cc to sri Gadi Praveen Kumar, Deputy soricitor Generar of rndia [opUC]Gadi Praveen Kumar, Deputy soricitor Generar of rndia [opUC] 2. T!. Principal 9qlni..lglqt of tncome Tax - t, Hyderatrad lT Towers, AcGuards, Masab Tank, 500004Guards, Masab Tank, 500004 3. The National Faceless Assessment centre, lncome Tar< Department Ministryof Finance Govt. of lndia, New Delhi.of Finance Govt. of lndia, New Delhi. 4 Ing pe91e^t1ry, Union of tndia, t\,4inistry of Finance 166_8 North Block, NewDelhi - ['1 ]10 001Delhi - ['1 ]10 001 5. One CC to SRI P SRTKANTH RAO Advocate tOpUCl 6. One CC to Ms BOKARO SAPNA REDDY (SEN|OR SC TNCOME TAX)toPUCltoPUCl 7. one cc to sri Gadi Praveen Kumar, Deputy soricitor Generar of rndia [opUC]Gadi Praveen Kumar, Deputy soricitor Generar of rndia [opUC] B. Two CD Copies KK o L o\ HIGH COURT DATED:2010612025 ORDER WP.No.17071 of 2025 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITIONWITHOUT COSTS r-=--=:-iF: I4-,[\\].' [it]..)I s [sEP 2U6]! ii?,,-...'..,.;!.', - i r),,\: i [r'']-'/ I