Of Finance Act, 2021 W.e.f., 01.04.2021 Onwards, [Proceedings]Under Section I48A Of The Act As Also Under Section [T48 ][Of ][The]Act Ought To Have Also Been Is v. Income-Tax Officiirt Decidedon 14.09.2023 W

HIGH COURT FOR AT HYDERABAD(SPecial Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWO THOUSAND PRESENT THE HONOURABLE [JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY]AND THE HONOURABLE [SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA] WRIT PETITI [O: 32031 OF 2024] Between: MOHAMIVIED [DAWAR HUSSAIN SYED; S/o. Late ][Nawab ][Asker ][Nawaz ][Jung, ][Ag-ed]ibl,'is-;is[Bur.rcr_ow [rnlAe ][BAGH , MIR ] [TANK HYDERABAD, ][500002.] ....PETITIONER AND 1 . The Union of [lndia, ]['Represented by its ][Secretary, ][Department ][of ][Revenue']tr/inistry of Finance, [New ][Delhi.]tr/inistry of Finance, [New ][Delhi.] 2. The lncome Tax [Officer, ][Ward ][B(1), ][Signature Towers, Kondapur'- ][.]- i.iriri"gi;priri rr,t"norr,'n"nga Reijdy -oistrict, Hvderabad - 500084.- i.iriri"gi;priri rr,t"norr,'n"nga Reijdy -oistrict, Hvderabad - 500084. 3. The Assessrnent [Unit, ][Mtional ][Faceless Assessment Centre' lncome Tax]Department, New [Delhi.]Department, New [Delhi.] .....RESPONDENTS .Petition Under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in thecircumstances [stated ][in ][the ][affidavit ][filed ][therewith, ][the ][High ][court ][may ][be]pleased to issue a Writ, [Order ][or ][Direction more ][particularly ][one in ][the ][nature of ][a]Writ of tvlandamus, [declaring ][the ][impugned ][order ][under Section 148A(d) ][bearing]DIN and Notice [No. ][ITBA/AST/F/148A:2023-24110635S8102(1) ][dated ][29 ][- ][03-]2024 and the consequent [notice u/s 148 of the ][Act ][having ] [and ][Notice ][No']ITBA/AST/S/148-1t2)23-24t1063655984(1) [dated ][29 ][- ][03 ][- ][2024 ][for ][lhe]Assessment [Year ][2017-18 ][issued by ][the ][2nd ][Respondent ][, as arbitrary, ][illegal,]badinlaw,issuedwithoutjurisdictionandasagainstthelawlaiddownbythiscircumstances [stated ][in ][the ][affidavit ][filed ][therewith, ][the ][High ][court ][may ][be]pleased to issue a Writ, [Order ][or ][Direction more ][particularly ][one in ][the ][nature of ][a]Writ of tvlandamus, [declaring ][the ][impugned ][order ][under Section 148A(d) ][bearing]DIN and Notice [No. ][ITBA/AST/F/148A:2023-24110635S8102(1) ][dated ][29 ][- ][03-]2024 and the consequent [notice u/s 148 of the ][Act ][having ] [and ][Notice ][No']ITBA/AST/S/148-1t2)23-24t1063655984(1) [dated ][29 ][- ][03 ][- ][2024 ][for ][lhe]Assessment [Year ][2017-18 ][issued by ][the ][2nd ][Respondent ][, as arbitrary, ][illegal,]badinlaw,issuedwithoutjurisdictionandasagainstthelawlaiddownbythis Hon'ble Court in Writ Petition No. ['1 ]5383 of 2023 and batch dated 14 - 09 - 2023and to consequently set aside the same. I.A.NO:1 OF 2024 Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated inthe affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased tofurther stay all the proceedings in pursuance of the notice urs, '148 of the Acthaving DIN and Notice No ITBA/AST/51148_112023-2411063655984(1) dated 29 -03 - 2024 for the Assessment Year 2017-18 issued by the [jZnd ]Respondentpending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI T.PRADYOTH Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : SRI B.MUKHERJEE, LEARNED COUNSELREPRESENTING SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERALOF INDIA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3 : Ms. J.SUNITHA, JUNIOR STANDINGCOUNSEL FOR THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT The Court made the following ORDER THE HONOT]RABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOT]RABLE SRI JUSTTCE NARSING RAONANDIKONDAWRIT PETITION No.32031 OF 2024 ORDER' (per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy) Heard Mr. T.Pradyoth, leamed counsel for the petitioner, Mr. B. Mukherjee, leamed counsel representing the Union of Indiafor respondent No.1 and Ms. J.Sunithas, leamed Junior StandingCounsel for the lncome Tax Department for respondent Nos.2 & 3.Perused the record. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI T.PRADYOTH Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : SRI B.MUKHERJEE, LEARNED COUNSELREPRESENTING SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERALOF INDIA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3 : Ms. J.SUNITHA, JUNIOR STANDINGCOUNSEL FOR THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT The Court made the following ORDER THE HONOT]RABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOT]RABLE SRI JUSTTCE NARSING RAONANDIKONDAWRIT PETITION No.32031 OF 2024 ORDER' (per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy) Heard Mr. T.Pradyoth, leamed counsel for the petitioner, Mr. B. Mukherjee, leamed counsel representing the Union of Indiafor respondent No.1 and Ms. J.Sunithas, leamed Junior StandingCounsel for the lncome Tax Department for respondent Nos.2 & 3.Perused the record. 2. This is a writ petition where the proceedings are eitherchallenged to the notices which were issued under Section l48Aand 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') or theassessment orders those have been passed under Section 147 ofthe Act which have been assailed 3 . This writ petition is being taken up today only on one of thegrounds, that the notices issued under Section l48A of the Actand the subsequent initiation ofproceedings under Section 148 ofthe Act by the [jurisdictional ]Assessing Officer, whereas in termsof 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 i48A of the Act as also under Section [t48 ][of ][the]Act ought to have also been issued and [proceeded ][in a ][faceless]manner 4. The contention of the petitioner is that ttLr: issue ofproceedings being in violation of the Finance Act,202l i.e., theimpugned notices under Section 148.4 and Section 148 of the Actnot being issued in a faceless manner, have already becrr dealt withand decided by this Court in the case of KANIKANALARAVINDRA REDDY vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICIIRT 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 were held to be bad with consequential reliefs on theground of it being in violation of the provisions of Secticn 151A ofthe Act read rvith Notification l8l20ZZ dated29.03.2jilll. The saidjudgment passed by this Court has also been subsequently followedin a large number of writ petitions which were allowed on similarterms. ' [(2023) [56 ]taxmann.com [178 ][(Telangana)]] 5. Down the line, we find that the same issue has also beendecided against the Revenue by various High Courts i.e.,by the Bombay High Court in the case of HEXAWARETECHNOLOGIES LTD., vs. ASSISTANT COMIVIISSIONEROF 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,Court in the case of MANSUKIIBHAIGujarat High 2 Tzoz+1464ITR 430 (Bom)Tzoz+1464ITR 430 (Bom) 'l(2024) [156 ][taxmann.com 478 ][(Gauhati)l]" [(2024) [165 ][taxmann.com I ] [5 ][(Punjab ][& ][Haryana)]]' [2024) [167 ][taxmann.com ][4l ] [(Telangana)]]" 12024) [166 ][taxmann.com 679 ][(Bombay)l] '12024) [165 ][taxmann.com ] [13 ][(Himachal ][Pradesh)l] 2 Tzoz+1464ITR 430 (Bom)Tzoz+1464ITR 430 (Bom) 'l(2024) [156 ][taxmann.com 478 ][(Gauhati)l]" [(2024) [165 ][taxmann.com I ] [5 ][(Punjab ][& ][Haryana)]]' [2024) [167 ][taxmann.com ][4l ] [(Telangana)]]" 12024) [166 ][taxmann.com 679 ][(Bombay)l] '12024) [165 ][taxmann.com ] [13 ][(Himachal ][Pradesh)l] DAHYABHAI RADADIYA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 3(3)(5)8, Jharkand High Court in the case c,f SIfYAMSUNDAR SAW vs. UNION OF INDIAe, Rajasthan I tigh Court inthe case of SHARDA DEVI CHHAJER vs. INCOME 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 INDIIA & 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 10 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' HexawureTechnologies Ltd., (2 supra) as also the one which has beendecided by this Court in the case of Kanakula Ravindra Reddy 8202q SCC Online Guj 4012" [2025 ] Online Jhar 287'o12oz3 [: ] [:4984-DBl] (1 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 Courl is seized of the matterIn addition, there are about 1200 SLPs also filed arising out ofthesame issue being decided by various High Coutts.7. To a query being put to the leamed counsel for the Revenue,they have categorically accepted the fact that there is no [interim]order granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in [any ]of [these]matters pending before it. Meanwhile, fresh writ [petitions ]ofidentical nature are being piled up before this Bench on [daily ][basis]and the pendency is getting increased on matter which [otherwise]has already been dealt and decided by this very High Court [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 ][OfIicer,]rather the authorities concemed [in ]the [teeth ]of series [of ][decisions] by all the major High Courts in India are contiti.rously stillinitiating proceedings under Section 1484. of the Ar:t and alsoinitiating proceedings under Section 148 of the Act incontravention to the amendments brought into the Incorne Tax Actpursuant to the Finance Act,2020 as also the Finance 1,,':t 20219. Upon a query being put as to why can't this writ petition bedisposed of in the teeth of the decision rendered by tlis Courl inthe case o1' Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (I supra), learrr:d StandingCounsel for the Income Tax Department contends that those wouldunnecessarily burden the Income Tax Deparlment rvhere theywould be required to file equal number of SLPs before theHon'ble Supreme Court and it would be further buLdening theexchequer of the Union of India. It was also the conterrtion of theleamed Standlng Counsel that no prejudice would be caused to theinterest of the petitioners in case if this writ petition is krpt pendingtill the finalization of the SLPs pending before the Hon'bleSupreme Couft and the fact that the petitioner is already enjoyingthe benefit of interim protection. Nonetheless, on the ee.rlier queryof this Court as to why the Income Tax Department hav,: not comeout with a mechanism to issue appropriate instructions or to take :..i,: [')] :..i,: [')] appropriate steps in ensuring that proceedings under Section l48Aof the Act as also the assessment orders under Section 148 of theAct are kept in a hold in the light ofthe 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 jurisdictional High Courts.of the Act as also the assessment orders under Section 148 of theAct are kept in a hold in the light ofthe 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 jurisdictional 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 concerned are still even now in2025 also initiating proceedings in contravention to the provisionsof Section 15 1A of the Act and as a result by now, more than 600to 700 petitions have been already got piled up before this HighCourt on an issue which otherwise stands squarely covered by thejudgment of this Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy(1 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 ILevenue forinitiating fresh proceedings strictly in accordance with Ihe amendedprovisions of the Act, as amended by the Finance Ac:t, 2020 andthe Finance Act, 2021 . The petitioner assessee would t,e entitled tochallenge or raise the other legal objections if the Revenue initiatesf?esh proceedings. The Department has made no ,:ndeavour inavailing the said liberty that was reserved for the Revr:rue. On thecontrary, they have been still sticking on to the stan,l, which thisHigh Courl as well as rnany other High Courts already held to bebad. 11. It appears that because ofthe aforesaid liberty that this HighCourt had granted permitting the Revenue for initiating freshproceedingsAS a one-time measure in a faceless rnanner, theIncome Tax Department wants to take advantage of the same byprotracting these proceedings which would enable thern to meet thelimitation that would otherwise come in the way. Lilu:wise, if thewrit petition is kept pending for a considerable long period of timeand finall1r at a later stage if the Hon'ble Supreme Court conhrmsthe decision taken by this High Court as also by the other HighCourts in which the SLPs are still pending, the Income Tax |, ) would [get ][the advantage ][of ][the ][liberty ][that is ][otherwise]Department in favour of the [Revenue ][for ][initiation ][of ][fresh]protected proceedings from the disposal [ofthese ][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]an [extended ][period ][of ][time ][for ][initiation ][of ][flesh]Depaftment [gets ]proceedings. |, ) would [get ][the advantage ][of ][the ][liberty ][that is ][otherwise]Department in favour of the [Revenue ][for ][initiation ][of ][fresh]protected proceedings from the disposal [ofthese ][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]an [extended ][period ][of ][time ][for ][initiation ][of ][flesh]Depaftment [gets ]proceedings. 12. The alarming [trend ][of ][docket ][explosion in ][this ][Court, ][despite]the clear [precedent ][set ][trt ][Kanakalu Ravindra ][Reddy ][(l ][supra), ][is ][a]matter of [grave ][concem. ][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]but also [strains ][the ][judicial ][resources ][unnecessarily' ][The]precedent Department's strategy [of ][awaiting the ][Supreme ][Court's decision ][on]pending SLPs while [continuing ][to ][initiate fresh ][proceedings]to be [-a ][calculated ][move ][to ][buy ][time and ][circumvent]appears limitation periods, [rather ][than ][adhering ][to ][the ][established ][legal] I . . . [-*-!Js]_.;{,&rc,,atit tt*lt*!-: position. Such conduct raises serious questions about theadministrative efficiency and the respect ltrr [judicial]pronouncements, particularly when this Court has already provideda balanced approach by preserving both the Revenui:'s rights andassesses lnterests 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 ploceedingsunder Sections 148-A and 148 should not have been issued in afaceless manner, at least till the Hon'ble Supreme Corrrt decide thetwelve hundred (1200) odd SLPs which it is already seized ofor, atleast the [ncorne Tax Department should have foun I out someremedial steps to ensure that wherever the authoritir;s intend toinitiate proceedings under Sections 148-A and 148, other than in afaceless manner, the proceedings should have bs:n defenedwithout 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 has to be taken, has to be taken for the whole of India, and whichotherwise has to be by way ofa policy decision and that too at thelevel of Central Board of Direct Taxes. Though the learnedotherwise has to be by way ofa policy decision and that too at thelevel of Central Board of Direct Taxes. Though the learnedStanding Counsel for the Income Tax Department contended thatthe Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition of similar nature, onthe one hand when the High Court is struggling to reduce itspendency, such notices which are under challenge in this 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 theseCourt 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 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 showingState 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 notices continuously under Sections 148-A and 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. ;\SSISTANTCOMMISSIONER, INCOME TAXrr, on an issue u'hether it wasjustifiableon the part of the Income Tax Departroent in notfollowing an order passed by the adjudicating authority only on theground that the appeals are pending, the Division Ilench of theHigh Court of Bornbay held at paragraph No.25 as undt:r, viz., : "25. [r,4r. Paridwalla has rightly drawn out attentior to thedecision of this Court in Commissioner of lncome Tax rrs. Smt.Godavaridevi Sarafl2 as also the recent decision ol 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 iudgment 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. 'r 11z0ZS1 [170 ][taxmann.com 422 ][(Bombay)l] '2 7t9t11l [l3 ] [589 ][(Bombay)]" [IZOZ+1 ][165 ][taxmann.com ][58 ][i/300 ][Taxman ][452 ][(Bombal)] 'o [119927 ][taxmann.com 16/55 ] [433 ][(SC)] 'r 11z0ZS1 [170 ][taxmann.com 422 ][(Bombay)l] '2 7t9t11l [l3 ] [589 ][(Bombay)]" [IZOZ+1 ][165 ][taxmann.com ][58 ][i/300 ][Taxman ][452 ][(Bombal)] 'o [119927 ][taxmann.com 16/55 ] [433 ][(SC)] "6. Sri Reddy is perhaps right in saying that theofficers were not actuated by any mala fides inpassing the impugned orders. They perhapsgenuinely felt that the claim of the assessee was nottenable and that, if it was accepted, the Revenuewould suffer. But what Sri Reddy overlooks is that weare not concerned here with the correetness orare not concerned here with the correetness orotheruise of their conclusion or of any factualmalafides but with the fact that the officers, in reachingin their conclusion, by-passed two appellate orders inmalafides but with the fact that the officers, in reachingin their conclusion, by-passed two appellate orders inregard to the same issue which were placed beforethem, one of the Collector (Appeals) and the other ofthe Tribunal. The High Court has, in our view, righflythem, one of the Collector (Appeals) and the other ofthe Tribunal. The High Court has, in our view, righflycriticized this conduct of the Assistant Collectors andthe harassment to the assessee caused by the failureof these officers to give effect to the orders ofauthorities higher to them in the appellate hierarchy. ltthe harassment to the assessee caused by the failureof these officers to give effect to the orders ofauthorities higher to them in the appellate hierarchy. ltcannot be too vehemently emphasized that it is ofutmost importance that, in disposing of thequasijudicial issues before them, revenue officers arebound by the decisions of the appellate authorities.quasijudicial issues before them, revenue officers arebound by the decisions of the appellate authorities.The order of the Appellte Collector is binding on theAssistant Colleclors working within his iurisdiction andthe order of the Tribunal is binding upon the Assistantthe order of the Tribunal is binding upon the AssistantColleclors and the Appellate Collectors who functionunder the [jurisdiction ]of the Tribunal. The principles ofjudicial discipline require that the orders of the higherunder the [jurisdiction ]of the Tribunal. The principles ofjudicial discipline require that the orders of the higherappellate authorities should be followed unreservedlyby the subordinate authorities. The mere fact that theorder of the appellate authority is not "acceptable" toby the subordinate authorities. The mere fact that theorder of the appellate authority is not "acceptable" tothe department - in itself an objectionable phrase -and is the subject matter of an appeal can furnish noand is the subject matter of an appeal can furnish noground for not following it unless its operation hasbeen suspended by a competent court. lf this healthy rule is not followed, the result will only be undueharassment to assesses and chaos in administrati:nof tax laws. 12. We have dealt with this aspect at some leng.h,because it has been suggested by th'e leam3dAdditional Solicitor General that the observatirrnsmade by the High Court, have been harsh on tleofficers. lt is clear that the observations of the HighCour1, seemingly vehement, and apparertlyunpalatable to the Revenue, are only intended to curba tendency in revenue mafters which, if allowed tobecome widespread, could result in considerairleharassment lo the assesses-public without any ben€,fitto the Revenue. We would like to say that theCepartment 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 authorities to the requirements of [judic ]aldiscipline and the need for giving effect to the ordersof 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 whorn have taken a consiistent standthat the action of the Income Tax Department being violative of the a Finance Act, 2020 and Finance Act, 2021. Now, in order to protectthe interest of the Revenue as also that of the assessee, it would betrite at this juncture, if we dispose of the writ petition with anobservation/direction that the disposal of the instant writ petition interms of the judgment rendered by this High Court in the case ofKankunala 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 of as 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 3 8 of the order which, for ready reference, is reproducedhereunder:hereunder: il6. For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned nolicesissued and the proceedings drawn by the responclent-Department is neither tenable, nor sustainable.The notices so issued and the procedure adopted beingper se iilegal, deserves to be and are accordingly setaside/quashed. As a consequence, all the impugnedorders getting quashed, the consequential orders pa:;sedby the respondent-Department pursuant to the nolicesissued under Section 147 and 148 would also getquashed and it is ordered accordingly. The reason weare quashing the consequential order is on the princiclesthat when the initiation of lhe proceedings itself wasprocedurally wrong, the subsequent orders also {Jetsnullified automatically. 37. The preliminary objection raised by the petitiorror 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 rrnddecide 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 oitseof Ashish Agarwal, supra, as a one-time measureexercising the powers under Article 142 of theConstitution of lndia, permitted the Revenue to procoedunder the substituted provisions, and this Court allowingthe petitions only on the procedurat flaw, the riJht f. confened 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.order 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 ofKanaktla Ravindra Redtly (l supra) is subjected to challengebefore the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No.3574 of 2024,preferred by the Income Tax Deparlment, we make it clear thatallowing of the instant writ petition is subject to outcome of theaforesaid SLP preferred by the Revenue against the decision of thisHigh Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (l stryra).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. 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 ofKanaktla Ravindra Redtly (l supra) is subjected to challengebefore the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No.3574 of 2024,preferred by the Income Tax Deparlment, we make it clear thatallowing of the instant writ petition is subject to outcome of theaforesaid SLP preferred by the Revenue against the decision of thisHigh Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (l stryra).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 jurisdiction1Sconcemed. As a consequence, the impugned notice underchallenge under Sections 148-A and 148 stands set aside/quashed. ( \ The consequential orders, if any, also stand set aside/quashed [in]similar terms as have been passed by this High Court in the case of Kankanala Ravindra Reddy (l supra). There shall br: no order [as] to costs Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, ilany, shall stand closed. SAMYASRAR//TRUE COPY//ToCER1.The Secretary,Union of lndia, Department of ReNew Delhi Ward B(1), Signature Towers, New D1.The Secretary,Union of lndia, Department of ReNew Delhi Ward B(1), Signature Towers, New D3.2.The Department, NewSerilingam The lncome Assessmepalli I\4andal, TantUx Officer, Ward Delhi nit, National RangaR8F 1), eddy District, Hyderabadaceless Assessment Signature Towers, Cent.re, Kc,nda pu lncome r,Tax 1. 9nu [to ][SRt ][r ][PRADYOTH, ]Advocate tOpUCltOpUCl5. one cc to sRr cADt pRA^vEEr.r ktiruanj6rFlty soll::troR GENERALktiruanj6rFlty soll::troR GENERAL^ [OF IND|A Advocate tOpUCI]6. One CC to Ms, J.SUNITHA;J-UNIOR STANDING COUNSE:L FoR THEAorotate 6. One CC to Ms, J.SUNITHA;J-UNIOR STANDING COUNSE:L FoR THEAorotate _ 7. Two CD Copies [DEpARTMEilr, ]tOpU'Cf ["']SAGJoGJo HIGH COURT DATED:0210512025 ORDER WP.No.32031 of 2024 ALLOWING THE W.PWITHOUT COSTS. 1il€STAI.Ji.7t1I)JUL 2mz*ta lp..Tc\