Of Finance Act, 2021 W.e.f., 01.04.2021 Onwards, Proceedingsunder Section L4Ga Of Rhe Act As Also Under Section L4G Of Theact Ought To Have Also Been Issued And v. Income_Tax Officert Decidedon 14-09.2023 Whereby A Batch Of Writ Petitions Were Ailowed Andthe Proceedings Initiated Under Section R4Ga As Also Under Section148

/.2 HrcH couRr [.?+ ]I+":IIH8: ]":*no*o(sPecif, [oiiginil ][Jurisdiction)]M o N DAYdr#EoI\3FNJ"^fr ',slilfl R$ ro,[l' [*''] PRESENT THE HONOURABLE [P'SAM ] THE HoNouRABLE [sRl ][.'"'il"*o*slue ][Rao ][NANDIK.NDA]WRITP [ ON ] [: ][3433][60F2][024] Between: EXIHEI{BIf {9},-+'-i"5]:'5#itr"T"W#Sflg6"E"cn#l:RlllffilrigZlo?l?$"XU"'{5i'n"oi')X""'in ...pErrroNER ANO ii[,**"j,iiffi"""i"ffi11#i[!ili!;f{'"i#'ifiEl}?i*:i3[8.i,:,Telanqana.Telanqana. Telanqana..Iies,"#tl'fiff,g,ij3+'E?lJ"i::'":;ffi"*'i:i'1H333[[i*'?"J',1'1ffi::t{ew Oett'ti [- ][110 ][001 ]' /-^^+ar tn.ome Tax Department, [N][ew]t{ew Oett'ti [- ][110 ][001 ]' /-^^+ar tn.ome Tax Department, [N][ew]4. The [National Faceless Assessment ][Center' ][lncome ' ]Delhi.o'"'n'"nt'., Delhi.o'"'n'"nt'., s ?i'"" [union ]"I-r"diflt;ffi,""i:t"Jt3,o-ll.X3. fiSilB3iil [-t? ]$8of Department [of Revenue' Mlnrstly ][ur ] [rr ][rar ][rvvl ] [! ]Department [of Revenue' Mlnrstly ][ur ] [rr ][rar ][rvvl ] [! ] ...RES'ONDENTS PetitionunderArticle226oflheConstitutionoflndiaprayingthatinthecircumstances [stated ][in ][the ][affidavit ][filed ][therewith' ][the ][High ][Court ][may ][be]pleased to issue [a wrlt, order or direction' more ][particularly ][one in ][the ][nature of]Writ of [lVlandamus, ][declaring ][the ][impugned notice ][dated' ][28 ]['02'2024 ][for ][A'Y']2017-18 [passed ][u/s ][148A(d) ][of ][the Act ][vide DIN ][No' ] 2411061635558(1) [and ][the ][consequential notice ][u/s ]['148 ][daled ][28 ]['O2'2O24 ][vide]DIN No. [ITBtuAST/S/148-112o23-24t1o61635705(1)' ][issued ][by ][the ][JAO(1't]respondent) [instead ][of ][FAO(3rd respondent)'as ][void' ][illegal' and ][contrary ][to ][the]incometax [Act ][and ][contrary to the Principles ][of ][Natural Justice']provisions of IAN :1ooF2 o24 petition under Sethe afndavit rireo in rhe circumstances stated inJ;J;::[ooc"|,.i::::r::, [in ]suspend the notice ,"n". rne High court may be preased to"-^"^lc'{rjr::' *"ffi ,',',-jl,#;it*fi*#i,:::'"'::'i:a{:i:i:,:1,,:: Counsel for the petitioner: SRl. THANNERU CHAITANYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1to4: Ms. J. SUNIHA (JUNtoR scFoR lNcoME lNcoME "t TAx)"t TAx) (JUNtoR scFoR lNcoME lNcoME counset ror rhe Respondenr,^ ..i"1'.::: "t TAx),*, ceEii{i?ttijrd,ff^R, ". REpclroR GENERAL The court court made the forowing: .RDER oF IND,A,*, ceEii{i?ttijrd,ff^R, ". REpclroR GENERAL The court court made the forowing: .RDER oF IND,A The court court made the forowing: .RDER TTIE [JUSTICE P'SAM ] NARSING [[RAo]]rIrE H'N,,RABLp#XXUE NARSING [[RAo]] PETITI[ON No.3][4336][ OF][ 2024] ORDER: [(per ][Hon'ble ][Sri ][Justice ][Narsing ][Rao ][Nandikonda)] Heard [Mr' ][Thanneru ][ChaitanYa ][Kumar'][ leamed ][counsel]for the [petitioner, ][Ms' ][J'sunitha' ][learned ][Junior ][Standing ][Counsel]for the [Income ][Tax ][Department ][for ][respondent ][Nos'l ][to ][4 ][and]Mr.B.Mukherjee,leamedcounselrepresentingtheUnionoflndiafor respondent [No'5' ][Perused the ][record'] This is is [[a ][writ ][petition ]][[writ ][petition ]][[petition ]][[where ][the ][proceedings ]][[the ][proceedings ]][[proceedings ]][are ][either] 2. This is is [[a ][writ ][petition ]][[writ ][petition ]][[petition ]][[where ][the ][proceedings ]][[the ][proceedings ]][[proceedings ]]challenged [to the notices ][which were ][issued ][under Section 148A]and 148 [of ][the ][Income ][Tax ][Act' ][t96 ][t ][(for shofi ]['the ][Act') ][or ][the]assessment [orders ][those ][have been ][passed ][under ][Section ][147 ][of]the Act [which'have ][been assailed'] This writ [[petition ][is being taken up today ]][[is being taken up today ]][[only ][on one ][of ][the]][[on one ][of ][the]][[of ][the]][[the]] This is is [[a ][writ ][petition ]][[writ ][petition ]][[petition ]][[where ][the ][proceedings ]][[the ][proceedings ]][[proceedings ]][are ][either] 2. This is is [[a ][writ ][petition ]][[writ ][petition ]][[petition ]][[where ][the ][proceedings ]][[the ][proceedings ]][[proceedings ]]challenged [to the notices ][which were ][issued ][under Section 148A]and 148 [of ][the ][Income ][Tax ][Act' ][t96 ][t ][(for shofi ]['the ][Act') ][or ][the]assessment [orders ][those ][have been ][passed ][under ][Section ][147 ][of]the Act [which'have ][been assailed'] This writ [[petition ][is being taken up today ]][[is being taken up today ]][[only ][on one ][of ][the]][[on one ][of ][the]][[of ][the]][[the]] 3. This writ [[petition ][is being taken up today ]][[is being taken up today ]][[only ][on one ][of ][the]][[on one ][of ][the]][[of ][the]][[the]]that the [notices ][issued ][under Section ][l48A ][of ][the ][Act]grounds, and the subsequent [initiation of ][proceedings under ][Section ][148 ][of]the Act by the [jurisdictional ][Assessing ][Officer' ][whereas ][in ][terms]\of the ambndment [that ][was ][brought ][to the ][lncome Tax ][Act ][by ][way] of Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f., 01.04.2021 onwards, proceedingsunder Section l4gA of rhe Act as also under Section l4g of theAct ought to have also been issued and proceeded in a facelessmanner. 4' The contention contention of the petitioner the petitioner petitioner is that the issue that the issue the issue issue ofproceedings being in violation of the Financ e Act, 2021 i.e., theimpugned notices under Section 14gA and Section l4g of the 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 ailowed 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 ofsection i51A ofthe Act read with Notification lg/2022 dated,29.03.2022. The saidjudgment passed by this court has arso been subsequentry foltowedin a large number of writ petitions which were allowed on similarterms. The contention contention of the petitioner the petitioner petitioner is that the issue that the issue the issue issue of Down [the ][line' ][we frnd that ][the ][same ][issue has also ][been] 5. Down decided [against ][the ][Revenue ][by ][various ][High ][Courts ][i'e'']by [the ][Bombay ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ] TECHNOLOGIES [LTD'' ][vs' ] OF [& ][OTIIERS2' ][Gauhati High Court ][in ][the ][case]of RAM [SAH vs' ][UNION OF INDIA3' ][Punjab ][and]Haryana [High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ] vs. UNION [INDIA4' ][and Telangana ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]SRI [PATLOOI,A ][VS. ] COMNIISSIONER [OF'INCOME ] [where the ][issue ][was ][in]respect [of ][international taxation' Bombay ][High ][Court in the ][case ][of]ABHIN [ANTLKUMAR SHAH VS.INCOME ] [OFFICER,]INTERNATIONAL [which is ][again on ][international]taxation [and ][central ][circle, ][High ][court ][of ][Himachar ][pradesh ][in ][the]case of [SINGII vs' ] [OFFICEil']Gujarat [High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ] 2 t2o24l464 ITR 430 (Bom)' ifiizil [1 ][56 ][taxmann.com ][478 ][(Gauhati)l]"if,oaO [165 ][taxmann'com ][115 ][(Punjab ][& ][Haryana)l]'izozq [l6fuatgnann.com ][4l ] [(Telangana)l]u irnra, 165 taxmann.com 679 [(Bombay)l]'i;o;;; [ioi *rnu*'to1n ] [l3 ][lHimachal ][Pradesh)l] DAHYABHAT RADADIYA vs. INCOME TAx OFFICER,OFFICER, DAHYABHAT 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 CHHAJER vs. INCOME TAXOFFICER & ANOTHER and batch of writ petitionsr0 whichstood decided on 19.03.2024. Similar views have also been takenby the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in the case ofGIRDHAR GOPAL DALMIA vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS( M.A.T I 690 of 2023).decided on 25.09.2024.6. 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 l0 writpetitions. That upon the instructions being sought fiom 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*z0z+ scc online Guj 4012'2025 [Online ][Jhar ][287]to12o23 : RJ-JD:4984-DBl (1r supra) [has ][been ][subjected ][to ][challenge:in ][a ][Special ][Leave]Petition [i.e', ] [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 ][hled ][arising out ][ofthe]same [issue ][being ][decided ][by various High Courts']1. 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 [nah,e ][are ][being ][piled ][up before ][this ][Bench on ][daily ][basis]and [the ][pendency ][is ][getting ][increased ][on ][matter ][which ][otherwtse]has arready [been deart and decided ][by ][this ][very ][High ][court ][itserf.]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]till [date, ][we do ][not find ][any remedial ][steps ][having ][been]lapsed, 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 ][Officer']rather the [authorities concemed ][in ][the teeth ][of ][series ][of ][decisions] by all the maior High Courts in India are continuously stillinitiating proceedings under Section r4gA of the Act and alsoinitiating proceedings under Section 14g of the Act incontravention to the amendments brought into the Income Tax Actpursuant to the Finance Act,2020as also the Finance Act202l. 9. Upon a query query being put as to why put as to why as to why to why can,t this writ petition writ petition petition bedisposed of in the teeth of the decision rendered by this Court inthe case of Kanaksla Rwiydm Reddy (l supra), leamed StandingCounsel for the Income Tax Department contends that those wouldunnecessarily burden the Income Tax Department where theywould be required to fire equar 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 thelearned Standing Counsel that no prejudiee 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 ofinterim protection. Nonetheless, on the eartier queryof this Court as to why the Income Tax [Department have ][not ][come]out with a mechanism [to ][issue appropriate ][instmctions ][or ][to ][take] Upon a query query being put as to why put as to why as to why to why can,t this writ petition writ petition petition be Upon a query query being put as to why put as to why as to why to why can,t this writ petition writ petition petition be appropriate [steps ][in ][ensuring ][that proceedings ][under Section ][l48A]ofthe [Act ][as ][also ][the ][assessment ][orders ][uoder Section ][148 ][ofthe]Act [are ][kept ][in ][a ][hold in ][the ][light ][ofthe ][decisions dedcided ][by ][the]various [High ][Courts' ][it ][was ][submitted ][by ][the ][leamed ][Standing]Counsel [that ][the ][said ][steps can ][only ][be ][taken ][at ][the level ][of ] as any [such ][steps ][would ][have to be ][taken ][Pan ][lndia ][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]orders [have ][been]litigation [day ][in ][and ][dlV ][out ][even though ][vanous]passed [by this ][High ][Court ][allowing ][writ ][petitions ][on the ][very ][same]issue. [The Income ][Tax ][authorities ][concerned are ][still ][even ][now ][in]2025 [alsoinitiating ][proceedings ][in ][contravention ][to ][the provisions]of Section [15lA ][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](1 supra). [What ][is ][also surprising ][is the ][fact that ][though while]allowing [the ][writ ][petitions ][in ][the ][case ][of ][Kanakala ][Ravindra]RefuIy [(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 Revenue for initiating fiesh proceedings strictly in accordance with the amendedprovisions of the Act, as amended by the Financ e Act, 2020 and,the Finance Act, 2021. The petitioner assessee would be enfitled tochallenge or raise the other regar 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 thisHigh Court as well as many 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 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 Courr confirmsthe decision [taken ][by ][this ][High ][Court ][as ][also ][bv ][the ][other ][High]Courts [in ][which ][the ][SLPs ][are ][sti1l ][pending' ][the ][lncome ][Tax] Department [would ][get the ][advantage ][of ][the ][liberty ][that ][is ][otherwtse]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]for initiation [of ][fresh]Department [gets an extended ][period ][of ][time]proceedings. Department [would ][get the ][advantage ][of ][the ][liberty ][that ][is ][otherwtse]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]for initiation [of ][fresh]Department [gets an extended ][period ][of ][time]proceedings. 12. [The alarming trend ][of ][docket ][explosion in this ][Court' ][despite]the clear [precedent ][set ][iL ][Kanakala ][Ravind'ra Refuly ][(l ][supra)' is ][a]matter of [grave concem' ][The ][Income ][Tax ][Department's persistent]initiation [of ][fresh proceedings, disregarding the ][established ][judiciat]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] position. Suchconduct raises serious questions about theadministrati veefficiency and therespect for judicialpronouncements, 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 l4g_A and l4g 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 ofor, atIeast the Income Tax Department should have fbund out someremedial steps to ensure that wherever the authorities intend toinitiate proceedings under Sections 14g_A and l4g,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 ][a]convincing 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 ][of ][a ][policy ][decision ][and ][that too ][at ][the]level [of ][Central ][Board ][of ][Direct ][Taxes' ][Though ][the ][leamed]Standing [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 ][frling ][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]lncome [Tax Department' ][Yet' ][the ][authorities ][concerned ][at ][the]State [level ][are ][not ][ready ][to ][accept ][the verdict ][passed ][by ][a ][majority]of High [Courts ][of ][dift'erent ][States ][on the ][same ][issue; and ][to ][make]things [further worse' ][the ][Income ][Tax ][Department ][is ][showing]audacity [by issuing ][notices ][continuously ][under Sections 148-4' ][and] 148 through the jurisdictionar Assessing officer whereasrt oughtto have been only in rhe faceless manner. 14. In rhe case of BANK OF INDIA vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, INCOME TAXil, on an issue whether it wasjustifiable on the part of the Income Tax Department in notfollowing an order passed by the adjudicating authonty only on thegrounC that the appeals are pending, the Divisicn Bench of theFiigh court of Bcrnbay held at paragraph No.25 as under, viz., : "25. tvtr. [paridwalla ]has righ y drawn out attention to thetiecision of thrs Couit 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) t.td. v. lfgr3of which one of us (Justice G.s. Kurkarni) 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 kncwn to law, it would loose itsbinding force. Referring to the deoision of ttte Supreme Court inUnion of lndia vs. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd.r4, thecourt observed that the approach of the officiars of Revenue oftreating decisicns being [,,not ]acceptable,, was criticized by theSupreme Cou(. ln such decision, following are the relevantobservations made by the Supreme Court. " [(z0zs) [(z0zs) [ [taxmann.com ]][[taxmann.com ]]422 [(Bombay)]]'' " [(z0zs) [(z0zs) [ [taxmann.com ]][[taxmann.com ]]422 '' tl978l I l3 ITR 589 (Bombay) ',t, IZOZ+1 1 65 taxmann. com 5 8 I /3 00 T axman 4 52 (Bombay)t4 ltsgzltaxmann.com l6155 ELT 433 (SC) / " [(z0zs) [(z0zs) [ [taxmann.com ]][[taxmann.com ]]422 [(Bombay)]]'' " [(z0zs) [(z0zs) [ [taxmann.com ]][[taxmann.com ]]422 '' tl978l I l3 ITR 589 (Bombay) ',t, IZOZ+1 1 65 taxmann. com 5 8 I /3 00 T axman 4 52 (Bombay)t4 ltsgzltaxmann.com l6155 ELT 433 (SC) / .6. sri Reddy is [perhaps ][risht ][in ][savins ][t::: ][.':"];H;";; [not ][actuated.t,"*' ];:; ffi,olpassins [the ][impugned ]:T;;" assessee was notgenuinely [felt ][that ][the ][clail ],"""pt"0, [the ][Revenue]tenable [and ][that' ][if ][it ][was];:; ;"; [But what ]"': [*;:;';:':::ilJi ][-;]are [not ][concerned ][*'", ]tr"turr;; or- of "nv othe*ise [of ][their ]Tni'l,t tn" officers' in reachingmalafides [but with the ]""ltl; *""10r",,r," orders [in]in their [conclusion, ][by-passe- ]['* ]w"r" [pta""o ][uetore]resard [to ][the ][same ]:"::-:^;;"";; and tne other [or]them, [one of the ][collector ]view, rishflyH;;, ;;r.. the [rribunal ][rhe ][Hish ]andll";"';"; criticized [this ][conduct of ][th]"o'ectors the [harassment to ][the ][assessee caused by the failure]of [these officels ][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],rr,r*Ont [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 iurisdiction and]the [order of ][the Tribunal is binding upon ][the ][Assistant]Coliectors [and the ][Appellate ][Collectors ][who ][function-]under [the ]iurisdiction [of the ][Tribunal ][The principles ][of]iudicial [discipline ][require ][that the orders of the higher]appettate [authorities should be followed ][unreservedly]by the [subordinate ][authorities' ][The mere ][fact ][that the]order of [the ][appetlate ][authority ][is ][not ]["acceptable" to]the department - [in ][itself ][an ][obiectionable ][phrase ][-]and is the [subject ][matter ][of an ][appeal can ][furnish ][no]for [not ][following ][it ][unless ][its ][operation ][has]ground been [suspended ][by ][a competent ][court' ][lf ][this healthy] \ \ harassment rule is not ," followed, ,";; the ;sult rerchaos witt in ontv administrationbe undueof tax laws. because 12. We have dealt it has been with.this aspect at some length'Additionar Soricitor o"n. "nut'"d [by the ][rearned]llou [o, ][the ][High ]officers. lt is clear that ""r;'irrt:1"ffr::TT''il:thobservations court, of the Highllou [o, ][the ][High ]officers. lt is clear that ""r;'irrt:1"ffr::TT''il:thobservations court, of the Highseemingry ,"nre and apparenflyunparatabre ,o ,n" *"runr.''"nt' ' [u'" ][on'' ][intended ]to curba tendency in revenue ,, become widesp**, .",#"[Ji::' :":.il:r:harassment to the assessesto the Revenue. *" *"r'"'ol,,i"'',:"ff'In::',::'apparenflyunparatabre ,o ,n" *"runr.''"nt' ' [u'" ][on'' ][intended ]to curba tendency in revenue ,, become widesp**, .",#"[Ji::' :":.il:r:harassment to the assessesto the Revenue. *" *"r'"'ol,,i"'',:"ff'In::',::'department should take these observations in theproper spirit. The observalions of the High Courtshould be kept in mind in futrshourd be paid by the "r,rr,::T;:l;J:[""::?il:should be kept in mind in futrshourd be paid by the "r,rr,::T;:l;J:[""::?il:appellate authorities to the requiremenls 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 woryring this Bench more is the fact that an endeavour is being made whole heartedly to ensure nor 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 15. What is woryring this Bench more is the fact that an endeavour is being made whole heartedly to ensure nor 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 [Lct,2o[Oand ][Finance ][Lcf'2021' ][Now' ][in ][order ][to protect]the interest [of ][the ][Revenue ][as ][also that ][of ][the ][assessee' ][it ][would ][be]trite [at this juncture' ][if ][we ][dispose ][of ][the ][writ ][petition ][with ][an]observation/direction [that the disposal ][of ][the instant ][writ ][petition ][in]terms [of ][the ][judgment ][rendered ][by ][this ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]Kankanala [Ravindra ][Reddy ][(r ][supra) ][shall however be ][subject ][to]the outcome [of ][the ][SLPs ][which were ][filed by ][the ][Income ][Tax]Department [and ][which ][is ][pending ][consideration before the ][Hon'ble]Supreme [Court.] 16. In [the ][given facts and ][circumstances' ][this ][Bench ][is ][of ][the]considered [opinion ][that ][unless and ][until ][we ][do ][not ][timely ][dispose]of matters [which ][are ][squarely covered ][by ][the decision ][of ][this Court]and which [stands ][fortified ][by ][the ][decisions ][of ][the various ][other]High Courts on [the ][very ][same ][issue, thE pendency ][of ][this ][High]Court would [further ][be burdened ][which ][otherwise ][can ][be ][decided]and disposed of as [a ][covered matter.] 17 . So far as the interest of the [Revenue ][is ][concemed, ][we ][are ][of]the considered opinion that the [interest ][of ][the ][Revenue ][has ][already]been considered and protected, as has been observed in paragraphs 36,37 awj3g of the order which for ready reference, is reproduced hereunder: 36. For all the aforesaid issued and *" ,.";:^"sons' trawn the impugned noticesDeparrment bv the respondenr-," ['';;;": ]The notices ," lr.r"o ['rro ].renabre, [nor ]sustainabtetI per se iilegar, deserves ," :::"0r." and are accordinslv aoopted beingaside/quashed. serorders gening ^:;;.:: all the impugnedor""n;, ,;'j"^"^o-'"nce' j:'1;'*"";;;;";#::::1H::? rssued under Section ;T: ;",,#14iquashed and it is ordere o 'rlno cordingly The 'o'**ro reason [arso ]getare quashing th" we"onr"qr"nt' o"", is on the principlesthat when the initiation o, ,'"' procedurafly ,'o"""o,ngs itserf waswrong, the nullified automaticary. "ron" sequent orders also gets 37. The prelimjnary object The prelimjnary objection raised by the petitioner issustained and all these writpetitions stands allowed onthis very jurisdictional issue.Since the impugned noticesand orders are gettingquashed on the point ofjurisdiction, we are not inclined toproceed further anddecide the other issues raised bythe petitioner whichstands reserved to be raised and contended in anappropriate proceedings. 38. Since the Hon,ble Supreme Court had, in the case of Ashish Agarwal, supra, as a one-time measureexercising the powers under Article 1 42 of theConstitution of lndia, [permitted ]the Revenue to [proceed]under the substituted [provisions, ][and this ][Court allowing]the petitions only [on ][the ][procedural ][flaw, ][the ][right]exercising the powers under Article 1 42 of theConstitution of lndia, [permitted ]the Revenue to [proceed]under the substituted [provisions, ][and this ][Court allowing]the petitions only [on ][the ][procedural ][flaw, ][the ][right] I conferred [on ][the ][Revenue ][would ][remain reseNed ][to]proceed [further ][if ][they ][so ][want {rom ][the ][stage ][of ][the]orO", of [the ][Supreme ][Gourt ][in ][the ][case ][of ][Ashish]Agarwal, [supra] 38. Since the Hon,ble Supreme Court had, in the case of Ashish Agarwal, supra, as a one-time measureexercising the powers under Article 1 42 of theConstitution of lndia, [permitted ]the Revenue to [proceed]under the substituted [provisions, ][and this ][Court allowing]the petitions only [on ][the ][procedural ][flaw, ][the ][right]exercising the powers under Article 1 42 of theConstitution of lndia, [permitted ]the Revenue to [proceed]under the substituted [provisions, ][and this ][Court allowing]the petitions only [on ][the ][procedural ][flaw, ][the ][right] I conferred [on ][the ][Revenue ][would ][remain reseNed ][to]proceed [further ][if ][they ][so ][want {rom ][the ][stage ][of ][the]orO", of [the ][Supreme ][Gourt ][in ][the ][case ][of ][Ashish]Agarwal, [supra] 18. [We ][would only ][further ][like ][to ][make ][observations ][that ][slnce]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]Kanakala [Ravindra Reddy ][(1 ][supra) ][is ][subjected ][to ][challenge]before [the Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Court ][in ][SLP No'3574 ][of ][2024']we make [it ][clear that]preferred [bY][ the ][Income ][Tax ][DePartment']allowing [of ][the ][instant ][writ ][petition ][is ][subject ][to ][outcome ][of ][the]aforesaid [preferred ][by ][the Revenue ][against ][the decision ][of this]High [Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ][Kanakala Ravindra ][Reddy ][(1 ][supra)']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 ][tight ][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 ][is]As a [consequence, ][the ][impugned ][notice ][under]concemed148-4 [and ][148 ][stands set aside/quashed']challenge [under ][Sections] \ The consequential orders, if any, also stand set aside/quashed insimilar terms as have been passed by this High Court in the case ofKankansra Ravindra Reddy (r supra). There shail be no order asto costs Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed OSMAN ALI BAIGTANT REGISTRAR//TRUE COPYII iSECTION OFFICERTANT REGISTRAR//TRUE COPYII iSECTION OFFICER To, '1 2. . The The Princi palincome Tax Officer, Ward 1 , Adilabad/ Adilabad,Hyderabad, Telangana Chief Commissioner of Income Tax2. . The The Princi palincome Tax Officer, Ward 1 , Adilabad/ Adilabad,Hyderabad, Telangana Chief Commissioner of Income TaxHyderabadlT Towers. AC Guards, Masab , Telangana and A.pTelanganaTank, Hyde rabad - 500028,TelanganaTank, Hyde rabad - 500028,3. The Chairman, Central Mini'I 10 stry of Finance Government 001Board of Direct Taxes Department of Revof lndia Secretariat Buildings, New Delhi enue,-4. The National Faceless Assessment Center, lncome Tax Department, New4. The National Faceless Assessment Center, lncome Tax Department, New: ilH.?i%?tp,?;,Y#:1, :l' Btft ,':ll; [go;e'n ][ment, ][Depa ][rrment or ][Reve ][n ][ue,]8 ?il:JErs^;fl one cc to sRr. cADr [T,ttiFF,_!ilflrsJ+5Hyf"Hf ]rrit",rpJfi ,?,tNDtA [OPUCI'RAVEEN'xiiilA'd,"Di.'solrcrroR [ceNencl ][or]T*o CD Copies8 ?il:JErs^;fl one cc to sRr. cADr [T,ttiFF,_!ilflrsJ+5Hyf"Hf ]rrit",rpJfi ,?,tNDtA [OPUCI'RAVEEN'xiiilA'd,"Di.'solrcrroR [ceNencl ][or]T*o CD CopiesB ,9 LSLS t_ HIGH COURT DATED:28 tT4t2|2s -/- =:'::'.-"1,.//Z\\11 [f't ][t'. ][5].{ g.{i1t iul 2W\' ORDER WP.No.34336 of 2024 ALLOWING THE WRIT