Of Finance Act, 2021 W.e.f., 0L .04.2021 Onwards, Proceedingsunder Section L48A Of The Act As Also.under. Section L4G Of Theact Ought To Have Also Been Issued A v. The Contention Of The Petitioner Is That The Issue Contention Of The Petitioner Is That The Issue Of The Petitioner I

HIGH COURT FORE STATE OF TELANGANAATHERABAD(Special Oinal Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THECOND DAY OF MAYTWO THOUSAD AND TWENTYFIVE PESENT THE HONOURABLEJUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUS ICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDAWRIT PETITIONO: 29095 OF 2024 Between: h, aged about 58 years, Rl/o 10-3-223, Kakkirala Ramesh, S/o. PullaVidyanagar, Karimnagar-505001 ...PETITIONER AND 1The Assistant Commissioner of Icome Tax, Circle 1, Karimnagar 2National Faceless Assessmentntre, lncome Tax Department, fulinistry ofFinance, Room No 4O1 2rtdFlooE-Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, Delhi110 003Finance, Room No 4O1 2rtdFlooE-Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, Delhi110 003 3. Union of lndia, rep. by its Sery, [Ministry ][of Finance. ][Department ][of]Revenue, North Block, Centraltariat, New Delhi-1 10 001Revenue, North Block, Centraltariat, New Delhi-1 10 001 ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of te Constitution of lndia praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavifiled therewith, the High Court may bepleased to issue an order or drection, especially one like WRIT OF[/ANDAIIUS, holding that the ntice dated O4-O4-?O24 issued by 1'rRespondent under section 148f the Act with DIN and Notice NotTBtuAST/S/1 48 1 t2024-25 t 106390459(1) as being without [jurisdiction ]arbitraryillegal bad in law. void ab initio apartom being violative of provisions of section148A and section 149 of the Act andso contrary to the circular issued by CBDTand provisions of section [1 ]51 A of theAct and consequently set aside the noticeunder section 1 48 DIN and Notice NoTBA/AST/S/1 48 1 t2024-25t 1063904529(1 )dated 04-C4-2C24 lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under section 151 cpe praying that in the circumstances state(Jin the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the l{igh court may be preased krstay the notice dated 04-04-2024 issued by 1st Respc,ndent under section 14g orthe Act with DIN and Notice No lraA/AST/s/148_112o24-2s11o63904529(1)anclall consequential proceedings pending the disposal of the writ petition.the Act with DIN and Notice No lraA/AST/s/148_112o24-2s11o63904529(1)anclall consequential proceedings pending the disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the [petitioner: ]SRI F{AJA SneXAR RAO t;ALVAJI Counsel for the Respondent Nos.l and 2: MS. J SUNITHA, SC FOR INCOMETAX DEP,ARTMENTTAX DEP,ARTMENT Counsel forthe Respondent Nq.3: SRI B. MUKHER.JEE, REPRESENTINGTHE UNON,OF ]NDIATHE UNON,OF ]NDIA The Court made the following: ORDER TIIE TfONOURABT,E SRI JUSTICE [P.SAM ][KOSI{Y]ANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NANDIKONDA WRIT PETITI N No.29095 OF 2024 ORDER: [(per ]Hon'He Si [Justice][P.km ][Koshy)] Heard Mr. Raja Sh*ar [Salvaji, ][learned ][counsel ][for] the petitioner, Ms. J.Sunitha, [leamed ][Junior ][Standing ][Counsel]for the lncome Tax Department [for ][respondent ][Nos.l ][and ][2 ][and]Mr. B. Mukhe{ee, learned [co,]nsel represeflting the ][Union ][of ][India]for respondent No.3. Perusedrecord 2. This is a writ paition [where ][the ][proceedings ][are ][either]challenged to the notic€s [whiqh ][were ][issued ][under Section ][l48A]and 148 of the [ncome [Tax ][Apt, ][1961 ][(for ][short ]['the ][Act') ][or ][the]assessment orders those [have][ been passed ][under ][Section ][147 ][of]the Act which have been [assat] 3. This writ petition is beirig [taken ][up ][today ][onty ][on one ][of ][the]grounds, that the notices issued [under ][Section ][l48A ][of ][th€ Act]and the subsequent initiation of [proceedings under ][Section ][[48 ][of]the Act by the [junsdictional ][I]lr.ssessing [Offi0Er;-rvhereas ][in ][terms]of the amendment [that ][was ][brc][ ught ][to ][the ][Income ][Tax ][Act ][bY ][waY] of Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f., 0l .04.2021 onwards, proceedingsunder Section l48A of the Act as also.under. Section l4g of theAct ought to have also been issued and prooeeded in a facelessmanner. 3. This writ petition is beirig [taken ][up ][today ][onty ][on one ][of ][the]grounds, that the notices issued [under ][Section ][l48A ][of ][th€ Act]and the subsequent initiation of [proceedings under ][Section ][[48 ][of]the Act by the [junsdictional ][I]lr.ssessing [Offi0Er;-rvhereas ][in ][terms]of the amendment [that ][was ][brc][ ught ][to ][the ][Income ][Tax ][Act ][bY ][waY] of Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f., 0l .04.2021 onwards, proceedingsunder Section l48A of the Act as also.under. Section l4g of theAct ought to have also been issued and prooeeded in a facelessmanner. 4. The contention of the petitioner is that the issue contention of the petitioner is that the issue of the petitioner is that the issue the petitioner is that the issue petitioner is that the issue is that the issue that the issue the issue issue ofproce€dings being in violation of the Financr: Act, 2021 i.e., theimpugned notices under Section l48A and Se,:ti,cn l4g of the Actnot being issued in a faceless manner, have alnz<iy been dealt withand decided by this Court in r,he case ,rf KANKANALARAVINDRA REDDY vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICERT decidedon 14.09.2023 whereby a barch of writ petitions rvere allowed andthe proceedings initiated under Section l48A as also under Section148 of the Act were held to be bad with consequential reliefs on theground of it being in violation of the provisions of Section I 5 lA ofthe Act rcad with Noti fi catio n lB/2022 dated 29.0i,.2022. The saidjudgmcnt passed by rhis Court has also been subse<luently followedin a largc number of writ petitions which were :rll,rwed on similarterms. The contention of the petitioner is that the issue contention of the petitioner is that the issue of the petitioner is that the issue the petitioner is that the issue petitioner is that the issue is that the issue that the issue the issue issue of '[(2023) I-5(, [(axrnann ]com 178 (Telangana)] 5, Down the [line, we ][find that the ][samc issue lrag ][olso ][been]various High [Courts ][i'c',]decide.d against [the ][Revenrfe ][bY]the case of by the [BornbaY ][High ][Coutt ][in]TECHNOLOGTES [LTD., ][t.l lssrsraxr ][CoMMISSIONER]OF INCOME [& ][OTIIERS2, ][Gauhati ][High Court ][in the ][case]of RAM [vs' ][I.INION OF ][INDIA3' ][Punjab ][and]Haryana [High Court in ][the ][case ][of JATINDER ] vs. TJNION [INDI#, ][and'Telangana ][High Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]SRI VENKATARAMANA [VS. ] COMMISSIONER [where ][the ][issue was ][in]respect of [international ][axation, ][Bombay High Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]ABHIN ANILKUMAR [SH'f,H ][vs' INCOME ] [OFFICER']INTERNATIONAL [which ][is again ][on intemational]taxation and [central ][circle, ][High Court ][of ][Himachal ][Pradesh ][in ][the]case of GOVIND [vs' ] [OFFICER?']thecase o[ Gujarat High [Court ][rn] ' [tzozql ][464 ][lrR ][430 ][(Bom)](Gauhati)l(Gauhati)l' [(2024) ] [56 ][taxmann.com ][478](Punjab & I{aryana)l(Punjab & I{aryana)l^ l(2024) [165 ][taxmann.com I ][l5]Tetangana)lTetangana)l'12024) [167 ][taxmann.com ][4l ][I]Bombay)lBombay)l" 12024) [166 ][tzxmann'com ][679]'izoz+l [[tts ][taxmann.com ]][[taxmann.com ]][ [J]][ [J]][[J]][{irnachal [Pradesh)]]'izoz+l [[tts ][taxmann.com ]][[taxmann.com ]][ [J]][ [J]][[J]][{irnachal [Pradesh)]] 'izoz+l [[tts ][taxmann.com ]][[taxmann.com ]][ [J]][ [J]][[J]] ' [tzozql ][464 ][lrR ][430 ][(Bom)](Gauhati)l(Gauhati)l' [(2024) ] [56 ][taxmann.com ][478](Punjab & I{aryana)l(Punjab & I{aryana)l^ l(2024) [165 ][taxmann.com I ][l5]Tetangana)lTetangana)l'12024) [167 ][taxmann.com ][4l ][I]Bombay)lBombay)l" 12024) [166 ][tzxmann'com ][679]'izoz+l [[tts ][taxmann.com ]][[taxmann.com ]][ [J]][ [J]][[J]][{irnachal [Pradesh)]]'izoz+l [[tts ][taxmann.com ]][[taxmann.com ]][ [J]][ [J]][[J]][{irnachal [Pradesh)]] 'izoz+l [[tts ][taxmann.com ]][[taxmann.com ]][ [J]][ [J]][[J]] DAIf,YABHAI RdDADIyA vs. INCOML lAX OFFTCE&WARD 3(3)(tt, Jharkand High Court in rtre case of SIIyAMSUNDAR SAW vs. UMON OF INDIAe, Rajasthan High Court inthe case of SHARDA DEVI CHIIAJER vs. INCOME TAXWARD 3(3)(tt, Jharkand High Court in rtre case of SIIyAMSUNDAR SAW vs. UMON OF INDIAe, Rajasthan High Court inthe case of SHARDA DEVI CHIIAJER vs. INCOME TAXOFFICER & ANOTHER and batch of ,,vrit petirionsro whichstood decided on 19.03.2024 Similar viervs hirve also been hkenby the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in the case ofGIRDHAR by the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in the case ofGIRDHAR C,OPAL DALMIA vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS(M.A.T 1690 of Zl23),decidert on25.09.2024(M.A.T 1690 of Zl23),decidert on25.09.2024 6. Even though rhe same issue having been tlecided by a largenumber of High Courts, wc are still confrontecl u,ith large filing ofidentical matters on daily basis ranging between 5 to I 0 writpetitions. That upon the insrructions being sought liom theDepartment, they have been taking a solitary ground rhat thedecision of the Bombay Ii igh Court in the r:ase of HexaworeTechnologies Ltd., (2 supra) as also the on<: ,,vhich has beendecided by this Court in the case of Kanakala Ravin&a ftslly 8202+ SCC Online Cuj 40 t 2'2025 SCC Online Jhar 2g7t o 12023 [: ] [- ]! L-l :a984_t)B I \t ( (l supra) has boen subjcctsubjcct (l supra) has boen subjcctsubjcctto challcngo in a Spccial [Leavo]Petition i.e., SLP No.3574 o2024 before the Hon'ble [SuPreme]Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court is seized of the [matter.]In addition, there are about l2O0 SLPs also filed arising out [ofthe]same issue being decided byrious High Courts 7. 7. To a query being put to the leamed counsel for [the ][Revenue,]they have categorically accegted the fact that there [is ][no iriterim]order granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in [any ][of ][these]matters pending belore it.Meanwhile, fresh writ Petitions [of]identical flature are being pilup before this Bench on [dailY ][basis]and the pendency is getting ihcreased on matter [which ][otherwise]has already been dealt and deqided 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 [4 .09.2023 and more 16 months [have]lapsed, till date, we do not find any remedial steps [having ][been]taken by the lncome Tax Delartment to take appropriate [steps ][to]either hold back issuance ofotice under Section l4EA [and ][under]Section 148 of the Act bye [jurisdictional ]Assessing [Offrcer,]rather the authorities concemgd in the teeth [of ][series ][of ][decisions] \ by all tbe major High Corrts in India are continuously stillinitiating proceedings under Section I4gA of the Act and alsoinitiating proceedings under Section t4g of the Act incontravention to the amendments brought into the Income Tax Actpursuant to the Finance Act,202O as also the Finance Act 2021. 8. On the one hand, even though the order of [this ][Court ][that]was passed as early as on [4 .09.2023 and more 16 months [have]lapsed, till date, we do not find any remedial steps [having ][been]taken by the lncome Tax Delartment to take appropriate [steps ][to]either hold back issuance ofotice under Section l4EA [and ][under]Section 148 of the Act bye [jurisdictional ]Assessing [Offrcer,]rather the authorities concemgd in the teeth [of ][series ][of ][decisions] \ by all tbe major High Corrts in India are continuously stillinitiating proceedings under Section I4gA of the Act and alsoinitiating proceedings under Section t4g of the Act incontravention to the amendments brought into the Income Tax Actpursuant to the Finance Act,202O as also the Finance Act 2021. 9. Upon a query being a query being query being being put as to why can,t this writ petition beas to why can,t this writ petition beto why can,t this writ petition bewhy can,t this writ petition bethis writ petition bewrit petition bepetition bedisposed of in the teeth of the decision renderecl by this Court inthe case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra), leamed StandingCounsel for the Income Tax Department contends that those wouldunnecessarily burden the [ncome Tax Deparlnrent where theywould be required to file equal number of Silps before theHon'ble Supreme Court and it would be fr.rrrher burdening theexchequer of the Union of India. It was also the r:ontention o[theleamed Shnding Counsel that no prejudice would be caused to theinterest ofthe petitioners in casc ilthis writ petition is kept pendingtill the finalization of the SLps pending before rhe Hon,bleSupreme Court and the fact that the peritioner is already enjoyingthe benefit of interim protection. Nonetheless, on tfre earlier queryzof this Court as to why the lncome ['l'ax ]Departmc,nt have not comeout with a mechanism to issue appropriate instnrctions or to take Upon a query being a query being query being being put as to why can,t this writ petition beas to why can,t this writ petition beto why can,t this writ petition bewhy can,t this writ petition bethis writ petition bewrit petition bepetition be 1 Eppropriate ste?s in ensuringthat procd ings under Scction l48AoF thc Act as also the assesslnent orders under Section 148 oftheAct are kept in a hold in the Iight ofthe decisions dedcided by thevarious High Courts, it was submitted by the learned StandingCounsel that the said steps carp 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 jurisdicItional High Courts. 10. As a result of which, wfrat we are facing is steep increase of litigation day in and day outthough various orders have beenpassed by this High Court all wing writ petitions on tle very sameissue. The Income Tax autho ties concemed are still even now ln2025 also initiating proceedings in contravention to the provisionsof Section 15lA of the Act and as a result by now, more than 600to 700 petitions have been alieady got piled up before this HighCourt on an issue which otherfwise stands squarely covered by thejudgment of this Court in the'case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy( I supra). What is also surising is the fact that though whileallowing the writ petitionsthe case of Kanakala RavindraReddy (l supra), the Divisi onl Bench while reserving the right ofthe Revenue, has also protected the interest of the petitioners insofar as the liberfy which was granted to the Revenue forinitiating liesh proceedings strictly in accordar cr: with the ameodedprovisions of the Act, as amended by the Finance Act, 2OZO andthe Finance Act,202l. The petitioner assessee would be entitled tochallenge or raise the other legal objetions if the Revenue initiatesfresh proceedings. The Department has marle no endeavour inavailing the said liberfy that was reserved for the Revenue. On thecontrary, they have been still sticking on to rtre stand, which thisEligh Court as well as many other High Court-.; already held to bebad. insofar as the liberfy which was granted to the Revenue forinitiating liesh proceedings strictly in accordar cr: with the ameodedprovisions of the Act, as amended by the Finance Act, 2OZO andthe Finance Act,202l. The petitioner assessee would be entitled tochallenge or raise the other legal objetions if the Revenue initiatesfresh proceedings. The Department has marle no endeavour inavailing the said liberfy that was reserved for the Revenue. On thecontrary, they have been still sticking on to rtre stand, which thisEligh Court as well as many other High Court-.; already held to bebad. I I. [t appears that because of the aforesaid liberry rhat this HighCourt had granted permitting the Revenue lbr initiating Freshproceedings as a one-time measure in a facel,:ss manner, thelncome Tax Department wants to take advantagc of the same byprotracting these proceedings which would enable rlicm to meet theprotracting these proceedings which would enable rlicm to meet thelimitation that would otherwise come in rhe war,,. l_ikewise, iF thewrit petition is kept pending for a considerable l,rng penod s[ timeand hnally at a later stage if the Hon'bte Suprerne ('ourt confrrmsthe decision taken by this t{igh Court as also by thc other Highwrit petition is kept pending for a considerable l,rng penod s[ timeand hnally at a later stage if the Hon'bte Suprerne ('ourt confrrmsthe decision taken by this t{igh Court as also by thc other HighCourts in which the SLPs are still pcnding, rl.rc Income Tax D€.partmont [would ][gc{ the ][edvantage ][of ][thc liberty ][that is othotwise]in favour of [the]Revenue for [initiation ][of ][fresh]protected proceedings from the [disPosal ][t]bf thesrc maners [at ][a ][much later ][stage]which would be advantageousand beneficial [to ][the ][Rwenue ][and]would be equally disadvantagepus [and ][detrimental ][so ][far ][as ][interest]oftheassessesareconcemed.Asaconsequence'thelncomeTaxDepartment [gets ][an ][extended ][period ][of ][time ][for ][initiation ][of ][fresh]proceedings. 12. The alarming [trend ][of d][ cket ][explosion ][in ][this ][Court, ][despite]the clear [precedent ][set ][in.l(az][ kala Ravindra ][ReddY ][(l ][suPra), ][is ][a]matter of [grave ][concem. ][The ][fncome ][Tax ][Department's persistent]initiation of [fresh proceedings, ][disregarding ][the ][established ][judicial]unprecedented [surge ][in ][litigation]pronouncements, [has ][led ][to]with over 600-700 Petitionspiting up on the [same ][issue' ][This]deliberate aPProach [not ][onlY]undermines [the principle ][of ][judicial]precedent but also [strains ][the ]ludicial [resources unnecessarily' The]Department's strategy [of ][awaiting ][the Supreme Court's decision on]SLPs [while ][conti4uing ][to ][initiate ][fresh ][proceedings]pending to be [a ][calculated][ move ][to ][buY ][time ][and ][circumvent]appears limitation [penods, rather ][t]n adhering to [the ][established ][tegat] Position. Such conduct raises serious questions about theadministrative efficiency and the rcspect for judicialpronouncements, particularly when this Court has already provideda balanced approach by preserving both the Revenue,s rights andassesses lnt€rests. 13. Another aspect which needs to be considered is that in fact it Position. Such conduct raises serious questions about theadministrative efficiency and the rcspect for judicialpronouncements, particularly when this Court has already provideda balanced approach by preserving both the Revenue,s rights andassesses lnt€rests. 13. Another aspect which needs to be considered is that in fact it should have been realized by the Income Tax l)epartment itselfandshou.ld have found out via media in ensuring that proceedingsunder Sections I48-A and. l4g should not have been issued in afaceless manner, at least till the Hon,ble Supre.mr, Court decide thetwelve hundred (1200) odd SLps which it is alr,:ady seized of or, arleast the Income Tax Department should have lound out someremedial steps to ensure that wherever the arrthorities intend toinitiate proceedings under Sections l4g_A and l4[i, other than in afaceless manner, the proceedings should havo been deferredwithout precipitating the matter further intimating lhc assessee thatthey shall initiate appropriate proceedings only aftt:r the SLp,s aredecided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the vcry sanre issue_This again, the Income Tax Department, has not been ablc ro give aconvincing reply, except for the fact that such a dt:cisron rf. at allY has to bc taken, hes [to ][be ][takfn ][for ][the whole ][of ][tndia' ][and which]otherwiso has to bo by [way ][of ][a ][policy ][decision ][and ][that ][too ][at ][the]level of Central Board [of ][Direct ][Taxes' ][Though ][the ][learned]Standing Counsel [for ][the ][Incpme ][Tax ][Department ][cootended that]the Delhi High Court [dismissqd ][a ][writ ][petition of similar ][nature' on]the one hand [when ][the ][High Court ][is ][struggling ][to ][reduce its]pendency, such notices [whifh ][are under ][challenge ][in ][this ][writ]petition are forcing the [as]see to knock [the ][doors ][of ][this ][High]Court resulting [in filing ][of ][h]dreds o[new [writ ][petitions which ][in]the long run not onlY [affects][ the ][disposal ][of ][the ][writ ][petitioos but]also consumes [substantial ][t][ me ][of ][the ][Bench ][in ][hearing ][these]matters again and [again ][on ][d]ty basis. Admittedly, [in ][spite ][of ][the]matter before the [Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Court ][having ][been ][taken on]many occasions, [the ][Hon'ble ][Stipreme ][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 apcept the verdi ][ct ][passed ][by ][a ][majority]ol High Courts [of ][differcnt ][$tates ][on the ][same ][issue; ][and ][to make]things further [worse, ][the]ncome Tax [Department]ts showingaudacity by issuing [notices c][bntinuously ][under ][Sections 148-A ][aod] l4E through the jurisdictional Assessing OfEcer whereas it oughtto have been only in the faceless manner. 14. In the case of BANK OF INDL{ BANK OF INDL{OF INDL{INDL{vsASSISTANTCOMMISSIONE& INCOME TAXrr, on arr issue wherher it waslustifiable on the paft of the Income Tax l)epartment in notfollowing an order passed by the adjudicating authority only on theground that the appeals are pending, the Di,risrion Bench of theHigh Court of Bombay held at paragraph No.2j; as under, viz., : l4E through the jurisdictional Assessing OfEcer whereas it oughtto have been only in the faceless manner. 14. In the case of BANK OF INDL{ BANK OF INDL{OF INDL{INDL{vsASSISTANTCOMMISSIONE& INCOME TAXrr, on arr issue wherher it waslustifiable on the paft of the Income Tax l)epartment in notfollowing an order passed by the adjudicating authority only on theground that the appeals are pending, the Di,risrion Bench of theHigh Court of Bombay held at paragraph No.2j; as under, viz., : "25. Mr. Paridwalla has righfly drawn out attention to thedecision of this Ccurt in Commissioner of lncome Tax vs. smt.Godavaridevi Sarafr2 as also the recent decision of the co-ordinate Bench,of this Court in Samp Furniture (p,r Ltd. v. tTO,jof lvhich one of us (Justice G.S. Kulkami) was a nlernber, whereinthe Court cztegorically observed thal the Revenue having not"accepted' the iudgment of the High Court would rrol mean that tiflthe same is set aside in a manner known to law, it would loose rlsbinding force. Referring to the decision of the Supr?me Court inUnion of lndia vs. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd.,o, theCourt obsened lhat the approach cf the officials of Revenue oflrealing Cecisions being "not acceptable" was critioized by theSupreme Court. ln such decision, following are lhe relevantobservations made by the Supreme Court. ' I tte78l ltlo"r":,, il3 lt*:T1T:"o. rTR 589(Bombay)[422 ][(Bombay)l]t,',1202I1I65 taxnrann.com 5g I/300 .faxman 452 (Bomt,ay)t,',1202I1I65 taxnrann.com 5g I/300 .faxman 452 (Bomt,ay) '' 1 [t9921 ][raxnunn.com ]I 6/55 ELT 433 (sc) ,\ .,. 16. Sd Reddy le perhlEps rlght in ssying that lheonioe.rs were not aJu6t€d by 6ny mela fid€s inpassing the inrpugnl>d orders. They perhapsgenuinely felt that the i,aim of the assessee was nottenable and that, if it was accepted, the Revenuewould suffer. 8ut what Sri Reddy overlooks is that weare not concemed hpre with the correctness orotherwise of their c(lnclusion [or ][of ][any ][factual]malafkjes but with the fi[ct [that ][the ][ofiicers, ][in ][reaching]in their conclusbn, by-t[asseO [two ][appellate ][orders ][in]regard to the same isswhich were placed beforeltre them, one of the CollecItor [(Appeals) ]aM [the ][other ]ofthe Tribunal. The High Court has, in our view, nghtlycriticized this conduct df the Assistant Collectors andthe harassment tro the Issessee caused by the failureof these offrcers o Ilive effect to the orders [of]authorities hbher to theln in the appellate hierarchy. ltcannot be roo uenem!ntly emphasized that it is ofutmost impo(ance (hat, in disposing of thequasi.iudicial issues before them, revenue oficers arebound by the decisbn$ of the appellate authorities.The order of the Appellte Collector is binding on theAssistant Collectors worfting [within ][his ][iurisdiction ][and]the order of the TribunaI [i. oinoi* ][upon ][the Assistant]Collectors and the Appr[ll"r. Coll""to.. who func{ionunder the iurisdiction of 1In" trlor*t. [The principles ]ofjudicial discipline require that the orders of the hrgherappellate authorities sheuld @ followed unresenredlyby the subordinate auth,irities. The mere fact that theorder of the aOOefrate a]uthority is not ["acceptable' ]tothe department - in it1)lf an objectionable phrase -and is the subiect mattdr of an appeal can furnish noground for not following it unbss its operalion hasbeen suspended by a competent court. lf this healthy rule is not followed, the result will onl't t)e undueharassment to assesses and ctaos in adm'nistrationof tax lau/s. 12. [t ]e have. dealt with this aspect at s,rme length, rule is not followed, the result will onl't t)e undueharassment to assesses and ctaos in adm'nistrationof tax lau/s. 12. [t ]e have. dealt with this aspect at s,rme length, because it has been suggested by the leamedAdditional Solicitor General that the obs,?rvationsmade by the High Court, ha\€ been harsh on theofficers. lt is clear that the observations of the HighCourt, seemingly vehement, and atparentlyunpalatable tO the Revenue, are only inten,Je(J to curba tendency in revenue matters which, if allowed toofficers. lt is clear that the observations of the HighCourt, seemingly vehement, and atparentlyunpalatable tO the Revenue, are only inten,Je(J to curba tendency in revenue matters which, if allowed tobecome wijespread, could result in considerableharassment to the assesses-public without an./ benefitto the Revenue. We would like to say that theharassment to the assesses-public without an./ benefitto the Revenue. We would like to say that thedepartment should take these obser tions in theproper spirit. The observations of the t{igh Courtshould be kept in mind in futureand the utrnost regardshould be paid by the adjudicating authoriti,-"s and theshould be kept in mind in futureand the utrnost regardshould be paid by the adjudicating authoriti,-"s and theappellate authorities to lhe requirements of judicialdiscipline and the need for giving effect to the ordersof the higher appetlate authorities which are bindingon them."of the higher appetlate authorities which are bindingon them." 15. What is worq,ing this llench more is the lact that an endeavour is being made whole heartedly to ensurr: not to geoeratefurther litigation on issues which have been laicl trt rest by a largefurther litigation on issues which have been laicl trt rest by a largenumber of l{igh Courts all of whom have taken a consistent standthat the actron of the [ncome Tax D€partment beinp; violative of thethat the actron of the [ncome Tax D€partment beinp; violative of the Finance Act, 2020 and Financr! [Act, ][2021. Now, ][in order to protect]the interest of the Revenue asalso that of the assessee, it would betrite at this [juncture, ]if we <fispose [of ][the ][wdt ][p€tition ][with ][an]observation /direction that the[isposat [of ][the ][instant ][writ ][petition in]terms of the judgment renderr[d [by ][this ][High Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]Kankanala Ravindra Reddy (I supra) shall however be subject tothe interest of the Revenue asalso that of the assessee, it would betrite at this [juncture, ]if we <fispose [of ][the ][wdt ][p€tition ][with ][an]observation /direction that the[isposat [of ][the ][instant ][writ ][petition in]terms of the judgment renderr[d [by ][this ][High Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]Kankanala Ravindra Reddy (I supra) shall however be subject tothe outcome of the SLPs wtfich [were ][filed by the ][Income ][Tax]Department and which is pending consideration before the Hon'bleDepartment and which is pending consideration before the Hon'bleSupreme Court. 16. [n the given facts andfircumstarrces, [this ][Bench ][is ][of ][the]considered opinion that unlessI [and ][until ][we ][do ][not ][timely ][dispose]of matters which are squarelyfovered [by ][the ][decision ][of ][this ][Court]and which stands fortified byI the decisions of the various otherHigh Courts on the very same lssue,the pendency of this l{ighCourt would further be burder[ed which otherwise can be decidedand disposed ofas a covered mlatter. 17. So far as the interest offar as the interest ofas the interest ofthe interest ofinterest ofof 17. So far as the interest offar as the interest ofas the interest ofthe interest ofinterest ofof[he Revenue [is concerned, ][we ][are ][o[]the considered opinion that th€finterest of [the ][Revenue ][has ][already]been considered and protected,I [as ][has ][been ][observed ][in ][paragraphs] 36,37 and,38 of the order which, for ready relbr,:nce, is reproduced hereunder: 17. So far as the interest offar as the interest ofas the interest ofthe interest ofinterest ofof 17. So far as the interest offar as the interest ofas the interest ofthe interest ofinterest ofof[he Revenue [is concerned, ][we ][are ][o[]the considered opinion that th€finterest of [the ][Revenue ][has ][already]been considered and protected,I [as ][has ][been ][observed ][in ][paragraphs] 36,37 and,38 of the order which, for ready relbr,:nce, is reproduced hereunder: 36. For all the aforesairl reasons, the impurSned noticesissued and tlle proeeedings drawn by the respoMent-Department is neither tenabb, nor sustainable,The nolices so issued-and-lhe procedure acopted beingper se illegal, deserves to be and are accordingly setaside/quashed. As a consequence, all tho impugnedorders getting quashed, the consequential orders passedby the respondent-Departrnent pursuant to the noticesissued under Section 1-47 and 1.4A would also getquashed and itr is ordered accordihgly. The reason weare quashing the consequential order is on the principlesthat when the initiation of the proceedirgs itself wasprocedurally w-ong, lhe subsequent ordr:rs 3;5e gsltnullified automatically. 37. fhe pretiminary objection raised.by the petitioner issustained and all these wi-it petitions slands allowed onthis very jurisdictional issue. Since the imprgned notic€sand orders are gefting quashed on lhe point ofjurisdiction, we are not inclined to proceed further anddecide the other issues raised by the petitioner whichslands reserved to be raised and contenced in anappropriate proceedings. 38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Cou( ha(|, in the caseof Ashish Agarwal, supra, as a one{ime measureexercrsing the powers under A(icle 1.12 of theConstitution of lndia, permifted the Revenue to proceedunder the subslituted provisions, and this Courl allowingthe petitions onty on lhe procedural flavy, the rightt - ,, j Ii I I confened ori the [Reven]would remain reser\red [to]pfoce€d fufthef if they sowant frorn ttE stage of tt|esder of the [Stpreme]in tte case of AshishAgarwal, supra- 18. We would only [furth€r ][I]to make observations [that ][since]we are inclined to dispose of [the]stant writ petition, conscious [of]the fact that the [earlier ][order ][o]this High Court in [the ][case ][of]Kanakala Ravindra [ReddY ][(l]pra) is subjected to challengebefore the Hon'ble [SuPreme]ourt in SLP No.3574 [of ][2O24']preferred by the Irrcome [Tax]partment, we make it [clear ][that]allowing of the [instant ][writ ]Petiion is subject [to ][outcome ][of ][the]aloresaid SLP [preFerred bY ][the]venue against the decision [of this]High Court in [the ][case ][ol ][Kan]la Ravindra ReddY [(l ][suPra}]This, in other [words, ][would ][mea]that either of the Parties, [i[ ][theY]so want. may [move ][an approprl]te petition seeking [revival ][of ][this]writ petition in the [light ][of ][the]ecision of the I-Ion'ble [SuPreme]Court in the [pending SLP ][on the]ery same tssue. 19. AccordinglY, the [instant]writ petition stands [allowed ][in]iavour of [the ][assessee ][so]as the issue of [jurisdiction]ISconcemed. [As ][a ][consequen]the impugned [notice ][under]and 148 stands [set ][aside/quashed-]challenge [under Sections 148-A] ( ( The consequential orders, if any, also stand set aside/quashed in similar terms as have been passed by this High rlourt in the case of Kankanala. Ravindra Reddy (l supra). Thero shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/. B. REKHA RANITANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// \*.------JSECTTON OFFICER To, 19. AccordinglY, the [instant]writ petition stands [allowed ][in]iavour of [the ][assessee ][so]as the issue of [jurisdiction]ISconcemed. [As ][a ][consequen]the impugned [notice ][under]and 148 stands [set ][aside/quashed-]challenge [under Sections 148-A] ( ( The consequential orders, if any, also stand set aside/quashed in similar terms as have been passed by this High rlourt in the case of Kankanala. Ravindra Reddy (l supra). Thero shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/. B. REKHA RANITANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// \*.------JSECTTON OFFICER To, 1 . The Assistant Commissioner o_f lncome.Tax, CinJe \', Karimnagar2- Nationat Faceress Assessment centre, rildn; rta-x iiepartment, Ministrv off [i.n-" ]t 99, [Room ][No ][40 ][1 ][2ndF ][toor ][e ][-na',ns ].lawa ni;6 ti;h; ["Sild;,ilii. ]U"irii110 0032- Nationat Faceress Assessment centre, rildn; rta-x iiepartment, Ministrv off [i.n-" ]t 99, [Room ][No ][40 ][1 ][2ndF ][toor ][e ][-na',ns ].lawa ni;6 ti;h; ["Sild;,ilii. ]U"irii110 0033 IPj^:"::!12., Minisrry of Finance, Deparrment,)f tRevenue, Norrh Btock,[[uenrrat Secretariat, ][Union ]][[Union ]][[[of ]][lndia, ]][[lndia, ]][[uenrrat Secretariat, ][Union ]][[Union ]][[[of ]][lndia, ]][[lndia, ]] . [[uenrrat Secretariat, ][Union ]][[Union ]][[[of ]][lndia, ]][[lndia, ]][[New ][Delhi_1 ]][[Delhi_1 ]]l0 OO1.OO1. . [[[Union ]]][[[of ]][lndia, ]][[lndia, ]][[New ][Delhi_1 ]][[Delhi_1 ]]l0 OO1.OO1.4. 5. One CC to Sri Raia Shekar Rao Salvaji, 5. One CC to Sri Raia Shekar Rao Salvaji, one one CC_to CC to Sri Ms. J Sunirha, SC iorl;co6; i;; deplkinent Advoc:rte 1OeUC11OeUC1 One CC to Sri Raia Shekar Rao Salvaji, to Sri Raia Shekar Rao Salvaji, Sri Raia Shekar Rao Salvaji, Raia Shekar Rao Salvaji, Salvaji, Advoc:rte 1OeUC11OeUC16. 4. 5. One CC to Sri Raia Shekar Rao Salvaji, 5. One CC to Sri Raia Shekar Rao Salvaji, one one CC_to CC to Sri Ms. J Sunirha, SC iorl;co6; i;; deplkinent topuct deplkinent topuctB. Mukherjee, representing ihJai;i;;;i tndLiop-tjcl 7- Two CQCopies TJGJ e HIGH COURT DATED:0210512025 ORDER WP.No.29095 of 2024 ,(.1i;'5.:iqa)!,Lr23 IUEM>:a)!^,\.. ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITIONWITHOUT COSTS \q-'[t']