Of Finance Act, 2O2L W.e.f., 01.04.2021 Onwards, Proceedings Under Section 148,4. Ofthe Act As Also Under Section 148 Ofthe Act Ought To Have Also Been Issued A v. Income-Tax Officer1 Decided On 14.09.2023 Whereby A Batch Of Writ

\ HIGH @URT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERAEAD(Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MAYTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDAWRIT PETITION NO:2709 OF 2025 Between: Lingala Shankar Goud, S/o Jangaiah Goud Lingala Aged.60 years Occ.business No 1-119 Prabath nagar colony park line roadChaitanyapuriSaroornagar P and T colony RR District Hyderabad 500 060...PETITIONERbusiness No 1-119 Prabath nagar colony park line roadChaitanyapuriSaroornagar P and T colony RR District Hyderabad 500 060...PETITIONER ANb 'l . The Union of lndia, Rep by its Secretary to the Govemment Department ofRevenue Ministry of finance lncome tai department, New Delhi 1 10 O01Revenue Ministry of finance lncome tai department, New Delhi 1 10 O012. The Principal Chief Commissioner of lncorne Tax Telangana, lT towers ACguards Masab tank Hyderabad 500 028guards Masab tank Hyderabad 500 028 3. Office of the lncome Tax officer, Ward 5 Hyderabad 4. Assessment Unit, The National Faceless Assessment Centre lncome taxDepartment, Ministry of finance Room No. 401, znd floor, E-Ramp JawaharlalNehru stadium Delhi 110 O03Department, Ministry of finance Room No. 401, znd floor, E-Ramp JawaharlalNehru stadium Delhi 110 O03 ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may bepleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ ofpleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ ofMANDAMUS By declaring that the impugned Assessment Order dated 12-O4-2O24with DIN and Order No. ITBA/AST/F1148N2024-25/1064069S93(1) for theAY.2O2O-21 passed by the Respondent No. 3 u/s 1484 clause (d) of the lncomewith DIN and Order No. ITBA/AST/F1148N2024-25/1064069S93(1) for theAY.2O2O-21 passed by the Respondent No. 3 u/s 1484 clause (d) of the lncomeTax Act as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Art.14, 21 and 300-4 of the Constitution oflndia and violatrve of provisions of sec 148 A and 149 of the Act and also contraryto the circular issued by CBDT Notification No. 18/2022 dated 29-3-2022 under E-to the circular issued by CBDT Notification No. 18/2022 dated 29-3-2022 under E-Assessment of lncome Escaping Assessment Scheme 2022 and Consequentiallyto set aside the Order dated 12-O4-2024 wilh DIN and Order No.to set aside the Order dated 12-O4-2024 wilh DIN and Order No.ITBA/AST/F/148N2024-251 1064069893(1) for the AY.2020-21 u/s ['148A ]ctause ::: (d) of the lncome Tax Act and all [proceedings pursuant thereto including Notice ][of]demand. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section [1 ]51 CPC [praying ][that ][in ][the ][circumstances ][stated ][in]the affidavit filed in support of the [petition, ][the ][High ][Court ][may ][be ][pleased ][to ][Stay]all further [proceedings ]including [recovery pursuant to ][the Order dated 12'04-2024]with DIN & Order No. ITBA/ AST/ F/ [148A ][12024- 2511064069893('l) ][for ][the]AY.2O2O-21 [passed ]by the Respondent [No. ][3 u/s ]['148A ][of ][the ][lncome Tax ][Act ][and]notice of demand. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M.ANAND Counsel for the Respondent [No.1: ] [B.MUKHERJEE, ] GOVTGounsel for the Respondent [Nos.2 ] [4: ] [K.SUDHAKAR REDDY, SENIOR]SC FOR ITD The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE [P.SAM ] ANDTTfE HONOT]RABLE SRI JUSTICE NANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION No.27(D OF 2025 , (per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.Sam [Koshy)] Heard Mr. M. Anand Kumar, [learned ][counsel ][for ][the] petitioner, Mr. B, Mukherjee, [learned counsel ][representin'g ][the]Union of India for [respondent ][No.l ][and ][Mr' ][K.Sudhakar ][Reddy,]leamed Senior Standing Counsel [for ][the Income ][Tax ][Departsnent]for respondent Nos.2 to 4. [Perused ][the ][record'] Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M.ANAND Counsel for the Respondent [No.1: ] [B.MUKHERJEE, ] GOVTGounsel for the Respondent [Nos.2 ] [4: ] [K.SUDHAKAR REDDY, SENIOR]SC FOR ITD The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE [P.SAM ] ANDTTfE HONOT]RABLE SRI JUSTICE NANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION No.27(D OF 2025 , (per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.Sam [Koshy)] Heard Mr. M. Anand Kumar, [learned ][counsel ][for ][the] petitioner, Mr. B, Mukherjee, [learned counsel ][representin'g ][the]Union of India for [respondent ][No.l ][and ][Mr' ][K.Sudhakar ][Reddy,]leamed Senior Standing Counsel [for ][the Income ][Tax ][Departsnent]for respondent Nos.2 to 4. [Perused ][the ][record'] 2. This is a writ [petition where the ][proceedings ][are ][either]chaltenged to the notices [which ][were ][issued ][under Section ][l48A]and 148 of the Income [Tax ][Act, ][1961 ][(for ][short 'the ][Act') ][or ][the]assessment orders those [have ][been passed ][under Section ][147 ][of]the Act which have been [assailed.] 3. This writ petition is being taken [up ][today ][only ][on ][one ][ofthe]grounds, that the notices issued under [Section 14EA ][of ][the ][Act]and the subsequent initiation of [proceedings ][under Section ][148 ][of]the Act by the [jurisdictional ]Assessing [Officer, ][whereas ][in ][terms]of the amendment that was brought [to ][the ][Income Tax ][Act ][by way] of Finance Act, 2O2l w.e.f., 01.04.2021 onwards, proceedingsunder Section 148,4. ofthe Act as also under Section 148 oftheAct ought to have also been issued and proceeded in a facelessmanner. 4. The contention of the petitioner is that the issue ofcontention of the petitioner is that the issue ofof the petitioner is that the issue ofthe petitioner is that the issue ofpetitioner is that the issue ofis that the issue ofthat the issue ofthe issue ofissue ofofproceedings being in violation of the Finance Act,202l i.e., theimpugned notices under Section l48A and Section 148 ofthe Actnot being issued in a faceless manner, have already been dealt withand decided by this Court in the case of KANKANALARAVII\DRA REDDY vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER1 decidedon 14.09.2023 whereby a batch of writ petitions were 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 ofthe provisions of Section 151A ofthe Act read with Notification 1812022 dated 29.03.2022. The saidjudgment passed by this Court has also been subsequently followedin a large number of writ petitions which were allowed on similarterms The contention of the petitioner is that the issue ofcontention of the petitioner is that the issue ofof the petitioner is that the issue ofthe petitioner is that the issue ofpetitioner is that the issue ofis that the issue ofthat the issue ofthe issue ofissue ofof 'l(2023) [156 ]taxmann.com 178 ('lelangana)l 5. Down the line, we hnd that the same issue has also be,endecided against the Revenue by various High Courts i.e.,by the Bombay High Court in the case of [Htr'.XAWARE]TECHNOLOGIES LTD., vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSTONEROF INCOME TAX & OTHERS2, Gauhati High Court in the [case]of 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 [in]respect of international taxation, Bombay High Court in the case ofABHIN ANILKUMAR SHAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE&INTERNATIONAL TAXATION6 which is again on internationaltaxation and central circle, [High Court ][of ][Himachal ][Pradesh ][in ][tlre]case of GOVIND SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER?,Gujarat High Court in the case of MANSUKIIBIIAI '1zoz+7 [464 ] [430 ][(Bom)]'l(2024) [156 ][taxmann.com 478 ][(Gauhati)l]'U2024) [165 ][taxmann.com ] [l5 ][(Punjab ][& ][Haryana)l]'12024) [167 ][taxmann.com ][4l ] [(Telangana)l]" 12024) [166 ][taxmann.com ][679 ][(Bombay)l] '12024) [165 ][taxmann.com ] [l3 ][(Himachat ][Pradesh)l] DAIIYABHAI RADADIYA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE&WARD 3(3)(5)8, Jharkand High Court in the case of SIIYAMSUNDAR SAW vs. IINION OF INDIAe, [Rajasthan ][High Court in]the case of SHARDA DEVI CHHAJER [vs. ]INCOME OFFICER & ANOTHER and batch of writ [petitionsro which]stood decided on 19.03.2024. Similar views have also been [taken]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 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 [t ]0 [writ]petitions. 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 HerawareTechnologies Ltd., (2 supra) as also the one which has beendecided by this Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy 'zozq [scc ][online ][Guj ][40 12]'2025 [Online ][Jhar 287]o ' 12023 [: ] [:4984-DBl] (l supra) has been subjeaed to challenge in a Special lravePetition i.e., SLP No.3574 of 2024 before the Hon'ble SupremeCourt and the Hon'ble Supreme Court is seized of [the ][matter.]In addition, there are about 1200 SLPs also filed arising out ofthesame issue being decided by various [High ]Courts. 7. To a query being put to the learned counsel [for ][the Revenue,]they have categorically accepted [the fact ][that there ][is no ][interim]order granted by the [Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Court ][in ][any ][of ][these]matters pending before it. Meanwhile, [fresh ][writ ][petitions ]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 ][Offrcer,]rather the authorities concerned [in ][the teeth ][of ][series ][of ][decisions] by all the major High Courts in lndia are continuously stillinitiating proceedings under Section 1484. of the Act and alsoinitiating proceedings under Section 148 of the Act incontravention to the amendments brought into the Income Tax Actpursuant to the Finance Act,2020 as also the Finance Act 2021 9. Upon a query being put as to why can't this writ petition bedisposed of in the teeth of the decision rendered by this Court inthe case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra), leamed StandingCounsel for the Income Tax Department contends that those wouldunnecessarily burden the Income Tax Department where theywould be required to file equal number of SLPs before theHon'ble Supreme Court and it would be further burdening theexchequer of the Union of India. It was also the contention of theleamed Standing Counsel that no prejudice would be caused to theinterest ofthe petitioners in case if this writ petition is kept pendingtill the finalization of the SLPs pending belore the Hon'bleSupreme Court and the fact that the [petitioner ][is ][already ][enjoying]the benefit of interim [protection. ][Nonetheless, ][on ][the ][earlier query]of this Court as to why the [Income ][Tax ][Department have not ][come]out with a mechanism to issue appropriate [instructions ][or ]to take 4ppropnate steps in ensuring that proceedings under Section l4gAofthe Act as also the assessment orders under Section l4g oftheAct are kept in a hold in the light of the decisions dedcided by thevarious High courts, it was submitted by the reamed StandingCounsel that the said steps can only be taken at the Ievel 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 concemed are still even now in2025 also initiating proceedings in contravention to the provisionsof Section l51A of the Act and as a resulr 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 ol Kanakala Ravindra Reddy(1 supra). What is also surprising is the fact rhat though whileallowing the writ petitions in the case of Kanakara RavindraReddy (1 supra), the Division Bench while reserving the right ofthe Revenue, has also protected the interest of the petitioners (\ -.\ insofar as the liberty which was granted to the Revenue forinitiating fresh proceedings strictly in accordance with the amendedinitiating fresh proceedings strictly in accordance with the amendedprovisions of the Act, as amended by the Finance Act,2020 andthe Finance Act,202l. The petitioner assessee would be entitled tochallenge or raise the other legal objections if the Revenue initiatesfresh proceedings. The Department has made no endeavour inavailing the said liberty that was reserved for the Revenue. On thecontrary, they have been still sticking on to the stand, which thisHigh Court as well as many other High Courts already held to bebadavailing 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 I l. It appears that because ofthe aforesaid liberty that this HighCourt had granted permitting the Revenue for initiating lreshproceedings as a one-time measure in a faceless manner, thelncome Tax Department wants to take advantage of the same byprotracting these proceedings which would enable them to meet thelimitation that would otherwise come in the way. Likewise, if thewrit petition is kept pending for a considerable long period of timeand finally at a later stage if the Hon'ble Supreme Court confirmsthe decision taken by this High Court as also by the other HighCourts in which the SLPs are still pending, the Income Tax Department [would ][get ][the ][advantage ][of ][the ][liberty ][that ][is ][otherwise]in [favour ][of ][the ][Revenue ][for ][initiation ][of ][fresh]protected 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 oonsequence' ][the Income ][Tax]Department [gets an extended ][period ][of ][time ][for ][initiation ][of ][fresh]proceedings. Department [would ][get ][the ][advantage ][of ][the ][liberty ][that ][is ][otherwise]in [favour ][of ][the ][Revenue ][for ][initiation ][of ][fresh]protected 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 oonsequence' ][the Income ][Tax]Department [gets an extended ][period ][of ][time ][for ][initiation ][of ][fresh]proceedings. 12. [The alarming trend ][of ][docket explosion in ][this Court' ][despite]the clear [precedent ][setitKanakala ][Ravindra ][Reddy ][(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 ][piting ][up on ][the ][same ][issue ][This]deliberate [approach ][not only ][undermines ][the ][principle ][of ][judicial]precedent [but ][also strains the ][judicial ][resources ][unnecessarily' The]Department's [sfiategy ][of ][awaiting ][the ][Supreme ][Court's decision ][on]pending [SLPs ][while ][continuing ][to ][initiate ][fresh ][proceedings]appears [to ][be ][a ][calculated ][move ][to ][buy time ][and ][circumvent]limitation [periods, ][rather ][than ][adhering ][to ][the ][established ][legat] position. Such conduct raises serious questions about theadministrative efficiency and the respect 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 lound out via media in ensuring that proceedingsunder Sections 148-,4. and 148 should not have been issued in afaceless manner, at least till the Hon'ble Supreme Court decide thetwelve hundred (1200) odd SLps which it is already seized ofor, atleast the Income Tax Department should have found out someremedial steps to ensure that wherever the authorities intend toinitiate procecdings under Sections 148-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 thc 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 i5I{a1 has to be taken, has to be taken for the whole of India, and whichotherwise has to be by way of a policy decision and that too at thelevel of Central Board of Direct Taxes. Though the learnedStanding Counsel for the tncome Tax Department conterded thatthe Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition of similar nature, onthe one hand when the High Court is struggling to reduce irspendency, 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 thesematt€rs 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 Suprerne 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 diflerent States on the same issue; and ro makethings lurther worse, the Income Tax Department is showingaudacity by issuing notices continuously under Sections l4g-A and 148 through the [jurisdictional ]Assessing Officer [whereas ][it ][ought]to have been only in the faceless manner. 14. In the case of BANK OF INDIA vs. COMMISSIONER, INCOME TAXIr, on an [issue ][whether ][it ][was]justifiable on the part of the Income Tax Department in notfollowing an order passed by the adjudicating authority only on theground that the appeals are pending, the Division Bench of theHigh Court o[ Bombay held at paragraph No.25 as under, viz., [:] "25. Mr. Paridwalla has rightly drawn out aftention to thedecision of this Court in Commissioner of lncome Tax vs. Smt.Godavaridevi Saraf'2 as also the recent decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Samp Furniture [(P) ]Ltd. v. [lTOl3]of which one of us [(Justice ]G.S. Kulkarni) was a member, [wherein]the Court categorically observed that the Revenue having [not]"accepted" the judgment of the High Court would not mean that tillthe same is set aside in a manner known to law, it would [loose ][its]binding force. Referring to the decision of the Supreme Cou( 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. " 71zOzs1 [170 ][taxmann.com 422 ][(Bombay)l]t2 t2 t2 7t9781113 ITR 589 (Bombay)7t9781113 ITR 589 (Bombay) " 1zozl1 [165 ][taxrnann.com 581/300 Taxman 452 ][(Bombay)] 'o ]t99zltaxmann,com [l6155 ] [433 ][(SC)] " 71zOzs1 [170 ][taxmann.com 422 ][(Bombay)l]t2 t2 t2 7t9781113 ITR 589 (Bombay)7t9781113 ITR 589 (Bombay) " 1zozl1 [165 ][taxrnann.com 581/300 Taxman 452 ][(Bombay)] 'o ]t99zltaxmann,com [l6155 ] [433 ][(SC)] 16. Sd Reddy is perhaps right in saying that th€officers were not actuated by any mala fides [in]officers were not actuated by any mala fides [in]passing 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 correctness [or]otherwise of their conclusion or of any [factual]malafides but with the fact that the officers, [in ][reaching]in their conclusion, by-passed two appellate orders inregard to the same issue which t\rere [placed ]beforethem, one of the Collector [(Appeals) ]and the other ofthe Tribunal. The High Court has, in our view, [rightly]criticized this conduct of the Assistant Collectors [and]the harassment to the assessee caused by the [failure]of these officers to give effisct to the orders ofauthorities higher to them in the appellate hierarchy. [lt]cannot be too vehemently ernphasized that it is ofutmost importance that, in disposing of [the]quasijudicial issues before them, revenue officers arebound by the decisions of the appellate authorities.The order of the Appellte Collector is binding on theAssistant Collectors workirg within his [jurisd-ction ]andthe order of the Tribunal is binding upon [the Assistant]Collectors and the Appellate Collectors who functionunder the [jurisdiction ]of {he Tribunal. [The ][principles ]ofjudicial discipline require that the orders of the higherappellate authorities should be [followed unreservedly]by the subordinate authoritb$. The [mere ][fact ][that ][the]order of the appellate authority is not ["aoceptable" to]the department - in itself arN objectionable [phrase ]-and is the subject mater of an [appeal can ][fumish ][no]ground for not following it unbss its operation [has]been suspended by [a cornpetent ][court. ][lf this ][healthy]tenable and that, if it was accepted, the Revenuewould suffer. But what Sri Reddy overlooks is that weare not concerned here with the correctness [or]otherwise of their conclusion or of any [factual]malafides but with the fact that the officers, [in ][reaching]in their conclusion, by-passed two appellate orders inregard to the same issue which t\rere [placed ]beforethem, one of the Collector [(Appeals) ]and the other ofthe Tribunal. The High Court has, in our view, [rightly]criticized this conduct of the Assistant Collectors [and]the harassment to the assessee caused by the [failure]of these officers to give effisct to the orders ofauthorities higher to them in the appellate hierarchy. [lt]cannot be too vehemently ernphasized that it is ofutmost importance that, in disposing of [the]quasijudicial issues before them, revenue officers arebound by the decisions of the appellate authorities.The order of the Appellte Collector is binding on theAssistant Collectors workirg within his [jurisd-ction ]andthe order of the Tribunal is binding upon [the Assistant]Collectors and the Appellate Collectors who functionunder the [jurisdiction ]of {he Tribunal. [The ][principles ]ofjudicial discipline require that the orders of the higherappellate authorities should be [followed unreservedly]by the subordinate authoritb$. The [mere ][fact ][that ][the]order of the appellate authority is not ["aoceptable" to]the department - in itself arN objectionable [phrase ]-and is the subject mater of an [appeal can ][fumish ][no]ground for not following it unbss its operation [has]been suspended by [a cornpetent ][court. ][lf this ][healthy] rule is not followed, the [result ][will ][only ][be ][undue]harassment to [assesses ][and chaos ][in ][administration]of tax laws. rule is not followed, the [result ][will ][only ][be ][undue]harassment to [assesses ][and chaos ][in ][administration]of tax laws. 12. We have dealt with this aspect [at ][some ][length,]because it has been suggested [by the ][learned]Additional Solicitor General [that ][the ][observations]made by the High Court, [have been harsh ][on ][the]officers. lt is clear that the [observations ][of ][the ][High]Court, seemingly [vehement, ][and ][apparently]unpalatable to lhe [Revenue, are only intended to curb]a tendency in revenue matters [which, ][if ][allowed lo]become widespread, could [result ][in ][considerable]harassment to the assesses-public [without any benefit]to the Revenue. We would [like ][to ][say that ][the]department should take these [observations ][in ][the]proper spirit. The observations of the High [Court]should be kept [in ][mind ][in future and the utmost ][regard]should be [paid ]by the [adjudicating authorities and the]appellate authorities [to ][the ][requirements ][of ][judicial]discipline and the [need ]for [giving effect ][to the ][orders]of the higher appellate [authorities ][which ][are ][binding]on them." 15. What is worrying this [Bench ][more ][is ][the fact that ][an]endeavour is being made [whole ][heartedly ][to ][ensure ][not to ][generate]further litigation on issues [which ][have been ][laid ][to ][rest ][by ][a large]number of High Courts all of [whom ][have taken a consistent ][stand]that the action of the Income Tax Department [being ][violative ][of ][the] / Finance Act, 2020 and Finance Act,2021. Now, in order to protectthe interest of the Revenue as also that of the assessee, it would betrite at this [juncture, ]if we dispose of the writ petition with anobservatior/direction that the disposal of the instant writ petition interms of the judgment rendered by this High Court in the case ofKankanala Ravindra Reddy (l supra) shall however be subject tothe outcome of the SLPs which were filed by the Income TaxDepartment and which is pending qonsideration before the Hon'bleSupreme Court. 16. In the given facts and circumstances, this Bench is of ttreconsidered opinion that unless and until we do not timely disposeof matters which are squarely covered by the decision of this Courtand which stands fortifred 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 lar as the interest of the Revenue is concemed, we are ofthe considered opinion that the interest of the Revenue has alreadybeen considered and protected, as has been observed in paragraphs 36,37 and 38 ofthe order which, for ready reference, is reproducedhereunder: 36. For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned noticesissued and the [proceedings ]drawn by the respondent-Department is neither tenable, nor sustainable.The notices so issued and the [procedure ]adopted beingper se illegal, deserves to be and are accordingly setaside/quashed. As a consequence, all the impugnedorders [gefting quashed, ]the consequential orders [passed]by the respondent-Depa(ment pursuant to the noticesissued under Section 147 and 148 would also getquashed and it is ordered accordingly. The reason weare quashing the consequential order is on the [principles]that when the initiation of the [proceedings ]itself wasprocedurally wrong, the subsequent orders also getsnullified automatically. 37. The [preliminary ]objection raised by the [petitioner ]issustained and all these writ [petitions ]stands allowed onthis very lurisdictional issue Since the impugned noticesand orders are getting quashed on the point ofjurisdiction, we are not inclined to proceed further anddecide the other issues raised by the [petitioner ]whichstands reserved to be raised and contended in anappropriate [proceedings.] 37. The [preliminary ]objection raised by the [petitioner ]issustained and all these writ [petitions ]stands allowed onthis very lurisdictional issue Since the impugned noticesand orders are getting quashed on the point ofjurisdiction, we are not inclined to proceed further anddecide the other issues raised by the [petitioner ]whichstands reserved to be raised and contended in anappropriate [proceedings.] 38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the caseof Ashish Agarwal, supra, as a one{ime measureexercising the powers under Article 142 of theConstitution of lndia, permitted the Revenue to [proceed]under the substituted [provisions. ]and this Court allowingthe petitions only on the procedural flaw, the right conferred on the Revenue would remain reserved toproceed further if they so want from th€ stage of theorder of the Supreme Court in the case of AshishAgarwal, supra. 18. We would only further like to make observations that sincewe are inclined to dispose of the instant writ petition, conscious ofthe fact that the earlier order of this High Court in the case ofKanakala Ravindru Reddy (l supra) is subjected to challengebefore the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No.3574 of 2024,preferred by the Income Tax Department, we make it clear thatallowing of the instant writ petition is subject to outcome of theaforesaid SLP preferred by the Reverlue against the decision ofthisHigh Court in the case of Kanakalp Ravindra Reddy (l wpra).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 [jurisdiction ]isconcemed. As a consequence, the impugned notic€ underchal{enge under Sections 148-4' and 148 stands set aside/quashed. II 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 be no order [as] to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions [pending, ]if any, shall statrd closed. SD/. C. DEEPIKAANT REGISTRARs'\,'t sEcflo* oFFrcER //TRUE COPY// To 1. The Secretary to the Govemment Department of Rh,i"nue Ministry of financelncome tax department, Union of lndia, New Delhi t 10 00110 001001lncome tax department, Union of lndia, New Delhi t 10 00110 001001 New t 10 00110 0010012. The Principal ChieJ Commissioner of lncome Tax Telangana, lT towers ACguards Masab tank Hyderabad 500 028guards Masab tank Hyderabad 500 028 3. Office of the lncome Tax officer, Ward 5 Hyderabad 4. Assessment Unit, The National Faceless Assessment Centre lncome taxPepartment, [Ministry of ][finance ][Room No. ][40'l,2th ][ftoor, E-Ramp Jawaharlal]Nehru stadium Delhi 110 003Pepartment, [Ministry of ][finance ][Room No. ][40'l,2th ][ftoor, E-Ramp Jawaharlal]Nehru stadium Delhi 110 003 5. One CC to SRI M.ANAND KUMAR, Advocate tOpUCl Advocate tOpUCl6. One CC to SRt B.MUKHERJEE, SC FOR CENTRL G-OVT topucl G-OVT topucl7. One CC to SRI K.SUDHAKAR REDDY, SENTOR SC FoR tTD tOpUCI8. Two CD CopiesPSK.oCJP7. One CC to SRI K.SUDHAKAR REDDY, SENTOR SC FoR tTD tOpUCI8. Two CD CopiesPSK.oCJP 0 HIGH COURT DATED:0210512025 ORDERWP.No.2709 of 2025. .,.r, ..\,i ",2 6 2E ;jt\!:., [ll]':i. \'1"a,, n T e [,,-l] o ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITIONWTHOUT COSTS ,/I,/'