Of Finance Act,202L W.e.f., 01.04.2021 [Onwards, ][Proceedings v. Income_

HIGH COURT AT HYDERABAD(SPecial Original [Jurisdiction)] THURSDAY,THE TWO THOUSAND PRESENT THE HONOURABLE [JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY]AND THE HONOURABLE WRIT PETITIO [O: ][9150 ] [2025] Between: Vision Broadband [services ][Private Limited, ][Rep ][by.Director ][- K' ][Sivarama]Krishna. Roeo auoui'o)"v.lii.-il" [t< ][nim ][Monan ][Rao' Flat ][No3' ][6-3-]455;iilA S:.patnii [Apts. ][Ameerpet, Hvderabad ][500016] ...PETITIONER AND 1The Assistant Commissioner iil.;il;T;;;*, [sv.n,i.otpili 6"oip,;'pv-t'lo'szip) ][of ][lncome ][Tax, ][Circle,8(iJ' ][or' ][Hvderabad'][Kothasuda' ][oPP']Elyt G;"6']i,3"tiing5nip"llv, [Ra ][risa Reddv' ][Hvderabad'relangana-]500084."[;i Elyt G;"6']i,3"tiing5nip"llv, [Ra ][risa Reddv' ][Hvderabad'relangana-]500084."[;i 2The Principal Commissioner [of ][lncome ][Tax ][2 ][Hy!911Qqd ]' [Signature Towers']opi,. e"tili;ul [GJrdens, Kondapur, Hvderabad-500084']opi,. e"tili;ul [GJrdens, Kondapur, Hvderabad-500084']3The Assessment [Unit, lncome ]'o"ini [Tax Department, ][National ][Faceless]H,lin,.l'v oi'rinun-ca [Room ][No ][401' 2nd Floor' ] H,lin,.l'v oi'rinun-ca [Room ][No ][401' 2nd Floor' ] A!;;;;;;i'C;iiG, Ramp. Jawaharlal [Nehru ][Stadium. ][Delhi-l ][10003']Ramp. Jawaharlal [Nehru ][Stadium. ][Delhi-l ][10003'] ...RESPONDENTS Petition under [Article ][226 ][of ][the Constitution ][of ][lndia ][praying ][that ][in ][the]circumstancesstatedintheaffidavitfiledtherewith'theHighCourtmaybepleased to issue ,n ,pproprirt" [writ ][order ][or ][direction ][more ][particularly ][one-in ]-thefu1ri"-or writ [of ][Mandamui, ][declaring ][the ][Assessment ][order ][dt. ][07.03.2025]passed by the 3rd [,"spondeni ][uls ][147 ][r'w's ][14411448 ][of ][the ][lncome-tax ][Act for]A.Y . 2O2O-21 [vide ] [No ][- ][itaA/RSr ][Bl ][1 ][47 ] [2024 ][-25 ][t ][1 ][07 ][4 ][1 ][6 ][1 5O7 ][(1)', ][consequent]io G" orO"r" [passed ][u/s ][148A(d) ][dt ][13'03 ][2024 ][vide DIN ][No']ITBA/AST/F/1 "oiN [4 ][8N2023-24l ][1 ][OdZSZ+8AO0 ][j ][and ][the ]-notice [u/s ][1 ][48 dt. ][13.03.2024]No. 1TBA/AS1 tsttia-t2ozzi*fiazstqssl(1), [issued bv ][the ][JAo(1.st]",01 i".ponO"ntl [instead ][of ][FAO(3rd ][respondent)as ]^void [' ][illeqal' and ][contrary ][to ][the]pioii.iont of lncome{ax [Act ][and ][cont.a'y to ][the Principles ][of ][Natural Justice] lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated inthe affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to stayall further proceedings pursuant to the Assessment order dt. 07.03.2025 passedby the 3rd respondent uls 147 r.w.s 14411448 of the lncome-tax Act for A.y.2o2o-21 vide DIN No. lrBA/AST/s/i4712024-2s11074161501(1) and may pass suchother order(s) as the Hon'ble court deems fit and proper in the interests ofsubstantial justice, as otherwise the petitioner would be put to irreparable loss andsevere rnlury. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. DUNDU MANMOHAN !ou19el [for the ][Respondent Nos.1&2: Ms.J ][SUNITHA (JUN|OR SC ] rNcoME TAX) Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR Dy.SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOI]RABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAONANDIKONDA W.P.No.9150 OB 2025 ORDER' [(per ]Hon'ble Sri Justice [P.Sam ][Koshy)] Heard Mr. Dundu Manmohan, learned counsel for thepetitioner and Ms. J.Sunitha, learned Junior Standing Counselfor the Income Tax Department for [respondent ][Nos. ][1]and 2. Perused the record 2. This is a writ petition where the proceedings are eitherchallenged 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. Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR Dy.SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOI]RABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAONANDIKONDA W.P.No.9150 OB 2025 ORDER' [(per ]Hon'ble Sri Justice [P.Sam ][Koshy)] Heard Mr. Dundu Manmohan, learned counsel for thepetitioner and Ms. J.Sunitha, learned Junior Standing Counselfor the Income Tax Department for [respondent ][Nos. ][1]and 2. Perused the record 2. This is a writ petition where the proceedings are eitherchallenged 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 ][of ][the]grounds, that the notices issued under Section 148,{ 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,202l w.e.f., 01.04.2021 [onwards, ][proceedings] under Section 148.4 of the Act as also under Section l4g of theAct ought to have also been issued and proceeded in a facelessmanner4. 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 issue ofproceedings being in violation of the Finance Act, 2021 i.e., theimpugned notices under Section r4gA and Section r4g of the Actnot being issued in a faceless manner, have already been dealt withand decided by this Courr in rhe case of KANKANALARAVINDRA REDDY vs. INCOME_TAX OFFICERT decidedon 14.09.2023 whereby a batch of writ petitions were allowed andthe proceedings initiated under Section 14gA 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 15rA ofthe Act read with Notif,rcation lgl2ozL dated29.03.2022. 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 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 issue of 1l(2023) ts6 taxma,!!4o m 178 (Telangana)l 5. Down the line, [we ][find ][that ][the ][same ][issue has also ][been]decided against the [Revenue ][by ][various ][High ][Courts ][i'e"]by the Bombay [High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ] TECHNOLOGIES [LTD., ][VS. ] OF INCOME [& ][OTHERS2, ][Gauhati ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case]of RAM NARAYAN [SAH vs. ] [INDIA3, ][Punjab ][and]Court [in ][the ][case ][of ] Haryana High vs. UNION OF [INDIA4, ][and Telangana ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]SRT VENKATARAMANA [VS. ] COMMISSIONER [where the issue ][was ][in]respect of intemational [taxation, ][BombayHigh ][Court in the ][case ][of]ABHIN ANILKUMAR [VS. ] [OFFICER,]INTERNATIONAL [which ][is ][again ][on ][international]taxation and [central ][circle, ][High ][Court ][of ][Himachal ][Pradesh ][in the]case of GOVTND [vs. ] [OFFICERT']Gujarat High Court [in ][the ][case ][of ][MANSUI(HBHAI]'pzoz+1464 [430 ][(Bom)]'l(2024) [156 ][taxmann.com ][478 ][(Gauhati)l]" [(2024) [165 ][taxmann.com ][1 ][15 ][(Punjab ][& ][Haryana)]]'12024) [167 ][taxmanh.com ][41 ][1 ][(Telangana)l]"12024) [166 ][taxmann.com ][679 ][(Bombay)l]' iZOZq [165 ][tax- ][uur.com ][1 ][13 ][(Himachal ][Pradesh)l] DAHYABHAI RADADTYA Ys. INCOME TAx OFFICE&WARD 3(3XO8, Jharkand High Court in rhe 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 petitionsro whichstood decided on 19.03.2024. Similar views have also been takenby the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in the case ofGIRDIIAR GOPAL 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 contonted with large hling ofidentical matters on daily basis ranging between 5 to 10 writpetitions. That upon the instructions being sought from theDepartment, they have been taking a solitary ground that thedecision of the Bombay High Court in the case of HexawareTechnologies Ltd., (2 supra) as also the one which has beendecided by this Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy 82024 SCC Online Gg 4012" [2025 ]SCC Onlinb thar 287'o [y2023 ][: ] [:4984-DBl] I (1 supra) has been subjected to challenge in a Special LeavePetition i.e., SLP No.3574 of 2024 before the Hon'ble SupremeCourt and the Hon'ble Supreme Court is [seized ]of [the ][matter.]In addition, there are about 1200 SLPs also [f,rled ][arising out ][ofthe]same issue being decided by various [High ][Courts.] 7. To a query being put to the learned counsel for the [Revenue,]they have categorically accepted the [fact ][that ][there ][is ][no ][interim]order granted by the Hon'ble [Supreme ][Court ][in ][any ][of ][these]matters pending before it. Meanwhile, [fresh ]writ [petitions ][of]identical nature are being piled up before this [Bench on ][daily ][basis]and the pendency is [getting ]increased [on ][matter ][which ][otherwise]has 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 Officer,]rather the authorities concerned in the teeth of series of [decisions] by all the major High Courts in India are continuously stillinitiating proceedings under Section 148,4. of the Act and alsoinitiating proceedings under Section 148 of the Act incontravention to the amendments brought into the lncome 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 (1 supra), learned StandingCounsel for the Income Tax Deparlment contends that those wouldunnecessarily burden the Income Tax Department where theywould be required to file equal nur ber 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 prejudice 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 of interim protection. Nonetheless, on the earlier queryof this Court as to why the Income Tax Department have not comeout with a mechanism to issue appropriate instructions or to take appropriate [steps ][in ][ensuring ][that ][proceedings ][under Section 148A]of the Act [as ][also ][the ][assessment ][orders ][under Section ][148 ][of ][the]Act are kept [in ][a ][hold ][in ][the ][light ][ofthe ][decisions dedcided ][by the]Standingvarious High [Courts, ][it ][was ][submitted ][by ][the ]Counsel that [the said ][steps ][can ][only ][be taken ][at ][the level ][of ] as any such [steps ][would ][have ][to ][be ][taken ][Pan ][India ][and cannot be]limited to [any ][of ][these ][jurisdictional High ][Courts'] 10. As a [result ][of ][which, ][what we ][are ][facing ][is ][steep ][increase ][of]litigation [day ][in ][and ][day out ][even ][though various ][orders ][have ][been]passed by this [High ][Court ][allowing ][writ ][petitions ][on ][the ][very ][same]issue. The [Income'l'ax ][authorities ][concerned are ][still ][even ][now in]2025 alsoinitiating [proceedings ][in ][contravention to ][the ][provisions]ofSection15lAoftheActandasaresultbynow,morethan600to 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]What [is ][also surprising ][is ][the ][fact that ][though ][while](1 supra). the [writ ][petitions ][in ][the ][case ][of ][Kanakala ][Ravindra]allowing Reddy (l [supra); ][the ][Division ][Bench ][while ][reserving ][the ][right ][of]the Revenue, [has ]"io [protected ][the ][interest ][of ][the ][petitioners] insofar as the liberty which was granted to the Revenue forinitiating fiesh proceedings strictly in accordance with the amendedinitiating fiesh proceedings strictly in accordance with the amendedprovisions of the Act, as amended by the Finance Act,2020 and.the 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 bebad.fresh 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 afolesaid 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 lrnally at a later stage if the Hon,ble Supreme Court conhrmsthe decision taken by this High Court as also by the other HighCourts in which the SLps are still pending, the Income Tax 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 ][concerned' ][As ][a ][consequence' 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 ][concerned' ][As ][a ][consequence' 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 ][set \n' ][Kanukala Ravintlra ][Reddy ][(l ][supra)' is ][a]matter [of ][grave ][concern. ][The Income ][T6x ][Department's persistent]initiation [of ][fresh proceedings, disregarding the ][established ][judicial]pronouncements, [has ][led ][to ][an ][unprecedented ][surge ][in ][litigation]with over [600-700 petitions ][piling ][up ][on ][the ][same ][issue' ][This]deliberate [approach ][not only ][undermines the ][principle ][of ][judicial]precedent [but ][also strains ][the ][judicial ][resources ][unnecessarily' ][The]Department's [strategy ][of ][awaiting ][the Supreme ][Court's decision ][on]pending [SLPs ][while ][continuing ][to ][initiate ][fresh ][proceedings]appears [to ][be ][a ][calculated ][move ][to ][buy time ][and ][circumvent]limitation [periods, rather ][than ][adhering ][to ][the ][established legal] posltlon. 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 rnterests. 13. Another aspect which needs to be considered is that in fact itshould ha.ve 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, atleast the Income Tax Department should have tbund 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 aconvincing reply, except for the fact that such a decision if at all has to be taken, has to be taken for the [whole ][of ][India, ][and which]otherwise has to be by way 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 ][Deparlment ][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 filing of hundreds [of ][new ][writ ][petitions ][which in]the long run not only affects [the ][disposal ][of ][the ][writ ][petitions but]also consumes substantial time of [the ][Bench ][in ][hearing ][these]matters again and again on daily [basis. ][Admittedly, ][in ][spite of ][the]matter before the Hon'ble Supreme [Court ][having ][been taken ][on]many occasions, the Hon'ble Supreme [Court ][which ][is ][seized ][of ][the]matter has been reluctant [in ][granting any ][interim protection to ][the]Income Tax Department. Yet, [the ][authorities ][concerned ][at ][the]State level are not [ready ][to ][accept the ][verdict ][passed ][by ][a ][majority]of High Courts of different [States ][on ][the ][same ][issue; ][and ][to ][make]things further worse, the [Income ][Tax ][Department ][is ][showing]audacity by issuing notices [continuously ][under Sections ][148-4 ][and] .1 Iia 148 through the jurisdictional Assessing Officer whereas it oughtto have been only in the faceless manner. 14. In the case of BANK OF INDIA vs. ASSISTANTCOMMISSIONER, INCOME TAXIT, on an issue whether it wasjustifiable 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 tsench of theHigh Court of Bombay held at paragraph No.25 as under, viz., : "25. Mr. [parldwalla ]has rightty drawn out attention to thedecision of this Court in Commissioner of tncome Tax vs. Smt.Godavaridevi Sarafl2 as also the recent decision of the co_ordinate Bench of this Court in Samp Ffrrniture (p) Ltd. v. lTOi3of which one cf us (Justice G.S. Kulkarni) 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 known to law, it woutd loose itsbinding force. Refening to the decision of the Supreme Court inUnion of lndia vs. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd.14, theCourt observed that the approach of the officials of Revenue oftreating decisions being [.not ]acceptable" was criticized by theSupreme Court. In such decision, following are the relevantobservations made by the Supreme Court. l] '" |9781 ttZo_l:t I I3 ITR [taxmann.com ]589 (Bombay)[422 ]lBombay)l ". [7202 ][41 ] [65 ][rax ][mann.com ]5 [g ]I /300 T axman 4 S2(Bombay) 'o Tlggzltaxmann.com l6155 ELT 433 (SC) l] '" |9781 ttZo_l:t I I3 ITR [taxmann.com ]589 (Bombay)[422 ]lBombay)l ". [7202 ][41 ] [65 ][rax ][mann.com ]5 [g ]I /300 T axman 4 S2(Bombay) 'o Tlggzltaxmann.com l6155 ELT 433 (SC) "6. Sri Reddy is perhaps right in saying [that ][the]officers were not actuated [by ][any ][mala ][fides ][in]passing the impugned orders. [They ][perhaps]genuinely felt that the claim [of the ][assessee ][was ][not]tenable and that, [if it ][was ][accepted, ][the ][Revenue]woutd suffer. But [what ][Sri ][Reddy overlooks ][is ][that we]are not concerned [here ][with ][the ][correctness ][or]otherwise of their [conclusion ][or ][of ][any ][factual]malafides but [with ][the ][fact that the officers, in reaching]in their conclusion, [by-passed ][tlvo ][appellate ][orders ][in]regard to the same [issue which ][were ][placed ][before]them, one of the [Collector (Appeals) and ][the other ][of]the Tribunal. The [High Court ][has, in ][our ][view' ][rightly]criticized this conduct [of ][the Assistant Collectors ][and]the harassment [to ][the ][assessee caused by ][the ][failure]of these officers to [give ][effect ][to ][the ][orders ][of]authorities higher [to ][them in ][the ][appellate ][hierarchy ][lt]cannot be too vehemently [emphasized ][that ][it ][is ][of]utmost importance that, [in ][disposing ][of ][the]quasijudicial issues before them, [revenue ][officers ][are]bound by the decisions [of ][the ][appellate ][authorities']The order of the Appellte [Collector ][is ][binding ][on ][the]Assistant Collectors [working within ][his ][jurisdiction ][and]the order of the [Tribunal ][is ][binding upon the Assistant]Collectors and the [Appellate Collectors who ][function]under the [jurisdiction ][of ][the ][Tribunal. ][The principles ][of]judicial discipline require that the orders [of the ][higher]appellate [authorities ][should be followed ][unreservedly]by the subordinate [authorities. The ][mere ][fact ][that the]order of the appellate [authority ][is ][not ]["acceptable" ][to]the department - [in ][itself an ][objectionable phrase ]-and is the subject [matter ][of ][an ][appeal ][can ][furnish ][no]ground for not following [it ][unless ][its ][operation ][has]been suspended [by ][a ][competent ][court. ][lf ][this ][healthy] rule is not followed, the result will only be undueharassment to assesses and chaos in administrationof tax laws. 12. We have dealt with this aspect at some length,because it has been suggested by thd learnedAdditional Solicitor General that the observationsmade by the High Court, have been harsh on theofficers. lt is clear that the observations of the HighCourt, seemingly vehement, and apparenflyunpalatable to the Revenue, are only intended to curba tendency in revenue mafters which, if allowed tobecome widespread, could result in considerableharassment to the assesses-public without any benefitto [he Revenue. We would like to say that thedepartment should take these observations in theproper spirit. The observations .of the High Courtshould be kept in mind in future and the utmost regardshould be paid by the adjudicating authorities and theappellate authorities to the requirements of judicialdiscipline and the need for giving effect to the ordersof the higher appellate authorities which are bindingon them." I 5. What is worrying this Bench more is the fact rhat anendeavour is being made whole heartedly to ensure not to generatefurther litigation on issues which have been laid to rest by a largenumber of High Courts all of whom have taken a consistent standthat the action of the Income Tax Department being violative of thefurther 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 I 5. What is worrying this Bench more is the fact rhat anendeavour is being made whole heartedly to ensure not to generatefurther litigation on issues which have been laid to rest by a largenumber of High Courts all of whom have taken a consistent standthat the action of the Income Tax Department being violative of thefurther 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 [Act,zOIO ][and ][Finance ][Act,202l' ][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 ][(1 ][supra) ][shall however ][be ][subject ][to]theoutcomeofthesLPswhichwerefiledbythelncomeTaxDepartment [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 ][fortifred ][by ][the ][decisions ][of ][the ][various ][other]Courts [on ][the ][very ][same ][issue, ][the ][pendency ][of ][this ][High]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 ][pr..+1cted, ][as ][has ][been observed ][in ][paragraphs] Ii: 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 respondenlDeparlment is neither tenable, nor sustainable.The notices so issued and the procedure adopted beingper se illegal, deserves to be and are accordingly setaside/quashed. As a consequence, all the impugnedorders getting quashed, the consequential orders passedby the respondent-Department pursuant to the noticesissued under Section 142 and 14g would also getquashed and it is ordered accordingly. The reason weare quashing the consequential order is on the principlesthat 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 jurisdictional 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 raisedand contended in anappropriate proceedings. 38Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the caseof AshishAgarural, supra, as a one-timemeasureexercisingthe powers under Article 142of theConstitution of lndia, permitted the Revenue to proceedunder the substituted provisions, and this Court allowingthe petitions only on the procedural flaw, the rightthe petitions only on the procedural flaw, the right confelTed [on the ][Revenue ][would remain ][reserved ][to]proceed further [if ][they ][so ][want ][from the ][stage ][of ][the]order of the [Supreme ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][ofAshish]Agarwal, [suPra'] 38Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the caseof AshishAgarural, supra, as a one-timemeasureexercisingthe powers under Article 142of theConstitution of lndia, permitted the Revenue to proceedunder the substituted provisions, and this Court allowingthe petitions only on the procedural flaw, the rightthe petitions only on the procedural flaw, the right confelTed [on the ][Revenue ][would remain ][reserved ][to]proceed further [if ][they ][so ][want ][from the ][stage ][of ][the]order of the [Supreme ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][ofAshish]Agarwal, [suPra'] 18. We [would only further ][like ][to make ][observations ][that ][since]we are inclined [to ][dispose ][of ][the ][instant ][*'it ][peiition' ][conscious ][of]thefactthattheearlierorderofthisHighCourtinthecaseofKanakala [Ravindra Reddy ][(l ][supra) ][is ][subjected ][to ][challenge]before the [Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Court ][in ] [No'3574 ][of ][2024']the [lncome Tax ][Department' we ][make ][it ][clear ][that]preferred by allowing [of ][the ][instant ][writ ][petition ][is ][subject ][to ][outcome ][of ][the]aforesaid [preferred ][by ][the ][Revenue ][against ][the ][decision ][of ][this]Court [in ][the ][case ][of ][Kanakala Ravindra ][Reddy ][(l ][supra}]High This, in other [words, ][would ][mean ][that either ][of ][the parties' ][if ][they]so want, [may move an ][appropriate ][petition ][seeking ][revival ][of ][this]writ petition [in ][the ][light of ][the ][decision ][of ][the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme]Court in [the ][pending SLP ][on the ][very ][same ][issue'] 19. Accordingly, [the ][instant ][writ ][petition ][stands ][allowed ][in]favour of [the ][assessee ][so ][far ][as the ][issue ][of ][jurisdiction ][is]concerned. [As ][a ][consequence, ][the ][impugned ][notice ][under]challenge [under ][Se'rions 148-4 ][and ][148 ][stands ][set ][aside/quashed'] The consequential orders, if any, also stand set aside/quashed insimilar terms as have been passed by this High court in the case of Ksnkanara Ravindra Reddy (1 supra). There shalr be no order as to costs Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed //rRUE copy// ^"'3?ffitffi3ffiHsectrtrir'oFrrcencopy// ^"'3?ffitffi3ffiHsectrtrir'oFrrcen To, 1The Assistant CommissioneFffiA1l;ri*t.f [fl ][3fi:ltrTa:?{:.sflii.rf; ][lt[:,+:s,sas:,]The Assistant CommissioneFffiA1l;ri*t.f [fl ][3fi:ltrTa:?{:.sflii.rf; ][lt[:,+:s,sas:,] 2. The Principal Commissioner of lncome Tdl 2 Hvderopp. eoi;Ia*ri#Hi. Kondapur, cyceraoao:sooflB?l' [signature ]Towers.opp. eoi;Ia*ri#Hi. Kondapur, cyceraoao:sooflB?l' [signature ]Towers. 3. "A The Assessment Unit. lrjn*:I#,ffi jn*:I#,ffi "b,.:riffi?1.##,Em:.:J$lrKl:i3?1",."'.Foor,E. 4. One CC to SRt. DUNDU TVANIMOHAN Advocate tOpUCI 5. One CC to Ms. J SUNTTHA (JUNTOR SC FOR TNCoME TAX) 6. One CC toSri Gadi Praveen Kumar, Deputy Solicitor General of lndia tOpUCI 7. Two CD CoKKaTK pies HIGH COURT DATED:24 t04t202s ORDER WP.No.91S0 of 2OZs AILOW|NG THE WR|T PETtTtoNWITHOUT COSTS iiltt,k o:.)$(JI05AUEMi.aait.C{)t,)" /