Of Finance Act,202L [W.e.f., ][01.04.2021 Onwards, ][Proceedings v. The Contention Contention Of The Petitioner Is That The Issue Ofthe Petitioner Is That The Issue Ofpetitioner Is That The Issue Ofis That The Issue Ofthat The I

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JUNErWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYAND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION NO: 17143 OF 2025 Between: Kosoor Subba Ramarao, S/o Kosoor Krishna Murthi, Occ,Business, [Age ][53 ][years,]No 1-2-27415 8, Domalguda Himayathnagar, Hyderabad 500029, [AORPK1006lU,] .....PETITIONER AND 1. lncome Tax Officer, Ward 4('l ), Hyderabad lT Tower, AC Guards, MasabTank Hyderabad, 500004.Tank Hyderabad, 500004. 2. The Principal Commissioner of lncome Tax [- ]l, Hyderabad [2nd Floor, ] Guards, ftzlasab Tank Hyderabad, 500004.Guards, ftzlasab Tank Hyderabad, 500004. 3. The National Faceless Assessment Centre, lncome Tax [Department ][Ministry]of Finance Govt. of lndia, New Delhi.of Finance Govt. of lndia, New Delhi. 4. Union of lndia, I\,,4rnistry of Finance, Rep. by its Secretary, 166-8 [North ][Block,]New Delhi - 1 10 001 .New Delhi - 1 10 001 . .....RESPONDENTS Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia [praying ]that [in ][the]circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may bepleased to i. lssue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly, one, tn the natureof Writ of Mandamus, setting aside the order [passed ]by [the ][Respondent ][No.1]under Section 14BA(d) and Notice [issued ]u/s [148 ][of ][the ][lncome Tax ][Act, ]['1 ][961]both dated 23.O3.2024 for AY 2017-18, as [being without jurisdiction ][illegal,]arbitrary, bad in law, void ab [initio, and being violative of ][the ][principles ][of ][natural]justice and Articles 14,'l I and 265 of the Constitution of lndia as the same isissued by the Jurisdictional [Assessing ][Officer ][i.e. ][Respondent ][No.1 ][after] w introduction of t1e faceless assessment of lncome escapin! i:ssessment scheme,and any consecluent proceedings as lacking in jurisdictiorr ii. Declare the actionof the Responcent No. 1 in passing the Assessment Orcle' daled 13.02.2025,consequent to notico u/s 148 dated. 23.03.2024 as being il [,:gal ]and bad in lawand set aside the Assessment Order dated 13.02.21)2'5 and consequentproceedings as the crder was passed without any lurisdictior Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI P.SRIKANTH RAO Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 : Ms. BOKARO SAPIIA REDDY(sENroR sc TNCoME TAX) Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : SRI B.MUKHERJEE, Lf:lrRNED COUNSELREPRESENTING THE UNION OF INDIA The Court made the following ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSIryANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAONANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION No.17143 OF 2025 ORDER, (per Hon'ble Sri Justice Ndrsing Rao Nandikonda ) Heard Mr. P.Srikanth Rao, learned counsel for the petitionerand Ms. B.Sapna Reddy, learned Senior Standing Counsel for theIncome Tax Department lor respondent Nos.l to 3. Perused therecord. 2. This is a writ petition where the proceedings are either challenged to the notices which were issued under Section [148,4.]and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [(for ]short ['the ]Act') or theassessment orders those have been passed under Section 147 ofthe Act rvhich have been assailed. 3. This writ petition is being taken up today only on one of thegrounds, that the notices issued under Section 148,,4. of the Actand the subsequent initiation of proceedings under Section 148 ofthe Act by the [jurisdictional ]Assessing Officer, whereas [in ][terms]of the amen1Unent [that ][was ][brought to ][the Income Tax ][Act ][by ][way] of Finance Act,202l [w.e.f., ][01.04.2021 onwards, ][proceedings] I 2. This is a writ petition where the proceedings are either challenged to the notices which were issued under Section [148,4.]and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [(for ]short ['the ]Act') or theassessment orders those have been passed under Section 147 ofthe Act rvhich have been assailed. 3. This writ petition is being taken up today only on one of thegrounds, that the notices issued under Section 148,,4. of the Actand the subsequent initiation of proceedings under Section 148 ofthe Act by the [jurisdictional ]Assessing Officer, whereas [in ][terms]of the amen1Unent [that ][was ][brought to ][the Income Tax ][Act ][by ][way] of Finance Act,202l [w.e.f., ][01.04.2021 onwards, ][proceedings] I under Scction 148A of the Act as also under Sec.rron 148 of theAct oug)rt to have also been issued and proceedel in a facelessmanner.4. The contention contention of the petitioner is that the issue ofthe petitioner is that the issue ofpetitioner is that the issue ofis that the issue ofthat the issue ofissue ofproceedings being in violation of the Finance Ac,202l i.e., theimpugned notices under Section l48A and Section 148 of the Actnot being issued in a faceless manner, have alreadv br:en dealt withand decided by this Court in the case ol I(,INKANALARAVINDR\ REDDY vs. INCOME-TAX OFF)('ER1 decidedon 14.09 2023 whereby a batch of writ petitions \!cr:i allorved andthe proceedings initiated under Section t48A as alsr:, rrnder Section148 of the Ac, were held to be bad with consequenti,rl reliefs on theground of it being in violation of the provisions of Se:rtion 151A ofthe Act read with Notification 1812022 dated 29.03.1022. The saidjudgment passed by this Court has also becn subseqrre rtly lollowedin a large number of writ petitions which were allot,,:d on similarterms. The contention contention of the petitioner is that the issue ofthe petitioner is that the issue ofpetitioner is that the issue ofis that the issue ofthat the issue ofissue of ' [(2023) [56 ][taxmann.com ][178 ][(Telangana)]] 5. Down the line, we find that the same [issue has also ][been]decided against the Revenue byvanous High Courts i.e.,by the Bombay High Courtln the case of HEXAWARETECHNOLOGIES LTD., [VS, ]ASSISTANT OF INCOME TAX & OTHERS2, Gauhati [High ][Court ][in ][the case]of RAM NARAYAN SAH [vs. ]UNION [OF INDIAs, ][Punjab ][and]Haryana High Court in the case of JATINDER vs. UNION OF INDIA4, and [Telangana ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]SRI VENKATARAMANA PATLOOLA [VS. ] COMMISSIONER OF [where the ][issue ][was ][in]respect of international taxation, [Bombay ][High ][Court in ][the ][case ][of]ABHIN ANILKUMAR SHAH VS. INCOME [TAX OFFICE&]INTERNATIONAL TAXATION6 [which ][is ][again ][on ][intemational]taxation and central circle, [High ][Court ][of ][Himachal ][Pradesh ][in ][the]case of GOVIND SINGH [vs. INCOME ] [OFFICER?,]Gujarat High Court in the [case ][of ] \ 'Tzoz+1464 [430 ][(Bom)]'LQ024) [156 ][taxmann.com 478 ][(Gauhati)l]^ [(2024) [165 ][taxmann.com ][1 ][l5 ][(Punjab ][& ][Haryana)]]'[2024) [167 ][taxmann.com ][4l ] [(Telangana)]]" 12024) [d6tfi ][*un,.com ][679 ][(Bombay)l] '[2024) [165 ][taxmann.com ] [l3 ][(Himachal ][Pradesh)]] \ 'Tzoz+1464 [430 ][(Bom)]'LQ024) [156 ][taxmann.com 478 ][(Gauhati)l]^ [(2024) [165 ][taxmann.com ][1 ][l5 ][(Punjab ][& ][Haryana)]]'[2024) [167 ][taxmann.com ][4l ] [(Telangana)]]" 12024) [d6tfi ][*un,.com ][679 ][(Bombay)l] '[2024) [165 ][taxmann.com ] [l3 ][(Himachal ][Pradesh)]] DAHYABILTI RADADIYA vs. INCOME ['I'1')r. ]OFFICER,WARD 3(3X5)8, Jharkand I-ligh Court in the casr: ol'SHYAMSUNDAR SAW vs. UNION OF INDIAe, Rajasthan High Court inWARD 3(3X5)8, Jharkand I-ligh Court in the casr: ol'SHYAMSUNDAR SAW vs. UNION OF INDIAe, Rajasthan High Court inthe case o1'SIIARDA DEVI CHHAJER vs. I\t191'48 ['1'O,]OFFICIIR & ANOTHER and batch of writ p,rtitionsro whichstood decided on 19.03.2024. Similar views have rl:;o been takenby the I)ivision Bench of Calcutta High Court ir. the case ofGIRDH,\R GOPAL DALMIA vs. UNION OF l\lDL,\ & ORS(M.A.T 1690 of 2023), decided on25.09.2024.6. Even though the same issue having been dec;rled by a largenumber of Itigh Courts, we are sti[[ confronted u irlr large filing ofidentical matters on daily basis ranging betwee r :j to l0 writpetitions. That upon the instructions being srrrr!,ht liom theDepartmr:nt, they have been taking a solitary g.c -rnd that theby the I)ivision Bench of Calcutta High Court ir. the case ofGIRDH,\R GOPAL DALMIA vs. UNION OF l\lDL,\ & ORS(M.A.T 1690 of 2023), decided on25.09.2024.6. Even though the same issue having been dec;rled by a largenumber of Itigh Courts, we are sti[[ confronted u irlr large filing ofidentical matters on daily basis ranging betwee r :j to l0 writpetitions. That upon the instructions being srrrr!,ht liom theDepartmr:nt, they have been taking a solitary g.c -rnd that thedecision of the Bombay High Court in the casr- 'f llexawureTeclrnologies Ltd., (2 supra) as also the one wh ch has beendecided by this Coufi-itr the case of Kanakala Rnvindra Reddy t2O2+SC<: Onl-ine Guj 4012'2025 [SC(l ]Online [Jhar ]287'o 12023 [: ] [; ][49 ][84-DBl] (l supra) has been subjected to challenge in a Special [Leave]Petition i.e., SLP No.3574 of 2024 before the Hon'ble [Supreme]Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court is seized [of ][the ][matter.]In addition, there are about 1200 SLPs also [fited ][arising out ][of ][the]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 ][Couft ][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 ][l48A ][and under]Section 148 of the Act by the [jurisdictional ][Assessing ][Officer,]rather the authorities concemed in the teeth of [series ][of ][decisions] by all the rnajor High Courts in India are cc ntinuously stillinitiating; proceedings under Section 148.4 of tl.r:: Act and alsoinitiating, proceedings under Section 148 ol- the Act incontraventiorl to the amendments brought into the . n()ome Tax Actpursuant to the Pinance Act,2020 as also the Finanr:e Act2021 by all the rnajor High Courts in India are cc ntinuously stillinitiating; proceedings under Section 148.4 of tl.r:: Act and alsoinitiating, proceedings under Section 148 ol- the Act incontraventiorl to the amendments brought into the . n()ome Tax Actpursuant to the Pinance Act,2020 as also the Finanr:e Act2021 9. Upon a query being put as to why can't this rlrit petition bedisposed of in the teeth of the decision rendered b1 this Court inthe case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (1 supra), lr:a rred StandingCounsel for the [ncome Tax Department contends tlrt those rvouldunnecessarilv burden the lncome Tax Departntq:nt w'here theywould be required to file equal number of S LI)s before theHon'ble Supreme Court and it would be further ,urdening theexchequcr of the Union of India. It was also the crlrtention of theiearned Standing Counsel that no prejudice would tre caused to theinterest of the petitioners in case if this writ petition i:; kept pendingtill the finalization of the SLPs pending belore the Hon'bleSupreme Court and the fact that the petitioner is a r,''3dy enjoyingthe benelit of interim protection. Nonetheless, on t.u: earlier queryof this Court as to why the Income Tax Department trave not comeout with a mechanism to issue appropriate instruc'ir:ns or to take appropriate steps in ensuring [that proceedings ][under Section ][1484.]ofthe Act as also the assessment [orders ][under Section ][148 ][ofthe]Act are kept in a hold in the light ofthe [decisions dedcided ][by ][the]various High Courts, it was submitted by [the ][leamed ][Standing]Counsel that the said steps [can ][only ][be taken at ][the ][level ][ofCBDT]as any such steps would [have ][to ][be ][taken ][Pan ][India ][and cannot ][be]limited to any of these [jurisdictional High ][Courls.] 10. As a result of which, [what ][we are ][facing ][is ][steep ][increase ][of]titigation 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 Tax authorities [concerned are ][still ][even ][now in]2025 also initiating proceedings [in ][contravention ][to ][the ][provisions]of Section l51A of the [Act ][and ][as ][a ][result by ][now, ][more ][than 600]to 700 petitions have been [already ][got piled ][up belore this High]Court on an issue which [otherwise ][stands squarely covered ][by ][the]judgment of this Court in the case of Kanakala Ruvindra [Reddy](1 supra). What is also surprising [is ][the ][fact ][that though while]allowing the writ [petitions ]in [the ][case ][of ][Kanakala ][Ravindta]Redd.y (l supra), the [Division ][Bench ][while ][reserving ][the right ][of]the Revenue, has also [protected ][the ][interest ][of ][the ][petitioners] insofar as the liberty which was granted to thc Revenue forinitiating ffesh proceedings strictly in accordance u rt r the amendedprovisiors of the Act, as amended by the Financr: .\ct, 2020 andthe Finance Act, 2021. The petitioner assessee wor lr: be entitled toinitiating ffesh proceedings strictly in accordance u rt r the amendedprovisiors of the Act, as amended by the Financr: .\ct, 2020 andthe Finance Act, 2021. The petitioner assessee wor lr: be entitled tochallenge or raise the other legal objections if the F.e u enue initiatesfresh pr,rceedings. The Department has made r,t endeavour inavailing the said liberty that was reserved for the Rc,'enue. On thecontrary. they have been still sticking on to the sratLd, which thisI'Iigh Court as well as many other High Courts ah,:.,dy hcld to bebadfresh pr,rceedings. The Department has made r,t endeavour inavailing the said liberty that was reserved for the Rc,'enue. On thecontrary. they have been still sticking on to the sratLd, which thisI'Iigh Court as well as many other High Courts ah,:.,dy hcld to bebad 11. It appears that because of the aforesaid liberry that this HighCourt had granted permitting the Revenue for ir itiating freshproceedings as a one-time measure in a faceleis manner, theIncome ['fax ]Department wants to take advantage rtl'the same byprotracting these proceedings which would enable t rorl to meet thelimitation that would otherwise come in the way. LLkewise, if thewrit petilion rs kept pending for a considerable lon1r :reriod of timeand hnally at a later stage if the Hon'b.le Supreme (tcurt confirmsthe decision taken by this High Court as also by.tl:e other HighCourts in which the SLPs are still pending, thr: Income Tax Department would get the advantage of the liberty that [is ]otherwiseprotected in favour of the Revenue for initiation of freshproceedings from the disposal of these matters at a much later stagewhich would be advantageous and beneficial to the [Revenue ][and]would be equally disadvantageous and detrimental so [far ][as ][interest]of the assesses are concemed. As a consequence, [the Income Tax]Department gets an extended period of time for initiation of [fiesh]proceedings 12. The alarming trend of docket explosion in this Couft, despitethe clear precedent set in Kanakala [Ravindra ][Reddy ][(l ][supra), ][is ][a]matter of grave concern. The Income Tax Department's [persistent]initiation of fresh proceedings, disregarding the established [judicial]pronouncements, has led to an unprecedented surge in litigationwith over 600-700 petitions piling up on the same [issue. This]deliberate approach not oniy 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] position. Such conduct raises serious questiors about theadministratir.e efficiency and the respect for judicialpronounrernents, parlicularly when this Court has iLl;'eady provideda balanced approach by preserving both the Reven.ie's rights andassesses lntel'ests. 13. Another aspect which needs to be considerec ir; that in fact itshould have been realized by the Income Tax Depat. nent itself andshould have fbund out via media in ensuring t rirt proceedingsunder Sr:ctions 148-4 and 148 should not have te,,n issued in afaceless manner, at least till the Hon'ble Supreme [( ]l:urt decide thetwelve hundred (1200) odd SLPs which it is alread,, r;eized of or, atleast the Income Tax Department should have Ib.rnd out someremedial steps to ensure that wherever the authr,r lies intend toinitiate proceedings under Sections 148-A and 148 , r:,ther than in afaceless lnanner, the proceedings should have l:,een deferredwithout precipitating the matter further intimating 1h,., assessee thatthey shall initiate appropriate proceedings only aftt:r the SLP's aredecided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the v..r.l same issueThis again, the Income Tax Department, has not ber:n able to give aconvincing reply, except for the fact that such a de,:ision if at all has to be taken, has to be taken for the [whole ][of ][India, and which]otherwise has to be by way of a policy decision [and that ][too ][at the]level of Central Board of Direct Taxes. Though the [leamed]Standing Counsel for the Income [Tax ][Department ][contended ][that]the Delhi High Courr dismissed a writ [petition of ][similar ][nature, ][on]the one hand when the High Court is [struggting ][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 onty 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'bte Supreme Court [which ][is ][seized ][of ][the]matter has been reluctant in granting any interim [protection ][to ][the]lncome Tax Department. Yet, the authorities [concemed ][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-A ][and] 148 through the jurisdictional Assessing Ofhcer v,1 :reas it oughtto have been only in the faceless manner. 14. In the case of BANK OF INDIA vs ASSISTANTCOMMISSIONER, INCOME TAX|r, on an issrL,: ,vhether it wasjustifiable on the part of the Income Tax Dcprltment in notfollowing an order passed by the adjudicating autlrr,r.:y only on theground that thc appeals are pending, the Divisior Bench of theHigh Courl of Bombay held at paragraph No.25 as rrr 1er, viz., : "25. tulr. Paridwalla has rightly drawn out atte rt )n to thedecision of this Court in Gommissioner of lncome Ia,. vs, Smt.Godavaridevi Sarafl2 as also the recent decision r:f the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Samp Furniture (P) t-11. v. lTOi3of which one of us (Justice G.S. Kulkarni) was a memrr:., whereinthe Courl categorically observed that the Revenue lraving not"acc,lpted" the Judgment of the High Court would not rncan that tillthe same is set aside in a manner known to law, it wcu rJ loose itsbindrng force. Referring to the decision of the Suprer,-. Court inUnion of lndia vs. Kamlakshi Finance Corporatio r l-td.14, theCourt observed lhat the approach of the officials of Rr-.venue oftreating decisions being "not acceptable" was criticiz:)d by theSupreme Court. ln such decision, following are [,.1:, ]relevantobservations made by the Supreme Court. '.lt{zOZS1 [170 ][taxmann.com ][422 ][(Bombay)l] " 719781113 [589 ][(Bombay)] ') IZOZ+1 [[65 ][raxmann.com 581/300 ][Taxman ][452 ][(Born ][re ][y)] 'o 1t9921 [raxmarul.com ][16155 ] [433 ][(SC)] '.lt{zOZS1 [170 ][taxmann.com ][422 ][(Bombay)l] " 719781113 [589 ][(Bombay)] ') IZOZ+1 [[65 ][raxmann.com 581/300 ][Taxman ][452 ][(Born ][re ][y)] 'o 1t9921 [raxmarul.com ][16155 ] [433 ][(SC)] "6. Sri Reddy is perhaps right in saying that theofficers 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 [Revenue]would 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 two [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 offrcers to [give ]effect to [the ][orders ][of]authorities higher to them [in ]the [appellate ][hierarchy. ][It]cannot be too vehemently emphasized [that ][it ][is ][of]utmost importance that, in disposing of [the]tenable and that, if it was accepted, the [Revenue]would 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 two [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 offrcers to [give ]effect to [the ][orders ][of]authorities higher to them [in ]the [appellate ][hierarchy. ][It]cannot be too vehemently emphasized [that ][it ][is ][of]utmost 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 ][the]Assistanl 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 higherappellate 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 hasbeen suspended [by ]a [competent ]court. [lf ]this [healthy]bound by the decisions of the appellate [authorities.]The order of the Appellte Collector is [binding ][on ][the]Assistanl 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 higherappellate 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 hasbeen suspended [by ]a [competent ]court. [lf ]this [healthy] rule is not followed, the result will only be L tdueharassment to assesses and chaos in adminitt rtionof tax laws. rule is not followed, the result will only be L tdueharassment to assesses and chaos in adminitt rtionof tax laws. 12. We have dealt with this aspect at some e rgth,because it has been suggested by the learnedAdditional Solicitor General that the observ;,.ionsmade by the High Court, have been harsh cr. theoFficers. lt is clear that the observations of [-r: ]HighCourt, seemingly vehement, and app;a :ntlyunpalatable to the Revenue, are only intended to curba tendency in revenue matters which, if allo rur:d tobecome widespread, could result in consirJerableharassment to the assesses-public without any tr,: nefitto the Revenue. We would like to say tt a. thedepartment should take these observations rr theproper spirit. The observations of the High r)ourtshould be kept in mind in future and the utmost [.rrJard]should be paid by the adjudicating authorities z n:t theappellate authorities to the requirements of u:licialdiscipline and the need for giving effect to the o.dersof the higher appellate authorities which are rirdingoll them." 15. What is worrying this Bench more is tlrc fact that anendeavour is being made whole heartedly to ensur( not to generatefurther litigation on issues which have been laid lo s51 5, a largenumber of lligh Courts all of whom have taken a i(,nsistent standthat 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 anobservation/direction that the disposal of the instant writ petition interms of the judgment rendered by this High Court in the case ofKankanala Ravindra Reddy (1 supra) shall however be subject tothe outcome of the SLPs which were filed by the Income TaxDeparlment and which is pending consideration before the Hon'bleKankanala Ravindra Reddy (1 supra) shall however be subject tothe outcome of the SLPs which were filed by the Income TaxDeparlment and which is pending consideration before the Hon'bleSupreme Court. 16. In the given facts and circumstances, this Bench is of theconsidered opinion that unless and until we do not timely disposeof matters which are squarely covered by the decision of this Courtand which stands fortified by the decisions of the various otherHigh Courts on the very same issue, the pendency of this HighCourt would furlher be burdened which otherwise can be decidedand disposed of as a covered matter. 17. So far as the interest of the Revenue is concemed, we are of the considered opinion that the interest of the Revenue has alreadybeen considered and protected, as has been observed in paragraphsbeen 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 impugn( C roticesissued and the proceedings drawn by the rer;plndentDepartment is neither tenable, nor su rt;; inable.The notices so issued and the procedure adopte(j beingper se illegal, deserves to be and are accorrlingly setaside/quashed. As a consequence, all the impugnedorders getting quashed, the consequential orders tassedby the respondent-Department pursuant to th3 roticesissued under Section 147 and 1 48 would irls;: getquashed and it is ordered accordingly. The roa:on weare quashing the consequential order is on the :)r rciplesthat when the initiation of the proceedings i:s , lf wasprocedurally wrong, the subsequent orders irls;: getsnullified automatically. 37. The preliminary objection raised by the p-.tili:ner issustained and all these writ petitions stands al c'rred onthis very [jurisdictional ]issue. Since the impugned rroticesand orders are getting quashed on the p:,int ofjurisdiction, we are not inclined to proceed fu 1t :r anddecide the other issues raised by the petitiore: whichstands reserved to be raised and contend(,d in anappropriate proceedings- 37. The preliminary objection raised by the p-.tili:ner issustained and all these writ petitions stands al c'rred onthis very [jurisdictional ]issue. Since the impugned rroticesand orders are getting quashed on the p:,int ofjurisdiction, we are not inclined to proceed fu 1t :r anddecide the other issues raised by the petitiore: whichstands reserved to be raised and contend(,d in anappropriate proceedings- 38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the caseof Ashish Agarwal, supra, as a one-time rr lasureexercising the powers under Article 142 : f theConstitution of lndia, permitted the Revenue to F [.oceed]under the substituted provisions, and this Courl a lowingthe petitions only on the procedural flaw, :h:r rioht conferred on the Revenue would remain reserved toproceed further if they so wanl from the stage of theorder of lhe Supreme Court in the case of AshishAgarwal, supra.Agarwal, supra. 18. We would only further like to make observations that sincewe are inclined to dispose of the instant writ petition, conscious olthe fact that the earlier order of this High Court in the case ofKanakala Ruvindra Reddy (l supra) is subjected to challengebefore the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No.3574 of 2024,preferred by the Incomc Tax Depa(ment, we make it clear thatallowing of the instant writ petition is subject to outcome of theaforesaid SLP preferred by the Revenue against the decision ofthisHigh Court in the case of Kanukala Ravindra Reddy (1 supra)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 ln favour of the assessee so far as the issue of jurisdiction isconcemed. As a consequence, the impugned notice underchallenge under Sections 148-A and 148 stands set aside/quashed. I( The consequential orders, if any, also stand set asid,/quashed in similar terms as have been passed by this High Courr irr the case of Kankanqla Ravindra Reddy (l supra). There shal[ .rr: no order as to costs Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pendin6, rf any, shall stand closcd. clB.REKHA RANIAS$'i5fTREGISTRARSION OFFICERAS$'i5fTREGISTRARSION OFFICER ,TRUE COPY// to ',. an" lnconre Tax officer, Ward 4(1), Hyderabad lT Tou):r AC Guards' MasabTank HYderabad, [500004.]',. an" lnconre Tax officer, Ward 4(1), Hyderabad lT Tou):r AC Guards' MasabTank HYderabad, [500004.]2. il; ijrii;,p;L Corrliion"rof [lncome ][Tax ][- ][l, ][Hvderatra'l ][2nd ][Floor' AC]Guards, [[tviasab ]][[Tank Hyderabad, 500004']]Guards, [[tviasab ]][[Tank Hyderabad, 500004']] Guards, [[tviasab ]][[Tank Hyderabad, 500004']]g ihe Naticnal Facetess Aiseisment Centre, [lncome ][Ta'r ][t)epartment ][tvlinistry]of Financa Govt. [of ][lndia, ][New ][Delhi']of Financa Govt. [of ][lndia, ][New ][Delhi'] 4 ihe S;cretary, [Union ][oiinOra, ][tr'4inistry ][of Finance' ][16() E ][North Block' New]Delhi [[1 ]]10 001 [[.]]Delhi [[1 ]]10 001 [[.]] [[1 ]][[.]]S On" CC [to ] [SRIKANTH RAO, Advocate ][ ]6. o;; cc [to ][H,tr. ][BoKARo ][sAPNA ] [(sENloR ][s ] [NColvE]TAX) Advocate IOPUCI6. o;; cc [to ][H,tr. ][BoKARo ][sAPNA ] [(sENloR ][s ] [NColvE]TAX) Advocate IOPUCI TAX) Advocate IOPUCIz one'cc to [snr ][b ][uurhERJEE' ] [COUNSEI' ][',iEPRESENTING]THE UNION OF [lNDlA, Advocate (OPUC)]THE UNION OF [lNDlA, Advocate (OPUC)] 8. Two CD SoPies SAGJPo i HIGH COURT DATED:2010612025 ORDER WP.No.17143 of [2025] ALLOWING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS.I .t\',. [,:1]:'2 6 5gt, [1125]'r^ :\r)\-!'',-' -,,-,."\--- ._:1,."