Of Finance Act,202L W.e.f., 01.04.2021 Onwards, Proceedingsunder Section L48A Ofthe Act As Also Under Section L4G Oftheact Ought To Have Also Been Issued And Pr v. The Contention Of The Petitioner Contention Of The Petitioner Of The Petitioner The Petitioner Peti

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD(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 NANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION NO:29575 OF 2o24 Between: Venkatesh Thota, S/o: Vakuntam Thota, aged about [46, ][Rl/o ][3- ][6- ][680 ][Flat ][No]102 Padmalaya Apartments, Street No 1O, Himayatnagar [Hyderabad ][500029,]Telangana, lndia. ...PETITIONER AND 1The Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax, Circle [1, ]Karimnagar 2National Faceless Assessment Centre lncome Tax Department, [tVlinistry ][of]Finance, Room No 401 2d Floor E- Ramp, Jawaharlai [Nehru Stadium, ][Delhr]1 10 003Finance, Room No 401 2d Floor E- Ramp, Jawaharlai [Nehru Stadium, ][Delhr]1 10 003 3Union of lndia, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of [Finance, ][Depa(ment of]Revenue. l',lorth 8lock, Central Secretariat, New Delhi- [1 ][1 ][0 ][001 ][.]Revenue. l',lorth 8lock, Central Secretariat, New Delhi- [1 ][1 ][0 ][001 ][.] ...RESPONDENTS Petrtion under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia [praying ][that ][in ][the]circumstances stated in the affkiavit fited therewith, [the ][High Court may ][be]pleased to issue an order or direction, especially one like WRIT OF MANDAMUS,holding that the notice dated 1O- 04- 2024 issued by 1st Respondent under [sectron]148 of the Act with DIN ard Notice No. [112024-]2511064032637 [('1 ]) as being witl'rout [jurisdiction ]arbitrary [rllegal ][bad ][in ][law, ][void ][ab]initio apart from being violative of [provisions ]of section [148A ][and section ][1 ][49 of]the Act and also contrary to the circular issued by CBDT [and ][provisrons ][of ][sectron]151A of the Act and consequently set aside the notice [under ][section ][148 ] [and]Notice No. ITBA/AST/S/148 2511064032637 [('1 ]) [dated ][10- ][04- ][2024-]-112024- lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC [praying ]that in the [circumstances ][stated ][in]the affidavit filed in support of the [petition, ]the High Court [may ][be ][pleased ][to ][stay]the notice dated 1 0- 04- 2024 issued by 1st Respondent under [section ][148 ][of ][the]Act with DIN and Notice No ITBA/AST/S/148-112024- 2511064032637(1) [and ][all]consequential proceedings [pending ]the disposal of the writ [petition.] Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI RAJA SHEKAR RAO SALVAJI Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2: MS. J. SUNITHA,SC FOR THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI B. MUKHERJEE, THE UNION OF INIDA The Court made the following: ORDER THE TIONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE [P.SAM ] ANDTIIB IIONOURAT}LE SRI JUSTICE NANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION No.29575 OF [2024] ORDER, [(per ]Hon'ble Sri [Justice ][P.fum ][Koshy)] Heard Mr. Raja Shekar Salvaji, [learned counsel ][for] the petitioner, Ms. J.Sunitha, [leamed ][Junior ][Standing ][Counsel]for the Income Tax Department for [respondent ][Nos.l ][and ][2 ][and]Mr. B. Mukhe{ee, leamed counsel [representing ][the Union ][of ][lndia]for respondent No.3. Perused the [necord.] 2. This is a writ petition [where ][the ][proceedings ][are ][either]challenged to the notices [which ][were ][issued ][under Section ][l48A]and 148 of the Income [Tax ][Act, ][1961 ][(forshort'the ][Act') orthe]assessment orders those [have ][bepn ][passed ][under ][Section ][147 ][of]the Act which have been [assailed.] 3. This writ petition is being [taken up today ][only ][on one ][o[ ][the]grounds, that the notices issued under [Section ][l48A ][of ][the ][Act]and the subsequent initiation [of ][proceedings under ][Section ][148 ][of]the Act by the [jurisdictional ][Assessing Offrcer, ][thereas ][in ][terms]olthe amendment [that was ][brought ][to ][the ][Income ][Tax Act by ][way] 2. This is a writ petition [where ][the ][proceedings ][are ][either]challenged to the notices [which ][were ][issued ][under Section ][l48A]and 148 of the Income [Tax ][Act, ][1961 ][(forshort'the ][Act') orthe]assessment orders those [have ][bepn ][passed ][under ][Section ][147 ][of]the Act which have been [assailed.] 3. This writ petition is being [taken up today ][only ][on one ][o[ ][the]grounds, that the notices issued under [Section ][l48A ][of ][the ][Act]and the subsequent initiation [of ][proceedings under ][Section ][148 ][of]the Act by the [jurisdictional ][Assessing Offrcer, ][thereas ][in ][terms]olthe amendment [that was ][brought ][to ][the ][Income ][Tax Act by ][way] of Finance Act,202l w.e.f., 01.04.2021 onwards, proceedingsunder Section l48A ofthe Act as also under Section l4g oftheAct ought to have also been issued and proceeded in a facelessmanner. 4. The contention of the petitioner contention of the petitioner of the petitioner the petitioner petitioner is 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 l4g of the Actnot being issued in a faceless manner, have already been dealt withand decided by this Court in the case of KANKANALARAVINDRA REDDY vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICERT decidedon 14.Q9.2023 whereby a batch of writ petitions were allowed andthe proceedings initiated under Section l4gA as also under Section148 of the Act were hetd to be bad with consequential reliefs on theground of it being in violation of the provisions ofSection l51A ofthe Act read with Notification 18/2022 dated,29.O3.2022. The saidjudgment passed by this Court has also been subsequently followedin a large number ol w,rit petitions which were allowed on similarterms. The contention of the petitioner contention of the petitioner of the petitioner the petitioner petitioner is that the issue ofthat the issue ofthe issue ofissue ofof '[(2023) 156 taxnrann.corn 178 (Telangana)] 5. Down tlre line, [we ][find ][that ][the ][seme issue has ][also ][been]decidecl against the Revenue by [various ][High ][Courts ][i'e',]by the Bombay High Court in [the ][case ][of ] TECHNOLOGIES LTD., vs. ASSISTAITIT OF INCOME TAX & OTHERS2, [Gauhati ][High Court in ][the ][case]of RAM NARAYAN SAH [vs. ]LNION [OF INDIA3, ][Punjab ][and]Haryana High Court in the case [of JATINDER ] vs. UNION OF INDIA4, and Telangana [Hig[ ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]SRJ VENKATARAMANA [VS. ] COMMISSIONER OF INCOME [where ][the ][issue ][was ][in]respect of intemational taxation, [Bombay ][High ][Court in ][the ][case ][of]ABHIN ANILKUMAR SHAH [VS' ] [OFFICE&]INTERNATIONAL TAXATION6 [which is ][again on ][intemational]taxation and central circle, [High ]Court [of ][Himachal ][Pradesh ][in ][the]case of GOVIND SINGH [vs. ] [OFFICERT']Gujarat High Court in the [case ][of ] ' Tzoz+1464 [430 ][(Bom)]'[(2024) [156 ][taxrnann.com 478 ][(Gauhati)l]'[(2024) [156 ][taxrnann.com 478 ][(Gauhati)l] ' t(2024) 165 taxmann.com I [l5 ][(Punjab ][& ][Harfana)I] 'f2M.4) [167 ][taxmann.com ][4 ][t ] [(Telangana)l] " [2024) [166 ][taxmarn.com ][679 ][(Bombay)]]'IzO:+) 165 taxmann.com [t ][l3 ][(Himachal ][Pradesh)]]'IzO:+) 165 taxmann.com [t ][l3 ][(Himachal ][Pradesh)]] ' Tzoz+1464 [430 ][(Bom)]'[(2024) [156 ][taxrnann.com 478 ][(Gauhati)l]'[(2024) [156 ][taxrnann.com 478 ][(Gauhati)l] ' t(2024) 165 taxmann.com I [l5 ][(Punjab ][& ][Harfana)I] 'f2M.4) [167 ][taxmann.com ][4 ][t ] [(Telangana)l] " [2024) [166 ][taxmarn.com ][679 ][(Bombay)]]'IzO:+) 165 taxmann.com [t ][l3 ][(Himachal ][Pradesh)]]'IzO:+) 165 taxmann.com [t ][l3 ][(Himachal ][Pradesh)]] DAIf,YABP^AI RA-DADIY.a" vs. INCOME TAX OFFICB&WARD 3(3X5)8, Jharkand High Court in the case of SIfyAMWARD 3(3X5)8, Jharkand High Court in the case of SIfyAMST NDAR SAW vs. UNION OF INDIAe, Rajasthan High Court inthe case of SHARDA DEVI CIIHAJER vs. INCOME TAXOFFICER & ANOTHER and batch of writ petirionsro whichstood decided on 19.03.2024. Similar views have also been takenby the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in the case ofGIRDHAR GOPAL DALMIA vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS(M.A.T 1690 ot2023), decided on25.09.2024.6. Even though the same issue having been decided by alargeGIRDHAR GOPAL DALMIA vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS(M.A.T 1690 ot2023), decided on25.09.2024.6. Even though the same issue having been decided by alargenumber of High Courts, we are still confionted with large filing ofidentical matters on daity basis ranging between 5 to l0 writidentical matters on daity basis ranging between 5 to l0 writpetitions. That upon the instructions being sought from theDepartrnent, they have been taking a sotitary ground that thedecision of the Bombay lligh 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 Guj 4012"2025 SCC Online Jhar 287to 72023 [: ][RI-JD :4984-DB ]l (l supra) has beerr subjected to challcnge in a [Special ][lrave]Petition i.e., SLP No.3574 of [20?4 bofore ][the ][Hon'ble ][Suprcme]Court and the Hon'ble Supreme [Court ][is ][seized ][of ][the ][matter.]In addition, there are about 1200 SLPs [also ][filed ][arising out ][ofthe]same issue being decided by [varior.ls ][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 ][Suprerne ][Court ][in ][any ][of ][these]mafters 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']they have categorically accepted [the ][fact ][that ][there ][is ][no ][interim]order granted by the [Hon'ble ][Suprerne ][Court ][in ][any ][of ][these]mafters 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, tilt 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 Offrcer,]rather the authorities concemed [in ][the ][teeth ][of ][series ][of ][decisions] by all the major High Courts in India are continuously still initiating proceedings under Section l48A 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. by all the major High Courts in India are continuously still initiating proceedings under Section l48A 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 (l supra), learned StandingCounsel for the Income Tax Department contends that those wouldunnecessarily burden the Income Tax Department where theywould be required to file equal number of Sl_ps before theHon'ble Supreme Court and it would be furthcr 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 petirion is kept pendingtill the finalization of the SLps pending belore the Hon,bleSupreme Court and the fact that the petitioner is aiready 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 appropriatc stops in etrsuring tlrat [proceedings under ][Soction ][l4EA]of the Act as also the assessment orders under [Section ][148 ][of ][the]Act are kept in a hold in the light of the decisions [dedcide'd ][by ][the]various High Courts, it was submitted by [the ][leamed ][Standing]Counsel that the said steps can only be taken [at ][the ][level ][of CBDT]as any such steps would have to be taken [Pan ][tndia ][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 Tax authorities [concemed ][are ][still ][even ][now ][in]2025 also initiating proceedings in contravention [to ][the ][provisions]of Section l5lA of the Act and [as ][a ][result ][by now, ][more than 600]to 700 petitions have been already [got ][piled up ][before ][this ][High]Court on an issue which otherwise [stands ][squarely covered ][by ][the]jndgment of this Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy(l supra). What is also surprising is the [fact ][that ][though ][while]allowing the writ petitions in the [case ]of [Kanakala ][Ravindta]Reddy (l supra), the Division Bcnch [whlle ][reserving the ][right ][of]the Revenue, has also [protected ][the ][interest ][of ][the ][petitioners] \ ../..J insofar as the libert-v which 'was granted to the Revenue fcrinitiating 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 andthe Finance Act, 2021. 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 srand, which thisHigh Court as well as many other High Courts already held to bebadfresh 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 srand, which thisHigh Court as well as many other High Courts already held to bebad 11. It appears that because ofthe aforesaid tiberty that this HighCourt had granted permitting the Revenue for initiating freshproceedings as a one-time measure in a faceless rnanner, theIncome Tax Departrnent wants to take advantage ol the same byprotracting these proceedings which would enable them to meer thelimitation that would otherwise come in the way. I_ikeu.ise, if thewrit petition is kept pending for a considerable long period oltimeand finally at a later stage if the Hon'ble Supreme (lourt confirmsthe decision taken by this High Court as also by rhe other HighCourts in which the SLPs are stilt pending, the lncome Tax Department would [get ]the [advantage ][ol'the ][liberty ][that ][is ][otherwise]protected in favour o[ the [Revenue ][lbr ][initiation ][of ][f]esh]proceedings from the disposal ofthese [matters ][at ][a ][much later ][stage]which woutd be advantageous [and benefrcial ][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]an extended [period ][of ][time ][for initiation of ][fresh]Departmetrt [gets ]proceedings. 12. The alarming trend [of ][docket explosion ][in this ][Court, despite]the clear precedent set [in ][Kanakala Rsvindra ][Reddy ][(l ][supra), ][is ][a]matter of [grave ]concern. [The ][lncome ][Tax ][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 ][ofjudicial]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]to be a [calculated ][move ][to ][buy ][time ][and ][circumvent]appearc limitation periods, [rather than ddhering ][to ][the ][established legal] position. Such conduct raises serious questions about the administrative efficiency and the respect for judicialpronouncements, particularly when this Court has already providedpronouncements, particularly when this Court has already provideda balanced approach by preserving both the Revenue's rights andassesses lnterests. 13. Another aspect which needs to be considered is that in fact itshould have been realized by the Income Tax Department itself andshould have found out via media in ensuring that proceedingsunder Sections 148-A 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, arleast the Income Tax Department should have lbund out someremedial sreps to ensure that wherever the authorities intend toinitiate proceedings under Sections l4g-A and l4g, other than in afaceless manner, the proceedings should have been detenedwithout precipitating the matter further intimating the assessee thatthey shall initiate appropriate proceedings only after rhe SLp.s aredecided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the very same issue.This again, rhe Income Tax Department, has not been able to gir,.e aconvincing reply, except for the fact that such a decision if at all has {o be taken, has to be t&ken for the rvhole of India,,aml, 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 Income Tax Department contended thatthe Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition of similar nature, onthe one hand when the High Court is struggling to reduce itspendency, 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 p€titions which inthe long run not only affects the disposal of the writ petitions butalso consumes substantial time of the Bench in hearing thesematters again and agaifl on daily basis. Admittedly, in spite of thematter before the Hon'ble Suprerne Court having been taken onmany occasions, the Hon'ble Suprpme Court which is seized of thematter has been reluctant in granting any interim protection to thelncome Tax Department. Yet, the authorities concemed at theState level are not ready to accept the verdict passed by a majorityof High Courts of different States on the same issue; and to makethings further worse, the Income Tax Department is showingaudacity by issuing notices continuously under Sections 148-4' and 1zi8 ti,n.;ugh the ,;1; is1le1lrrl-i rr ss.j.sitrg Oft-rcerarhereas it org;rto have been only in the faceless manner. 14. In the case of BANK OF INDIA vs. ASSISTANTCOMMISSIONER, INCOME TAXIT, on an issue whether it wasjustihable 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 of Bombay held at paragraph No.25 as under, viz., : "25. Mr. Paridwalla has rightly drawn out attention to thedecision of this Court in Commissioner of lncome Tax vs. Smt.Godavaridevi Sarafl2 as also the recent decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Samp Furniture (P) Ltd. v. lTO13of which one of us (Justice G.S. Kulkami) was a member, whereinthe Court categorically observed that the Revenue having not"accepted" the.,udgment of the High Court would not mean that tillthe same is set aside in a manner known to law, it would 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 ofiicials of Revenue oftreating decisions being "not acceptable" was criticized by theSupreme Court. ln such decision, following are the relevantobservations made by the Supreme Court. rr [(2025) [ 7(t ra:rmann.com 422 (Bombay)] '2 1toz81 [l3 ] [589 ][(Bombay)] " 1ZOZal [165 ][raxmann.com ][58 ][1/300 Taxman 452 ][(Bombay)]1'119921 raxmar.r-corl l6155 Er,T433 (SC) rr [(2025) [ 7(t ra:rmann.com 422 (Bombay)] '2 1toz81 [l3 ] [589 ][(Bombay)] " 1ZOZal [165 ][raxmann.com ][58 ][1/300 Taxman 452 ][(Bombay)]1'119921 raxmar.r-corl l6155 Er,T433 (SC) '6. Sri Reddy i* perhapc right ln EEying thet theofflccrB w€re not eelu8ted t,y eny male fid€s inpassing the impugned orders, They perhapsgenuinely felt that the clairn of the assessee was nottenable and that, if it was accepted, th€ Revenuewould suffer. But what Sri Reddy overlooks is that weare not concemed here with the correctness orwould suffer. But what Sri Reddy overlooks is that weare not concemed here with the correctness orotherwise of their rcnclusion or of any factualmalafides but with the fact that tfE officers, in reachingmalafides but with the fact that tfE officers, in reachingin their conclusion, by-passed two appellate orders inregard to the same issue which were placed beforelhem, one of the Collector (Appeals) and the other ofthe Tribunal. The High Court has, in our view, rightlylhem, one of the Collector (Appeals) and the other ofthe Tribunal. The High Court has, in our view, rightlycriticized this mnduct of the Assistant Collectors andthe harassment to the assessee caused by the failureof these officers to give effect to the orders ofthe harassment to the assessee caused by the failureof these officers to give effect to the orders ofauthorities hbher to them in the appellate hierarchy. ltcannol be too vehemently emphasized that it is ofutmost importance that, in disposing of thequasijudicial issues before them, revenue officers areutmost importance that, in disposing of thequasijudicial issues before them, revenue officers arebound by the decisions of the appellate authorities.The order of the Appellte Gollector is binding on theAssistant Collectors working within his [jurisdiction ]andthe order of the Tribunal is binding upon the AssistantCollectors and the Appellate Collectors who functionunder the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The [principles ]ofThe order of the Appellte Gollector is binding on theAssistant Collectors working within his [jurisdiction ]andthe order of the Tribunal is binding upon the AssistantCollectors and the Appellate Collectors who functionunder the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The [principles ]ofjudicial discipline require that the orders of the higherappellate authorities should be followed unreservedlyby the subordinate authorities. The mere fact that theorder of the appellate authority is not ["acceptable" ]toorder of the appellate authority is not ["acceptable" ]tothe department - in itself an objectionable phrase -and is tfe subiect matter of an appeal can furnish noand is tfe subiect matter of an appeal can furnish noground for not following it unless its operation hasbeen suspepded by a competent court- lf this healthybeen suspepded 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.of tax laws. 12. We have dealt with this aspect at some length,because it has been suggested by the leamedAdditional 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 apparentlyunpalatable to the Revenue, are only intended to curba tendency in revenue matters which, if allowed tobecome widespread, could result in considerableharassment to the assesses-public without any benefitto the 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 ad,udicating authorities and lheappellate authorities to the requirements of [judicial]discipline and the need for giving effect to the ordersof the hrgher appellate authorities which are bindingon them." 15. What is worrying this Bench more is the fact that anendeavour is being made whole heartedly to ensure not to generatefurther litigation on issues which have been laid to rest by a largenumber of f{igh Courts all of whom have taken a consistent standthat the action of'the Income Tax Department being violative of the Finance Act, 2020 and Finance Act,2021. Now, inbldef {o,protectthe interest of the Revenue as also that of th€ assessee, it would betrite at this [juncture, ]if we dispose of the writ petition with anobservation/direction that the disposal ofthe 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 ol the SLPs which were filed by the Income TaxDepartment and which is pending consideration before the Hon'bleSupreme Court. 16. [n the given facts and circumstances, this Bench is of the considered 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 szxne issue, the pendency of this HighCourt would further be burdened which otherwise can be decidedand disposed ofas a covered matter.of 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 szxne issue, the pendency of this HighCourt would further be burdened which otherwise can be decidedand disposed ofas a covered matter. 17. So lar as the interest of the R.evenue is concemed, we are of the considered opinion that the interest of the Revenue has alreadybeen considered and protected, as has been observed in paragraphs 36, :;,' at<i 33 c,'.:.2 )(.t .. [., ]:i,:ii. ri . ready reference, is reproduceC hereunder: 36. For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned noticesissued and the proceedings drawn by the respoMent-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 getting quashed, the consequential orders passedby the respondent-Department 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 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 ]rssue. Since the impugned noticesand orders are getting quashed on the point ofjurisdiction, we are not inclined to proceed further anddecide the olher 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 Aganval, supra, as a one-time measureexercising the powers under Article 142 of theConstitution of lndia, permitted the Revenue to proceedunder lhe substituted provisions, and this Court allowingthe petitions only on the procedural flaw, the right confened on the Revenue [vt/ould ]remain [resend ][to]proceed further if they so want from the stage of theorder of the Supreme Court in the case [of ][Ashish]Agarwal, supra. 38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the caseof Ashish Aganval, supra, as a one-time measureexercising the powers under Article 142 of theConstitution of lndia, permitted the Revenue to proceedunder lhe substituted provisions, and this Court allowingthe petitions only on the procedural flaw, the right confened on the Revenue [vt/ould ]remain [resend ][to]proceed further if they so want from the stage of theorder of the Supreme Court in the case [of ][Ashish]Agarwal, supra. 18. We would only further like to make observations [that ][since]we are inclined to dispose of the instant writ [petition, ][conscious ][of]the fact that the earlier order of [this ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (l [supra) ][is ][subjected ][to ][challenge]before the Hon'ble Supreme [Court ][in ] [No.3574 ][of ][2024,]preferred by the Income Tax Department, [we ][make ][it ][clear that]allowing of th. inrtunt writ [petition ][is ][subject ][to ][outcome ][of ][the]aforesaid SLP preferred by [the ][Revenue against ][the decision ][of ][this]High Court in the [case ][of ][Kanakala Ravindra ][Reddy ][(1 ][wpra)']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 ] [onthe ][very ][sarne issue.] 19. Accordingly, the [instant][ writ ][petition ][stands ][allowed ][in]lavour ol the assessee [so ][far ][as ][the ][isstre ][of ][jurisdiction]rsconcemed. As a [consequenc€, ][the ][impugned ][notice ][under]challenge under Sections [148-A ][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 stand closed. REKHA RANIREGISTRARREGISTRART:\seCTION OFFICER\seCTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY' To, 1. The Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax, Circl anmnagar";^x Department, x Department, Ministry lncome Tax, Circlanmnagar2. National Faceless Assessment Centre lncome Ta";^x Department, x Department, Ministry ofFinance , Room No 401 2nd Floor E- Ramp, Jawa harlal Nehru Stadium, Delhi1 10 003Finance , Room No 401 2nd Floor E- Ramp, Jawa harlal Nehru Stadium, Delhi1 10 003 3. The Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, North Block,Central Secretariat, Union of lndia, New Delhi- 1 1O OO1 1O OO1 OO1 .Central Secretariat, Union of lndia, New Delhi- 1 1O OO1 1O OO1 OO1 . 1 1O OO1 1O OO1 OO1 .4. One CC to Ms. Raja Shekar Rao Salvaji, Advocate IOPUCI5. One CC to Ms. J. Sunitha, SC for lncome Tax Department tbpucl6. Two CD Copies5. One CC to Ms. J. Sunitha, SC for lncome Tax Department tbpucl6. Two CD CopiesTJooGJP HIGH COURT DATED:0210512025 ORDERWP.No.29575 ot 2024 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITIONWITHOUT COSTS O,C '''- [':r='' ]--,.;,i'--",'.'l'e 6 ilE [2125]