Of Finanr:e Act, 2021 W.e.f'., 01.04.2021 Onward';, [Proceedings]Under Se,:Tion L48A O1'The Act As Also Under Sect.on 148 Of [The]Act Ought To Have Also Been Is v. The Contention Contention Of The Petitioner The Petitioner Petitioner Is That The Issue Ofthat The Issue Ofthe Issue Ofissue Ofof

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF AUGUSTTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM ANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA WRIT PETITION NO: 22794 OF 2025 Between: PURUSHOTHAM CHIPPA,Aoed about 38 vears H.No. [17-5319,]VISHNUPURI COLONY, PEER2Aorcuon, RANGA REDDY 500039 [Dist.]RANGA REDDY ...PETITIONER AND 1TNCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD [-4(1), ][HYDERABAD, ] [TOWER, ] Guards, Masab Tank, HYDERABAD 500004.Guards, Masab Tank, HYDERABAD 500004. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF , [lncome ][Tax ][Towers,]A.C.Guards, Hyderabad 500004.A.C.Guards, Hyderabad 500004. 2 ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 ol the Constitution [of ][lndia ][praying ][that ][in ][the]circumstances stated in the affidavit [filed ][therewith, ][the ][High ][Court ][may ][be]pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate [writ, ][order ][or]direction, declaring the Notice issued by the [lncome ][Tax ][Officer, ][Ward- ][4(1),]Hyderabad, Under section 148 of the lncome [Tax ][Act, ][1961 Date ][of ][Notice]2glo3t2o24 DIN No. ITBA/ASTiS/148-1 12023-2411063607607(1 ) [For ][the ][Year]Assessment Year 2O2O-21 and all consequential [orders passed in pursuance ][of]the said Notice, as arbitrary illegal [bad ][in ][law without jurisdiction ][void ][abinitio]violative of principles of Natural Justice [part from ][being ][violative of Article ][4, ][19]and 265 of Constitution of lndia and [consequently ][set ][aside the same ][in ][the]interests of [justice.] lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances statedin the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cot rt may be [pleased ]tostay all further proceedings including any recovery, pursuart to the Notice issuedby the lncome I'ax Officer, Ward- 4( 1 ), Hyderabad, Undrrr section 148 of thelncome Tax Act, 1961 Date of Notice 2911t312024 DIN No.ITBA/AST/S/148,112023-2411063607607(1) For the Year Assessment Year2O2O-21 and all consequential orders passed in pursuanr:e of the said Noticepending disposal of writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI GAJANAND CHAKRAVARTHY, REP. FORSRI UPADHYAY RAGHAVENDER Counsel forthe Respondents: Ms. B.SAPNA REDDY, Sr. SC INCOME TAXThe Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE [ruSTICE ][P.SAM ] ANDTHE HONOURABLE WRIT PETTTION N[0.22794 ][0F ][2025] ORDER, [(per ]l{on'ble [Sri ][Justice ][Suddala Chalapathi ][Rao)] tleard Sri Gajanand [Chakravarthy, ][learncd ][counsel]representing Sri Upadhyay [Raghavender, leamed counsel ][for ][the]petitioner and Ms.B.Sapna [Reddy, ][leamed ][Senior ][Standing]Counsel fbr [the ][Income ][Tax ][Department, ][lor ][the ][respondents']Perused the record. 2. This is a writ [petition ][where ][the ][proceedings ][are ][either]chaltenged to the [notices ][which ][were ][issued ][under Section ][148,4.]and 148 of the lncome [Tax ][Act,,l961 ][(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]that the notices [issued ][under Section ][148,4 ][of ][the ][Act]grounds, 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 Finanr:e Act, 2021 w.e.f'., 01.04.2021 onward';, [proceedings]under Se,:tion l48A o1'the Act as also under Sect.on 148 of [the]Act ought to have also been issued and [proceede,.l ]iu [a ][faceless]manner. 3. This writ petition [is ][being taken ][up ][today ][only ][on ][one ][of ][the]that the notices [issued ][under Section ][148,4 ][of ][the ][Act]grounds, 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 Finanr:e Act, 2021 w.e.f'., 01.04.2021 onward';, [proceedings]under Se,:tion l48A o1'the Act as also under Sect.on 148 of [the]Act ought to have also been issued and [proceede,.l ]iu [a ][faceless]manner. 4. The contention contention of the petitioner the petitioner petitioner is that the issue ofthat the issue ofthe issue ofissue ofofproceedings being in violation of the Finance Ac' , 2021 i.e., theimpugned noticcs under Section l48A and Section 148 of the [Act]not being issued in a laceless manner, have already been dealt withand decided by this Court in the case of I(ANKANALARAVINDRA REDDY vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICERT decidedon 14.09.2023 whereby a batch olwrit petitions w,)re allowed andthe proceedings initiated under Section l48A as alsr under Section148 of the Act were held to he bad with consequentral reliefs on theground ol it being in violation of the provisions of llection 151A ofthe Act read rvith Notitlcation 1812022 dated 29.03 2022. The saidjudgment passed by this Court has also been subseq uently followedin a large: number of writ petitions which were alk rvved on similarterrns The contention contention of the petitioner the petitioner petitioner is that the issue ofthat the issue ofthe issue ofissue ofof '[(2023) 156 taxmann.com lTtt (]'elangana)l I 5. Down the line, we find that the same issue has also beendecided against the Revenue byvanous High Courts i.e.,by the Bombay HighCourtin the case of HEXAWARETECHNOLOGIES LTD., vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX & OTHERS2, Gauhati High Court in the caseof RAM NARAYAN SAH vs. UNION OF INDIAT, Punjab andHaryana Iligh Court in the case of JATINDER SINGH BANGUvs. UNION OF INDIA4, and Telangana High Court in the case ofSRI VENKATARAMANA REDDY PATLOOLA VS. DEPUTYCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX5 where the issue was inrespect of intemational taxation, Bombay High Court in the case ofABHIN ANILKUMAR SHAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,INTERNATIONAL TAXATION6 which is again on intemationaltaxation and central circle, High Court of Himachal Pradesh in thecase of GOVIND SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERT,Gujarat lligh Court in the case of MANSUKHBHAI 'lzoz+1464 [430 ][(Bom)]'l(2024) [156 ][taxmann.com 478 ][(Gauhati)l]^ [(2024) [[65 ][taxmann.com ] [15 ][(Punjab ][& ][Haryana)]]'[2024) [167 ][taxmann.com 411 (Telangana)]]" 12024) [166 ][taxmann.com 679 ][(Bombay)l]'[2024) 165 taxmann.com 113 (Himachal Pradesh)] DAHYABHAI RADADIYA VS. INCOMB TAX OFFICER'WARD 3(3X5)8, Jharkand lligh Court in the [casre ]of SUNDAR SAW vs. UNION OF INDIAe, [Rajasthan ][High ][Court in]the case of SHARDA DEVI CHHAJER vs. II{COME TAXOFFICER & ANOTHER and batch ol writ [pctitionsr0 which]stood decided on 19.03.2024. Simitar views have iLlso been [taken]by the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in the case ofGIRDHAR GOPAL DALMIA [vs. ]UNION OF INDIA & (M.A.T 1690 of 2023), decided on25.09.2024.6. Evr:n though the same issue having been decided by a largenumber of High Courts, we are still confronted witlr large filing ofidentical matters on daily basis ranging between 5 to l0 writpetitions. That upon the instructions being sought from theDepartment, they have been taking a solitary g:ound that thedecision of the Bombay High Court in the cas€ of HexawareTechnologies Ltd., (2 supra) as also the one uhich has beendecided by this Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy *zoz+ scc onl-ine Guj 4012'2025 [Online ][Jhar ][287]' o 12023, [: ][49 ][84-DB ]lscc onl-ine Guj 4012'2025 [Online ][Jhar ][287]' o 12023, [: ][49 ][84-DB ]l l l *zoz+ scc onl-ine Guj 4012'2025 [Online ][Jhar ][287]' o 12023, [: ][49 ][84-DB ]lscc onl-ine Guj 4012'2025 [Online ][Jhar ][287]' o 12023, [: ][49 ][84-DB ]l l l (l 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 SuprernE Court is selzed of the matter.In addition, there are about 1200 SLPs also filed arising out of thesame issue being decided by various High Courts 7. To a query being put to the leamed counsel for the Revenue,they have categorically accepted the fact that there is no interimorder granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in any of thesematters pending before it. Meanwhile, fresh writ petitions ofidentical nature are being piled up before this Bench on daily basisand the pendency is getting increased on matter which otherwisehas already been dealt and decided by this very High Court itself. 8. On the one hand, even though the order of this Court thatwas passed as early as on 14.09.2023 and more 16 months havelapsed, titt date, we do not flnd any remedial steps having beentaken by the lncome Tax Department to take appropriate steps toeither hold back issuance of notice under Section 148,,4. and underSection 148 of the Act by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer,rather the authorities concemcd tn the teeth of series of decisions by all the major High [Courts ][in ][India ][are ][corLtinuously ][still]initiating proceedings under [Section ][l48A ][of ][the ][Act ][and ][also]initiating proceed ings [under Section ] [48 ][of ][the ][Act ][in]contravention to the amendments [brought into the ][l'tcome ][Tax ][Act]pursuant to the Finance Act,2020 [as ][also ][the ][Financ ][: ][Act ][2021 ][.]g. Uprtn a query being [put ][as ][to why can't ][this ][,rrrit ][petition ][be]disposed of in the teeth of [the decision ][rendered ][[-..v ][this ][C]ourt ][in]the case of Kanakala Rovindru [Reddy ][(l ][supra), ][lcarned ][Standing]Counsel for the Income [Tax ][Department contends ][tlLat ][thosc ][would]unnecessarily burden the [Income ][Tax ][Depaftment ][where ][they]would be required to file equal [number ]of 'Ps [before ][the]Hon'ble Supreme Court [and ]it [would ][be ][further ][burdening ][the]exchequer of the Union of India. [It ][was also ][the ][c(,ntention ][of ][the]leamed Standing Counsel that no [prejudice ][would ][Lc caused ][to ][the]interest of the petitioners in case [if ][this ][writ ][petition ][is kept pending]till the lhnalization of the SLPs [pending befbre ][the ][l-lon'ble]Supreme Court and the fact that the [petitioner is ][a ][ready enjoying]the benefit of interim protection. Nonetheless, on t-re earlier [query]of this Court as to why the Income Tax Departmen, have not comeout with a mechanism to issue appropriate instruc.ions or to take !' l appropriate steps in ensuring that proceedings under Section [l48A]of the Act as also the assessment orders under Section 148 of theAct are kept in a hold in the light of the decisions dedcided by thevarious High Courts, it was submitted by the leamed StandingCounsel that the said steps can only be taken at the level of CBDTas any such steps would have to be taken Pan India and cannot belimited to any of these [jurisdictional ]High Courts. !' l appropriate steps in ensuring that proceedings under Section [l48A]of the Act as also the assessment orders under Section 148 of theAct are kept in a hold in the light of the decisions dedcided by thevarious High Courts, it was submitted by the leamed StandingCounsel that the said steps can only be taken at the level of CBDTas any such steps would have to be taken Pan India and cannot belimited to any of these [jurisdictional ]High Courts. 10. As a result of which, what wc are facing is steep increase oflitigation day in and day out even though various orders have beenpassed by this High Court allowing writ petitions on the very sameissue. The Income Tax authorities concemed are still even now in2025 also initiating proceedings in contravention to the provisionsof Section l5lA of the Act and as a result by now, more than 600to 700 petitions have been already [got piled ]up before this HighCourt on an issue which otherwise stands [squarely covered ][by ][the]judgment of this Court in the case ol' Kanakala Ravindra Reddy(1 supra). What is al(o surprising is the fact that though whileallowing the writ petitions in the case of [Kanakalu ]RavindraReddy (l supra), the Division Bench while reserving the right ofthe Revenue, has also protecled the interest of the petitioners insofar as the liberty wh{1hwas granted to th: Revenue forinitiating fresh proceedings strictly in accordance wrth the amendedprovisions of the Act, as amended by the Finance Act, 2020 andthe Finance Act,2021. The petitioner assessee wou d be entitled tochallenge or raise the other legal objections if the R:rcnue initiatesfresh proceedings. The Department has made n,r endeavour inavailing the said liberty that was.seserved for the R,:venue- On thecontrary, they have been still sticking on to the st rnd, rvhich thisHigh Court as well as many other High Courts alr,)ady held to bebad. I l. It appears that because of the aforesaid libert.i that this HighCourt had granted permitting the Revenue for initiating lieshproceedings as a one-time measure in a faceless manner, theIncome Tax Department wants to take advantage [,rf ]the same byprotracting these proceedings whieh would enable tl ern to mect thelimitation that would otherwise come in the way. l.ikewise, if thewrit petition is kept pbnding for a considerable lonp period of timeand finally at a later stage if the Hon'ble Supreme louft confirmsthe decision taken by this High Court as also by .he other I lighCourts in which the SLPs are still pending, th,: I ncome Tax Department would [get ]the advantage of the tiberty that is otherwiseprotected in favour of the Revenue lor initiation of freshproceedings from the disposal of these matters at a much later stagewhich would be advantageous and beneflcial to the Revenue andwould be equally disadvantageous and detrimental so far as interestof the assesses are concemed. As a consequence, the lncome TaxDepartment [gets ]an extended [period ]of time for initiation of fieshproceedings. 12. The alarming trend of docket explosion in this Court, despitethe clear precedent set in Kanakiila Rtvindra Reddy [(1 ]supra), is amatter of [grave ]concem. The Income Tax Department's persistentinitiation of fresh proceedings, disregarding the established [judicial]pronouncements, has led to an unprecedented surge in litigationwith over 600-700 petitions piting up on the same issue. Thisdeliberate approach not only undennines [the principle ]of [judicial]precedent but also strains the [judicial ]rcsources unnecessarily. TheDepaftment's strategy bf awaiting the Supreme Courl's decision onpending SLPs while continuirg to initiate fresh proceedingsappears to be a calculated move to buy time and circumventlimitation periods, rather than adhering to the established legal position. Such conduct raises serious [questi( ]'ns [about ][the]administrative efficiency and the respect [fbr ][judicial]pronouncements, particularly when this Court [has ][a ][lready ][provided]a balanced approach by preserving both [the ][Revertue's ][rights ][and]assesses interests. position. Such conduct raises serious [questi( ]'ns [about ][the]administrative efficiency and the respect [fbr ][judicial]pronouncements, particularly when this Court [has ][a ][lready ][provided]a balanced approach by preserving both [the ][Revertue's ][rights ][and]assesses interests. 13. Another aspect which needs to be considered [is ][that ][in ][f'act ][it]should have been realized by the Income [Tax ][Department ][itself ][and]should have lound out via media in ensuring [tlLat proceedings]under Sections 148-4 and 148 should not [have ][b:en ][issued ][in ][a]faceless manner, at least till the Hon'ble Supreme [(lourt ][decide ][the]twelve hrLndred [( ]1200) odd SLPs which it is alreadl [seized ][of ][or, ][at]least the Income Tax Department should have [f ]:und [out ][some]remedial steps to ensure that wherever the auth<'rities [intend ][to]initiate proceedings under Sections 148-A and 148 [other than ][in ][a]faceless manner, the proceedings should have [been ][delened]without precipitating the matter further intimating [the ][assessee ][that]they shall initiate appropriate [proceedings ][only ][aftr:r ][the S[-P's ][are]decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the [v,:ry ][same ][issue]This again, the Income Tax Department, has not be,:n able to [give ]aconvincing reply, except for the fact that such a crecision if at alt has to be taken, has to be taken for the whole of lndia, and whichotherwise has to be by way of a policy decision and that too at thelevel of Central Board of Direct Taxes. Though the leamedStanding Counsel for the lncome 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 petitions which inthe long run not only affects the disposal ol the writ petitions butalso consumes substantial time of the Bench in hearing thesematters again and again on daily basis. Admittedly, in spite of thematter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court having been taken onmany occasions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court which is seized of thematter has been reluctant in granting any interim protection to theIncome Tax Department. Yet, the authorities concemed at theState level are not ready to accept the verdict passed by a majorityof High Courts of different States on the same issue; and to makethings further worse, the Income Tax DepartmentIS showingaudacity by issuing notices continuously under Sections 148-A and 148 through the [jurisdictional ]Assessing Officer [v hereas ]it [ought]to have been only in the faceless manner 14. In the case of BANK OF INDIA vs. ASSISTANTCOMMISSIONER, INCOME TAXIr, on an issut [rvhether ][it ][was]justifiable on the part of the Income Tax Department in notfollowing an order passed by the adjudicating authority only on theground that the appeals are pending, the Divisiorr Bench of theHigh Court ol Bombay held at paragraph No.25 as r nder, 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) t.td. v. lTOr3of which one of us [(Justice ]G.S. Kulkarni) was a meml)er. whereinthe Oourt categoflcally observed that the Revenue having not"accepted" the judgment of the High Court would not rlean that tillthe same is set aside in a manner known to law, it wcJld loose itsbinding force. Referring 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 critic zed by theSupreme Court. ln such deciiion, following are 'he relevantobservations made by the Supreme Court. " ilZOZSl [170 ][taxmann.com 422 ][(Bombay)l]'' it9zal [13 ][I'fR ][589 ][(Bombay)]'' it9zal [13 ][I'fR ][589 ][(Bombay)] " ilZOZSl [170 ][taxmann.com 422 ][(Bombay)l]'' it9zal [13 ][I'fR ][589 ][(Bombay)]'' it9zal [13 ][I'fR ][589 ][(Bombay)] " 720241 [65 ][taxmann.com 581i300 Taxman ][452 ][(Bombay)] " 1l99zlraxmann.com [l6155 ] [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 [perhaps]genuinely felt that the claim of lhe assessee [was ][not]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 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 Assrstanl]Collectors and the Appellate [Collectors who ][function]under the [jurisdiction ][of ][the ][Tribunal. ][The principles ][of]judicial disc,ipline 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 subiect [matter ]of an [appeal can ][furnish ][no]ground for not following it unless [ils ][operation ][has]been suspended [by a competent ][court. ][lf ][this ][healthy]genuinely felt that the claim of lhe assessee [was ][not]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 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 Assrstanl]Collectors and the Appellate [Collectors who ][function]under the [jurisdiction ][of ][the ][Tribunal. ][The principles ][of]judicial disc,ipline 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 subiect [matter ]of an [appeal can ][furnish ][no]ground for not following it unless [ils ][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 ength,because it has been suggested by the lr:arnedAdditional Solicitor General that the obsen ationsmade by the High Court, have been harsh [,rn ]theofficers. lt is clear that the observations of thi: HighCourt, seemingly vehement, and app,lrentlyunpalatable to the Revenue, are only intended tc curba tendency in revenue matters which, if allov/ed tobecome widespread, could result in considerableharassment to the assesses-public without any [,)enefit]to the Revenue. We would like to say th rt thedepartment should take these observations n theproper spirit. The observations of the High Courtshould be kept in mind in future and the utmost egardshould be paid by the adjudicating authorities a1d theappellate authorities to the requirements of jrdicialdiscipline and the need for giving effect to the lrdersof the higher appellate authorities which are bindingon them." I 5. Wtrat is worrying this Bench more is th: 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 High Courts all of whom have taken a consistent standthat the action of the I ncome Tax Department being violative of the l .j FinanceAct,2020andFinanceAct,202l.Now,inordertoprotectthe 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]Kankanalu [Ravindra ][Reddy ][(l ][supra) ][shall however ][be subject ][to]theoutcomeoftheSLPswhichwerelrledbythelncomeTaxDepartment [and ][which ][is pending consideration before ][the ][Hon'ble]Supreme [Court.] 16. [n [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 ][fortified by ][the ][decisions ][of ][the various ][other]Courts [on ][the ][veiy ][same ][issue, ][the ][pendency ][of ][this ][Fligh]tligh 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 protected, ][as ][has been ][observed ][in ][paragraphs] 36,37 an<l38 ofthe order which, for ready referenc,:, is reproducedhereunder: 36. For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugneii noticesissued and the proceedings drawn by the res )ondent-Department rs neither tenable, nor sustainable.The notices so issued and the procedure adoptrd beingper se illegal, deserves to be and are accord ngly setaside/quashed. As a consequence, all the irrpugnedorders getting quashed, the consequential orderi passedby the respondent-Department pursuant to the noticesissued under Section 147 and 148 would a so getquashed and it is ordered accordingly. The reilson weare quashing the consequential order is on the principlesthat when the initiation of the proceedings itr;elf wasprocedurally wrong, the subsequent orders a so getsnullified automatically. 37. The preliminary objection raised by the pet tioner issustained and all these writ petitions stands alk>wed onthis very [jurisdictional ]issue. Since the impugnec noticesand orders are getting quashed on the t)otnt ofjurisdiction. we are not inclined to proceed furher anddecide the other issues raised by the petitionr)r whichstands reserved to be raised and contenderl in anappropriate proceedings. 37. The preliminary objection raised by the pet tioner issustained and all these writ petitions stands alk>wed onthis very [jurisdictional ]issue. Since the impugnec noticesand orders are getting quashed on the t)otnt ofjurisdiction. we are not inclined to proceed furher anddecide the other issues raised by the petitionr)r whichstands reserved to be raised and contenderl in anappropriate proceedings. 38. Since ihe Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in lhe caseof Ashash Agarwal, suprs', as a one{ime rneasureexercising the powers under Article 142 of theConstitution of lndia, permitted the Revenue to proceedunder the substituted provisions, and this Court allowingthe petitions only on the procedural flaw, tr)e right .\! conferred 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 ][of ][Ashish]Aganaral, 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 ][Gourt ][in ] [No'3574 ][of ][2024']preferred by the Income [Tax Department, we ][make ][it ][clear ][that]of [the ][instant ][writ ][petitjon ][is ][subject ][to ][outcome ][of ][the]atlowing aforesaid SLP [preferred ][by ][the ][Revenue against ][the decision ][of ][this]High Court in the [case ][of ][Kanakala Ruvindra ][Reddy ][(l ][supra)']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]Courl 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]concemed. As a [consequence, ][the ][impugned ][notice ][under]challenge under Sections [148-4 and ][148 ][stands ][set ][aside/quashed'] --\.. *-:'1 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 Kankanqla Ravindro Reddy (l supra). There shall be no order asto costs. '! Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pendirg, if any, shall stand closed SD/. N. SRIHARIDEPUTY REGISTRAR//TRUE COPY//secJhfff,rrrcenTo,'1 . The lncome Tax Officer, Ward -4('1), lT Tower, AC Guards, N/asab Tank,Hyderabad-500004.2. The Principal Commissioner Of lncome Tax 1, lncome Tax Towers,A.C.Guards, Hyderabad 500004.3. One CC to SRI UPADHYAY RAGHAVENDER, Advocate 4. One CC kr Ms. B.SAPNA REDDY, Sr. SC INCOME TAX 5. Two CD C;opiesBSRPVLfk HIGH COURT DATED:0410812025 --l::=-: 5 r,:._:_:"-.,,/-'r: , [\\]rii'.';,\12 [sEP ][20ffi ][', ]['i]i'\,\ .,:.,1\*,t' ,,l- ^.,1.1,.,-,/') [-4 ]rC!1. i' ORDER WP.No.22794 ot 2025 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION,WITHOUT COSTS