Of Finanr:e Act, 2021 W.e.f., 01.04.2021 Onwardr;, Proceedings Under Ser:tion I 48A Of The Act As Also Under Sectr On I48 Of The Act Ought To Have Also Been Iss v. Income-Tax Offitcert Decided Oo 14.09.2.023 Whereby A Batch Of Writ Petitions Wer.e Allowed And The Proceedings Initi

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF APRILTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYAND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION NO: 33508 OF 2024 Between: PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY MAHAI\IN,'IADAPUR, Rep. by the Secretary IVIUDRABOINA RAIvIESH, [S/o]IVUDRABOINA SARAIAH, Aged about 45 [years, ]Occupation Business, [Rl/o]MahammadapurDuggondi,Warangal 506001 Telangana, lndia. PAN ,Assessment Year 2019 - 20. .....PETITIONER AND 1. The lncome Tax Officer Ward-|,, Warangal lncome Tax Office, D.No. [1-8-610,]3'd Floor, Mayuri Complex, Opp Tsnpdcf Bhawan, Nakkalagutta,Hanamkonda, Warangal, Telangana.3'd Floor, Mayuri Complex, Opp Tsnpdcf Bhawan, Nakkalagutta,Hanamkonda, Warangal, Telangana. 2. The Principal Chief Commissioner of lncome Tax [Telangana ]and [A.P,,]Hyderabad, lT Towers, AC Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad [-- ]500028,Telangana.Hyderabad, lT Towers, AC Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad [-- ]500028,Telangana. 3. The Central Board of Direct Taxes,, Represented [by ][its ]Chairman,Department of Revenue, Ivlinistry of Finance, Government of lndia, SecretariatBuildings, New Delhi - 1 ['10 ]001 [.]Department of Revenue, Ivlinistry of Finance, Government of lndia, SecretariatBuildings, New Delhi - 1 ['10 ]001 [.] 4. The National Faceless Assessment Center, lncome [Tax ]Department, [New]Delhi.Delhi. 5. The Union of lndia, Represented by [its ]Secretary [to the Government,]Department of Revenue, tV'linistry of Finance, New Delhi [- ][110 ][001 ][.]Department of Revenue, tV'linistry of Finance, New Delhi [- ][110 ][001 ][.] .....RESPONDENTS Petition Under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of [lndia ][praying ][that in ][the]circumstances stated in the affidavit [filed ][therewith, ][the ][High Court ][may ][be]pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more [particularly ][one ][in]the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring [the order passed by ][the ][lncome ][Tax] Authorities (National Faceless E-Assessment Centre) conrpleted the assessmentU/S 147 r.w s 144 of the lncome-tax Act Date of 19-03-2024, DINU/S 147 r.w s 144 of the lncome-tax Act Date of 19-03-2024, DINITBA/AST/S/14712023-2411062933051(1) for the Assessment Year 2019-20determining the total income of Rs. 8,62,58,439/- as arbitrary, illegal, bad in law,without [jurisdiction, ]void-ab-initlo, violative of the principles of natural justice apartfrom being violative of Articles 14, 19(1Xg) and 265 of ttre Constitution of lndiaand Sec. 148A of the lncome Tax Act, 1961, and cons3quently set aside thesame in the interests of [justice.]determining the total income of Rs. 8,62,58,439/- as arbitrary, illegal, bad in law,without [jurisdiction, ]void-ab-initlo, violative of the principles of natural justice apartfrom being violative of Articles 14, 19(1Xg) and 265 of ttre Constitution of lndiaand Sec. 148A of the lncome Tax Act, 1961, and cons3quently set aside thesame in the interests of [justice.] |.A.NO:1 OF 2024 Petition lJnder Section 151 CPC praying that in the r;ircumstances stated inthe affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Co rrt may be pleased tosuspend the orCer Under seclion 147r.w.s 144 of the lncome-tax Act Date of 19-03-2024, DIN ITBA/ASTlsl147l2A23- 2411062933051(1) for the Assessment Year2019-20 determining the total income of Rs. 8,62,58.439/- rnd Demand notice u/s'I 56 of the lncome Tax act 1961, vide DIN and Notice No. ITBA AST/S/15612023-2411062933302(1) Dt:19-03-2024 for the assessment )ear 2019-20 pendingdisposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI THANNERU CHAITANYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 : Ms. BOKARO SAPNA REDDY (Jr. SCFOR TNCOME TAX) counsel for the Respondent No.5 : sRl B.MUKHERJEE, LEARNED COUNSELREPRESENTING THE UNION OF INDIA The Court made the following ORDER Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI THANNERU CHAITANYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 : Ms. BOKARO SAPNA REDDY (Jr. SCFOR TNCOME TAX) counsel for the Respondent No.5 : sRl B.MUKHERJEE, LEARNED COUNSELREPRESENTING THE UNION OF INDIA The Court made the following ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSTTYANI)THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAONANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION No.33508 OF 2024 ORDER, (per Hon'ble Sri Jusrice Narsing Rao Nandikonda) Heard Mr.Thanneru Chaitanya Kumar, learned counselfor the petitioner, Ms. B.Sapna Reddy, learned Junior StandingCounsel for the Income Tax Department for respondent Nos.l to 4and Mr. B. Mukherjee, leamed counsel representing the Union ofIndia for respondent No.5. Perused the record 2. This is a writ petition where the proceedings are eitherchallenged to the notices which were issued under Section l48Aand 148 of the Income Tax Act, t96l (for short'rhe Act') ortheassessment orders those have been passed under Section 147 ofthe Act which have been assailed. 3. This writ petition is being taken up today only on one of thegrounds, that the notices issued under Section l48A of the Actand the subsequent initiation ofproceedings under Section 148 ofthe Act by the [jurisdictional ]Assessing Ofhcer, rvhereas in termsof the amendment that was brought to the Income [-Iax ]Act by way of Finanr:e Act, 2021 w.e.f., 01.04.2021 onwardr;, proceedingsunder Ser:tion I 48A of the Act as also under Sectr on I48 of theAct ought to have also been issued and proceedec in a facelessmanner 4. Thr: contention of the petitioner is that the issue ofproceedings being in violation of the Finance Act 20Zl i.e., theimpugned notices under Section l48A and Section l4g ofthe Actnot being issued in a faceless manner, have already been dealt withand decided by this Court in the case of KANI(ANALARAVINDRA REDDY vs. INCOME-TAX OFFITCERT decidedoo 14.09.2.023 whereby a batch of writ petitions wer.e allowed andthe proceedings initiated under Section 148,4. as also under Section148 of the Act were held to be bad with consequential reliefs on theground of it being in violation of the provisions of Sr,ction I 5 1A ofthe Act read with Notification 1812022 dated29.03.2)22. The saidjudgment passed by this Court has also been subsequcntly followedin a large rrumber of writ petitions which were allov,ed on similarterms. '[(2023) 156 taxmann.com 178 (Telangana)] 5. Down the line, we find that the same issue has also beendecided against the Revenue by various High Courts i.e.,by the Bombay High Court in rhe case of HEXAWARETECHNOLOGIES LTD., vs. ASSISTANT COMMTSSIONEROF INCOME TAX & OTHERS2, Gauhati High Court in the caseof RAM NARAYAN SAH vs. UNION Ot' INDIAT, punjab andHaryana High Court in the case of JATINDER SINGH BANGUvs. UNION OF INDIA4, and Telangana High Court in the case ofSRI VENKATARAMANA REDDY PATLOOLA vs. DEPUTYCOMIVilSSIONER OF INCOME TAX5 where rhe issue was inrespect of international taxation, Bombay High Court in the case ofABHIN ANILKUMAR SHAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,INTERNATIONAL TAXATION6 which is again on intcmationaltaxation and central circle, High Court of Himachal Pradesh in thecase of GOVIND SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERT,Gujarat High Court in the case of MANSUKHBHAI '7zoz+1464ITR [430 ][(Bom) ] l '[(2024) [156 ]taxmann.com 478 [(Gauhati)]] ^[(2024) 165 taxmann.com 115 (Punjab & Haryana)] '[2024) [167 ][taxmarm.com ][4l ][1 ][(Telangana)]] " [2024) [166 ]taxmam.com 679 [(Bombay)]] ' [2024) [1 ][65 ]taxmann.com [1 ][1 ]3\Tllmachal Pradesh)] '7zoz+1464ITR [430 ][(Bom) ] l '[(2024) [156 ]taxmann.com 478 [(Gauhati)]] ^[(2024) 165 taxmann.com 115 (Punjab & Haryana)] '[2024) [167 ][taxmarm.com ][4l ][1 ][(Telangana)]] " [2024) [166 ]taxmam.com 679 [(Bombay)]] ' [2024) [1 ][65 ]taxmann.com [1 ][1 ]3\Tllmachal Pradesh)] DAHYABHAI RADADIYA VS. INCOME TAX [OFFICER,]-WARD 3(3X5)8, Jharkand High Court in the car;e of SUNDAR SAW vs. UNION OF [INDIAe, ][Rajasthan ][High Court ][in]the case of SHARDA DEVI CHHAJER vs. OFIIICER & ANOTHER and batch of writ [petitionsr') which]stood decided on 19.03.2024. Similar [views ][have ][:Llso ][been taken]by the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court [in ][the ][case ][ol]GIRDHAR GOPAL DALMIA vs. fINION OF [& ] (M.A.T 1690 of 2023), decided on25.09.2024.6. Even though the same issue having been dec ded by a [large]number oi High Courts, we are still confronted witl [large ][frling ][ol]identical matters on daily basis ranging between 5 to l0 [writ]petitions. That upon the instructions being sot.ght lrom theDepartment, they have been taking a solitary [g:'ound ]that [the]decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of He,rawureTechnologies Ltd., (2 supra) as also the one wnich has beendecide{ by this Court in the case of Kanakala Rtvindra ReddyI Ezoz+ scc online Guj 4012'2025 [Online ][Jhar 287]o ' 12023 [: ] [-JD :4984- ] a (1 supra) has been subjected to challenge in a Special LeavePetition i.e., SLp No.3574 of 2024 before the Hon,ble SupremeCourt and the Hon'ble Supreme Court is seized of the matter.In addition, there are about 1200 SLps also fited arising out ofthesame issue being decided by various High Courts. 7. To a query being put to the learned counsel for the Revenue,they have categorically accepted the fact that there is no interimorder granted by the Hon,ble Supreme Court in any of thesematters pending before ir. Meanwhile. lresh writ pcritions ofidentical nature are being piled up before this Benoh on daity 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, till date, we do not find any remedial steps having beentaken by the Income Tax Department to take appropriate steps toeither hold back issuance of notice under Section 14gA and underSection 148 of the Act by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer,rather the authorities concemed in the teeth of series of decisions by all the major [High ][Courts ][in ][India ][are ][cont:nuously still]initiating [proceedings ][under ][Section ][148,{ ][of ][the Act ][and ][also]initiating [proceedings ][under ][Section ][148 ][of ][the ][Act ][in]contravention [to ][the amendments ][brought ][into ][the ][Income Tax ][Act]pursuant to the [Finance ][Act,2020 ][as ][also the ][Finance Lct2021 ][']g. Upon a [query being ][put ][as ][to ][why can't this ][urit ][petition ][be]of [in ][the teeth ][of ][the decision ][rendered ][by this ][Court ][in]disposed the case [o1' ][Karnkala ][Ravindra ][Reddy ][(1 ][supra)' leamed ][Standing]Counsel [for ][the ][lncome Tax ][Department contends ][thrrt ][those ][would]unnecessarily [burden ][the ][Income ][Tax ][Departmer't ][where ][they]would be [required ][to ][file ][equal ][number ][of ] [ls ][before ][the]Hon'ble Supreme [Court ][and ][it ][would be ][further ][burdening ][the]of [the ][Union ][of ][India' ][It ][was also ][the contention ][of ][the]exchequer leamed Standing [Counsel ][that ][no ][prejudice ][would ][b: ][caused ][to ][the]interest of the [petitioners ][in ][case ][if ][this ][writ ][petition ][s ][kept ][pending]till the [finalization ][of ][the ][SLPs pending beforr: ][the ][Hon'ble]Supreme [Courl ][and ][the fact ][that ][the ][petitioner ][is ][already enjoying]the benefit of [interim ][protection. ][Nonetheless, on ][the earlier ][query]of this Court as [to ][why ][the.Income ][Tax ][Department have ][not ][come]out with [a mechanism ][to ][issue ][appropriate ][instruct ][ions or ][to ][take] appropnate. steps in ensuring that proceedings under Section l4gAof the Act as also the assessment orders under Section l4g of theAct are kept in a hold in the light of the decisions dedcided by theof the Act as also the assessment orders under Section l4g 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.as any such steps would have to be taken pan India and cannot belimited to any of these jurisdictional High Courts. 10. As a result of which, what we are facing is steep increase oflitigation day in and day out even though various orders have beenpassed by this High Court allowing writ petitions on the very sameissue. The Income Tax authorities concerned 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 thejudgment of this Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy(1 supra). What is also surprising is the fact that though whileallowing the writ petitions in the case of Kanakala RavindraReddy (1 supra), the Division Bench while reserving the right ofthe Revenue, has also protected the interest of the petitioners insofar as the liberty which was granted to the Revenue forinitiating fresh proceedings strictly in accordance u ith the amendedprovisions of the Act, as amended by the Financt: Act. 2020 andthe Finance Act,202l. The petitioner assessee wol ld be entitled tochallengt: or raise the other legal objections if the F.evenue initiatesfresh proceedings. The Department has made no endeavour inavailing the said Iiberty that was reserved for the Revenue. On thecontrary, thcy have been still sticking on to the stand, which thisHigh Court as well as many other High Courts already held to bebad insofar as the liberty which was granted to the Revenue forinitiating fresh proceedings strictly in accordance u ith the amendedprovisions of the Act, as amended by the Financt: Act. 2020 andthe Finance Act,202l. The petitioner assessee wol ld be entitled tochallengt: or raise the other legal objections if the F.evenue initiatesfresh proceedings. The Department has made no endeavour inavailing the said Iiberty that was reserved for the Revenue. On thecontrary, thcy have been still sticking on to the stand, which thisHigh Court as well as many other High Courts already held to bebad I 1. It appears that because of the aforesaid liberty that this HighCourt had granted permitting the Revenue for initiating freshproceedings as a one-time measure in a facele;s manner, theIncome 1'ax Department wants to take advantage of the same byprotracting these proceedings which would enable them to meet thelimitation that would otherwise come in the way. -ikewise, if thewrit petition is kept p'ending for a considerable longr period of timeand finally at a later stage if the Hon'ble Supreme Court confirmsthe decision taken by this High Court as also by the other HighCourts in which the SLPs are still pending, the lncome Tax l Department would get the advantage of the liberty that is otherwiseprotected in favour of the Revenue for initiation of freshproceedings from the disposal ofthese matters at a much later stagewhich would be advantageous and beneficial to the Revenue andwould be equally disadvantageous and detrimental so far as interestof the assesses are concerned. As a consequence, the Income TaxDepartment gets an extended period of time for initiation of fieshproceedings.which would be advantageous and beneficial to the Revenue andwould be equally disadvantageous and detrimental so far as interestof the assesses are concerned. As a consequence, the Income TaxDepartment gets an extended period of time for initiation of fieshproceedings. 12. The alarming trend of docket explosion in this Court, despite the clear precedent set in Kanakala Ravindra Retldy (l supra), is amatter of grave concern. The Income Tax Department's persistentinitiation of fresh proceedings, disregarding the established judicialpronouncements, has led to an unprecedented surge in litigationwith over 600-700 petitions piling up on the same issue. Thisdeliberate approach not only undermines the principle of judicialprecedent but also .strains the judicial resources unnecessarily. TheDepartment's strategy of awaiting the Supreme Court's decision onpending SLPs while continuing to initiate fresh proceedingsappears to be a calculated move to buy time and circumventlimitation periods, rather than adhering to the established legal posilion. Such conduct raises serious qrLestions about theadministrative efhciency and the resl)ect for [judicial]pronouncements, particularly when this Court has already provideda baianced approach by preserving both the Fievenue's rights andassesses lnterests 13. Another aspect which needs to be considered is that in fact itshould have been realized by the Income Tax D epartment itself andshou td have found out via media in ensurirLg that proceedingsunder Sections 148-,{ and 148 should not ha',,e been issued in afaceless manner, at least till the Hon'ble Supretne Court decide thetwelve hundred (1200) odd SLPs which it is alr:ady seized ofor, atleast the Income Tax Department should ha.re found out someremedial steps to ensure that wherever the authorities intend toinitiate proceedings under Sections 148-A and 148, other than in afaceless manner, the proceedings should hrve been deferredwithout precipitating the matter further intimating the assessee thatthey shall initiate appropriate proceedings only after the SLP's aredecided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the very same issue.This irgain, the Income Tax Depafiment, has nol been able to give aconvincing reply, except for the fact that such a decision if at all has to be taken, has to be taken for the whole of India, and whichotherwise has to be by way ofa 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 of 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 make\thingi further worse, the Income Tax Department is showingaudacity by issuing notices continuously under Sections 148-A and 148 through the [jurisdictional ]Assessing Officer [u'hereas ][it ][ought]to have been only in the faceless manner. 14. In the case of BANK OF INDIA vs. COMMISSIONER, INCOME TAXIr, on an [issue, ][whether ][it ][was]justifiabh on the part of the lncome Tax Department in notfollowing, an order passed by the adjudicating authority only on theground that the appeals are pending, the Divisiou Bench of theHigh Court of Bombay held at paragraph No.25 as rnder, viz., [:] "25. Mr. Paridwalla has rightly drawn out atterrtion 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) L.td. v. lTO13of which one of us (Justice G.S. Kulkarni) was a member, whereinthe Court categorically observed that the Revenue having not"accepted" the judgment of the High Court would not rlean that tillthe same is set aside in a manner known to law, it woJld loose [its]binding force. Referring to the decision of lhe Supreme Court [in]Union of lndia vs. Kamlakshi Finance Corporatiorr Ltd.14, theCoud observed that the approach of the officials of Revenue oftreating decisions being ["not ]acceptable" was criticzed by [the]Supreme Court. ln such decision, following are lhe [relevant]observations made'by the Supreme Court. tr 11zOZS; [170 ][taxmann.com 422 ][(Bombay)l]1'1t9281 113 ITR 589 (Bombay)" TzOz+11 [65 ][taxmann.com ][581/300 ][Taxman ][452 ][(Bombay)]'o llggzltaxmann.com [l6155 ] [433 ][(SC)] l..j tr 11zOZS; [170 ][taxmann.com 422 ][(Bombay)l]1'1t9281 113 ITR 589 (Bombay)" TzOz+11 [65 ][taxmann.com ][581/300 ][Taxman ][452 ][(Bombay)]'o llggzltaxmann.com [l6155 ] [433 ][(SC)] l..j "6. Sri Reddy is perhaps right in saying that theofficers were not actuated by any mala fides inpassing the impugned orders. They perhapsgenuinely felt that the claim of the assessee was nottenable and that, if it was accepted, the Revenuetenable and that, if it was accepted, the Revenuewould suffer. But what Sri Reddy overlooks is that weare not concerned here with the correctness orare not concerned here with the correctness orotherwise of their conclusion or of any factualmalafides but with the fact that the officers, in reachingin their conclusion, by-passed two appellate orders inregard to the same issue which were placed beforethem, one of the Collector (Appeals) and the other ofthe Tribunal. The High Court has, in our view, righ ymalafides but with the fact that the officers, in reachingin their conclusion, by-passed two appellate orders inregard to the same issue which were placed beforethem, one of the Collector (Appeals) and the other ofthe Tribunal. The High Court has, in our view, righ ycriticized this conduct of the Assistant Collectors andthe harassment to the assessee caused by the failureof these officers to give effect to the orders ofauthorities higher to them in the appellate hierarchy. Itcannot be too vehemenUy emphasized that it is ofutmost importance that, in disposing of thethe harassment to the assessee caused by the failureof these officers to give effect to the orders ofauthorities higher to them in the appellate hierarchy. Itcannot be too vehemenUy emphasized that it is ofutmost importance that, in disposing of thequasijudicial issues before lhem, revenue officers arebound by the decisions of the appellate authorities.The order of the Appellte Collector is binding on theThe order of the Appellte Collector 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 unreservedlythe 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 subordinaie authorities. The mere fact that theorder of the appellate authority is not [.,acceptable', ]tothe department - in itself an objectionable phrase _and is the subject matter of an appeal can furnish noand is the subject matter of an appeal can furnish noground 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 [undue]harassment to assesses and chaos in [administration]of tax laws. 12. We have dealt with this aspect at some length,because it has been suggested by the [loarned]Additional Solicitor General that the obsen ationsmade by the High Court, have been harsh on theofficers. lt is clear that the observations of thc HighCourt, seemingly vehement, and appilrentlyunpalatable to the Revenue, are only intended t: [curb]a tendency in revenue matters which, if allovred tobecome widespread, could result in considerableharassment to the assesses-public without any [benefit]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 ['egard]should be paid by the adjudicating authorities ard theappellate authorities to the requirements of [jJdicial]discipline and the need for giving effect to the rrdersof the higher appellate authorities which are bindrngon them." 1 5. What is worrying this Bench more is the lact that anendeavour is being made whole heartedly to ensure not to [generate]further litigation on issues which have been laid to rest by a largenumber of High Courts all of whom have taken a consistent standthat the action of the Income Tax Department being violative of the Finance Act,2O2O and Finance Act,202l. 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 ofKqnkanola Ravindru Reddy (l supra) shall however be subject tothe outcome of the SLps which were filed by the Income TaxDepartment and which is pending consideration before the Hon,bleSupreme Court. 16. In the given facts and circumstances, this tsench 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 further be burdened which otherwise can be decidedand disposed of as a covered matter. 17. So far as the interest of the Revenue is concerned, we are ofthe considered opinion that the interest of the Revenue has alreadybeen considered and protected, as has been observed in paragraphs 36,37 and 38 ofthe order which, for ready refleren< e, is reproducedhereunder 36. For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugnod noticesissued and the proceedings drawn by the rerlpondent-Department is neither tenable, nor sustainable.The notices so issued and the [procedure ]adoFted beingper se illegal, deserves to be and are accorrilngly setaside/quashed. As a consequence, all the mpugnedorders getting quashed, the consequential orde's [passed]by the respondent-Department pursuant to the noticesissued under Section 147 and 148 would iriso geiquashed and it is ordered accordingly. The roason weare [quashing ]the consequential order is on the lrinciplesthat when the initiation of the proceedings iiself wasprocedurally wrong, the subsequent orders iriso getsnullified automatically. 37. Tha prelirninary objecticn raised by the [petitioner ]rssustaine<l and all these wrii [pet,tions ]stands al owed onthis very [jurisdictional ]issue. Since the impugned notrcesand orders are getting quashed on the point ofjurisdiction, \,^/e are not inciined to proceed fu ther anddecide the other issues rarsed by the [petitiorer ]whichstands reserved to be raised and contend(rd in anappropriate [proceedings.] 38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the caseof Ashish Agarwal, supra, as a one{ime measureexercising the powers under Article 142 of theConstitution of lndia, permitted the Revenue to [proceed]under the substituted provisions, and this Court allowingthe petitions only on the procedural flaw, .he [right] conferred on the Revenue would remain reserved toproceed further if they so want from the stage of theorder of the Supreme Court in the case of AshishAgarwal, supra. 18. We would only further like to make observations that sincewe are inclined to dispose of the instant writ petition, conscious ofthe fact that the earlier order of this High Court in the case ofKanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra) is subjected to challengebefore the'Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No.3574 of 2024,preferred by the lncome Tax Department, we make it clear thatallowing of the instant writ petition is subject to outcome of theaforesaid SLP preferred by the Revenue against the decision of thisHigh Court in the case of Kanakalu Ravindra Reddy (l srryra).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. 18. We would only further like to make observations that sincewe are inclined to dispose of the instant writ petition, conscious ofthe fact that the earlier order of this High Court in the case ofKanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra) is subjected to challengebefore the'Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No.3574 of 2024,preferred by the lncome Tax Department, we make it clear thatallowing of the instant writ petition is subject to outcome of theaforesaid SLP preferred by the Revenue against the decision of thisHigh Court in the case of Kanakalu Ravindra Reddy (l srryra).This, in other words, would mean that either of the parties, if theyso want, may move an appropriate petition seeking revival of thiswrit petition.in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble SupremeCourt in the pending SLP on the very same issue. 19. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands allowed infavour of the assessee so far as the issue of [jurisdiction ]isconcemed. As a consequence, the impugned notice underchallenge under Sections 148-,4. and 148 stands set aside/quashed. (I \ (\ The consequential orciers, if any, also stand set arride/quashed [i,"]similar terms as have been passed by this High Cout in the case of Kankanala Ravindra Reddy (l supra). There shall be no order asto costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed SD/. B.REKHA RANI46'QrTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// {\ECTION OFFICER To1. The lnconre Tax Officer Ward-l, Warangal lncome TAlOffice, D.No. 1_g_6,l0,1. The lnconre Tax Officer Ward-l, Warangal lncome TAlOffice, D.No. 1_g_6,l0,3rd Floor, lvlayu-ri Comple! Opp Tsnpdcl Bhawan, Nak(alagutta,Hanamkonda, Warangal, Telangana.Hanamkonda, Warangal, Telangana.2. The Princ,pal Chief Commissioner of lncome Tax Telargana and A.p,,Hyderabad, tT Towers, AC Guards, tvlasab Tank, Hyderibad -- 500028,Telangana.Hyderabad, tT Towers, AC Guards, tvlasab Tank, Hyderibad -- 500028,Telangana. 3. The Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes, Department of Revenue,[\/l!iqtry of Finance, Government of lndia, Secretariat Brildings, New Delhi _1'10 00'l .[\/l!iqtry of Finance, Government of lndia, Secretariat Brildings, New Delhi _1'10 00'l .4. The National Faceless Assessment Center, lncome Ta;( Department, NewDelhi.Delhi. AThe Secretary to the Government, Union of lndia, Departmenl of Revenue,Ivlinistry ol Finance, New Delhi - j 10 001 .Ivlinistry ol Finance, New Delhi - j 10 001 . .oOne CC to SRI THANNERU CHAITANYA KUMAR, Advocate tOpUCl7One CC to I\,4s. BOKARO SAPNA REDDY (Jr. SC FOR INCON/ETAX) Advocate 7One CC to I\,4s. BOKARO SAPNA REDDY (Jr. SC FOR INCON/ETAX) Advocate 8One CC tc, SRI B.MUKHERJEE, LEARNED CoUNSEL REPRESENTINGTHE UNTON OF lNDIA, Advocate (OPUC)THE UNTON OF lNDIA, Advocate (OPUC)ITwo CD CopiesTwo CD CopiesSATKSTKS .\t HIGH COURT DATED:2810412025 ORDER WP.No.33508 of [2024] ALLOWING [THE W.P] WITHOUT COSTS.ol\q[\,r] ..a= [-],,''. ()i'\.'{"'(.si!''* 115EP 20ffri [..:.,]:k,*i<t ,'/cs'r,-.,. [+ ]..//:/-.-