Ol Finance Act, 2021 W.e.f., 01.04.2021 Onward S. Proceedingsunder Seclion L48A Of The Act As Also Under Secr.ion 148 Of Theact Ought To Have Also Been Issued A v. 'T(2023) I56 Taxmann.com 178 ('L-Elangana)L

IN THE HIGH COURT AT HYOERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction)MONDAY, THE FOURTH TWO THOUSAND PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI [JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY]ANDTHE HONOURABLE WRIT PETITION N0:22793 Between: Mallesh Goud Donkeni, [H.No.7-1-314' Balkampet, ][Hyderabad ][- ][5O0038' Dist']Hyderabad ...PETITIONER AND 1.lncome Tax Officer, [Ward 6(1), ][Hyderabad- ][lncome Tax Office, ][l'T' ][Towers']A.C. Guards, Masab [Tank, ][Hyderabad - 500004-]A.C. Guards, Masab [Tank, ][Hyderabad - 500004-]2Princioal Commissioner Of [lncorne ][Tax ][1, ][3'd ][Floor, ][Aayakar ][Bhavan,]Bash<ierbagh, HYderabad [- 500004.]Bash<ierbagh, HYderabad [- 500004.] ...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 a Writ of [Mandamus ][or ][any other ][appropriate ][writ' ][order ][or]direction, declaring [the ][order ][passed ][by the ][lncome ][Tax ][Officer, ][Ward ][6(1)']Hyderabad, under order [148-A ][of the ][lncome Tax ][Act, ][1961 Date ][of ][order ][of ][11-]o3-2o24DlNNo.lTBfuASTiF/148N2o23-24t1062351356(1)FortheYearAssessment Year [2O2O-21, ][as ][arbitrary illegal ][bad in ][law ][without lurisdiction ][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 stated inthe affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cour may be pleased to stayall further proceedings including any recovery, pursuant tc, the order passed by the1st respondent Under Order 148-A of the lncome Tax Act, 1961 Date of Order of11-03-2024 DIN No. ITBA/AST/F/148N2O23- 2411O62a51356(1) For the YearAssessment Year 2O2O-21 pending disposal of writ petitiorr. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI UPADHYAY RAGHAVENDER Counsel for the Respondents: MS. BOKARO SAPNA RE:DDY(sENroR sc lNcoME TA)()(sENroR sc lNcoME TA)() The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYAND TIIE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAOWRIT PETITIONNo.22793 0F 2025 ORDER: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice Suddala Chalapathi Rao) Heard Sri Gajanand Chakavarthy, leamed oounsel representing Sri Upadhyay Raghavender, leamed counsel for thepetitioner and Ms.B.Sapna Reddy, learned Senior StandingCounsel for the lncome Tax Department, for the respondents.Perused the record. 2. This is a writ petition where the proceedings are eitherchallenged to the notices which were issued under Section t48Aand 148 of the Income Tax Act, 196l (tor short 'rhe Act') or theassessment 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 o[thegrounds, that the notices issued under Section l48A of the Actand the subsequent initiation of proceedings under Section 148 o[the Act by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, whereas in termsof the amendment that was brought to the Income Tax Act by way ol Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f., 01.04.2021 onward s. proceedingsunder Seclion l48A of the Act as also under Secr.ion 148 of theAct ought to have also been issued and proceederl in a facelessmanner 2. This is a writ petition where the proceedings are eitherchallenged to the notices which were issued under Section t48Aand 148 of the Income Tax Act, 196l (tor short 'rhe Act') or theassessment 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 o[thegrounds, that the notices issued under Section l48A of the Actand the subsequent initiation of proceedings under Section 148 o[the Act by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, whereas in termsof the amendment that was brought to the Income Tax Act by way ol Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f., 01.04.2021 onward s. proceedingsunder Seclion l48A of the Act as also under Secr.ion 148 of theAct ought to have also been issued and proceederl in a facelessmanner 4. T'he contention of the petitioner is that the issue ofproceedings being in violation of the Finance Acr, 2021 i.e., theimpugned notices under Section l48A and Sectiorr 148 of the Actnot being issued in a faceless manner, have alreadl been dealt withand decided by this Court in the case of KANKANALARAVINDITA REDDY vs. INCOME-TAX OFF'ICERI decidedon 14.09.2023 whereby a batch of writ petitions \\ere allowed andthe pro<;eedings initiated under Section l48A as al:;o under Section148 of the Act were held to be bad with consequential rcliefs on theground o[ it being in violation of the provisions ol'section l5lA ofthe Act read with Notification l8l2o22 dated 29.03 2022. The saidjudgment passed by this Court has also been subsetluently followedin a large number ol writ petitions which were allorved on similarterrns 't(2023) I56 taxmann.com 178 ('l-elangana)l 5. Down the line, we find that the same issue has also beendecided against the Revenue by various High CourS i.e.,by the Bombay High Court in the case of HEXAWARETECHNOLOGIES LTD., vs. ASSISTAITIT COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX & OTHERS2, Gauhati High Court in the caseof RAM NARAYAN SAH vs. UXIOU OF INDIAs, Punjab andHaryana High Court in the case of JATINDER SINGH BANGUvs. UNION OF IIYDIA4, and Telangana High Court in the case ofSRI VENKATARAMANA REDDY PATLOOLA vs. DEPUTYCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX5 where the issue was inrespect of international taxation, Bombay High Court in the case ofABHTN ANILKUMAR STIAII vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE&INTERNATIONAL TAXATIOIt' which is again on internationaltaxation and central circle, High tourt of Himachal Pradesh in thecase of GOVIND SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERT,Gujarat High Court in the case of MANSUKHBHAI ' lzoz+1464 [430 ][(Bom)]'U2024) [156 ][taxmann.com 478 ][(Gauhati)l] " [(2024) [65 taxmann.com I 15 (Punjab & Haryana)]5 [2024) [67 taxmann.com 4l I (Telangana)] 6 [2024) [66 taxmann.com 6D @ombay)] '12024) 165 taxmann.com 13 (Himachat Pradesh)l DAHYABHAI RADADIYA vs. INCOME T.Ax OFFTCER,WARD 3(3X5)8, Jharkand High Court in the case of SHyAMSUNDAR SAW vs. UNION OF lNDIAe, Rajastf an High Court inthe case of SHARDA DEVI CHHAJER vs. INCOME TAXOFFICER & ANOTHER and batch of writ petitionsro whichstood decided on 19.03.2024. Similar views have also been takenby the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in the case ofGIRDHAR GOPAL DALMIA vs. UNION OF rNDIA & ORS(M.A.T' 1690 of 2023), decided on25.09.2024. 6. fiven though the same issue having been decided by a largenumber of High Courts, we are still confronted wirh targe filing ofidenticat lnatters on daily basis ranging between 5 to l0 writpetitions. That upon the instructions being sought from theDepartment, they have been taking a solitary t{round that thedecision of the Bombay High Court in the casc of HexawareTechnologies Ltd., (2 supra) as also the one rvhich has beendecided by this Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy *202+ SCC Online Guj 4012'2025 SCC OnLine Jhar 287'o 7zo2f [, ] [t):4984-DB ]l'2025 SCC OnLine Jhar 287'o 7zo2f [, ] [t):4984-DB ]l 6. fiven though the same issue having been decided by a largenumber of High Courts, we are still confronted wirh targe filing ofidenticat lnatters on daily basis ranging between 5 to l0 writpetitions. That upon the instructions being sought from theDepartment, they have been taking a solitary t{round that thedecision of the Bombay High Court in the casc of HexawareTechnologies Ltd., (2 supra) as also the one rvhich has beendecided by this Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy *202+ SCC Online Guj 4012'2025 SCC OnLine Jhar 287'o 7zo2f [, ] [t):4984-DB ]l'2025 SCC OnLine Jhar 287'o 7zo2f [, ] [t):4984-DB ]l (l supra) has been subjected to challenge [in ][a ][Special ][lrave]Petition i.e., SLP No.3574 of 2Q24 before [the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme]Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court [is ][seized ][of ][the ][matter.]In addition, there are about 1200 SLPs [also ][fited arising out ][ofthe]same issue being decided by vari6us 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 ][interim]order granted by the Hon'ble [Supreme ][Court ][in ][any ][of ][these]matters pending betore 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 itsetf'] 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]tapsed, till date, [we ]do not [find ][any ][remedial ][steps ][having ][been]taken by the Income Tax [Department to take ][appropriate ][steps ][to]either hotd back issuance o[ notice [under Section ][l48A ][and under]Section 148 of the Act by [the ][jurisdictional ][Assessing ][Officer,]rather the authorities concemed [in ][the ][teeth ][of ][series ][oI ][decisions] by all the major High Courts in India are continuously stillinitiating proceedings under Section l48A of tre Act and alsoinitiating proceedings under Section l4g of the Act incontra\iention to the amendments brought into the Income Tax Actpursuant to the Finance Act, 2020 as also the Finarrce Act202l.9. IJpon a query being put as to why can,t thir writ petition bedisposcd of in the teeth o[ the decision renderecl by this Court inthe case of Kanakala Rovindra Reddy (l supra), Ieamed StandingCounsel for the Income Tax Department contends that those wouldurmecessarily burden the Income Tax Departrrrent where theywould be required to file equal number of S,L,ps before theHon'ble Supreme Court and it would be furthe r burdening theexchequer of the Union of India. [t was also thc r:onte,tion of theleamed Standing Counsel that no prejudice woukl be caused to theinterest of the petitioners in case if this writ petitiorr is kept pendingtill the finalization of the SLps pending beti,n: the Hon,bleSupreme Cou( and the lact that the petitioner is rlready enjoyingthe benefit ol interim protection. Nonetheless, on rhe earlier queryof this Court as to why the [ncome Tax Departmerrt have not comeout with a mcchanism to issue appropriate instrLr,:tions or to take appropriate steps in ensuring [that proceedings under ][Section ][l48A]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 dedcided ][by ][the]various High Courts, it was submitted by [the ][leamed ][Standing]Counsel that the said steps can [only ][be ][taken ][at ][the ][level ][of ] as any such steps would have [to ][be taken ][Pan ][India ][and cannot ][be]limited to any of these [jurisdictional High ][Courts-] appropriate steps in ensuring [that proceedings under ][Section ][l48A]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 dedcided ][by ][the]various High Courts, it was submitted by [the ][leamed ][Standing]Counsel that the said steps can [only ][be ][taken ][at ][the ][level ][of ] as any such steps would have [to ][be taken ][Pan ][India ][and cannot ][be]limited to any of these [jurisdictional High ][Courts-] 10. As a result of [which, what we ][are ][facing is ][steep ][increase ][of]litigation day in and day out even [though ][various ][orders have been]passed by this High Court attowing [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]judgment of this Court in the case of Kanakalu Ravindra [Reddy](l supra). What is also surprising is [the ][fact that ][though ][while]allowing the writ petitions in [the ][case ][of ][Kanakala ][Ravindra]Reddy (l supra), the Division [Bench ][while ][reserving ][the ][right ][of]the Revenue, has also [protected ][the ][interest ][ol ][the ][petitioners] insofar as the liberty which was granted to the Itevenue forinitiating fresh proceedings strictly in accordance q,ith the amendedinitiating fresh proceedings strictly in accordance q,ith the amendedprovisions of the Act, as amended by the Finanr: e Act, 2OZ0 andthe Finance Act,202I. The petitioner assessee rvrrr-rld be entitled tochallenge or raise the other legal objections if the Revenue initiatesfresh proceedings. The Department has madc no endeavour inavailing the said liberty that was reserved for the llevenue. On thechallenge or raise the other legal objections if the Revenue initiatesfresh proceedings. The Department has madc no endeavour inavailing the said liberty that was reserved for the llevenue. On thecontrary, they have been still sticking on to the stand, which thisHigh Court as well as many other High Courts alrcady held to beHigh Court as well as many other High Courts alrcady held to be bad. I l. lt appears appears that because because of the aforesaid the aforesaid libcrry that this HighCourt had granted permitting thc Revenue lirr rnitiating freshproceedings as a one-time measure in a face l..ss manner, theIncome Tax Department wants to take advantage of.the same byprotract'ing these proceedings which would enable rhem to meet thelimitati,tn that would otherwise come in the way. I_ikewise, if thewrit petition is kept pending for a considerable lorc period of timeand finally at a later stage if the Hon,ble Supremc (.lourt confirmsthe decision taken by this High Court as also by rhe other HighCourts in which the SLps are still pending, t rr: Ins6ms 12xprotract'ing these proceedings which would enable rhem to meet thelimitati,tn that would otherwise come in the way. I_ikewise, if thewrit petition is kept pending for a considerable lorc period of timeand finally at a later stage if the Hon,ble Supremc (.lourt confirmsthe decision taken by this High Court as also by rhe other HighCourts in which the SLps are still pending, t rr: Ins6ms 12x lt appears appears that because because of the aforesaid the aforesaid libcrry that this High (l Department would get the advantage of the liberty that is otherwiseprotected in favour of the Revenue for initiation of fieshproceedings from the disposal ofthese matters at a much later stagewhich would be advantageous ahd 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 freshproceedings. lt appears appears that because because of the aforesaid the aforesaid libcrry that this High (l Department would get the advantage of the liberty that is otherwiseprotected in favour of the Revenue for initiation of fieshproceedings from the disposal ofthese matters at a much later stagewhich would be advantageous ahd 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 freshproceedings. 12. The alarming trend of docket explosion in this Court, despitethe clear precedent set in Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra), is [a]matter of grave concern. The Income Tax Department's [persistent]initiation of fresh proceedings, diSregarding the established [judicial]pronouncements, has led to an unprecedented surge in titigationwith over 600-700 petitions piling up on the same issue. Thisdeliberate approach not only undermines the principle of [judicial]precedent but also strains the judicial resources unnecessarily. TheDepartment's strategy of awaiting the Supreme Court's decision [on]pending SLPs while continuing to initiate fresh proceedingsappears to be a calcutated move to buy time and circumventlimitation periods, rather than arlhering to the established [legal] position. Such conduct raises serious quesiions about theadministrative efficiency and the respecl. for judicialpronouncements, particularly when this Court has atready provideda balanced approach by preserving both the Revenue,s rights andassesses interests. 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 th.at proceedingsunder Sections 148-,{ 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 alreadl, seized of or, atleast the Income Tax Department should have ftrund out someremedial steps to ensure that wherever the auth rrities intend toinitiate proceedings under Sections l4g-A and l4t, other than in afaceles..r manner, the proceedings should have been defenedwithout precipitating the matter further intimating :he assessee thatthey shall initiate appropriate proceedings only aft:r the SLp,s aredecided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the very 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 aU has to be taken, has [to ][be ][taken ][for ][the whole ][of ][India, ][and ][which]otherwise has to be [by way ][of ][a ][policy ][decision and that ][too ][at ][the]level of Central Board of [Direct ][Taxes- ][Though ][the ][leamed]for [the Income ][Tax ][Department contended that]Standing Counsel the Delhi High Court dismissed [a ][writ ][petitlon ][of ][similar ][nature' on]the one hand [when ][the ][t{igh ][Court ][is ][struggting ][to ][reduce ][its]pendency, such notices [which ][are ][under ][chaUenge ][in ][this writ]petition are forcing the [assessee ][to ][knock ][the doors ][of ][this ][High]Court resulting [in ][hling of ][hundreds ][of ][new ][wrlt ][petitions which ][in]the long run not [only ][affects the ][disposat ][of ][the ][writ ][petitions but]also consumes substantial [time ][of ][the ][Bench ][in ][hearing ][these]matters again and [again on ][daily'basis. ][Admittedly, in ][spite ][of ][the]matter before the [Hon'bte ][Supreme ][Court ][having ][been laken on]many occasions, [the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Court ][which ][is seized ][of ][the]matter has been [reluctant ][in ][granting ][any interim ][protection to ][the]lncome Tax Department- [Yet, ][the ][authorities ][concemed ][at ][the]State level are not [ready ][to ][accePt ][the verdict ][passed ][by ][a ][majority]Courts [of ][different ][States ][on ][the ][same ][issue; ][and ][to ][make]of High further [worse, ][the ][[ncome ][Tax ][Department ][is ][showing]things audacity by lssuing [notices ][contirluously ][under Sections 148-A ][and] 148 through the jurisdictional Assessing Officer u,hereas it oughtto have been only in the faceless manner. 14. In the case of BANK OF INDIA rs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, INCOME TAXIr, on an iss.rc wherher it wasiustifiablc on the part of the Income Tax Dr.panment in notfollowing an order passed by the i_djudicating aurhority only on theground that the appeats are pending, the Divisi:rn Bench of thefollowing an order passed by the i_djudicating aurhority only on theground that the appeats are pending, the Divisi:rn Bench of theHigh Court of Bornbay helcl at paragraph No.25 as under, viz., : "25. Mr. Paridwalla has r(1hfly drawn out att lntron to thedecision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs- Smt-Godavaridevi Sarafl2 as also the recent deosion 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 mentrer, whereinthe Court categorically observed that the Revenu:r having not"accepted" the iudgment of the High Court would not rnean that tillthe same is set aside in a manner known lo law, it would loose itsbinding force_ Referring to the decision of the Supr.)rne Court inUnion of lndia vs. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd.14, theCourt observed that the approach of the officials o1 fievenue oftreating decisions being [.not ]acceptable, was criti:;ijzed by theSupreme Court. ln such decision, following are the relevantobservations made by the Supreme Court. ',', 1,.10:,-t't [7 ][0 ][raxmann.com ]422 ( Bo mbay )l'' ll978l I t3 ITR 589 (Bombay)'' ll978l I t3 ITR 589 (Bombay) '.r. [:ZOZ+ ]1 [[t ][65 ]][[65 ]]taxmann.com 5 [[g ]]I /300 Taxman 452 (Born b.:ry,) '.r. 1 [[t ][65 ]][[65 ]]taxmann.com 5 [[g ]]t' l}eZl raxmann,com l6155 ELT 433 (SC)t' l}eZl raxmann,com l6155 ELT 433 (SC) ',', 1,.10:,-t't [7 ][0 ][raxmann.com ]422 ( Bo mbay )l'' ll978l I t3 ITR 589 (Bombay)'' ll978l I t3 ITR 589 (Bombay) '.r. [:ZOZ+ ]1 [[t ][65 ]][[65 ]]taxmann.com 5 [[g ]]I /300 Taxman 452 (Born b.:ry,) '.r. 1 [[t ][65 ]][[65 ]]taxmann.com 5 [[g ]]t' l}eZl raxmann,com l6155 ELT 433 (SC)t' l}eZl raxmann,com l6155 ELT 433 (SC) "6. Sri Reddy is perhaps right an saying that theofficers \ rere not aduated by [any ][mala ][ftdes ][in]passing the impugned orders. They [perhaps]officers \ rere not aduated by [any ][mala ][ftdes ][in]passing the impugned orders. They [perhaps]genuinely felt that the claisn of the assessee [was ][not]tenable and that, if it was accepted, [the ][Revenue]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 [correciness ][or]otherwise of their conclusion [or of ][any ][factual]matafides but with the [fact ][that ][the ][officers, in reaching]in their conclusion, by-Passed [two appellate orders ][in]regard to the same isstre which [were ]daced [before]them, one of the Collector [(Appeals) and ][the ][other ][of]the Tribunal. The [High ][Court ][has, in ][our ][view, rightly]critacazed 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]are not concerned here with the [correciness ][or]otherwise of their conclusion [or of ][any ][factual]matafides but with the [fact ][that ][the ][officers, in reaching]in their conclusion, by-Passed [two appellate orders ][in]regard to the same isstre which [were ]daced [before]them, one of the Collector [(Appeals) and ][the ][other ][of]the Tribunal. The [High ][Court ][has, in ][our ][view, rightly]critacazed 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 ][brnding ][on ][the]Assistant Collectors [working within his jurisdiction ][and]the order of the Tribunat [is binding upon the Assistant]Collectors and the Appellate [Collectors ][who ][function]under the [jurisdiction ][of ][the ][Tribunal ][The principles ][of]judicial discipline require that the orders of the [higher]appellate authorities should [be followed ][unreservedly]by the subordinate authorities. [The mere fact that the]order of the appellate authority [is not'acceptable" ][to]-the department - ifl itself an [objectionable ][phrase ]and is the subject matter Qf [an appeal ][can ][furnish ][no]ground for not following it unless [its ][operation ][has]been suspended by [a ][cornpetent ][court. ][lf ][this ][healthy]bound by the decisions of the [appellate ][authorities']The order of the Appellte Collector [is ][brnding ][on ][the]Assistant Collectors [working within his jurisdiction ][and]the order of the Tribunat [is binding upon the Assistant]Collectors and the Appellate [Collectors ][who ][function]under the [jurisdiction ][of ][the ][Tribunal ][The principles ][of]judicial discipline require that the orders of the [higher]appellate authorities should [be followed ][unreservedly]by the subordinate authorities. [The mere fact that the]order of the appellate authority [is not'acceptable" ][to]-the department - ifl itself an [objectionable ][phrase ]and is the subject matter Qf [an appeal ][can ][furnish ][no]ground for not following it unless [its ][operation ][has]been suspended by [a ][cornpetent ][court. ][lf ][this ][healthy] rule is not followed, the result will only be undueharassment to assesses and chaos in admilistrationof tax laws_of tax laws_ 12. We have dealt with this aspect at som,-, length,because it has been suggested by the learnedAdditional Solicitor General that the obsorvationsmade by the High Court, have been harst on theofficers. lt is clear that the observations of :he HighCourt, seemingly vehdment, and ap,parenflyunpalatable to the Revenue, are only intende(l to curba tendency in revenue matters which, if alllwed tobecome widespread, could result in cons tderableharassment to the assesses-public without any benefitto the Revenue. We would like to say :hat thedepartment should take these observations in theproper spirit. The observations of the High Courtshould be kept in mind in ftrture and the utmost regardshould be paid by the adjudicating authorities and theappellate authorities to the requirements of jr.rdicraldiscipline and the need for giving effect to tho ordersof the higher appellate authorities which are bindingon them." 15. What is worrying this Bench more is tl.rr, lact that anendeavour is being made whole heartedly to ensur3 nor to generatefurther litigation on issues which have been laid to rcst by a largenumber ol- High Courts all of whom have taken a consistent standthat the acrion of the lncome Tax Department beinl:, violative of the Finance Ac! 2020 and Finance Act,202l . Now, [in ][order ][to ][protect]the interest of the Revenue as also that of the assessee, [it ][would ][be]trite at this [j ]uncture, if we dispose of the writ [petition ][with ][an]observation/direction that the disposat of the instant [writ ][petition ][in]terms of the [judgment ]rendered by this High Court [in ][the ][case ][of]Kunkanala Ravindra Reddy (l supra) shall [however ][be subject ][to]the outcome of the SLPs which were filed by [the ][lncome ][Tax]Department and which is pending consideration [before the ][Hon'ble]Supreme Court. ln the given the given given facts and and circumstances, [[this ][Bench ]][[Bench ]][[is ][of ][the]][[of ][the]][[the]] 16.ln the given the given given facts and and circumstances, [[this ][Bench ]][[Bench ]][[is ][of ][the]][[of ][the]][[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 forti fied by the decisions [of ][the ][various ][other]High Courts on the very same issue, [the ][pendency ][of ][this ][l{igh]Court would further be burdened [which ][otherwise ][can be decided]and disposed of as a covered matter.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 forti fied by the decisions [of ][the ][various ][other]High Courts on the very same issue, [the ][pendency ][of ][this ][l{igh]Court would further be burdened [which ][otherwise ][can be decided]and disposed of as a covered matter. So far as the interest of the Revenue as the interest of the Revenue the interest of the Revenue of the Revenue the Revenue [[is concerned, we ][are ][of]][[are ][of]][[of]] 11 . So far as the interest of the Revenue as the interest of the Revenue the interest of the Revenue of the Revenue the Revenue [[is concerned, we ][are ][of]][[are ][of]][[of]]the considered opinion that the iqterest [of ][the ][Revenue has ][already]been considered and protected, as has [been ][observed ][in ][paragraphs] 36, 31 and,38 of the order which, for ready reference, is reproducedhereunder: So far as the interest of the Revenue as the interest of the Revenue the interest of the Revenue of the Revenue the Revenue [[is concerned, we ][are ][of]][[are ][of]][[of]] 11 . So far as the interest of the Revenue as the interest of the Revenue the interest of the Revenue of the Revenue the Revenue [[is concerned, we ][are ][of]][[are ][of]][[of]]the considered opinion that the iqterest [of ][the ][Revenue has ][already]been considered and protected, as has [been ][observed ][in ][paragraphs] 36, 31 and,38 of the order which, for ready reference, is reproducedhereunder: 36. For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugred nolicesissued and the proceedings drawn by the respondent_Department is neither tenable, nor s,ustainable.The notices so issued and the procedure adopted beingper se illegal, deserves to be and are acc(rrdingly setaside/quashed. As a consequence, all the impugnedorders getting quashed, the consequential orders passedby the respondent-Departrirent pursuant to the noticesissued under Section 147 and 14g would also getquashed and it rs ordered accordingly. The teason weare quashing the consequential order as on thr: principlesthat when the initiation of the proceedings itself wasprocedurally wrong, the subsequent orders also getsnullified automatically. 37. The preliminary objection raised by the pr:titioner issustained and all these writ petitions stands ;tllowed onthis very .iurisdictional issue. Since the impugned noticesand orders are getting quashed on the point oflurisdiction, we are not inclined to proceed f.lrther anddecide the other issues raised by the petiticner whichstands reserved to be rgised and conten(led in anappropriate proceedings. 38 Since the Hon,ble Supreme Court had. ir the caseof Ashish Agarwal, supra, as a one_time nleasureexercising the powers under Article 142 of theConstitution of lndia, permifted the Revenue tl proceedunder the substituted provisions, and this Cou .t allowingthe petitions only on the procedural flaw the right conferred on tfle Revenue would remain reservd toproceed further if they so. want from the slage of ttteorder of the Stpreme Court in tte case of AshishAganrval, supra. 18. We would only further like to make observations that sirrcewe 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 l{on'ble Supreme Court in SLP No.3574 of [2024,,]preferred by the Income Tax Department, we make it clear thatallowing of the instant writ petition is subject to outcome of [the]aforesaid SLP preGrred by the Revenue against the decision [of ][this]High Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (l [supra)]This, in other wonds, would mean that either of the [parties, ]i[ [they]so want, may move an appropriate petition seeking revival [of ][this]writ 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]in favour of the assessee so far as the [issue ]of [jurisdiction ][is]concemed. As a consequence, the impugned [notice ][under]challcnge under Sections 148-4. and 148 [stands set ][aside/quashed.] II The consequential orders, if any, also stand set iLside/quashed in similar terms as have been passed by this High Court in the case of Kankanala Ravindra Reddy (l supra). There shai I be no order as to costs. ()onsequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shati stand closed . )pEPuTY t--t.__.--.-,..^,. . SD/-V.KAVITHA[REG|STRAR ][..][-][.]7', //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER,iJJ To, 1. lncome Tax Offlcer. Ward 6(1), Hydergbq{. lncome l.ax Office, l.T. Towers,A.C. Guards, Masab Tank, Afo.rioio _ soo'oix. soo'oix. ["" ]['']A.C. Guards, Masab Tank, Afo.rioio _ soo'oix. soo'oix. ["" ][''] _ soo'oix. soo'oix. 2. Principal Commissioner Of lncome_ Tax 1, 3d Floor,,\ayakar Bhavan,Basheerbagh, Hyderabad - 500004.Basheerbagh, Hyderabad - 500004. II The consequential orders, if any, also stand set iLside/quashed in similar terms as have been passed by this High Court in the case of Kankanala Ravindra Reddy (l supra). There shai I be no order as to costs. ()onsequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shati stand closed . )pEPuTY t--t.__.--.-,..^,. . SD/-V.KAVITHA[REG|STRAR ][..][-][.]7', //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER,iJJ To, 1. lncome Tax Offlcer. Ward 6(1), Hydergbq{. lncome l.ax Office, l.T. Towers,A.C. Guards, Masab Tank, Afo.rioio _ soo'oix. soo'oix. ["" ]['']A.C. Guards, Masab Tank, Afo.rioio _ soo'oix. soo'oix. ["" ][''] _ soo'oix. soo'oix. 2. Principal Commissioner Of lncome_ Tax 1, 3d Floor,,\ayakar Bhavan,Basheerbagh, Hyderabad - 500004.Basheerbagh, Hyderabad - 500004. . One CC to Sri Upadhyay Raghavender, Advocate One CC to Sri Upadhyay Raghavender, Advocate to Sri Upadhyay Raghavender, Advocate Sri Upadhyay Raghavender, Advocate 3. One CC to Sri Upadhyay Raghavender, Advocate One CC to Sri Upadhyay Raghavender, Advocate to Sri Upadhyay Raghavender, Advocate Sri Upadhyay Raghavender, Advocate 4. One CC to Ms. Bokaro 5. Two CD CopiesSapna Reddy (Senior SC lncome Tax) tOpUCl5. Two CD CopiesSapna Reddy (Senior SC lncome Tax) tOpUCl TJGJP W HIGH COURT DATED:0410812025 )ORDERlSEPzffi\-'.', [)/]., [,, ]WP.No.22793 of 2025/ r -;r,. [.t:. ][,.],',/ ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITIONWITHOUT COSTS 1q 't{