Order: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Narsing Rao Nandikonda v. Income-Tax Ofi,-I( Lerr Decided On 14

t3447 | HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY ,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING WRIT PETITION NO: 31130 OF 2024 Between PRIil/ARY AGRICULTURALCO OPERATIVE SOCIETY [LIMITED,]NERADIGONDA, Rep. By CEO [NAGABHUSHAN, ][S/o. ] CHINNAIAH, Occupation. Business, [Aged ][about ][48 ][years, ][Rl/O. ][Neradigonda]post adilbad dist ADILABAD ADILABAD 504001 [Telangana, ][lndia.]Assessment Year. 2018-19 ...PETITIONER AND 1The income tax officer ward 1, Nirmal [NIRMAL, NIRMAL, Telangana, ][504101']Telangana State.Telangana State.2The Frincipal Chief Commissioner of [lncome ][Tax, Telangana ][a!d- ]1fHyderabad' lT Towers AC Guards [Masab ][Tank ]' [Hyderabad- ][500028,]TelanganaHyderabad' lT Towers AC Guards [Masab ][Tank ]' [Hyderabad- ][500028,]Telangana3The National Faceless Assessment Center, [lncome ][Tax ][Department, ][New]Delhi.Delhi.4The Central Board of Direct Taxes, Represented [by ][its ][Chairman, Department]of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government [of ][lndia, Secretariat ][Buildings,]New Delhi - - [['1 ]]10 001.001.of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government [of ][lndia, Secretariat ][Buildings,]New Delhi - - [['1 ]]10 001.001. New Delhi - - [['1 ]]10 001.001.The Union of lndia, Represented by its [Secretary ][to ][the ][Government,]Delhi [- ][110 ][001 ][.]The Union of lndia, Represented by its [Secretary ][to ][the ][Government,]Delhi [- ][110 ][001 ][.]Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, New ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of [lndia praying ][that ][in ][the]circumstances stated [in ][the ][affidavit ][filed ][therewith, ][the ][High ][Court may ][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) completed the assessment]uts 147 r.w.s144 read with section [1448 ]of the lncome-tax [Act ][Date ][of ][29-03-]2023, DIN ITBA/AST/S/14712022-2311051 [594945(1) ][for ][the ][Assessment ][Year]2018-19 determining [the total ][income ][of ][Rs.'1 ][7,54,47,860/- ][as ][arbitrary, ][illegal,] bad in law, without jurisdiction, void-ab-initio, violative of th,:r l)rinciples of naturaljustice apart frrm being vlolative of Articles 14, 19(1)(et) and 265 of theConstitution of lndia and Sec. 148A of the lncome l-irx Act, 1961, andconsequently set aside the same in the interests of [justice]lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the [,l ]'cumstances statedin the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Courl may be pleased tosuspend the order Llnder section 147 r.w.s 144 read witl- ,,ection 144B of thelncome-tax Ar;t Date of 2S-03-2023, DIN lTBrt/r\ST/ s|14712022-2311O51594945r.1 ) for the Assessment Year 2018-19 rle,termining the totalincome of Rs.1 [2,54.47,8601 ]and Demand notice u/s 156 of the lncome Tax act1961 , vide DIN & Notice No. ITBA/AST/5115612022-23/105 1ti95158(1) Dt. 29-03-2023 for the assessment year 2018-19 pending dispos rl of the above WritPetition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. THANNERU CHAITANYA l(t.rMAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1to4: Ms. J. SUNITHA (JUNTOR SC FOR rNC'3ME TAX) Counsel for the Respondent No.S: SRI B. MUKHERJEE R:l:'SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DY.SOLICITOR CiENERAL OF INDIAThe Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTI{E HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAONANDIKONDAWRIT PETITION No.31130 OF 2024 ORDER: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice Narsing Rao Nandikonda) Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. THANNERU CHAITANYA l(t.rMAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1to4: Ms. J. SUNITHA (JUNTOR SC FOR rNC'3ME TAX) Counsel for the Respondent No.S: SRI B. MUKHERJEE R:l:'SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DY.SOLICITOR CiENERAL OF INDIAThe Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTI{E HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAONANDIKONDAWRIT PETITION No.31130 OF 2024 ORDER: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice Narsing Rao Nandikonda) Heard Mr.Thanneru Chaitanya Kumar, learned counselfor the petitioner, Ms.J.Sunitha, learned Junior Standing Counselfor the Income Tax Department for respondent Nos.l to 4 and MrB. Mukherjee, learned counsel representing the Union of India forrespondent No.5. Perused the record. 2. This is a writ petition where the proceedings are eitherchallenged to the notices which were issued under Section 1484,and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short'the 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 148A of the Actand the subsequent initiation of proceedings under Section 148 ofthe Act by the [jurisdictional ]Assessing Ofhcer, whereas in termsof the amendment that [was ]brought to the Income Tax Act by way of Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f., 01.04.2021 onward:;, proceedingsunder Section 148,4 ofthe Act as also under Secton 148 oftheAct ought to have also been issued and proceedetl in a facelessmanner.4. The contention of the petitioner is that :he issue olproceedings being in violation of the Finance Acr , 2021 i.e., theimpugned notices under Section l48A and Section 148 of the Actnot being issued in a faceless manner, have alreadv [-.,:en dcalt withand decided by this Court in the case of Ii,\NK-{NALARAVINDRA R-EDDY vs. INCOME-TAX OFI,-I( lERr decidedon 14.09.20D whereby a batch of writ petitions w,::r,j allowed andthe procr:edings initiated under Section l48A as also under Section148 of the Act were held to be bad with consequent al reliel's on theground of it being in violation of the provisions o1'l>t:ction l51A ofthe Act read with Notification 1812022 dated 29.03 2t)22. The saidjudgment passed by this Cou( has also been subse cu r:ntly followedin a large number of writ petitions which were al1,rr,,ed on similarterms '[(2023) [156 ][taxmann.com ][178 ][(Telangana)]] i.l.... .1 5. Down the line, we find that [the ]same [issue has also ][been]decided against the Revenue by [various ][High ][Courts ][i.e',]by the Bombay High Court [in ][the ][case ][of ] TECHNOLOGIES LTD., [vs. ASSISTANT ] OF INCOME TAX & [OTHERS2, Gauhati ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case]of RAM NARAYAN [vs. ] [INDIA3, ][Punjab ][and]'Haryana High Court in the case of JATINDER SINGH BANGUvs. UNION OF INDIA4, [and Telangana ][High Court ][in the ][case ][o[]SRI VENKATARAMANA [RE,DDY ] [VS. ] COMMISSIONER OF [where ][the ][issue ][was ][in]respect of international [taxation, Bombay High Court in the ][case ][of]ABHIN ANILKUMAR [VS. ] [TAX OFFICE&]INTERNATIONAL TAXATION6 [which ][is ][again on ][intemational]taxation and central circle, [High ][Court ][of ][Himachal ][Pradesh ][in ][the]case of GOVIND SINGH [vs. INCOME ] [OFFICERT,]Gujarat High Court in [the ][case ][of ] 'pozql464 [430 ][(Bom)]'[(2024) [156 ][taxmann.com 478 ][(Gauhati)]]'l(2024) [65 ][taxmann.com ] [l5 ][(Punjab ][& ][Haryana)l]'12024) [167 ][taxhann.com ][4l ] [(Telangana)l]" 12024J166 [taxmaruI-com 679 ][(Bombay)l] '12024) [165 ][taxmann.com ][113 ][(Himachal ][Pradesh)l] 'pozql464 [430 ][(Bom)]'[(2024) [156 ][taxmann.com 478 ][(Gauhati)]]'l(2024) [65 ][taxmann.com ] [l5 ][(Punjab ][& ][Haryana)l]'12024) [167 ][taxhann.com ][4l ] [(Telangana)l]" 12024J166 [taxmaruI-com 679 ][(Bombay)l] '12024) [165 ][taxmann.com ][113 ][(Himachal ][Pradesh)l] DAHYABHAI RADADIYA vs. INCOME T,A >i OFFICER,WARD 3(3X5)8, Jharkand High Court in the cait. of StIyAMSUNDAR SAW vs. UNION OF INDIAe, Rajasthan High Court inthe case of SHARDA DEVI CHHAJER vs. ilr{COME TAXOFFICER & ANOTHER and batch of wrir pt.ti.ionsro whichstood de<;ided oo 19.03.2024. Similar views have rrr.o been takenby the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court ir the case ofGIRDHAR GOPAL DALMIA vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS(M.A.T 1690 of 2023), decided on25.09.2024.6. Even lhough the same issue having been dec c1 :d by a largenumber of High Courts, we are still confronted witi lrrge filing ofidentical matters on daily basis ranging between , to l0 writpetitions. That upon the instructions being sor- qlrt from theDepartment, they have been taking a solitary grorrnd that thedecision rrf the Bombay High Court in the case <tf HerawareTechnologies Ltd., (2 supra) as also the one ri,hir:h has beendecided by this Court in the case of Kanakala Rnvlndra Reddy t2024 SCC Online Guj 4012'2025 [SCC' ]Online Jhar287o ' 12023 [: ] [:49 ][g4-DB ]l -) (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 matterIn addition, there are about 1200 SLPs also filed arising out ofthesame 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, fiesh 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 one hand, even though the order of this Cou( thatorder of this Cou( thatof this Cou( thatthis Cou( thatCou( thatthatwas passed as early as on 14.09.2023 and more 16 months havelapsed, till date, we do not frnd any remedial steps having beentaken by the Income Tax Department to take appropriate steps toeither hold back issuance of notice [under Section 148A ]and [under]Section 148 of the Act by the [jurisdictional ][Assessing ][Officer,]rather the authorities concemed in the teeth of series of decisions On the one hand, even though one hand, even though the order of this Cou( thatorder of this Cou( thatof this Cou( thatthis Cou( thatCou( thatthat by all the nrajor High Cour-ts in India are cor-.tinuously stillinitiating proceedings under Section 148,4. of tlre .\ct and alsoinitiating proceedings under Section 148 ol the Act incontravention to the amendments brought into the It:ome Tax Actpursuant to the Finance Act, 2020 as also the Financ:: .\ct 2021 .9. Upon a query being put as to why can't this ,vrit petition bedisposed of in the teeth of the decision rendered bv this Court inthe case of Kunakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra), lcar.ned StandingCounsel lbr the Income Tax Department conterlds tlLar thosc wouldunnecessarily burden the Income Tax Departme r1 where theywould bc required to file equal number of SLpr; before theHon'ble Supreme Court and it would be further L,-rrclening theexchequer of the Union of India. It was also the ccetention of theleamed Standing Counsel that no prejudice would bc :aused to theinterest ol the petitioners in case if this writ petition s kept pendingtill the linalization of the SLps pending beforc the Hon'bleSupreme Court and the fact that the petitioner is alre;rdy enjoyingthe benefit of interim protection. Nonetheless, on tl- e earlier queryof this Court as to why the Income Tax Departmenr hirve not comeout with a mechanism to issue appropriate instruct orls or to take appropriate steps in ensuring that proceedings under Section [148,{]of the Act as also the assessment orders [under Section ][148 ][of ][the]Act are kept in a hold in the light ofthe decisions dedcided [by ][the]various High Courts, it was submitted by the leamed StandingCounsel that the said steps can only be taken at [the level ][ofCBDT]as any such steps would have to be taken Pan [India ][and cannot ][be]limited to any of these [jurisdictional ]High Courts. 10. As a result of which, what we are [facing ][is ][steep ][increase ][of]titigation day in and day out even though [various ][orders have ][been]passed by this High Court allowing writ [petitions ]on the [very ][same]issue. The Income Tax authorities concemed [are ][still ][even ][now ][in]2025 also initiating proceedings in contravention [to ][the ][provisions]of Section t51A 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 Kanakala Ravindra Reddy(l supra). What is also surprising [is the ][fact that ][though while]allowing the writ [petitions ]in [the ][case ][of ][Kanakalu ][Ravindra]Reddy (l supra), the Division [Bench ][while ][reserving ][the right ][of]the Revenue, has also protected the [interest ]of [the ][petitioners] I insofar as the liberty which was granted to thr: Revenue forinitiating fresh proceedings strictly in accordance witLr the amendedprovisions of the Act, as amended by the Finance Act,2020 andthe Finance Act,2021 . The petitioner assessee would be entitted tochallenge or raise the other legal objections if the R,:.\,enue initiatesfresh proceedings. The Department has made no ;ndeavour inavailing lhe said liberty that was reserved for the I(r:r:nue. On thecontrary, thel,have been still sticking on to the strrrrd, which thisHigh Court as well as many other High Courts alrr:a ly hetd to bebad 1 1. It appears that because of the aforesaid libert y that this HighCourt had granted permitting the Revenue for irLitiating freshproceedings as a onetime measure in a facele:;s manner, theIncome Tax Department wants to take advantage r. the same byprotracting these proceedings which would enable tlrr,rn to meet theIimitatiorr that would otherwise come in the way. .,j <ewise, if thewrit petition is kept pending for a considerable lon1r [.:reriod ]of timeand finalty at a later stage if the Hon'ble Supreme C curt confirmsthe decision taken by this High Court as also by.tl-e other HighCourts i n which the SLPs are still pending, th e Income Tax Department would [get ]the advantage of the liberry that [is ][otherwise]protected in favour of the Revenue for initiation of fieshproceedings from the disposal of these matters at a much later stagewhich would be advantageous and beneficial [to the ][Revenue ][and]would be equally disadvantageous and detrimental [so ][far ][as interest]of the assesses are concemed. [As ][a ][consequence, ][the Income Tax]Department gets an extended [period ]of [time ][for initiation ][of ][fresh]proceedings. 12. The alarming trend of docket [explosion in this Court, ][despite]the clear precedent set it 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 ][litigation]with over 600-700 [petitions ][piling ][up on ][the ][same ][issue. ][This]deliberate approach not only [undermines ][the principle ][of ][judicial]precedent but also strains the [judicial ][resources ][unnecessarily. The]Department's strategy of awaiting [the Supreme ][Court's decision ][on]pending SLPs while continuing to [initiate fiesh ][proceedings]to be a calculated move [to ][buy time ][and ][circumvent]appears limitation [periods, rather ]than [adhering ][to ][the ][established ][legal] position. Such conduct raises serious questi( nri about theadministrative efficiency and the respecr lor judicialprorlouncements, particularly when this Court has a [r.,ady provideda balanced approach by preserving both the Revert:'s rights andassesses lnterests. 13. Another aspect which needs to be considered ir; that in fact itshould hzrve been realized by the lncome Tax Deparlrrrent itself andshould havc lound out via media in ensuring tlral proceedingsunder Sections 148-.4 and 148 should not have b,:cn issued in afaceless rnanner, at least till the Hon'ble Supreme ( c rrt decide thetwelve hundred ( I 200) odd SLPs which it is alreacly s,:ized of or, atleast the Income Tax Department should have [rund out someremedial steps to ensure that wherever the authcrities intend toinitiate proceedings under Sections 148-A and 148. other than in afaceless manner, the proceedings should have treen delerredwithout precipitating the matter further intimating trt: assessee thatthey shall initiate appropriate proceedings only aflrr rhe SLp,s aredecided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the t,,:rv same issue.This again, the Income Tax Department, has not be<,n able to give aconvincing reply, except for the fact that such a der:ision if at all 'lfi": t has to be taken, has to be taken for the whole of India, 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 Income Tax Department contended thatthe Dethi High Court dismissed a writ [petition ]of similar [nature, ][on]the one hand when the High Court is struggling to reduce [its]pendency, 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 ][in]the long run not only affects the disposal of the writ [petitions ][but]also consumes substantial time of the [Bench ][in ][hearing ][these]matters again and again on daily basis. [Admittedly, ][in ][spite ][of ][the]matter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court [having ]been [taken ][on]many occasions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court which [is ][seized ][of ][the]matter has been reluctant in [granting any ][interim ][protection ][to ][the]Income Tax Department. [Yet, ][the ][authorities ][concemed ][at ][the]State level are not ready to accept [the ][verdict ][passed ][by a ][majority]of High Courts of different States on [the ][same ][issue; ][and ][to ][make]things further worse, the Income Tax [Department ]is showingaudacity by issuing notices continuously [under ]Sections [148-4 ][and] 148 through the jurisdictional Assessing Officeruh::reas it oughtto have been only in the faceless manner. 14. In the case of BANK OF INDIA vs. ,ISSISTANTCOMMISSIONER, INCOME TAXll, on an issue rr'hether it wasjustifiable on the part of the Income Tax Dep rrrment in notfollowing an order passed by the adjudicating authori:y only on theground tirat the appeals are pending, the DivisiorL llench of theHigh Court o1'Bombay held at paragraph No.25 as r.n:ler, viz., : "25. [4r. Paridwalla has rightly drawn out atterrti:,n to thedecision of this Court in Commissioner of lncome Tar: vs. Smt.Godavaridevi Sarafl2 as also the recent decision c. the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Samp Furniture (p) [kl. v. lTO13of which one of us (Justice G.S. Kulkarni) was a meml;er, whereinthe [(lourt ]categorically observed that the Revenue hrtving not"accepted'the Judgment of the High Court would not rre tn that tillthe same is set aside in a manner known to law, it wo.rl,: loose itsbindi.1g force. Referring to the decision of the Suprer:r Court inUnion of lndia vs. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation t-.td.14, theCourt observed that the approach of the officials of R:,vsnus .1treating decisions being "not acceptable" was criticzed by theSupreme Court. ln such decision, following are thr: relevantobservations made by the Supreme Court. " 1{2025) [170 ][taxmann.com ]422 (Bombay)l 1{2025) '' [978] l l3 ITR 589 (Bombay) " 1{2025) [170 ][taxmann.com ]422 (Bombay)l 1{2025) '' [978] l l3 ITR 589 (Bombay) " 7ZOZ41 [[65 ][taxmann.com ]581/300 Taxmat452 (Bombav) 'o 1t9921 [laxrnann.com ][16155 ] 433 [(SC)] "6. Sri Reddy is perhaps right in saying that theofficers were not actuated by any mala fides [in]officers were not actuated by any mala fides [in]passing the impugned orders. They perhapsgenuinely felt that the claim of the assesbee was nottenable 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 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]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]quasiiudicial issues before them, revenue officers arebound 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 ][Assistant]Collectors and the Appellate [Collectors ][who ][function]under the [jurisdiction ][of ][the ][Tribunal. ][The principles of]judicial discipline require that the orders of the higherappellate authorities should [be ][followed ][unreservedly]by the subordinate authorities. [The mere fact ][that ][the]order of the appellate authority [is ][not ]['acceptable' ][to]-the department - in itself an [objectionable ][phrase ]and is the subject matter of an appeal [can ][furnish ][no]ground for not following it unless its operation hasbeen suspended by a competent court. [lf ]this [healthy]bound by the decisions of the appellate [authorities.]The order of the Appellte Collector is [binding ]on [the]Assistant Collectors working [within his ][jurisdiction ][and]the order of the Tribunal is [binding upon ][the ][Assistant]Collectors and the Appellate [Collectors ][who ][function]under the [jurisdiction ][of ][the ][Tribunal. ][The principles of]judicial discipline require that the orders of the higherappellate authorities should [be ][followed ][unreservedly]by the subordinate authorities. [The mere fact ][that ][the]order of the appellate authority [is ][not ]['acceptable' ][to]-the department - in itself an [objectionable ][phrase ]and is the subject matter of an appeal [can ][furnish ][no]ground for not following it unless its operation hasbeen suspended by a competent court. [lf ]this [healthy] rule is irui followed, the result will only be ,rrrlueharassment to assesses and chaos in administrzltionof tax laws. rule is irui followed, the result will only be ,rrrlueharassment to assesses and chaos in administrzltionof tax laws. 12. We have dealt with this aspect at some l-.rr3th,because it has been suggested by the r€.a-ledAdd tional Solicitor General that the obserlal onsmade by the High Court, have been harsh ()n theofficers. lt is clear that the observalions of tho lighCourl, seemingly vehement, and appi)r(: nflyunpalatable to the Revenue, are only intended tr ::urba tendency in revenue matters which, if allovretJ tobecome widespread, could result in considerirbleharassment to the assesses-public without any berrefitto the Revenue. We would like lo say th rt thedepartment should take these observations 1 theproper spirit. The observations of the High C::urtshould be kept in mind in future and the utmost [.e:lard]should be paid by the adjudicating authorities alcl theappellate authorities to the requirements of j'lcl cialdiscipline and the need for giving effect to the :rriersof the higher appellate authorities which are binrlingon them." I 5. What rs worrying this Bench more is the fact that anendeavour is being made whole heartedly to ensure n,)t to generatefurther litigation on issues which have been laid tc rr:st by a largenumber of Fligh Courts all of whom have taken a (lc tsistent standnumber of Fligh Courts all of whom have taken a (lc tsistent standthat the action of the Income Tax Department being vrolative of the Finance Act,2020 and Finance Act,202l. Now, in orderto protectthe interest of the Revenue as also that ofthe assessee, it would betrite at this [juncture, ]if we dispose of the writ petition with anobservation/direction that the disposal of the instant writ petition interms of the [judgment ]rendered by this High Court in the case ofKankanala Ravindra Reddy (1 supra) shall however be subject tothe outcome of the SLPs which were filed by the Income TaxDepartment and which is pending consideration before the Hon'bleSupreme Court 16. In the given lacts and circumstances, this Bench is of theconsidered opinion that unless and until we do not timely disposeof matters which are squarely covered by the decision of this Courtand which stands fortified by the decisions of the [various ]otherHigh Courts on the very same issue, the [pendency ]of this [High]Court would further be burdened which otherwise can be decidedand disposed of as a covered matter. ll . So far as the interest of the Revenue [is ][concerned, ]we are ofthe considered opinion that [the interest ][ofthe ][Revenue ][has ][already]been considered and [protected, ][as ][has ][been observed ][in ][paragraphs] 36,37 and 38 ofthe order which, for ready referenc:. is reproducedhereunder: 36. For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned rroticesissued and the proceedings drawn by the resp(tndent-Department is neither tenable, nor su:;tainable.The notices so issued and the procedure adop.e: beingper se illegal, deserves to be and are accorc,r,)ly setaside/quashed. As a consequence, all the in:ugnedorders getting quashed, the consequential orders t)assedby the respondent-Department pursuant to thrr oticesissued under Section 1 47 and 1 48 would z ls,r getquashed and it is ordered accordingly. The r€ar;on weare quashing the consequential order is on the 1;r- rcrplesthat when the initiation of the proceedings isr;lf wasprocedurally wrong, the subsequent orders zrls ) getsnullified automatically. 37. The preliminary objection raised by the petit )ner issustained and all these writ petitions stands al eured onthis very jurisdictional issue. Since the impugne I rroticesand orders are getting quashed on the p,, int ofjurisdiction, we are not inclined to proceed furil- )r anddecide the other issues raised by the petitioner whichstands reserved to be raised and contend€d in anappropriate proceedings. 37. The preliminary objection raised by the petit )ner issustained and all these writ petitions stands al eured onthis very jurisdictional issue. Since the impugne I rroticesand orders are getting quashed on the p,, int ofjurisdiction, we are not inclined to proceed furil- )r anddecide the other issues raised by the petitioner whichstands reserved to be raised and contend€d in anappropriate proceedings. 38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in tf re caseof Ashish Agarwal, supra, as a one-time mr.,asureexercising the powers under Article 142 tf theConstitution of lndia, permitted the Revenue to F oceedunder the substituted provisions, and this Court aflowingthe petitions only on the procedural flaw, .h:) right -------v '| [..xi" ] conferred on the Revenue would remain [reserved ][to]proceed further if they so want from the stage of theorder of the Supreme Court in the case [of Ashish]Agarwal, supra. 18. We would only further [like ][to ][make ][observations ][that ][since]we are inclined to dispose of the instant [*rit ][peiition, ][conscious ][of]the fact that the earlier order of [this ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra) [is ][subjected ][to ][challenge]before the Hon'ble [Supreme ][Court ][in ] [No.3574 ][of ][2024']preferred by the Income Tax Department, [we ][make ][it ][clear ][that]allowing of the instant writ [petition is ][subject ][to ][outcome ][of ][the]aforesaid SLP prefened by the [Revenue ][against ][the ][decision ][of ][this]High Courl in the case of [Kanakala Ravindra ][Reddy ][(I ][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]Court in the [pending ]SLP [on the ][very ][same issue.] lg. 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.] The consequential orders, if any, aiso stand set rr:;ir. e,/quasheri insimilar terms as have been passed by this High Coul .n the case of Kankanala Ravindra Reddy (l supra). There shall t,: no order asto costs Consequently, miscelianeous petitions pendin,r. if any, shall stand closed SD/. h..{; REERAMA MURTHYASS;I T NT REGISTRAR/iTRUE COPY//SCTION OFFICEROFFICER) SCTION OFFICEROFFICERTo,)1. The lncome tax offrcer ward 1, Nirmal NIRMAL, NlRt\4A,, Telangana, 504101,Telangana State.1. The lncome tax offrcer ward 1, Nirmal NIRMAL, NlRt\4A,, Telangana, 504101,Telangana State.2. The TelanganaHyderab;rd Prirrcipal lT Chief Towers Commis-sioner nC GulrOs of ff,"rr"6'f"rnl lncome Ta: Hyderabad_ Telangana and S0OO28,A.pa llin,*rt,onal Faceless Assessment Center, lncome -,ax Department, New4. The Cherirman, Central_ B_oard ,of . Direct Taxes, Dt:p,:rtment of Revenue.fla'at51',' Firrance, covernment of rndia, secreirri".r r:uirdingi rrre,-o"er'rii'la llin,*rt,onal Faceless Assessment Center, lncome -,ax Department, New4. The Cherirman, Central_ B_oard ,of . Direct Taxes, Dt:p,:rtment of Revenue.fla'at51',' Firrance, covernment of rndia, secreirri".r r:uirdingi rrre,-o"er'rii'l. The Union of lndia. Secrs[sry to the Government, Dr: ,artment of Revenue,Ministry of Finance. New Dethi _ i rb irol" ['""']Ministry of Finance. New Dethi _ i rb irol" ['""']o, Une rNDtA CC Io SRI. GADI PRAVEEN KUIVIAR, DY.SoLICII ]R GENERAL oF[OPUCI[OPUCIqB7. Two CD one cC One CC rlopir_.sro ro r!4s SRt. J SUNITHA THANNFF!_J..C_ryA|JANYA ttur.rion sc Fon*ii,itd[,r= KUIUAR A(,\,)care iAil IOPUCIio."pu6iBtVBtVBGJP HIGH COURT DATED:2810412025 '' -..\.-'.:, [t' ],../ .:._? 6 55P [;95]l...'.,,\.+\,', ',r .ORDER WP.No.31130 of 2024 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITI-] OUT COSTS