Order, (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Narsing Rdo Nandikonda v. '1Q023) [156 ]Taxmann.com L7G (Telangana)L

t34471 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.SAIVI KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION NO: 26305 OF 2024 Between: PRIIVIARY AGRICULTURE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITEDDHOOLIKATTA, Rep. By lts Secretary ,BADDAM RAVINDER REDDY,S/o.HANMANTA REDDY BADDAM, Occupation. Business Aged about45years, R:/O. DhoolikattaVill ,Eligaidtt/dl Karimnagar Dist 505525, Telangana,lndia. Assessment Year. 2019-20 ...PETITIONER AND 1The Assistant Commissioner of Income tax circle l, Karimnagar lncome TaxOffice, AayakarBhavan, Near Natraj Theatre, Karimnagar Telangana State.Office, AayakarBhavan, Near Natraj Theatre, Karimnagar Telangana State.2The Principal Chief Commissioner of lncome Tax, Telangana and A P,Hyderabad, lT Towers, AC Guards, Masab T, Hyderabad - 500 028,Telangana.Hyderabad, lT Towers, AC Guards, Masab T, Hyderabad - 500 028,Telangana. JThe National Faceless Assessment center, lncome Tax Department, NewDelhi.Delhi. 4The Central Board of Direct Taxes Represented by its Chairman, Departmentof Revenue, Ministry of Finance government of lndia, Secretariat Buildings,New Delhi.of Revenue, Ministry of Finance government of lndia, Secretariat Buildings,New Delhi. 5The Union of lndia, Represented by its Secretary to the Government,Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi - 110 001 .Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi - 110 001 . ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may bepleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one inthe nature of Writ of Mandamus Direction, declaring the order passed by theIncome Tax Authorities (National Faceless E-Assessment Centre) completed theassessment UIS 147 r.w.s ['144 ]read with section 1448 of the lncometax ActDate of 22-01-2024, DIN ITBA/ASTlsl14712123-2411059983359 (l)for theAssessment Year 2019-20 determining the total income of Rs. 10,83,07 ,6291-asarbitrary, illegal, bad in law, without [jurisdiction, ]void-ab-initio, violative of the 'F -s [of ][natural ][justice apart from ][being violative of ][Arlicles ][14, ][19(1Xg) ][and]of the Constitution of lndia & Sec. 148A of the lncome Tax Act, 1961, and;onsequently set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. THANNERU CHAITANYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1to4: Ms. J. SUNITHA, JUNIOR STANDINGcouNSEL FOR TNCOME TAX) Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI B. MUKHERJEE RI-:PSRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DY. SOLICITORGENERAL OF INDIA The Court made the following: ORDER TIIE HONOT]RABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAONANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION No.26305 OF 2024 ORDER, (per Hon'ble Sri Justice Narsing Rdo Nandikonda) Heard Mr.Thanneru Chaitanya Kumar, learned counselfor the petitioner, Ms. J.Sunitha, leamed lunior Standing Counselfor the lncome Tax Department for respondent Nos.l to 4 andMr. B. Mukherjee, Iearned counsel representing the Union of Indiafor respondent No.5. Perused the record. 2. This is a writ petition where the [proceedings ]are [either]challenged to the notices which were issued under Section [148..4.]and 148 of the lncome Tax Act, 1961 [(for ]short ['the ]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 of thegrounds, that the notices issued under Section 148,{ of the Actand the subsequent initiation ofproceedings under Section 148 ofthe Act by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, whereas in termsof the amen{ment that was brought to the [Income Tax ][Act ][by ][way] 2. This is a writ petition where the [proceedings ]are [either]challenged to the notices which were issued under Section [148..4.]and 148 of the lncome Tax Act, 1961 [(for ]short ['the ]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 of thegrounds, that the notices issued under Section 148,{ of the Actand the subsequent initiation ofproceedings under Section 148 ofthe Act by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, whereas in termsof the amen{ment that was brought to the [Income Tax ][Act ][by ][way] of Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f., 01.04.2021 onwards, proceedingsunder Section 148,{ ofthe Act as also under Section I48 oftheAct ought to have also been issued and proceede.d in a facelessmanner.4. The contention of the petitioner is that the issue ofproceedings being in violation of the Finance Act, 2021 i.e., theimpugned notices under Section l48A and Sectior 148 of the Actnot being issued in a faceless manner, have already been dealt withand decided by this Court in the case of KANKANALARAVINDRA REDDY vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICERT decidedon 14.09.2023 whereby a batch of writ petitions w,rrc allowed andthe proceedings initiated under Section 148A 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 Section l5lA ofthe Act read with Norif,rcation lBl202Z dated 29.03.2022. The saidjudgment passed by this Court has also been subseqrrently followedin a large number of writ petitions which were allowed on similarterms. '1Q023) [156 ]taxmann.com l7g (Telangana)l 5. Down the line, we find that the same issue has also beendecided against the Revenue byvanous High Courts i.e.,by the Bombay High Court in the case of IIEXAWARETECHNOLOGIES LTD., vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX & OTHERS2, Gauhati High Court in the caseof RAM NARAYAN SAH vs. UMON OF INDIA3, Punjab andHaryana High Court in the case of JATINDER SINGH BANGUvs. UNION OF INDIA4, and Telangana High Court in the case olSRI VENKATARAMANA REDDY PATLOOLA vs. DEPUTYCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX5 where the issue was inrespect of international taxation, Bombay High Court in the case ofABHIN ANILKUMAR SHAH vS. INCOME TAX OFFICER,INTERNATIONAL TAXATIOIt' which is again on internationaltaxation 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 'Tzoz+1464 [430 (Bom)]'LQ024) [156 ][taxmann.com ][478 (Gauhati)l]'l(2024) [165 ][taxmann.com ][115 ][(Punjab ]& Haryana)l' l2OZ4) [167 ][taxm&n.com ][4 ] [(Telangana)l]" 12024) [166 ][taxmann.com 679 ][(Bombay)l] '[2024) [165 ][taxmann.com ][113 ][(Himachal ][Pradesh)]] ll;.lV A vs.A vs.vs. DAHYABHAI RADAll;.lV A vs.A vs.vs.TNCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 3(3XO8, Jharkand High Court in rhe crse of SHyAMSUNDAR SAW vs. UNION OF INDIAe, Rajasth,m 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 TNDIA & ORS(M.A.T 1690 of 2023), decided on25.09.2024.6. Even though the same issue having been der:ided by a largenumber of High Courts, we are still confronted wit.h large filing ofidentical matters on daity basis ranging betweerr 5 to l0 writpetitions. That upon the instructions being sought from theDepartment, they have been taking a solitary ground that thedecision of the Bombay High Court in the case of HexawareTechnologies Ltd., {2 supra) as also the one which has beendecided by this Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy t2024 SCC Online Guj 4012'2025 SCC Online Jhar 287o ' 72023 [: ] [:49 ][g4-DBl] t2024 SCC Online Guj 4012'2025 SCC Online Jhar 287o ' 72023 [: ] [:49 ][g4-DBl] (.1 supra) has been subjected to challenge. int 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 filed 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 ol thesematters pending before it. Meanwhile, fresh writ petitions ofidentical nature are being piled up before this Bench on daily basisand the pendency is getting increased on matter which otherwisehas already been dealt and decided by this very High Court itself.8. On the one hand, even though the order of this Court thatwas passed as early as on 14.09.2023 and more 16 months havelapsed, 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 l48A and underSection 148 of the Act by the [jurisdictional ]Assessing Offrcer,rather the authorities concemed [in the ][teeth ]of series of decisions\ by all the major High Courts in India are continuously stillinitiating proceedings under Section 148,4 of tle Act and alsoinitiating proceedings under Section 148 o I the Act incontravention to the amendments brought into the [ncome Tax Actpursuant to the Finance Act,2020 as also the Finan,:e Act 2021.9. [Ipon a query being put as to why can't this rvrit petition beinitiating proceedings under Section 148,4 of tle Act and alsoinitiating proceedings under Section 148 o I the Act incontravention to the amendments brought into the [ncome Tax Actpursuant to the Finance Act,2020 as also the Finan,:e Act 2021.9. [Ipon a query being put as to why can't this rvrit petition bedisposed of in the teeth of the decision rendered by this Courl inthe case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra), l,jarned StandingCounsel for the Income Tax Department contends that those wouldCounsel for the Income Tax Department contends that those wouldunnecessarily burden the Income Tax Departmcnt where theywould be required to file equal number of SLPs before theHon'ble Supreme Court and it would be further burdening thewould be required to file equal number of SLPs before theHon'ble Supreme Court and it would be further burdening theexchequer of the Union of India. It was also the crrntention of theleamed Standing Counsel that no prejudice would be caused to theleamed Standing Counsel that no prejudice would be caused to theinterest of the petitioners in case if this writ petition is kept pendingtill the finalization of the SLPs pending befbre the Hon,bletill the finalization of the SLPs pending befbre the Hon,bleSupreme Court and the fact that the petitioner is already enjoyingthe benefit of interim protection. Nonetheless, on the earlier queryof this Court as to why the Income Tax Department have not comethe benefit of interim protection. Nonetheless, on the earlier queryof this Court as to why the Income Tax Department have not comeout with a mechanism to issue appropriate instructions or to take appropriate steps in-ensuring that proceedings under Section l48Aof the Act as also the assessment orders under Section 148 of theAct are kept in a hold in the light ofthe decisions dedcided by thevarious High Courts, it was submitted by the learned 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. appropriate steps in-ensuring that proceedings under Section l48Aof the Act as also the assessment orders under Section 148 of theAct are kept in a hold in the light ofthe decisions dedcided by thevarious High Courts, it was submitted by the learned StandingCounsel that the said steps can only be taken at the level of CBDTas any such steps would have to be taken Pan India and cannot belimited to any of these [jurisdictional ]High Courts. 10. As a result of which, what 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 concemed are still even now in2025 also initiating proceedings in contravention to the provisionsof Section 15lA 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(l supra). What is also surprising is the fact that though whileallowing the writ petitions in the case of Kanakala RavindraReddy (l 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 amendedinitiating fresh proceedings strictly in accordance u ith the amendedprovisions of the Act, as amended by the Financc Act, 2020 andthe Finance Act, 2021. The petitioner assessee would be enritled tochallenge or raise the other legal objections if the R evenue initiatesthe Finance Act, 2021. The petitioner assessee would be enritled tochallenge or raise the other legal objections if the R evenue initiatesfresh proceedings. The Department has made no endeavour inavailing the said liberty that was reserved for the Revenue. On theavailing the said liberty that was reserved for the Revenue. On thecontrary, they have been still sticking on to the stand, which thisHigh Court as well as many other High Courts alr,:arly held to bebad.High Court as well as many other High Courts alr,:arly held to bebad. 11. It appears that because ofthe aforesaid libert.r rhat this HighCourt had granted permitting the Revenue for initiating freshproceedings as a one-time measure in a faceless manner, theIncome Tax Department wants to take advantage of the same byprotracting these proceedings which would enable thern to meet thelimitation that would otherwise come in the way. t.ikewise, if thewrit petition is kept pending for a considerable long 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 I ncome Tax Department would get the advantage of the liberty that is otherwiseprotected 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 andwould be equally disadvantageous and detrimental so far as interestof the assesses are concemed. 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 setin Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra), is amatter of graye 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 12. The alarming trend of docket explosion in this Court, despitethe clear precedent setin Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra), is amatter of graye 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 position. Such conduct raises serious questions about theadministrative efhciency and the respect for judicialpronouncements, particularly when this Court has already provideda balanced approach by preserving both the Reve,nue's rights andassesses rnterests. 13. Another aspect which needs to be considerecl is that in fact itshould have been realized by the Income Tax Department itself andshould have found out via media in ensuring t,rat proceedingsunder Sections 148-4 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 a1read1, seized ofor, atleast the Income Tax Deparlment should have found 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 been deferredwithout precipitating the matter further intimating ti.re assessee thatthey shall initiate appropriate proceedings only after the SLp's aredecided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the very same issue.This again, the Income Tax Department, has not 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 oflndia, 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 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 makethings further worse, the Income Tax Department is showingaudacity by issuing notices continuously under Sections 148-A and 148 through the jurisdictional Assessing Officer .,vhereas it oughtto have been only in the faceless mannerto have been only in the faceless manner 14. In the case of BANK OF INDIA vs, ASSISTANTCOMMISSIONER, INCOME I.AXrr, on an issuo whether it wasjustifiable on the part of the Income Tax Department in notfollowing an order passed by the adjudicating authority only on theground that the appeals are pending, the Divisiorr Uench of theHigh Court of Bornbay held at paragraph No.25 as under, viz., : 148 through the jurisdictional Assessing Officer .,vhereas it oughtto have been only in the faceless mannerto have been only in the faceless manner 14. In the case of BANK OF INDIA vs, ASSISTANTCOMMISSIONER, INCOME I.AXrr, on an issuo whether it wasjustifiable on the part of the Income Tax Department in notfollowing an order passed by the adjudicating authority only on theground that the appeals are pending, the Divisiorr Uench of theHigh Court of Bornbay held at paragraph No.25 as under, viz., : "25. I\ilr. [pandwalla ]has rightly drawn out attention to thedecision of this Court in Commissioner of lncome Tax vs. Smt.Godavaridevi Sarafl2 as also the recent decision of the co_ordinate Bench of this Court in Samp Furniture (p) Ltd. v. lTOr3of which one of us (Justice G.S. Kulkarni) was a memb3r, whereinthe Court categorically observed that the Revenue laving not"accepted" the judgment of the High Court would not mean that tillthe same is set aside in a manner known to law, it wou d loose itsbinding force. Referring to the decision of the Suprerre Court inUnion of lndia vs. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd.14, theCourt observed that the approach of the officials of Revenue oftreating decisions being "not acceptable" was criticizr:d by theSupreme Court. ln such decision, following are the relevantobservations made by the Supreme Court. t,'.,Uzo25l 170 taxmann.co m 422 (Bombay)l170 taxmann.co m 422 (Bombay)l '.' 11978) il 3 trR 589 ( Bombay) " 120241 165 raxmann.com 5gl/300 Taxman452(Bombav) '4 Tt}gZltaxmann.com t6155 ELT433 (SC) t,'.,Uzo25l 170 taxmann.co m 422 (Bombay)l170 taxmann.co m 422 (Bombay)l '.' 11978) il 3 trR 589 ( Bombay) " 120241 165 raxmann.com 5gl/300 Taxman452(Bombav) '4 Tt}gZltaxmann.com t6155 ELT433 (SC) "6. Sri Reddy is perhaps right in saying that theolficers were not actuated by any mala fides inpassing the impugned orders. They perhapspassing the impugned orders. They perhapsgenuinely felt that the claim of the assessee was nottenable and that, if it was accepted, the Revenuewould suffer. But what Sri Reddy overlooks is that weare 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 appeltate orders intenable and that, if it was accepted, the Revenuewould suffer. But what Sri Reddy overlooks is that weare 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 appeltate 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, rightlythem, one of the Collector (Appeals) and the other ofthe Tribunal. The High Court has, in our view, rightlycriticized 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. ltthe harassment to the assessee caused by the failureof these officers to give effect to the orders ofauthorities higher to them in the appellate hierarchy. ltcannot be too vehemently emphasized that it is ofutmost importance that, in disposing of thequasijudicial issues before them, revenue officers areutmost importance that, in disposing of thequasijudicial issues before them, revenue officers arebound by the decisions of the appellate authorities.The order of the Appellte 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 unreservedlyby the subordinate 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 nothe order of the Tribunal is binding upon the AssistantCollectors and the Appellate Collectors who functionunder the [jurisdiction ]of the Tribunal. The principles ofjudicial discipline require that the orders of the higherappellate authorities should be followed unreservedlyby the subordinate authorities. The mere fact that theorder of the appellate authority is not "acceptable" tothe department - in itself an objectionable phrase -and 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 healthybeen suspended by a competent court. lf this healthy -t rule is not followed, the result will only be undueharassment to assesses and chaos in adminiritrationof tax laws.of tax laws. -t rule is not followed, the result will only be undueharassment to assesses and chaos in adminiritrationof tax laws.of tax laws. 12. We have dealt with this aspect at some length,because it has been suggested by the lr-.arnedAdditional Solicitor General that the obsenrationsmade by the High Court, have been harsh ,:n theofficers. lt is clear that the observations of ths HighCourt, seemingly vehement, and apparenflyunpalatable to the Revenue, are only intended 1o curba tendency in revenue matters which, if allowed tobecome widespread, could result in considerableharassment to the assesses-public without any benefitto the Revenue. We would like to say that thedepartment should take these observations in theproper spirit. The observations of the High Courtshould be kept in mind in future and the utmost regardshould be paid by the adjudicating authorities ard theappellate authorities to the requirements of jrdicialdiscipline and the need for giving effect to the ,lrdersof the higher appellate authorities which are bindingon them." 15. What is worrying this Bench more is th,: fact that anendeavour is being made whole heartedly to ensure not to generatefurther litigation on issues which have been laid to rest by a largenumber of High Courts all of whom have taken a consistent standthat the action of the Income Tax Department being violative of the Finance Act,2020 and Finance Act,202l. Now, in order to protectthe interest of the Revenue as also that of the assessee, it would betrite at this junchrre, if we dispose of the writ petition with anobservation/direction that the disposal ofthe instant writ petition interms of the judgment rendered by this High Court in the case ofKankanala Ravindra Reddy (l supra) shall however be subject toobservation/direction that the disposal ofthe instant writ petition interms of the judgment rendered by this High Court in the case ofKankanala Ravindra Reddy (l supra) shall however be subject tothe outcome of the SLPs which were filed by the Income TaxDepartment and which is pending consideration before the Hon,bleSupreme Court. 16. ln the given facts 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 HighCourt would further be burdened which otherwise can be decidedand disposed of as a covered matter. l7 . So far as the interest of the Revenue is concemed, we are ofthe considered opinion that the interest ofthe Revenue has alreadybeen considered and protected, as has been observed in paragraphs 36,37 and 38 ofthe order which, for ready reference, is reproducedhereunder: 36. For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugnerd noticesissued and lhe proceedings drawn by the re{ipondent-Department is neither tenable. nor ['sustainable.]The notices so issued and the procedure adopted beingper se illegal, deserves to be and are accordingly setaside/quashed. As a consequence, all the impugnedorders getting [quashed, ]the consequential orders passedby the respondent-Department pursuant to the noticesissued under Section 147 and 148 would iilso getquashed and it is ordered accordingly. The reason weare quashing the consequential order is on the crinciplesthat when the initiation of the proceedings itself wasprocedurally wrong, the subsequent orders iilso getsnullified automatically. 37. The [preliminary ]objection raised by the petitioner issustained and all these writ petitions stands allowed onthis very [jurisdictional ]issue. Since the impugned noticesand orders are getting quashed on the point ofjurisdiction, we are not inclined to proceed fulher 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 petitioner issustained and all these writ petitions stands allowed onthis very [jurisdictional ]issue. Since the impugned noticesand orders are getting quashed on the point ofjurisdiction, we are not inclined to proceed fulher 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 the caseof Ashish Aganrval, supra, as a one-time measureexercising .the powers under Article 142 of theConstitution of lndia, permitted the Revenue to proceedunder the substituted provisions, and this Court allowingthe petitions only on the procedural flaw, the right iI 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 ofAshishAgarwal, 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 Income Tax Department, we make it clear thataliowing 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 Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra).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 infayour of the assessee so far as the issue of jurisdiction1Sconcemed. As a consequence, the impugned notice underchallenge under Sections 148-A and 148 stands set aside/quashed. The consequential orders, if any, also stand set as:delquashed in similar terms as have been passed by this High Couri in the case of Kankanala Ravindra Reddy (l supra). There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending., if any, shall stand closed. SD/.A.$REENIVASA ASSISTANTG STRARSECTIFICER //TRUE COPY// To, 1. The Assistant [Commissioner ][of ][lncome ][tax circle.l, ][Karimnaggr.lncome]' ili otriC"IAiyat aienar"n, Near Natraj Theatre, l(arimnagar TelanganaState.' ili otriC"IAiyat aienar"n, Near Natraj Theatre, l(arimnagar TelanganaState. State.Z. - ifre*-irincipal Hil";;i,;,i-ir-iJ*"i','Adcrrioi, [Chief ][Commissioner ][of ]r',risao [lncome ][Jax ]r' Hvderabid [Telanoana ]- [and ]500 028'[P']Telangana.Telangana. Telangana.a. ifre flitional Faceless [Assessment ][center, lncome ][Tax ][Department, New]Delhi.Delhi. Delhi.+. iie tvlinistrv b6rirman of Finance ,Central [qou"r"n";"it ][Board ][of ]-ot [Direct ]tniia, Secretariat [Taxes, ][De ][oartment ]'Buildings,New [of ][Revenue,]Delhi.. s. -' ii""Uii"n Oeoartment or of Revenue, [inAial n"ptesented ]'Ministry of [bv ]Finance, New [its ][Secretarv..tg tf9^qgYernment']D'elhi - 110 001' 6. 6;6 C'C'i,;'snr.lnANilenu [cfunrrauvA ] [Advocate ]Lq?y9-.1i. o;; cc io [H,r.- ][J. ][suNlrHA ][(JUNloR ][sc ][FoR ][INC()luE ]f^x)-I9P-9918. O;; CC iO SNI. [KUTVAR, ][DY. SOLICITOR GENERAL]oF INDIAIOPUCIi. o;; cc io [H,r.- ][J. ][suNlrHA ][(JUNloR ][sc ][FoR ][INC()luE ]f^x)-I9P-9918. O;; CC iO SNI. [KUTVAR, ][DY. SOLICITOR GENERAL]oF INDIAIOPUCI 9. Two CD CoPies BM YA- HIGH COURT DATED:2810412025 f'E Sr_: ,...,_)....\_,.- \t: 1.t)0I siP 2025.' llltORDER\\:..\ WP.No.26305 of 2024 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS $[."vaa]tr{.