Order, (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.sam Koshy v. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY,THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF APRILTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION NO: 28281 OF 2024 Between: / Mr. Ramesh Reddy Gaddam,, S/o. Mr. Narsaiah Gaddam, ased51 years,Occ. Business, Rlo. 4-70-8-14, Opposite V P School, VenkateshWAra Colony,Armoor, Nizamabad - 503 224, T elangana ..PETITIONER AND '1 . Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department,, National e-Assessment Center,New Delhi, Room No. 4O1,2nd Floor, E-Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium,New Delhi - 1 10 003New Delhi, Room No. 4O1,2nd Floor, E-Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium,New Delhi - 1 10 003 2. The lncome Tax Officer, Ward 1, Nizamabad, lncome Tax Office, 6-2-156/3,Sirbhash Nagar, Nizamabad - 503 002, Telangana.Sirbhash Nagar, Nizamabad - 503 002, Telangana. 3. The Principal Chief Commissioner of lncome Tax,, Andhra Pradesh andTelangana, Hyderabad, Room No.- 922, [glh ]Floor, 'B [' ]Block, I.T.Towers, 10-2-3, AC Guards, Hyderabad - 500 004, Telangana.Telangana, Hyderabad, Room No.- 922, [glh ]Floor, 'B [' ]Block, I.T.Towers, 10-2-3, AC Guards, Hyderabad - 500 004, Telangana. ...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 a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order orDirection, declaring that a. the order passed by the 1st Respondent, uls 147 rlwSec. 1448 of the lncome Tax Act, 1961, dated 14.03.2024, bearing DIN andNotice No.- ITBfuAST/S/14712023-2411062597634( 1), for the Assessment Year2015 - 16- b. consequential penalty order passed by the 1't Respondent, levyingpenalties uls 271(1)(c) of the lncome Tax Act, 1961, dated 20.O8.2024, bearingDIN-lTBtuPN LlFl271(1)(c)12024-2511067792409(1) respectively, for theAssessment Yeat 2O15 - 16- as arbitrary, illegal, bad in law, void-ab-initio,violative of the principles of natural [justice, ]apart from being violative of A(icles 1a, 19(1Xg) and 265 of the Constitution [of ][lndia ][and ][Sec ][148A ][of ][the lncome Tax]Act, 1961, and to Consequently [set ][aside ][the ][same ][in ][the ][interests ][ofiustice]lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC [praying ][that ][in ][the circumstances ][stated]in the affidavit filed in support of the [petition, the High Court may ][be ][pleased ][to]stay all further [proceedings, ]including [any ][recovery, ][pursuant ][to the order ][passed]by the ['1'r ]Respondent, uls 147 [rlw Sec. ][1448 ][of ][the. ][lncome Tax ][Act. ][1961,]dated 14.03.2024, bearing DIN and [Notice ][No.- ][ITBAIASf ][1S/14712023-]24t1062597634( 1), for the Assessment [Yeat ][2015 ][- ][16, pending disposal of ][the]above WriI Petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. A. [V. ][A. SIVA KARTIKEYA] Counsel for the Respondents: Ms. [J. SUNITHA](JUNIOR SC FOR INCOME TAX) The Court made the following: ORDER .n THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANI)THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAONANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION No.28281of 2024 ORDER, (per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy) Heard Mr. A.V.A.Siva Kartikeya, leamed counsel for thepetitioner and Ms. J.Sunitha, learned Junior Standing Counsel forthe Income Tax Department for the respondents. Perused therecord. 2. This is a writ petition where the proceedings are eitherchallenged to the notices which were issued under Section l48Aand 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for shod'the Act') ortheassessment orders those have been passed under Section 147 ofthe Act which have been assailed. Counsel for the Respondents: Ms. [J. SUNITHA](JUNIOR SC FOR INCOME TAX) The Court made the following: ORDER .n THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANI)THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAONANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION No.28281of 2024 ORDER, (per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy) Heard Mr. A.V.A.Siva Kartikeya, leamed counsel for thepetitioner and Ms. J.Sunitha, learned Junior Standing Counsel forthe Income Tax Department for the respondents. Perused therecord. 2. This is a writ petition where the proceedings are eitherchallenged to the notices which were issued under Section l48Aand 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for shod'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 148,4. of the Actand the subsequent initiation of proceedings under Section 148 ofthe Act by the julisdictional Assessing Officer, whereas in termsolthe amendment that was brought to the Incorne Tax Act by wayof Finance Ac! 2027 w.e.f., 01.04.2021 onwards, proceedings . .: under Section 148,4. ofthe Act as also under Section 148 oftheAct ought to have also been issued and proceeded in a lacelessmanner4. The contention of the petitioner is that the issue ofproceedings being in violation of the Finance Act, 2021 i.e., theimpugned notices under Section 148,4. and Section 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 dccidedon 14.09.2023 whereby a batch of writ petitions were allowed andthe proceedings initiated under Section 148,4. as also under Section148 olthe Act were held to be bad with consequential reliels on theground of it being in violation of the provisions of Section I 5 1 A ofthe Act read with Notifrcation 1812022 dated29.03.2022. The saidjudgurent passed by this Court has also been subsequently followedin a large number of writ petitions which were allowed on similartenns. '[(2023) [156 ][taxrnann.com ] [78 (Telangana)]] n 5. Down the line, we find that the same issue has also beendecided against the Revenue byvarlous High Courts i.e.,by the Bombay High Courl in the case of HEXAWARETECHNOLOGIES LTD., vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX & OTHERS2, Gauhati High Court in the caseof RAM NARAYAN SAH vs. UNION OF INDIA3, Punjab andHaryana l-ligh Court in the case of JATINDER SINGH BANGUvs. UNION OF INDIA4, and Teiangana High Court in the case ofSRI VENKATARAMANA REDDY PATLOOLA vs. DEPUTYCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX5 where the issue was inrespect of interrational taxation, Bombay High Courl in the case ofABHIN ANILKI]MAR SHAH vs. TNCOME TAX OFFICtrR,INTERNATIONAL TAXATION6 which is again on intemationaltaxation and central circle, High Courl of Himachal Pradesh in thecase of GOVIND SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERT,Gujarat High Court in the case of MANSUKHBHAI ') lzoz+1464 [430 ][(Bom)]'[(2024) [156 ]taxmann.com 478 [(Gauhati)]]^ l(2024) [165 ]taxmann.com 115 (Punjab & Haryana)l'[2024) [167 ]taxmann.com 411 (Telangana)]"[2024) 166 taxmann.com 679 (Bombay)]' 12024) [165 ]taxmann.com I t3 (Himachal Pradesh)l DAHYABHAI RADADIYA VS. INCOME [OFFICER']WARD 3(3XS)8, Jharkand High Court in [the ][case ][of ] SUNDAR SAW vs. UNION OF [INDIAe, ][Rajasthan ][High ][Court ][in]the case of SHARDA DEVI CIIHAJER vs. INCOMB TAXOFFICER & ANOTHER and barch of writ [petitionsro ][which]stood decided on 19.03.2024. Similar views have [also ][been ][taken]by the Dir.ision Bench of Calcutta High Court in the [case ][of]GIRDHAR GOPAL DALMIA [vs. ]UNION INDIA [& ] (M.A.T 1690 of 2023), decided on25.09.2024. ') lzoz+1464 [430 ][(Bom)]'[(2024) [156 ]taxmann.com 478 [(Gauhati)]]^ l(2024) [165 ]taxmann.com 115 (Punjab & Haryana)l'[2024) [167 ]taxmann.com 411 (Telangana)]"[2024) 166 taxmann.com 679 (Bombay)]' 12024) [165 ]taxmann.com I t3 (Himachal Pradesh)l DAHYABHAI RADADIYA VS. INCOME [OFFICER']WARD 3(3XS)8, Jharkand High Court in [the ][case ][of ] SUNDAR SAW vs. UNION OF [INDIAe, ][Rajasthan ][High ][Court ][in]the case of SHARDA DEVI CIIHAJER vs. INCOMB TAXOFFICER & ANOTHER and barch of writ [petitionsro ][which]stood decided on 19.03.2024. Similar views have [also ][been ][taken]by the Dir.ision Bench of Calcutta High Court in the [case ][of]GIRDHAR GOPAL DALMIA [vs. ]UNION INDIA [& ] (M.A.T 1690 of 2023), decided on25.09.2024. 6. Even though the same issue having been decided by [a large]number of High Courts, we are still confronted [with ][large ][filing ]ofidentical matters on daily basis ranging between 5 to 10 [writ]petitions. That upon the instructions being sought ftom [the]Department, they have been taking a solitary [ground ][that ][the]decision of the Bombay High Court in the [case ]of [Hexaware]Technologies Ltd., (2 supra) as also the one which [has ][been]decided by this Court in the case of [Kanakala ][Ravindrt ][Reddy] t2O2+ SCC Online Guj 4012'2025 Online [.Ihar ][287]'o 72023, [: ][49 ][84-DB ]l (l supra) has been subjected to challenge in a Special LeavePetition i.e., SLP No.3574 of 2024 before the Hon'ble SupremeCourt and the Hon'ble Supreme Court is seized of the matter.In addition, there are about i200 SLPs also filed arising out of thesame issue being decided by various High Couns 7. To a query being put to the learned counsel for the Revenue,they have categorically accepted the fact that there is no interimorder granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in any of thesernatters 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 atd 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 148A and underSection 148 of the Act by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer,rather the authorities concemed in the teeth of series of decisions by all the major High [Courts ][in ][India are ][continuously still]initiating proceedings [under ][Section ][148.4 ][of ][the ][Act ][and ][also]initiating proceedings [under ][Section ][148 ][of ][the Act ][in]contravention to the amendments [brought into ][th.e ][Income Tax ][Act]pursuarlt to the Finance Act,2020 [as ][also ][the ][Finance Act ][2021 ][.]g. Upon a query being [put ]as [to ][why ][can't this ][writ ][petition ][be]disposed of in the teeth of the [decision ][rendered ][by ][this ][Court ][in]the case of Kanakala Rwindra [Retldy ][(l ][supra), leamed ][Standing]Counsel tbr the Income [Tax Department ][contends that those ][would]unnecessarily burden [the ][Income ][Tax ][Department ][where ][they]would be required to file equal [number ]of [SLPs before ][the]Hon'ble Supreme Courl and it [would ][be further ][burdening ][the]exchequer of the Union of India. It [was ][also ][the contention ][of ][the]leamed Standing Counsel [that ][no ][prejudice ][would ][be ][caused ][to ][the]interest of the petitioners [in ][case ][if ][this ][writ ][petition ][is ][kept ][pending]till the hnalization of [the ][SLPs pending ][before ][the ][Hon'ble]Couft [and ][the ][fact that the ][petitioner ][is ][already enjoying]Supreme the beneht of interim [protection' ][Nonetheless, ][on ][the ][earlier ][query]of this Courl as to why the Income Tax Department [have ][not ][come]out with a mechanism to issue appropriate instructions [or ][to ][take] a,,' a,,' appropriate steps in ensuring that proceedings under Section 148Aof the Act as also the assessment orders under Section 148 of theAct are kept in a hold in the light ofthe decisions decided by thevarious High Courts, it was submitted by the leamed StandingCounsel that the said steps can only be taken at the level of CBDTof the Act as also the assessment orders under Section 148 of theAct are kept in a hold in the light ofthe decisions decided by thevarious High Courts, it was submitted by the leamed StandingCounsel that the said steps can only be taken at the level of CBDTas any such steps would have to be taken Pan India and cannot belimited to any of these jurisdictional High Courts.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 beenpassed by this High Court allowing writ petitions on the very sameISSUC The Income Tax authorities concemed are still even now in2025 also initiating proceedings in contravention to the provisionsol Section l5lA of the Act and as a result by now, more than 600to 700 petitions have been already got piled up before this HighCourt on an issue which other-wise stands squarely covered by thejudgrnent of this Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Redtly(1 supra). What is also surprising is the fact that though whileallowing the writ petitions in the case of Kanakala RavintlraReddy (l supra),.the Division Bench while reserving the right ofthe Revenue, has also protected the interest of the petitioner.s insofar as the liberty which [was ][granted ][to ][the ][Revenue ][for]initiating fresh proceedings [strictty ][in ][accordance ][with ][the ][amended]provisions of the Act, as amended [by ][the ][Finance ][Act, ][2020 ][and]the Finance Act.,2021. The [petitioner ][assessee ][would ][be ][entitled to]challenge or raise the other [legal ][objections ][if ][the Revenue initiates]fresh proceedings. The Deparlment [has made ][no ][endeavour ][in]availing the said liberty that was [reserved ][for the ][Revenue' ][On the]contrary, they have been still [sticking on to ][the ][stand, ][which ][this]High Court as well as many [other ][High ][Courts already ][held ][to ][be]bad. 1 l. It appears that because of [the ][aforesaid ][liberty ][that this ][High]Court had granted permitting [the ][Revenue ][for ][initiating ][fresh]proceedings as a one-time measure in a [faceless ][manner, ][the]Income Tax Department [wants ][to ][take ][advantage ][of ][the ][same ][by]protracting these proceedings [which ][would ][enabte ][them ][to ][meet ][the]Iimitation that would otherrvise [come ][in ][the ][way. ][Likewise, ][if ][the]writ petition is kept pending [for ][a ][considerable ][long ][period ][of time]and finally at a later stage [if ][the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Court ][confirms]the decision taken by this High [Couft ][as ][also ][by ][the other High]Courts in which th-e SLPs are still [pending, ][the ][Income ][Tax] Deparlment would get the adVantage of the liberty that is otherwiseprotected in favour of the Revenue for initiation of freshprotected in favour of the Revenue for initiation of freshproceedings from the disposal ofthese matters at a much later stagewhich would be advantageous and beneficial to the Revenue andwould be equally disadvantageous and detrimental so far as interestol the assesses are concerned. As a consequence, the Income TaxDepartment gets an extended period of time for initiation of freshproceedingswould be equally disadvantageous and detrimental so far as interestol the assesses are concerned. As a consequence, the Income TaxDepartment gets an extended period of time for initiation of freshproceedings Deparlment would get the adVantage of the liberty that is otherwiseprotected in favour of the Revenue for initiation of freshprotected in favour of the Revenue for initiation of freshproceedings from the disposal ofthese matters at a much later stagewhich would be advantageous and beneficial to the Revenue andwould be equally disadvantageous and detrimental so far as interestol the assesses are concerned. As a consequence, the Income TaxDepartment gets an extended period of time for initiation of freshproceedingswould be equally disadvantageous and detrimental so far as interestol the assesses are concerned. As a consequence, the Income TaxDepartment gets an extended period of time for initiation of freshproceedings 12. The alanning trend of docket explosion in this Cour1, despitcthe clear precedent set in Kunakalo Ravindra Reddy (l supra), is amatter of grave concem. The Income Tax Department's persistentinitiation ol 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 unnebessarily. TheDeparlment's strategy of awaiting the Supreme Court's decision onpendir.rg 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 efficiency and the respect for [judicial]pronouncements, particularly when this Court has already provideda balanced approach by preserving both the Reyenue'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 that 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 already seized ofor, atleast the Income Tax Department should have found out sorncremedial steps to ensure that wherever the authorities intend [to]initiate proceedings under Sections 148-A and 148, other than [in ][a]faceless manner, the proceedings should have been defen'edwithout precipitating the matter further intimating the assessee thatthey shall initiate appropriate proceedings only after the SLP's [are]decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Couft on the very same issueThis 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 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 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 HighCourl 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 onn'rany 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 concerned at theState level are not ready to accept the verdict passed by a maj orityof High Courts of different States on the same issue; and to makethings further worse, the Income Tax Department1S showingaudacity by issuing notices continuously under Sections 148-4 and '-':tttryaxn ,r.a- '-':tttryaxn ,r.a- 148 through the [jurisdictional ]Assessing Officer whereas it oughtto have been only in the faceless manner. 14. In the case of BANK OF INDIA vs. ASSISTANTCOMMISSIONER,, INCOME TAXr1, on an iSsue 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 Division Bench of theHigh Court of Bombay held at paragraph No.25 as under, viz., : "25. Mr. Paridwalla has rightly drawn out attention to thedecision of this Court in Commissioner of lncome Tax vs. Smt.Godavaridevi Sarafl2 as also the recent decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Samp Furniture (P) Ltd. v. lTO13of which one of us (Justice G.S. Kulkarni) was a member, whereinthe Court categorically observed that the Revenue having not"accepted" the judgment of the High Court would not mean that tillthe same is set aside in a manner known to law, it would loose itsbinding force. Referring to the decision of the Supreme Court inUnion of lndia vs. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd.14, theCourt observed that the approach of the officials of Revenue oftreating decisions being ["not ]acceptable" was criticized by theSupreme Court. ln such decision, following are the relevantobservations made by the Supreme Court. " 11zozs) [170 ][taxmann.com 422 ][(Bombay)l]12 12 12 Jt9z81 l 13 ITR 589 (Bombay)Jt9z81 l 13 ITR 589 (Bombay) '3 7ZOZ|1165 [taxmann.com ][581/300 Taxman 452 ][(Bombay)] 'o lt9921taxmann.com [16/55ELT ][433 ][(SC)] t " 11zozs) [170 ][taxmann.com 422 ][(Bombay)l]12 12 12 Jt9z81 l 13 ITR 589 (Bombay)Jt9z81 l 13 ITR 589 (Bombay) '3 7ZOZ|1165 [taxmann.com ][581/300 Taxman 452 ][(Bombay)] 'o lt9921taxmann.com [16/55ELT ][433 ][(SC)] t "6. Sri Reddy is perhaps right in saying that theofficers were not actuated by any mala fides inpassing the impugned orders. They perhapsgenuinely felt that the claim of the assessee was nottenable and that, if it was accepted, the Revenuetenable and that, if it was accepted, the Revenuewould suffer. But whdt Sri Reddy overlooks is that weare not concerned here with the correctness orare not concerned here with the correctness orotherwise of their conclusion or of any factualmalafides but with the fact that the officers, in reachingin their conclusion, by-passed two appellate orders inregard to the same issue which were placed beforethem, one of the Collector (Appeals) and the other ofthe Tribunal. The High Court has, in our view, rightlycriticized this conduct of the Assistant Collectors andthe harassment to the assessee caused by the failuremalafides but with the fact that the officers, in reachingin their conclusion, by-passed two appellate orders inregard to the same issue which were placed beforethem, one of the Collector (Appeals) and the other ofthe Tribunal. The High Court has, in our view, 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. ltauthorities 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 arebound by the decisions of the appellate authorities.The 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 functionutmost 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 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 higherjudicial 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" toby 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 noand is the subject matter of an appeal can furnish noground for not following it unless its operation hasbeen suspended by a competent court. lf this healthy rule is not followed, the result will only be undueharassment to assesses and chaos in administralionof tax laws. rule is not followed, the result will only be undueharassment to assesses and chaos in administralionof tax laws. 12. We have dealt with this aspect at some length,becausc it has been suggested by the learnedAdditional Solicitor General that the observationsmade by the High Court, have been harsh on theofficers. lt is clear that the observations of the HighCourt, seemingly vehement, and apparentlyunpalatable to the Revenue, are only inlended to 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 and theappellate authorities to the requirements of judicialdiscipline and the need for giving effect to the ordersof the higher appellate authorities which are bindingon them." I 5. What is wonying this Bench more is the fact that anendeavour is being made whole heartedly to ensure not to generatefurlher litigation on issues which have been iaid to rest by a largenutnber of High Courts all of whom have taken a consistent standfurlher litigation on issues which have been iaid to rest by a largenutnber of High Courts all of whom have taken a consistent standthat the action of the Income Tax Department being violative of the Finance Ac| 2020 and Finance Act, 2021. Now, in order to protectthe interest of the Revenue as also that of the assessee, it would betrite at this juncture, if we dispose of the writ petition with anobservation/direction that the disposal of the instant writ petition interms of the judgment rendered by this High Court in the case ofKankunala Ravindra Reddy (l supra) shall however be subject tothe outcome of the SLPs which were flled by the Income TaxDeparlment and which is pending consideration before the Hon'bleSupreme Court 16. In 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 Courland which stands fortihed by the decisions of the various otherHigh Courts on the very same issue, the pendency of this HighCourt would further be burdened which otherwise can be decidedand disposed of as a covered matter 17. So far as the interest of the Revenue is concerned, we are ofthe considered opinion that the interest of the Revenue has alreadybeen considered and protected, as has been observed in paragraphs 36,37 and 38 of the order which, for ready reference, is reproducedhereunder: 36. For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned noticesissued and the proceedings drawn by the respondent-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 also getquashed and it is ordered accordingly. The reason weare quashing the consequential order is on the principlesthat when the initiation of lhe proceedings itself wasprocedurally wrong, the subsequent orders also 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 further anddecide the other issues raised.by the petitioner whichstands reserved to be raised and contended 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 further anddecide the other issues raised.by the petitioner whichstands reserved to be raised and contended in anappropriate proceedings. 38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the caseof Ashish Agarwal, supra, as a one{ime measureexercising the powers under Adicle 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 \ conferred on the Revenue would remain reserved toproceed further if they so want from the stage of theorder of the Supreme Court in the case of AshishAgarwal, supra, 18. We would only fufther like to make observations that sincewe are inclined to dispose of the instant writ petition, conscious ofthe lact that the earlier order of this High Courl in the case ofKanakala Ruvindra Reddy (l supra)IS subj ected to challengebeforc the Hon'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 theaforesaid SLP preferred by the Revenue against the decision of thisHigh Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra)-l'his, 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. 1 9. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands allowed infavour of the assessee so far as the issue of jurisdictionlsconcemed. As. a consequence, the impugned notice underchallenge under Sections 148-4 and 148 stands set aside/quashed.challenge under Sections 148-4 and 148 stands set aside/quashed. I, The consequential orders, if any, also stand set aside/quashed in similar terms as have been passed by this High Courl in the case of Kankanala Ravindra Reddy (l supra). There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall To, TJ stand closed. SDI P. PONNA KRISHNAASSISTANT FFGISTRAR//TRUE COPY//,.t-SECTION OFFICER 1Assessment Unit, [lncome Tax ][Department,, National e-Assessment Center']i'i!i'i oijrrii [-no"]r.ro. +ot, 2nd Fioor, [E-Ramp, Jawaharlal ][Nehru ][Stadium,]New Delhi [- ][1 ][10 ][003]i'i!i'i oijrrii [-no"]r.ro. +ot, 2nd Fioor, [E-Ramp, Jawaharlal ][Nehru ][Stadium,]New Delhi [- ][1 ][10 ][003]2i#' rn"or" ia1-otri""r, [Ward ][1, Nizamabad, lncome Tax ][office, ][6-2-'156/3']Subhash Nagar, [Nizamabad - 503 ][002, Telangang,]Subhash Nagar, [Nizamabad - 503 ][002, Telangang,]3in" Fiin"inir chief Commissioner of [lncorie ][Tax', ][Andhra ][Pradesh ][and]i!6"ornrlHvo.iaoro,-Coo. [No.- 922, 9th Floor, ]['B ][' ][Block, ][l T ][Towers' ][10-]2-3. Ab Guards, [Hvderabad - 500 ][004, Telangana']i!6"ornrlHvo.iaoro,-Coo. [No.- 922, 9th Floor, ]['B ][' ][Block, ][l T ][Towers' ][10-]2-3. Ab Guards, [Hvderabad - 500 ][004, Telangana']4oni cb io Snt. A:v. [A. ][slvA ][KARTIKEYA, Advocate ][[oPt)cl]qil; 6c i; M; i. Sur.rrinA [(iui'rioii ][it ][rbn ][tt'ttor',rE ][rnxi ][topuct]6Two CD Copiesqil; 6c i; M; i. Sur.rrinA [(iui'rioii ][it ][rbn ][tt'ttor',rE ][rnxi ][topuct]6Two CD Copies BM HIGH COURT DATED:291041202s c)_i(:.1,.)(1(,-)'i0 2 2U5t:)7,,-5 ,'ORDERlJ,- WP.No.28281 of 2024 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS