Order; (Per Hon'bte Sri Justice Narsing Rao Nuntlitontla v. The Income Tax Officer

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JULYTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION NO: 11739 OF 2025 Between: Mr.Rajesh Kumar Satturu, S/o.Sri S.Venkata Rao, Aged. S2years 337, CreekCrossing Lance PA, Chester Springs, PA, USA. PAN No. ...PETITIONER AND 1The lncome Tax Officer, Ward - ['10 ](1), Hyderabad, lncome Tax Towers, ACGuards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad-s00 004.Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad-s00 004. 2The Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals), Government of lndia, Ministry ofFinance, lncome Tax Department, National Faceless Appeal Cenke (NFAC),Delhi.Finance, lncome Tax Department, National Faceless Appeal Cenke (NFAC),Delhi. 3The Chief Commissioner of lncome Tax lncome Tax Towers, AC GuardsMasab Tank, Hyderabad-S00 004.Masab Tank, Hyderabad-S00 004. 4The Assessment Unit, lncome Tax Department National FacelessAssessment Centre Room, No 401, 2nd Floor ERamp Jawaharlal NehruStadium, Delhi 1 10 003.Assessment Centre Room, No 401, 2nd Floor ERamp Jawaharlal NehruStadium, Delhi 1 10 003. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleasedto issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the natureof Writ of Mandamus, to declare the action of the 1st Respondent in passing thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleasedto issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the natureof Writ of Mandamus, to declare the action of the 1st Respondent in passing theAssessment Order dated 23.02.2024, Ex-Parte, under Section 147 read withSection 144 of the lncome Tax Act,1961 for the Assessment Year 2016-17consequently issuance of the Notice under Section 148 of the lncome Tax Act,1961by the 1st Respondent instead of Faceless Assessment Order by the 4thRespondent herein and consequential Penalty Orders passed by the 1stRespondent dated 09.08.2024 and 22.08.2024 under Section 271 F and 271 (1) (c)of lncome Tax Act,1961, to be set aside as void, illegal and contrary to theProvisions of the lncome Tax Act,1961, without [jurisdiction ]and in violation ofPrinciples of Natural Justice and Rule of Law and against Article 14, 19 (1)(g) ofSection 144 of the lncome Tax Act,1961 for the Assessment Year 2016-17consequently issuance of the Notice under Section 148 of the lncome Tax Act,1961by the 1st Respondent instead of Faceless Assessment Order by the 4thRespondent herein and consequential Penalty Orders passed by the 1stRespondent dated 09.08.2024 and 22.08.2024 under Section 271 F and 271 (1) (c)of lncome Tax Act,1961, to be set aside as void, illegal and contrary to theProvisions of the lncome Tax Act,1961, without [jurisdiction ]and in violation ofPrinciples of Natural Justice and Rule of Law and against Article 14, 19 (1)(g) of the constitution of lndia and consequently set aside the order of the 2ndRespondent dated 11.02.2025 as null and void lA NO: 1 OF 2025 the constitution of lndia and consequently set aside the order of the 2ndRespondent dated 11.02.2025 as null and void lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under section 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated inthe affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to grantof all stay of all further Proceedings in pursuance of the Asseisment order palsedby the 1St Respondent Ex-Parte dated 23.02.2024 undet section 142 read withof all stay of all further Proceedings in pursuance of the Asseisment order palsedby the 1St Respondent Ex-Parte dated 23.02.2024 undet section 142 read withSection 144 of the lncome Tax Act,1961 and Appeal Order dated 11.OZ.2OZS,passed by the 2nd Respondent and consequentiat penarty orders passed by the1st Respondent under Section 271F and 211 (1) (cl of the lncome Tax Act,19d1 forthe Assessment Year 2016-17, pending disposar of the above writ petition, asoth'erurise, the Petitioner will be put to severe loss and hardship.the Assessment Year 2016-17, pending disposar of the above writ petition, asoth'erurise, the Petitioner will be put to severe loss and hardship. Counsel for the Petitioner: Ms. SHAIK VAHEEDA SUSHMA Coulsel forthe Respondents: Ms. BOKARO SAPNA REDDY (Jr. SC FORrNcoME TAX) The Court made the following: ORDER I THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSTNG RAONANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION No.ll739 of2025 ORDER; (per Hon'bte Sri Justice Narsing Rao Nuntlitontla) Heard Ms.Shaik Vaheeda Sushma, Iearned counsel for thepetitioner and Ms.B.Sapna Reddy, Iearned Senior StandingCounsel for the Income Tax Deparlment appearing for therespondents. Perused the record. 2. This is a writ petition where the proceedings are eitherchallenged to the notices which were issued under Section 148Aand 148 of the Income Tax Act, 196l (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 i48A of the Actand the subsequent initiation of proceedings under Section 148 ofthe Act by the [jurisdictiona[ ]Assessing Officer, whereas in termsof the amendment that was brought to the Income Tax Act by wayof Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f., 0l .04.2021 onwards, proceedings under Sectlon l48A of the Act as also under Section 148 ol theAct ought to have also been issued and proceeded in a lacelcssmanner4. 'l'he contention of the petitioner is that the issue olprocccdings being in violation of the Finance Act,,202l i.e., theimpugned notices under Section 148A and Section 148 of the Actnot being issued in a faceless manner, have already been dealt withand decided by this Court in the casc of KANKANALARAVINDRA REDDY vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICERT decidcdon 14.09.2023 whereby a batch of writ petitions were allowed andthe procecdings initiated under Section 148A as also under Section148 of the Acr were held to be bad with consequential reliefs on theground ol it bcing in violation of the provisions of Section l5lA ofthe Act read rvith Notification 1812022 dated,29.03.2022. The saidjudgment passed by this Court has also been subsequently followedin a large nurnber of writ petitions which were allowed on similarterms '[(2023) 156 tirxrnann.com 178 (Tetangana)] -/ I .l l,\ '[(2023) 156 tirxrnann.com 178 (Tetangana)] -/ I .l l,\ 5. Down the line, we find that the same issue has also beendecided against the Revenue by various High Courts i.e.,by the Bombay High Courl in the case of HEXAWARETECHNOLOGIES LTD., vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX & OTHERS2, Gauhati High Court in rhe caseof RAM NARAYAN SAH vs. UNION OF INDIA3, Punjab andHaryana High Court in the case of JATINDER SINGH BANGUvs. UNION OF INDIA4, and Telangana High Court in the case ofSRI VENKATARAMANA REDDY PATLOOLA vs. 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 intemationaltaxation 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)]' 1Q024) 156 taxmann.com 478 (Gauhati)l" l(2024) [165 ]taxmann.com [1 ][15 ][(Punjab ]& Haryana)l' 12024) [167 ][taxmann.com ][4 ] [(Tetangana)l] " [2024) [166 ][taxmann.com ][679 ][(Bombay)]] ' 12024) [165 ]taxmann.com 113 [(Himachal ]Pradesh)l \ DAHYABHAI [VS. ] [OFFICER,]WARD 3(3X5)8, [Jharkand ][High Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ] SUNDAR SAW [vs. ] [INDIAe, ][Rajasthan ][High ][Court ][in]the case of SHARDA [vs' INCOME ] OFFICBR & [and ][batch ][of ][writ ][petitionsro which]stooddecidedonlg.0]-2024.Similarviewshavealsobeentakenthe Division [Bench ][of ][Calcutta ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][ol]by GIRDHAR GOPAL [vs' ] [& ] (M.A.T 1690 of [2023), decided ][on25'09'2024']6. Even though the [same issue ][having ][been decided ][by ][a ][large]number ol High [Courls. we ][are ][still ][confronted ][with ][large ][filing ][of]idenlical lnatters [on ][daity ][basis ][ranging ][between ][5 ][to ][l0 ][writ]petitions. That upon [the ][instructions ][being ][sought ][lrom ][the]Deparlment, they [havc ][been ][taking ][a ][solitary ][ground ][that ][the]decision of the [Bombay ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][ot ][Hexaware]Technologies Lttl., [(2 ][supra) ][as ][also ][the ][one ][which ][has ][been]decided by this Court [in ][the ][case ][of ][Kanakala Ravindra ][Reddy] t2024 scc on[.ine Gu.l .10 l2'2025 [Onl-ine ][Jhar ][187]'0y2023, [Rj-JD:4984-DB ][I]'2025 [Onl-ine ][Jhar ][187]'0y2023, [Rj-JD:4984-DB ][I] (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 1200 SLPs also filed arising out of thesarne issue being decided by various Fligh Courls. 7. T'o a query being put to the learned counsel for the Revenue,they have categorically accepted the fact that there is no interimordcr granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Courtlnany of thesenlatters pending before it. Meanwhile, lresh 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 thatrvas passed as early as on 14.09.2023 and more 16 months havelapsed, till date, we do not find any remedial steps having beentaken b1'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 Officer,rather the authorities concerned in the teeth of series of decisions 8. On the one hand, even though the order of this Court thatrvas passed as early as on 14.09.2023 and more 16 months havelapsed, till date, we do not find any remedial steps having beentaken b1'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 Officer,rather the authorities concerned in the teeth of series of decisions by all the major High [Courts ][in ][India ][are ][continuously still]initiating proceedings [under ][Section ][l48A ][ol ][the ][Act ][and ][also]initiating proceedings [under ][Section ][148 ][of ][the ][Act ][in]contravention to [the ][arnendments ][brought ][into ][the ][Income ][Tax Act]pursuant to the Finance [A,ct,2020 ][as ][also ][the Finance ]'\ct [2021']9. Upon a query bcing [put ][as ][to ][why can't this ][writ ][petition ][be]disposed ol in [thc ][teeth ][of ][the decision ][rendered ][by this Courl ][in]the case of Ktnakilu [Ravindra ][Reddy ][(l ][supra), ][learned Standing]Counsel for the Incomc [Tax Deparlment ][contends ][that ][those ][would]burden [the ][Income ][Tax ][Department ][where ][they]unnecessarily would be required to file [equal ][number ][of ] 'Ps [belore ][the]Hon'ble Suprerne Court [and ][it ][would ][be ][further ][burdening ][the]exchequer ol the Union [of tndia. ][It ][was also ][the contention ][of ][the]learned 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 finalization ol the [SI-Ps ][pending before ][the ][Hon'ble]Supreme Courl and [the fact that the ][petitioner is ][already enjoying]the benefit of interim [protection. ][Nonetheless, ][on ][the ][earlier ][query]of this Court as to [why ][the Incotne ][Tax Deparlment ][have ][not ][come]out with a tnechanism to issue appropriate [instructions ][or ][to ][take] '.l 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 of the decisions dedcided by thevarious High Courts, it was submitted by the leamed StandingCounsel that the said steps can only be taken at the level of CBDTas any such steps would have to be taken [pan ]India and cannot belimited to any of these jurisdictional High Courls. 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 sameissuc- The Income Tax authorities concemed are still even now in2025 also initiating proceedings in contravention to the provisionsol Section I 5l A of the Act and as a result by now, more than 600to 700 petitions have been already got piled up before this HighCourl on an issuc which otherwise stands squarely covered by the.iudgnrent [of ][this Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ][Kanukala ]Ravindra Reddy( I 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 petitioners insofar as the liberly which was granted to the Revenue forinitiating fresh proceedings strictly in accordance with the amendedprovisions of the Act, as amended by the Finance Act, 2020 andthe Finance Act,202l . The petitioner assessee would be entitled tochallenge or raise the other legal objections if the Revenue initiatesfresh proceedings. The Department has made no endeavour inavailing the said libefty that rvas reserved for the Revenue. On thecontrary, they have been still sticking orr to the stand, which thisHigh Court as well as many other High Courts already held to bebad. insofar as the liberly which was granted to the Revenue forinitiating fresh proceedings strictly in accordance with the amendedprovisions of the Act, as amended by the Finance Act, 2020 andthe Finance Act,202l . The petitioner assessee would be entitled tochallenge or raise the other legal objections if the Revenue initiatesfresh proceedings. The Department has made no endeavour inavailing the said libefty that rvas reserved for the Revenue. On thecontrary, they have been still sticking orr to the stand, which thisHigh Court as well as many other High Courts already held to bebad. 1 1. It appears that because of the aforesaid liberty that this HighCourt had granted permitting the Revenue for initiating freshproceedings as a one-tirne lreasure in a faceless manner, theIncome Tax Department wants to take advantage ol the same byprotracting these proceedings which would enable them to meet thelimitation that would otherwise come in the way. Likewise, if thewrit petition is kept pending for a considerable [ong period of timeand finally at a later stage if the Hon'ble Supreme Court confirmsthe decision taken by this High Couft as also by the other HighCourts in which the SLPs are still pending, the Income Tax Departrnent would get the advantage of the tiberty that is otherwiseprotected in favour o f the Revenue for initiation of freshprotected in favour o f the Revenue for initiation of freshproceedings lrom 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 fbr as interestof the assesses are concerned. As a consequence, the Income Taxthe disposal of these matters at a much later stagewhich would be advantageous and beneficial to the Revenue andwould be equally disadvantageous and detrimental so fbr as interestof the assesses are concerned. As a consequence, the Income TaxDepartment gets an extended period of time l.or initiation of freshproceedings.12. The alarming trend of docket explosion in this Court, despiteproceedings.12. The alarming trend of docket explosion in this Court, despitethe clear precedcnt set in Kanakala Ravinclra Reddy (l supra), is amatter of grave concern. The Income Tax Department,s persistentmatter of grave concern. The Income Tax Department,s persistentinitiation of fresh proceedings, disregarding the established judicialpronouncements, has led to an unprecedented surge in litigationwith over 600-700 petitions piling up on the same issue. Thisdeliberate approach not only undermines the principle of 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 cif awaiting the Department's strategy cif awaiting the Supreme Court,s decision onpending SLps while conrinuing to tnrtiate fresh proceedingspending SLps while conrinuing to tnrtiate fresh proceedingsappears to be a calculated move to buy time and circumventlimitation periods, rather than adhering to the established iegalbuy time and circumventlimitation periods, rather than adhering to the established iegal &- posttion. Such conduct raises serious questions about theserious questions about theadministrativeefficiency and therespect for judicialpronouncements, particularly when this Court has already provideda balanced approach by preserving both the Revenue,s rights andassesses interestswhen this Court has already provideda balanced approach by preserving both the Revenue,s rights andassesses interests &- posttion. Such conduct raises serious questions about theserious questions about theadministrativeefficiency and therespect for judicialpronouncements, particularly when this Court has already provideda balanced approach by preserving both the Revenue,s rights andassesses interestswhen this Court has already provideda balanced approach by preserving both the Revenue,s rights andassesses interests 13.Another aspect which needs to be considerecl is that in fact itshould have been realized by the Incorne.lax Department itself andDepartment itself andshould have found out via media in ensuring that proceedingsunder Sections 14g_A and 14g should not havc been issued in afaceless manner, at least till the Hon,ble Supreme Court decide thetwelve hundred (1200) odd SLps which it is ah.eady seized of or, arleast the Income Tax Dgpsrtrnsnt should have fbund out someremedial steps to ensure that wherever the authorities intend toinitiate proceedings under Sections l.lg_A and t4g. other than in afaceless faceless manner, at least till the Hon,ble Supreme Court decide thetwelve hundred (1200) odd SLps which it is ah.eady seized of or, arleast the Income Tax Dgpsrtrnsnt should have fbund out someremedial steps to ensure that wherever the authorities intend toinitiate proceedings under Sections l.lg_A and t4g. other than in afaceless manner, the proceedings should have been deferredwithout precipitating the matter further intirnating the assessee thatwithout precipitating the matter further intirnating the assessee thatthey shall initiate appropriate proceedings only after.rhe slp,s aredecided by the Hon,ble Supreme Coufi on the very same issue.This again, the Income Tax Department, has not been able to give aconvincing reply, except fbr the fact that such a decision if at allThis again, the Income Tax Department, has not been able to give aconvincing reply, except fbr the fact that such a decision if at all 'Y'I 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 theotherwise has to be by way of a policy decision and that too at thelevel of Central Board of Direct Taxes. Though the learnedStanding Counsel for the lncome Tax Department contended thatthe Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition of similar nature, onthe one hand when the High Court is struggling to reduce itsthe 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 fiting of hundreds of new writ petitions which inthe long run not only affects the disposal of.the writ petitions butalso consumes substantial time ol' the Bench in hearing thesethe long run not only affects the disposal of.the writ petitions butalso consumes substantial time ol' 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'bte 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 lax Department is showingaudacity by issuing notices conrinuously under Sections l4g_A andof High Courts of different States on the same issue; and to makethings further worse, the Income lax Department is showingaudacity by issuing notices conrinuously under Sections l4g_A and Ii 148 through the [jurisdictional ][Assessing ][Officer ][whereas ][it ][ought]to have been only in the faceless [manner.] Ii 148 through the [jurisdictional ][Assessing ][Officer ][whereas ][it ][ought]to have been only in the faceless [manner.] 14. In the case of BANK OF [INDIA vs. ] COMMISSIONER, INCOME [TAXrr, ][on ][an issue ][rvhether ][it ][was]justifiable on the parl of the Income Tax Department rn notfollowing an order passed by the [adjudicating authority ][only ][on ][the]ground that the appeals are pending, [the ][Division ][Bench ][of ][the]High Court of Bombay held at [paragraph ][No.25 ][as ][under, ][viz.. ][:] "25. Mr. Paridwalla has rightly drawn out attention to [the]decision of this Court [in ]Commissioner [of ][lncome ][Tax ][vs. ][Smt.]Godavaridevi Sarafl2 as also the recent decisron [of the ][co-]ordinate Bench of this Court [in ]Samp [Furniture ][(P) ][Ltd. ][v' ][ITO'l]of which one of us [(Justice ]G.S. [Kulkarni) ][was ][a ][member, wherein]the Court categorically observed that [the ][Revenue ][having ][not]"accepted" the judgment of the High Court would not mean [that ][till]the same is set aside in a [manner known ][to ][law, it would ][loose ][its]binding force. Referring to the decision [of the Supreme Court ][in]Union of lndia vs. Kamlakshi Finance [Corporation ][Ltd.'t, ][the]Court observed that the approach of [the ][officrals ][of ][Revenue ][of]treating decisions being ["not ]acceptable" [was ][criticized ][by ][the]Supreme Court. ln such decision, [following ][are the ][relevant]observations made by the Supreme [Court.] " 11zozsl [170 taxr.nann.com ][422 ][(Bombay)l] '' 1t9281 [113 ] [589 ][(Bombay)] '3 120241165 [taxmann.com ][581/300 ][Taxtnan ][452 ][(Bombay,] 'o ltsszl [taxmann.com ][16155 ] [433 (SC)] ( .l " 11zozsl [170 taxr.nann.com ][422 ][(Bombay)l] '' 1t9281 [113 ] [589 ][(Bombay)] '3 120241165 [taxmann.com ][581/300 ][Taxtnan ][452 ][(Bombay,] 'o ltsszl [taxmann.com ][16155 ] [433 (SC)] ( .l "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 notgenuinely 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 orare not concerned here with the correctness orotherwise of their conclusion or of any factualmalafides but with the fact thal the offrcers, in reachingin their conclusion, by-passed two appellate orders inmalafides but with the fact thal the offrcers, 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, righflycriticized this conduct of the Assistant Collectors andthe harassment lo the assessee caused by the failureof these officers to give effect to the orders ofauthorities higher to them in the appellate hierarchy. ltthem, one of the Collector (Appeals) and the other ofthe Tribunal_ The High Court has, in our view, righflycriticized this conduct of the Assistant Collectors andthe harassment lo 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 vehemen y 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 appejlate 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 AssistantThe 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 princrples ofjudicial discipline require that the orders of the higherappellate authorities should be followed unreservedlyunder the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The princrples 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', ]toorder 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 healthy \\ \ rule is not followed, the result will only [be ][undue]harassment to assesses and chaos [in ][administration]of tax laws- 12. We have dealt with this aspect at some [length,]because it has been suggested by the [learned]Additional Solicitor General that the [observations]made by the High Court, have been [harsh ][on ][the]officers. lt is clear that the observations [of ][the ][High]Court, seemingly vehement, and [apparently]unpalatable to the Revenue, are [only intended ][to ][curb]a tendency in revenue matters which, [if ][allowed ][to]become widespread, could result in [considerable]harassment to the assesses-public [without ]any [benefit]to the Revenue. We would like to say that [the]department should take these observalions [in ][the]proper spirit. The observations of the High Courtshould be kept in mind in future and the utmost [regard]should be paid by the adjudicating authorities [and the]appellate authorities to the requirements of [judicial]discipline and the need for [giving ]effect to the [orders]of the higher appellate authorities which are [binding]on them." 15. What is worrying this Bench more is the fact that [ar.r]endeavour is being made whole heartedly to [ensure ][not ][to ][generatc]further litigation on issues which have been laid to [rest ][by ][a ][large]number of High Courts all of whom have taken a consistcnt standthat the action of the Income Tax Department being violative of [tl-re] \ ! Finance Act, 2020 and Finance Act, 2021 . Now, in order to protectthe interest of the Revenue as also that ol 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 ofKankanala Ravindro Reddy (l supra) shall however be subject tothe outcome of the SLps which were filed by the Income TaxDepartment and which is pending consideration before the Hon,bleSupreme Court. 16. In the given facts and circumstances, this Bench is of theconsidered opinion that unless and until we do not timely disposeof matters which are squarely covered by the decision ol.this Courtand which stands fortified by the decisions of the various otherHigh Courts on the very same issue, the pendency of. this HighCourt would further be burdened which otherwise can be decidedand disposed of as a covered matter_ 17. So far as the interest of the Revenue is concerned, we are ofthe considered opinion that the interest of the Revenue has alreadybeen considered and protected, as has been observed in paragraphs 36, 37 and 38 ofthe order [which, ][tbr ][ready reference, ][is ][reproduced]hereunder: 36. For all the aforesaid [reasons, ][the ][impugned notices]issued and the [proceedings ]drawn by [the ][respondent-]Department is neither tenable, nor [sustainable.]The notices so issued and the [procedure ][adopted ][being]per se illegal, deserves to be and are accordingly setaside/quashed. As a consequence, [all the ][impugned]orders [getting quashed, ]the [consequential orders passed]by the respondent-Department [pursuant ][to ][the ][notices]issued under Section [147 ]and [148 ][would ]also [get]quashed and it is ordered accordingly. The reason [we]are [quashing ]the consequential order [is ][on ][the ][principles]that when the initiation of the [proceedings ][itself ][was]procedurally wrong, the subsequent orders also [gets]nullified automatically. 37. The [preliminary ]objection [raised by ][the ][petitioner ][is]sustained and all these writ [petitions stands allowed ][on]this very [jurisdictional ]issue. Since the [impugned notices]and orders are [getting ][quashed ]- on the [point ][of]jurisdiction, we are not inclined to proceed further anddecide the other issues raised by the [petitioner ][which]stands reserved to be raised and [contended ][in ][an]appropriate [proceedings.] 38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme [Court had, ][in ][the ][case]of Ashish Agarwal, supra, as a [one{ime ][measure]exercising the [powers ]underArticle 142 of [the]Constitution of lndia, [permitted ]the [Revenue ]to [proceed]under the substituted [provisions, and ]this Court [allowing]the petitions only on the [procedural ]flaw, the [right] conferred [on ][the ][Revenue ][would remain ][reserved ][to]proceed further [if ][they ][so ][want from ][the ][stage ][of ][the]order of [the ][Supreme ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of Ashish]Agarwal, [suPra] 38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme [Court had, ][in ][the ][case]of Ashish Agarwal, supra, as a [one{ime ][measure]exercising the [powers ]underArticle 142 of [the]Constitution of lndia, [permitted ]the [Revenue ]to [proceed]under the substituted [provisions, and ]this Court [allowing]the petitions only on the [procedural ]flaw, the [right] conferred [on ][the ][Revenue ][would remain ][reserved ][to]proceed further [if ][they ][so ][want from ][the ][stage ][of ][the]order of [the ][Supreme ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of Ashish]Agarwal, [suPra] 18. [We ][would only furlher ][tike ][to ][make observations that ][since]we are [inclined ][to ][dispose ][of ][the ][instant ][writ ][petition' ][conscious ][of]the fact [that the ][earlier order ][of ][this High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]KanakalaRavintlraReddy(|supra)issubjectedtochallengebelore [the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Cour.t ][in ][SLP No'3574 ][of ][2024']prelerred [by the ][Income ][Tax Department' ][wc ][make ][it ][clear ][that]allowing [of ][the ][instant ][writ ][petition ][is ][subject ][to ][outcome ][of ][the]aloresaid [SLP preferred ][by ][the Revenue against the decision ][of ][this]Court [in ][the ][case ][of ][Kanakala Ravindra ][Reddy ][(l ][supra)']High in [other words, ][would ][mean ][that either ][of ][the parties' ][if ][they]This, so want, [may move an ][appropriate ][petition ][sceking ][revival ][of ][this]writ petition [in ][the ][light ][of ][the ][decision ][of ][the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme]Courr [in ][the pending SLP ][on ][the very ][satne issue'] 19. Accordingly, [the ][instant ][writ ][petition][ stands ][allowed ][in]1Sfavour of [the ][assessee ][so ][far ][as ][the ][issue][ of ][jurisdiction]concemed. [As ][a ][consequence'' ][the ][impugned ][noticc ][under]challenge [under Sections 148-A and ][148 ][stands ][set ][aside/cluashed] The consequential orders, if [any, also ][stand set ][aside/quashed in] similar terms as have been [passed ][by this ][High Courl in ][the ][case ][o[] Kankanokt Ravindra Reddy [(1 ]supra). [There ][shalt ][be ][no ][order ][as] to costs Consequently, miscellaneous [petitions ][pending, ][if ][any, shall] stand closed. sD/- M. OSMAN ALI BAIGTANT REGISTRARTANT REGISTRAR//TRUE COPY//SECTION OFFICERSECTION OFFICERTo,1The lncome T91off!cqr, Ward - 10 (1), Hyderabad, lnme Tax Towers, ACGuards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad_50d 004.1The lncome T91off!cqr, Ward - 10 (1), Hyderabad, lnme Tax Towers, ACGuards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad_50d 004.2The Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals), Government of lndia, Ministrv ofIncome rax Departmenr, ivition-l'iaceies;'ffi;;i $fii;'iiiFA6;'Income rax Departmenr, ivition-l'iaceies;'ffi;;i $fii;'iiiFA6;'5,!,fll.* The Chief Commissioner of lncome Tax Income Tax Towers, AC GuardsMasab Tank, Hyderabad-500 004.Masab Tank, Hyderabad-500 004. 4The Assessment Unit, lncome Tax Department National FacelessAssessmenr Centre Room, No +or, zrio rio;; tR;;':;;hartat NehruStadium, Delhi 1 10 003Assessmenr Centre Room, No +or, zrio rio;; tR;;':;;hartat NehruStadium, Delhi 1 10 003 5One CC to SRt. SHATK VAHEEDA SUSHMA Advocate [OpUC] 6One CC to Ms. BOKARO SAPNA REDDY (Jr. SC FOR TNCOME TAX)loPUClloPUCl 7Two CD Copies KKSTJ \ t.l HIGH COURT DATED:0210712025 ORDERWP.No.11739 of 2025 z,: ^,',; [T,17 ]€,'/ ort1t-'1/i'---qt\stP [2$6]11I'l ..',,i'r^.-i' -; .,/* .//\1"..,D1.,Cv'\ "-),'/--i_!-'-..:=z'' ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITIONWITHOUT COSTS o\\q[\x]