Order, (Per L{On'ble Sri Justice P.sam Koshy v. '[(2023) [156 ][Taxmann.com ][178 ][(Telangana

HIGH COURT FOR THE AT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SECOND TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE [P.SAM KOSHY]ANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE WRIT PETITION NO: 29050 [2024] Between: Vijiya Thadepalli, W/o Narasimha [Rao, ]lAged [about ][43 ]. [years,Occupation.]Bu6iness [PU6. ]11-11-322 Phc Colony, [Rahana Gutta' ][Khammam ][Urban']Khammam 507001, Telangana, [lndia.PAN. Assessment Year']2o2o-21 ...PETtrtoNER AND 1. The lncome Tax Officer Ward [1, ][Khammam, lncome ][Tax ][Office, ][Rajeev Gunt']Raiiv Chowk. Near Kinnerasani Theatre, [Khammam' Telangana ][State.]Raiiv Chowk. Near Kinnerasani Theatre, [Khammam' Telangana ][State.]2. Th6 Principai Chief Commissioner [of lncome ][Tax - ][Telangana ][a-4- ]4'l'Hyderabail, lT Towers, AC Guards, [Masab ][Tank, Hyderabad - ][500 ][028']Telangana.Hyderabail, lT Towers, AC Guards, [Masab ][Tank, Hyderabad - ][500 ][028']Telangana. 3. The N;tional Faceless Assessment [Center, lncome Tax Department, New]Delhi.Delhi. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of lhe [constitution ][of ][lndia ][praying ][that ][in ][the]circumstances stated in the [affidavit ][filed ][therewith, ][the ][High ][court ][may ][be]pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order [or dlrection more ][particularly ][one in ][the]nature of writ of Mandamus, [declaring the impugned notice dated. ][2310412024 ][fot]A.Y.2O2O-21 [passed ]u/s [148A(d) ][of the Act vide ] [No. ][ITBA/AST/F1148A12024']and the [consequential ][notice ][u/s ]['1 ][48 ][daled ][2310412024 ][vide]25t10643}785g(1 ) DINNoITBtuAST/S/1481t2024-2511064308180(1),issuedbvtheJA0('1strespondent) instead of [FAO(3rd respondent),as void, illegal, ][and ][contrary ][to ][the]provisions of lncome{ax Act and contrary to the [Principles of Natural Justice.] Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI Counsel for the Respondents: [K.SUDHAKAR ][REDDY, SENIOR ] The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAONANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION No.29050 OF 2024 ORDER, (per l{on'ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy) Heard N{r. Thanneru Chaitanya Kumar, leamed counsel forthe petitioner and Mr. K.Sudhakar Reddy, learned Senior StandingCounsel for the Income Tax Department for the respondents.Perused the record 2. This is a writ petition where the proceedings are eitherchallenged to the notices which were issued under Section l48Aand 148 of the Income 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 wlit petition is being taken up today onlv on one of thegrounds, that the notices issued under Section 148A. of the Actand the subsequent initiation of proceedings under Section 148 ofthe Act by the [jurisdictional ]Assessing Officer, whereas in termsof the amendment that rvas brought to the Income Tax Act by wayof Finance Act2021 w.e.f., 01.04.2021 onwards, proceedings 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 short 'the Act') or theassessment orders those have been passed under Section 147 ofthe Act which have been assailed. 3. This wlit petition is being taken up today onlv on one of thegrounds, that the notices issued under Section 148A. of the Actand the subsequent initiation of proceedings under Section 148 ofthe Act by the [jurisdictional ]Assessing Officer, whereas in termsof the amendment that rvas brought to the Income Tax Act by wayof Finance Act2021 w.e.f., 01.04.2021 onwards, proceedings under Section 1484 of the Act as also under Section 148 of theAct ought to have also been issued and proceeded 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 1484' and Section 148 ofthe 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 were 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 15lA ofthe Act read with Notification 18/2022 dated29.03.2022. The saidjudgment passed by this Court has also been subsequently followedin a large number of writ petitions which were allowed on similarterms. '[(2023) [156 ][taxmann.com ][178 ][(Telangana)]] 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 Court in the case of HEXAWARETECHNOLOGIES LTD., vs. ASSISTANT COMN{ISSIONEROF INCOML TAX & OTHERS2, Gauhati High Court in the caseof RAM NARAYAN SAH vs. UNION OF INDIAT, Punjab andHaryana High Court in the case of JATINDER SINGH BANGUvs. UNION OF INDIA4, and Telangana High Court in the case ofSRt \.ENKATARAMANA 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. TNCOME TAX OFFICER,INTERNATIONAL TAXATION6 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 [IT'R 430 ][(Born)]'[(2024) I56 taxmann.com [478 ][(Gauhati)]]" l(2024) 165 taxmann.com I I 5 (Punjab & Haryana)l' [2024) [67 ][tarmann.com ][4l ][l"{ftlangana)]]"12024) [66 tarmann.com 679 [(Bombay)]]' 12024) 165 taxmann.com I I 3 (Himachal Pradesh)l DAHYABHAI RADADIYA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 3(3X5)E, Jharkand High Court in the case of SHYAMWARD 3(3X5)E, Jharkand High Court in the case of SHYAMSUNDAR SAW vs. UNION OF INDtAe, Rajasthan High Court inthe case of SHARDA DEVI CHHAJER vs. TNCOME 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 INDIA & ORS(M.A.T 1690 of 2023), decided on25.09.2024.6. Even though the same issue having been decided by a largenumber of High Courts, we are still confronted with large filing ofidentical matters on daily basis ranging between 5 to 10 writOFFICER & 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 INDIA & ORS(M.A.T 1690 of 2023), decided on25.09.2024.6. Even though the same issue having been decided by a largenumber of High Courts, we are still confronted with large filing ofidentical matters on daily basis ranging between 5 to 10 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 HexawureTechnologies Ltd., (2 supra) as also the one which has beendecided by this Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddydecision of the Bombay High Court in the case of HexawureTechnologies Ltd., (2 supra) as also the one which has beendecided by this Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy '202q [SCConLine ][Guj ][aol)]"2025 Online Jhar287I o 72023 [: ] [: ][49 ][8 ][4- ] l -.a1i (1 supra) has been subjected to challenge in a Special LeavePetition i.e., SLP No.3574 of 2024 before the Hon'ble SupremeCourt and the Hon'ble Supreme Court is seized o1'the matter.In addition, thcre are about 1200 SLPs also filed arising out of thesame issue being decided by various High Courts. 7 . To a qucry being put to the leamed counsel for the Revenue,they have categorically accepted the fact that there is no interimorder granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Cou( in any of thesematters pending before it. Meanwhile, lresh writ petitions ofidentical nahrre 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 [ncome Tax Department to take appropriate steps toeither hold back issuance of notice under Section l48A and underSection 148 ol the Act by the jurisdictional Assessing Off,rcer,rather the authorities concerned in the teeth of series of decisions 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 [ncome Tax Department to take appropriate steps toeither hold back issuance of notice under Section l48A and underSection 148 ol the Act by the jurisdictional Assessing Off,rcer,rather the authorities concerned in the teeth of series of decisions by a-ll .the major tiigh Couits iir lndra are continr-rously sti:iinitiating proceeCings under Section l48A of the Act and alsoinitiating proceedings under Section 148 of the Act incontravention to the amendments brought into the Income Tax Actpursuant to the Finance Ac|2020 as also the Finance Act202l.9. Upon a query being put as to why can't this writ petition bedisposed of in the teeth of tire decision rendered by this Court inthe case of Kanakqla Ravindra Reddy (l supra), leamed StandingCcunsel fcr the Incoine Tax Department contends that those wouldunnecessariiy burden the lncome Tax Department where theywould be required to file equal number of SLps before theFlol'ble Supreme Court and it would be further burdening theexcheouer of the Union of India. It was also the contention of theleamed Standing Counsei that no prejudice would be caused to theinterest of the petitioners in case if this writ petition is kept pendingtill the finalization of the SI-Ps pending before the Hon'bleSuprerne Ccurt 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 comeout with a rneciran;sm to issue appropriate instructions or to take .J.\,! 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 ol 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 stcps would have to be taken Pan India and cannot belimited to any of these jurisdictional High Courts 10. As a rcsult 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 befbre this HighCourt on an issue which otherwise stands squarely covered by thejudgment of this Court in the case of Kanukula 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 petitionersv*-'\ insofar as the Iiberty which was granted to the Revenue forinitiating fresh proceedings strictly in accordance with the amendedinitiating 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 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 I{igh Courts already held to bebad.the 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 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 I{igh Courts already held to bebad. 11. It appears that because ofthe aforesaid liberty that this High Court 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 them to meet thelimitation that would otherwise come in the way. Likewise, 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 Income Tax Department 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 tre 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 gcts an extended period of time for initiation of freshproceedings.which would tre 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 gcts an extended period of time for initiation of freshproceedings. 12. The alarming trend of docket explosion in this Court, despitethe clear precedent set in Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra), is amatter 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. l-hisdeliberate approach not only undermines the principle of judicialprecedent but also strains the judicial resources unnecessarily. TheDepartment's strategy of awaiting the Supreme Courl's decision onpending SI-Ps 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 corriuot raisrs serious questions about theadministrative efficiency and the respect for judicialpronouncements, particularly when this Court has already provideda balanced approach by preserving both the Revenue's rights andassesses rnterests.assesses rnterests. 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 proceedingsuncler Sections 148-A 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 someremedial steps to ensure that wherever the authorities 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 the 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 repiy, e::cept for the fact that such a decision if at allt[I] ,/ , ,/ , has to be taken, has to be taken for the whole of [lndia, ][and ][which]otherwise has to be by way of a policy decision and [that ][too ][at ][the]level of Central Board of Direct Taxes. Though the 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 challengc in this writpetition are frrrcing the assessee to knock the doors of this HighCourt resulting in frling 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 interirn 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 whereas it oughtto have been only in the faceless manner. 14. In the case of BANK OF INDIA vs. ASSISTANTCOMMISSIONER, INCOME TAXrr, 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. lTOl3of 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 ][its]binding 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. rr 112025; 170 taxmann.com 422 (Bombay)l12 1t [9281 ] [l3 ] [589 ][(Bombay)] " [IZOZ+1165 ][taxmann.com 581/300 ][Taxman 452 (Bombay)] 'n ll}gZltaxmann.com [l6155 ] [(SC)] f rr 112025; 170 taxmann.com 422 (Bombay)l12 1t [9281 ] [l3 ] [589 ][(Bombay)] " [IZOZ+1165 ][taxmann.com 581/300 ][Taxman 452 (Bombay)] 'n ll}gZltaxmann.com [l6155 ] [(SC)] f "6. Srr Reddy is perhaps right in saying that theofficers were not actuated by any mala fides inpassing the impugned orders. They perhapsofficers 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 what Sri Reddy overlooks is that weare not concemed here with the correetness orare not concemed here with the correetness orotherwise of their conclusion or of any factualmalafides but with the fact that the officers, in reachingin their conclusion, by-passed two appellate orders inmalafides 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. ltcannot be too vehemently emphasized that it is ofthem, 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. 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 authorrties.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 funclionunder the [jurisdiction ]of the Tribunal. The principles ofjudicial discipline require that the orders of the higherbound by the decisions of the appellate authorrties.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 funclionunder 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 depa(ment - in itself an objectionable phrase -by the subordinate authorities. The mere fact that theorder of the appellate authority is not 'acceptable" tothe depa(ment - 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 rule is not tollouued, the result wiil only be undueharassment to assesses and chaos in administrationof tax laws.of tax laws. rule is not tollouued, the result wiil only be undueharassment to assesses and chaos in administrationof tax laws.of tax laws. 12. We have dealt with this aspect at some length,because 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 intended 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 [judicial]discipline and the need for giving effect to the ordersof the higher appellate authorities which are bindingon them." 15. What is worrying this Bench more is the fact that anendeavour is being made whole heartedly to ensure not to [generate]further litigation on issues which have been laid to rest by a [large]number of High Courts all of whom have taken a consistent standthat the action of the lncome Tax Department being violative of the a, Finance Act,2020 and Finance Act,202l. Now, in order to protectthe interest o1'the Revenue as also that of the assessee, it would betrite at this juncture, if we dispose of the writ petition with anobservation/dilection that the disposal of the instant u,rit 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. In the given facts and circumstances, this Bench is of theconsidered opinion that unless and until we do not timely disposeof rnatters 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. 17 . So far as the interest of the Revenue is concemed. we are ofthe considered opinion that the interest of the Revenue has alreadybeen considered and protected, as has been observed in paragraphsbeen 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 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 [passed]by the respondent-Department pursuant to the noticesissued under Section 147 and 148 would also [get]quashed and it is ordered accordingly. The reason weare quashing the consequential order is on the [principles]thal when the initiation of the 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 case]of Ashish Agarwal, supra, as a one{ime [measure]exercising the powers under Article 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] n conferred on the Revenue would remain reserved [to]proceed further if they so want from the stage of theorder of the Supreme Court [tn ]the case [of Ashish]Agarwal, supra. 18. We would only further like to make obseruatiorts that sincewe are inclined to dispose of the instant writ petition, conscious olthe fact that the earlier order of this High Court in the case ofKanakala Ravindru Reddy (l supra) is subjected to challengebelore the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP [No.3574 ]of [2024,]preferred by the Income Tax Department, we make it clear thatallowing ol the instant rvrit petition is subject to outcome of theaforesaid SLI' preferred by the Revenue against the decision of thisHigh Court in the case of Kanakah Ravindra Reddy [(1 ]sryra)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 Hor-r'ble SupremeCourt in the pending SLP on the very same issue 19. Accorclingly, the instant writ petition stands allowed infavour of the assessee so f'ar as the issue of [jurisdiction]ISconcemed. As a consequence, the impugned notice underchallenge under Sections 148-A and 148 stands set aside/quashed. II ? [-. ],: 1'"1- ', ['] The consequential orders, if any, [also ][stand ][set aside/quashed in] similar terrns as have been [passed ][by ][this ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of] Kankunala Ravindra Reddy [(l ][supra). ][There ][shall ][be ][no ][order ][as] to costs Consequently, miscellaneous [petitions ][pending, ][if ][any, ][shall] stand closed SD/. C. DEEPIKAAS ISTANT //TRUE SECTION ToTaxOffice, Raieev [Gunt,]'1 . The lncome Tax Officer Ward [1, ][Khammam, ln], [Telang][ana ][State]Rajiv Chowk, [Near ][Ktn][nerasani ][Theatre, ][Kham]Telangan a [and A.P,]2. The PrinciPal [Chief ][Co][ mmissioner ][of lncome Ta]Hyderabad, [lT ][Towers][ , ] [Guards, ][Masab ][Tank,][ Hyderabad - 500 028,]If;'31,%1i]1r' [Faceless Assessment ][center' ][lnccme Tax Deparlnrent' ][New], [Telang][ana ][State]Rajiv Chowk, [Near ][Ktn][nerasani ][Theatre, ][Kham]Telangan a [and A.P,]2. The PrinciPal [Chief ][Co][ mmissioner ][of lncome Ta]Hyderabad, [lT ][Towers][ , ] [Guards, ][Masab ][Tank,][ Hyderabad - 500 028,]If;'31,%1i]1r' [Faceless Assessment ][center' ][lnccme Tax Deparlnrent' ][New] 4,B#g:BBEiIKH-=^T.13HIAY3I-YxAtjPIHII"J?3H,%,,B#g:BBEiIKH-=^T.13HIAY3I-YxAtjPIHII"J?3H,%, bTwo CD CoPies PSK. o GJ HIGH COURT DATED:02rc512025 ORDERWP.No.29050 of 2024 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITTONWITHOUT COSTS t (,cl:-,r Si;l[\]//:(J(t11 JUL 2025P*l.+