Perused The Record v. 'L(2023) [156 ]Taxmann.com [178 ][(Telangana)L

HIGH COURT FOR THE S ATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDEABAD(Special OriginalJurisdiction) THURSDAY,THE FIST DAY OF MAYTWO THOUSAND AD TWENTY FIVE PREST THE HONOURABLE SRI JSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICEARSING RAO NANDIKONDA WRIT PETITIO( NO 28867 0F 2024 Between: MOHD NOORUL HUDA, S/o. IVOD NAYEEI\4, Agedabout 55 years,Occupation. Business, R/o.'18-7-18IAI1214IA IVURADIVAHAL, TALABKATTA HYDERABAD 50.0053,Te|ngana, lndia. PAN. BFRPK2lBgDAssessment Year. 2O1 5-1 6'Occupation. Business, R/o.'18-7-18IAI1214IA IVURADIVAHAL, TALABKATTA HYDERABAD 50.0053,Te|ngana, lndia. PAN. BFRPK2lBgDAssessment Year. 2O1 5-1 6' ...PETITIONER AND 1The lncome Tax Officer Ward 1(1), Herabad, I T TOWER, AC Guards,[\,4asab Tank, HYDERABAD, TelangaState.[\,4asab Tank, HYDERABAD, TelangaState. 2. The Principal Chief Commissioner of Icome Tax, Telangana and A.P,Hyderabad, [T Towers, AC Guards, Msab TankHyderabad, [T Towers, AC Guards, Msab Tank3. The Central Board of Direct Taxes Re resented by its Chairman, Departmentof Revenue, tMinistry of Finance, Goment of lndia, Secretariat Buildingsof Revenue, tMinistry of Finance, Goment of lndia, Secretariat Buildings4. The National Faceless Assessment Cnter lncome Tax, Department, NewDelhiDelhi5. The Union of lndia, Represented by itSecretary to the Government,Department of Revenue, I\/inistry of Fiance, New DelhiDepartment of Revenue, I\/inistry of Fiance, New Delhi ...RESPONDENTS Peiition under Article 226 of thenstitution of lndia praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filetherewith, the High Court may bepleased to issue an appropriate writ, orderr direction more particularly one in thenature of Writ of [\ilandamus, declaring te order passed by the lncome TaxAuthorities (National Faceless E-Assessmet Centre) completed the assessmentUIS 147 r-w.s 144 read with section 1448f the lncome Tax Act, 1961 vide DINand Notice No. dated 0210512023 ITBA/ASTSl 1 47 12023-241 1 05251 481 4(1) for theassessment year 2O15-16 determining thetotal income of Rs.4,46,86,430 /-asarbitrary, illegal, bad in law, without jurisiction, void-ab-initio, violative of theprinciples of natural justice apart from beinviolative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 265 of the Constitution of lndia and Sec. 148A of the lncome Tax Act, 1961, andconsequently set aside the same in the interests of [justice] Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. THANNERU CHAITANYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to4: Ms. BOKARO SAPNA REDDY (Jr. SCFOR TNCOME TAX) Counsel for the Respondent NO.S: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR DEPUTYSOLICITOR GENERAL OF INIDA The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSCE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHB HONOURABLE SRIJUSTCE NARSING RAONANDIKOAWRIT PETITION No.867 of2O24of2O24 867 of2O24of2O24 ORDER (per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.Samshv) lleard Mr. T.Chaitanya Kumarleamed counsel for thepetitioner and Ms.B.Sapna Reddy,learned Junior StandingCounsel for the Income Tax Deent for the respondents. Perused the record. 2. This is a writ petition wheree proceedings are eitherchallenged to the notices which were iued under Section 148Aand 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961for short 'the Act') or theassessment orders those have been pd under Section 147 ofthe Act which have been assailed. 3. This writ petition is being takentoday only on one ofthegrounds, that the notices issued under Section l48A of the Actand the subsequent initiation of proceegs under Section 148 ofthe Act by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, whereas in termsof thc amendment that was brought toe lncome Tax Act by wayof Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f., 01.04.2 21 onwards, proceedings Perused the record. 2. This is a writ petition wheree proceedings are eitherchallenged to the notices which were iued under Section 148Aand 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961for short 'the Act') or theassessment orders those have been pd under Section 147 ofthe Act which have been assailed. 3. This writ petition is being takentoday only on one ofthegrounds, that the notices issued under Section l48A of the Actand the subsequent initiation of proceegs under Section 148 ofthe Act by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, whereas in termsof thc amendment that was brought toe lncome Tax Act by wayof Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f., 01.04.2 21 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 ol the petitioner is that the issue ofproceedings being in violation of the Finance Act, 2021 i.e., theimpugned notices under Section 148A 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. TNCOME-TAX OFFICER' decidedon 14.09.2023 whereby a batch of writ petitions \ [rere ]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 1812022 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. 'l(2023) [156 ]taxmann.com [178 ][(Telangana)l] ., 5. Down the line, we find thate same issue has also beendecided against the Revenue bvarl()us High Courts i.e.,by the Bombay High Court inthe case of HEXAWARETECHNOLOGIES LTD., vs. ASSSTANT COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX & OTHERS2,auhati High Court in the caseof RAM NARAYAN SAH vs. UON OF INDIAs, Punjab andHaryana High Court in the case ofATINDER SINGH BANGUvs. UNION OF INDIA4, and Telana High Court in the case ofSRI VENKATARAMANA REDDPATLOOLA vs. DEPUTYCOMMISSIONER OF INCOMEAXs where the issue was inrespect of international taxation, Bobay High Court in the case ofABHIN ANILKUMAR STIAH vs.INCOME TAX OFFICER,INTERNATIONAL TAXATION6hich is again on internationaltaxation and central circle, High Coof Himachal Pradesh in thecase of GOVIND SINGH vs. ICOME TAX OFFICERT,Gujarat High Courl in theSe of MANSUKHBHAI ' Tzoz+1464 [430 ][(Bom)] ' [(2024) [156 ]taxmann.com 478 [(Gauhat])l" [(2024) [165 ]laxmann.com I [5 ][(Punjab]Haryana)l' L2024) [167 ]taxmann.com [4 ]I I [(Telang])l" 12024) [166 ]taxmann.com 679 [(Bombay]I'[2024) [[165 ]]taxmann.com [[113 ][(Himach]][[(Himach]]Pradesh)l '[2024) [[165 ]]taxmann.com [[113 ][(Himach]][[(Himach]] DAHYABHAT [VS. ] [OFFICER,]WARD 3(3XOs, [Jharkand ][High Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ][SI{YAM]SUNDAR [vs. ] [oF ][INDIA9, ][Rajasthan ][High ][Court in]the case of [vs' ] OFFICER [& ] [and ][batch'of ][writ ][petitionsro which]stood decided [on ][79.03 ]['2024' ][Similar views ][have also ][been taken]the Division [Bench ][of ][Calcutta ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]by GIRDHAR [vs' ] [& ] (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 ][sti[[ confronted ][rvith ][large ][filing ][of]identical [matters ][on ][daity ][basis ][ranging ][between ][5 ][to ][10 ][writ]That [upon ][the ][instructions ][being ][sought ][from ][the]petitions. Department, [they ][have ][been ][taking ][a ][solitary ][ground ][that ][the]decision of [the ][Bombay ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ][Hexawate]Technologies [Lrd., ][(2 ][supra) ][as ][also ][the ][one which ][has ][been]decided [by this ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ][Kanakala Ravindra ][Redtly] '2024 [scc ][onrine ][Guj ][4012]"2025 [Online ][Jhat281]t o 12023 [: ] [: ][498 ][4-DBl] I 5 (l supra) has been has been been subjected to cc (l supra) has been has been been subjected to ccallenge in a Special LeavePetition i.e., SLP No.3574 of 2024efore the Hon'ble SupremeCourt and the Hon 'ble Supreme Curt is seized of the matter.In addition, there are about 1200 SLs also filed arising out of thesame issue being decided by variousigh Courts 7. 7. To a query being put to thg leed counsel for the Revenue,they have categorically accepted thefact that there is no interimorder granted by the Llon'ble Supme Court in any of thesematters pending before it. Meanwile, fresh writ petitions ofidentical nature are being piled up bere this Bench on daily basisand the pendency is getting increaseon matter which otherwisehas already been dealt and decided byhis very High Court itself. 8. On the one hand, even thoughthe order of this Court thatwas passed as early as on 14.09.202and more I 6 months havelapsed, till date, we do not find anyremedial steps having beentaken by the Income Tax Departmento take appropriate steps toeither hold back issuance of notice uder Section l48A and underSection 148 of the Act by the juriictional Assessing Officer,rather the authorities concerned in thteeth of series of decisions by all the major High Courts in India are continuously stillinitiating proceedings under Section l48A of the Act and [also]initiating proceedings under Section 118 of the Act incontravention to the amendments brought into the lncome Tax Actpursuant to the Finance Act,2020 as also the Finance Act 2021.9. Upon a query being puf as to why can't this [rvrit ]petition [be]disposed of in the teeth of the decision rendered by this Courl inthe case of Kanakala Ravindra Redd1, (l supra), leamed StandingCounsel for the lncome Tax Department contends that those wouldunnecessarily burden the lncome Tax Department where theywould be required to file equal number of SI-Ps before theHon'ble Supreme Court and it would be lurther burdening theexchequer of the Union of India. It was also the contention of theleamed Standing Counsel that no prejudice would be caused to theinterest ofthe petitioners in case if this writ petition is kept pendingtill the finalization of tho SLPs pending before the Hon'bleSupreme Court and the facl that the petitioner is already enjoyingthe benefit of interim protection. Nonetheless, on the earlier [query]of this Court as to why the lncome Tax Depa$ment have not comeout with a mechanism to issue appropriate instructions or to take appropriate steps in ensuring that proeedings under Section 148Aof the Act as also the assessment orers under Section 148 oftheAct are kept in a hold in the light ofhe decisions dedcided by thevarious High Courts, it was submied by the learned StandingCounsel that the said steps can onlytaken at the level of CBDTas any such steps would have to been Pan India and cannot belimited to any of these [j ]urisdictionaligh Courts 10. As a result of which, what wee facing is steep increase oftitigation day in and day out even thogh various orders have beenpassed by this High Couh allowingit petitions on the very sameISSUE The Income Tax authorities cocemed are still even now in2025 also initiating proceedings in cotravention to the provisionsof Section 1514. of the Act and as asult by now, more than 600to 700 petitions have been already gt piled up belore this HighCourt on an issue which otherwise snds squarely covered by thejudgment of this Court in thc case oKanakala Ravindra Reddy(1 supra). What is also surprising ithe fact that though whileallowing the writ petitions in thee of Kanakala RavindraReddy (l supra), the Division Benchwhile reserving the right ofthe Revenue, has also protected thi.t$oi the petitioners \ 10. As a result of which, what wee facing is steep increase oftitigation day in and day out even thogh various orders have beenpassed by this High Couh allowingit petitions on the very sameISSUE The Income Tax authorities cocemed are still even now in2025 also initiating proceedings in cotravention to the provisionsof Section 1514. of the Act and as asult by now, more than 600to 700 petitions have been already gt piled up belore this HighCourt on an issue which otherwise snds squarely covered by thejudgment of this Court in thc case oKanakala Ravindra Reddy(1 supra). What is also surprising ithe fact that though whileallowing the writ petitions in thee of Kanakala RavindraReddy (l supra), the Division Benchwhile reserving the right ofthe Revenue, has also protected thi.t$oi the petitioners \ insofar as the liberty which was granted to thc Revenue [for]initiating fresh proceedings strictly in accordance with the amendedprovisions of the Act, as anrended by the Finance Act, 2020 andthe Finance Act,202l . The petitioner assessee would be entitled tochallenge or raise the other legal objections if the Rr'venue initiateslresh proceedings. The Depahment has made no cndeavour inavailing the said liberty that was reserved for thc Rcvcnue. On thecontrary, they have been sti I sticking on to the stand, rvhich thisHigh Court as well as many other High Courts alrcady held to bebad I l. It appears that because of the aforesaid liberty that this HighCourl had granted permitting the Revenue for initiating frcshproceedings as a one-time measure in a lace less rnanner, theIncome Tax Department wants to take advantage ol'the same byprotracting these proceedings which would enable tht'rn to meet thelimitation that would otherwise come in the way. l-ikewise. if thewrit petition is kept pending for a considerable long period of timeand finally at a later stage if the Hon'ble Supreme C'our1 confirmsthe decision taken by this }Iigh Court as also by the other HighCourts in which the SLPs are still pending, thc I ncome Tax Department would get the advantagef the liberty that is otherwiseprotectedln favour of the Reveue for initiation of freshprotectedln favour of the Reveue for initiation of freshproceedings from the disposal of thesmatters at a much later stagewhich would be advantageous andneficial to the Revenue andwould be equally disadvantageous andetrimental so far as interestof the assesses are concemed. As aonsequence, the Income TaxDepartment gets an extended periodf time for initiation of freshproceedings.which would be advantageous andneficial to the Revenue andwould be equally disadvantageous andetrimental so far as interestof the assesses are concemed. As aonsequence, the Income TaxDepartment gets an extended periodf time for initiation of freshproceedings. 12. The alarming trend of'docket elosion in this Court, despitethe clear precedent set ii Kanakala Rvindra Reddy (l supra), is amatter of grave concern. The IncomeTax Department's persistentinitiation of fresh proceedings, disregaing the established judicialpronouncements, has led to an unpreedented surge in litigationwith over 600-700 petirions piling uon the same issue. Thisdeliberate appioach not only undermies the principle of judicialprecedent but also strains the judicial rsources unnecessarily. TheDepartment's strategy of awaiting theupreme Court's decision onpending SLPs while continuing toinitiate fresh proceedingsappears to be a calculated move tobuy time and circumventlimitation periods, rather than adherg to the established legal position. Such conduct [raises serious ][questions ][about ][the]administrative [effrciency ][and ][the ][respect ][for ][j ][udiciat]pronouncements, [parlicularly ][when ][this Court ][has ][already ][provided]a balanced approach [by ][preserwing ][both the ][Revenue's ][rights ][and]assesses lnterests. position. Such conduct [raises serious ][questions ][about ][the]administrative [effrciency ][and ][the ][respect ][for ][j ][udiciat]pronouncements, [parlicularly ][when ][this Court ][has ][already ][provided]a balanced approach [by ][preserwing ][both the ][Revenue's ][rights ][and]assesses lnterests. 13. Another aspect [which ][ne6ds ][to ][be ][considered is ][that ][in ][fact ][it]should have been [realized ][by ][the ][Income ][Tax Department ][itself ][and]should have found out [v.i.a ][media ][in ][ensuring ][that ][proceedings]under Sections 148-4 [and ][148 should ][not ][have been ][issued ][in ][a]faceless manner, at [least ][till ][the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Couft ][decide ][the]twelve hundred [(1200) ][odd ][SLPs ][which ][it ][is already ][seized ][of ][or, ][at]least the Income Tax [Department should ][have found ][out ][some]remedial 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 ][deferred]without precipitating the [matter ][further intimating ][the ][assessee ][that]they shall initiate appropriate [proceedings ][only ][after the ][SLP's ][are]decided by the Hon'ble Supreme [Court ][on ][the ][very ][same ][issue']This again, the [ncome Tax Department, [has ][not ][been able ][to ][give ][a]convincing reply, except [for ][the ][fact ][that ][such ][a decision ][if ][at ][atl] has to be taken, has to be taken fore whole of India, and whichotherwise has to be by way of a poliy decision and that too at thelevel of Central Board of DirectaxesThough the Iearnedlevel of Central Board of DirectaxesThough the IearnedStanding Counsel for the Income TDepartment contended thatthe Delhi High Court dismissed a wripetition of similar nature, onthe one hand when the High Couis struggling to reduce itsthe Delhi High Court dismissed a wripetition of similar nature, onthe one hand when the High Couis struggling to reduce itspendency, such notices which areder challenge in this writpetition are forcing the assessee toock the doors of this Highpetition are forcing the assessee toock the doors of this HighCourt resulting in filing of hondredsf new writ petitions which inthe long run not only affects the dispsal of the writ petitions butalso consumes substantial time ofe Bench in hearing thesematters again and again on daily basisAdmiuedly, in spite of thethe long run not only affects the dispsal of the writ petitions butalso consumes substantial time ofe Bench in hearing thesematters again and again on daily basisAdmiuedly, in spite of thematter before the Hon,ble Supremeourt having been taken onmany occasions, the Hon,ble SupremeCourt which is seized of themany occasions, the Hon,ble SupremeCourt which is seized of thematter has been reluctant in grantingy rnterim protection to theIncorne Tax Department. yet, theuthorities concemed at theState level are not ready to accept theerdict passed by a majorityState level are not ready to accept theerdict passed by a majorityof High Courts of different States on te same issue; and to makethings further worse, the Income TDepartmentIS showingaudacity by issuing notices continuouslunder Sections 148-A andthings further worse, the Income TDepartmentIS showingaudacity by issuing notices continuouslunder Sections 148-A and 148 through the [jurisdictional ][Assessing ][Officer ][whereas ][it ][ought]to have been only [in ][the ][faceless manner.] 14. In the case of BANK [vs. ] COMMISSIONER, [INCOME TAXrr, ][on ][an issue ][whether ][it ][was]justifiabte on the part of the Income Tax Department in [not]following an order passed by [tl1e ][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., ][:] 148 through the [jurisdictional ][Assessing ][Officer ][whereas ][it ][ought]to have been only [in ][the ][faceless manner.] 14. In the case of BANK [vs. ] COMMISSIONER, [INCOME TAXrr, ][on ][an issue ][whether ][it ][was]justifiabte on the part of the Income Tax Department in [not]following an order passed by [tl1e ][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. t\Ir. Paridw?lla has rightly drawn out [attention ][to ][the]decision 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. ][lTOl3]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 ][Ioose ][its]binding force. Referring to the decision [of the Supreme Court ][in]Union of lndia vs. Kamlakshi [Finance ][Corporation ][Ltd.14' ][the]Court observed that the approach [of the ][officials ][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.] tt lzozs1 170 taxmann.com422 (Bombay)l " 1tezs1 [l3 ] [589 ][(Bombay)] " TZOZ+1165 [taxmann.com ][58 ][t/300 ][Taxman ][452 ][(Bombay)] to lOeZl taxmann.com 16/55 ELT 433 (SC)lOeZl taxmann.com 16/55 ELT 433 (SC) \.i I "6. Sri Reddy is perhaps rigin saying that theofficers were not actuatedany mala fides inpassing the impugned ordeThey perhapsgenuinely felt that the claim ofhe assessee was nottenable and that, if it was apted, the Revenuewould suffer. But what Sri Redy overlooks is that weare not concerned here witthe correctness orotherwise of their conclusioor . of any factualmalafides but with the fact that te officers, in reachingin their conclusion, by-passedappellate orders inregard to the same issue whicwere placed beforethem, one of the Collector (Appls) and the other ofthe Tribunal. The High Court hs, in our view, rightlycriticrzed this conduct of the Asistant Collectors andthe harassment to thii assesscaused by the failureof these officers to give effct to the orders ofauthorities higher to them in theppellate hierarchy. ltcannot be too vehemently emhasized that it is ofutmost importance that, indisposing of thequasijudicial issues before the, [revenue ][officers ][are]bound by the decisions of theappellate authorities.The order of the Appellte Coller is binding on theAssistant Collectors working witin his Jurisdiction andthe order of the Tribunal is bindiupon the AssistantCollectors and the Appellate Cllectors who functionunder the jurisdiction of the Tribnal. The [principles ]ofjudicial discipline require that torders of the higherappellate authorities should bellowed unreservedlyby the subordinate authorities.he mere fact that theorder of the appellate authorityis not ["acceptable" ]tothe department - in itself an oectionable [phrase ]-and is the subject mafter of anppeal can furnish noground for not following it unlss its operation [has]been suspended by a competecourt. lf this [healthy] w t rule is not followed, [the ][result ][will ][only ][be ][undue]harassment to assesses [and ][chaos ][in ][administration]of tax laws. w t 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 rt 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 Reventre. [We ][would ][like ][to ][say that ][the]department should take [these ][observations ][in ][the]proper spirit. The observations of the [High ][Court]should 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 ]ludicialdiscipline and the [need ][for ][giving effect ][to the ][orders]of the higher appellate authorities [which ][are ][binding]on them." I 5. What is worrying [this ][Bench ][more ][is ][the fact that ][an]endeavour is being made [whole heartedly ][to ][ensure ][not to ][generate]further titigation on issues [which ][have been ][laid to ][rest ][by ][a ][large]number of High Courts all of [whom ][have ][taken ][a ][consistent ][stand]that the action of the Income Tax Department [being ][violative ][of ][the] .l Finance Act,2020 [and ][Finance ][Act,2O2]. Now, in order to [protect]the interest of the Revenue [as ][also ][that]f the assessee, it [would ][be]trite at this [juncture, ]if [we ][dispose ][of]the writ petition with [an]observation/direction that [the ][disposal ][o]the instant writ [petition ][in]terms ol the [judgment ][rendered ][by ][this]High Court in the case ofKonkanala Ravindra [ReddY ][(1 ][suPru)]hall however be subject [to]the outcome of [the ][SLPs ][which ][were]filed bv the Income TaxDepartment and [which ][is ][pending consi]tion before the Hon'bleSupreme Court. 16. ln the [given ][facts ][and ][circums]s, this Bench is of [the]considered opinion [that ][unless and ][unt]we do not timely disposeof matters which are [squarely covered]the decision of this [Court]and which stands fortilied [by ][the ][dec]sions of the various [other]Fligh Courts on the [very ][same ][lssue']e pendency of [this ][High]Court would further [be ][burdened ][whic]otherwise can [be ][decided]and disposed ofas [a ][covered matter] ll . So far as the interest [of ][the Rev]ue is concerned, [we ][are ][of]the considered opinion that the [interest]of the Revenue [has ][alreadY]bcen considered and protected, [as has]een observed [in ][paragraPhs] 36,37 and 38 of the order vvhich, for [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 beingper se illegal, deserves to be and are accordingly setaside/quashed. As a tonsequence, all the [impugned]orders [getting quashed, ]the consequential orders [passed]by the respondent-Department pursuant to the noticesissued under Sectron 147 and 148 would also [get]quashed and it is'ordered accordingly. The reason weare quashing the consequential order is on the [principles]that when tiie initiation of the [proceedings ]itself [was]procedurally 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-time measureexercising the powers under Article 142 of theConstitution of lndra, [permitted ]the Revenue to [proceed]under the substituted [provisions, ]and this Court allowingthe petitions only on the [procedural ]flaw, the right conferred on the Revenueuld remain reserved toproceed further if they so wafrom the stage of theorder of the Supreme Courtin the case of AshishAgarwal, supra. 18. We would only furlher like toake observations that sincewE are inclined to dispose of the inst writ petition, conscious ofthe fact that the earlier order of thisHigh Court in the case ofKanakala Ravindra Reddy (l suprals subjected to challengebefore the Hon,ble Supreme CourtSLP No.3574 of 2024,prefer-red by the Income Tax.Departmnt, we make it clear thatallowing of the instant writ petition issubject to outcome of theaforesaid SLp preferred by the Revenuagainst the decision of thisHigh Court in the case of Kanakalaavindru Reddy \l supra.).This, in other words, would mean thatither of the parties, if theyso want, may move an appropriate petiion seeking revival of thiswrit petition in the light of the decisiof the Hon'ble SupremeCourl in the pending SLp on the verye lssue 19. Accordingly, the instant writ ptition stands allowed infavour of the assessee so far as thelssue of jurisdictionISconcerned. As a consequence, theimpugned notice underchallenge under Sections l4g_A and 14g 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 ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of] Kankanala [Rtwindra ][Rettdy ][(l ][supra)' ][There shall be no order ][as] to costs. Consequently, [miscellaneous ][petitions pending' ][if ][any' ][shall] stand closed. SD/. C. DEEPIKAAS5^rSNT REGISTRAR'\' //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER\ To, The lncome Tax [Officer ]lVard [1(]1), Hyderabad, [T TOWER, AC ][Guards,]Masab Tank, HYDERABAD, [Tel]angana State.Masab Tank, HYDERABAD, [Tel]angana State. 1 2The Princioal Chief [Commissioner of lncome ][Tax, ][Telangana ][and ] [P']HvOerioaO, lT [Towers, AC Guards, Masab Tank]HvOerioaO, lT [Towers, AC Guards, Masab Tank]2The Chairman, [Central Board of Direct Taxes Department of Revenue']frrri""i.i.vti f i"in"", [Gor"rnr"nt ][of lndia, Secretariat Buildings]frrri""i.i.vti f i"in"", [Gor"rnr"nt ][of lndia, Secretariat Buildings]4The National Faceless [Assessment Center lncome ][Tax' Department' ][New]DelhiDelhi The Secretary [to the Government, Department of Revenue' Ministry of]Finance, New [Delhi]Finance, New [Delhi] E One CC to SRI [THANNERU CHAITANYA KUMAR Advocate ][ ] b One CC to Sri [Gadi Praveen Kumar, Deputy Solicitor General of lndia ][ ] 7 One CC to Ms. BOKARO [(Jr' ][SC FOR INCOME TAX)]loPUclloPUcl loPUclITwo CD CoPiesKKSGJP (rGJP (r I HIGH COURT DATED:01 10512025 ORDERWP.No.28867 of 2024 onS r.q Ie. o,i,](iir11AtlE 2025.Cir.t)1>,':11gHf [\] ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITIONWITHOUT COSTSpI 4