Rao v. ' L(2023) [I ][56 ][Taxrnann.com ][I ][78 ][(Telangana)L

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD(Special Original J urisdiction) IVONDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF AUGUSTTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 22835 OF 2025 Between: IVADHUSUDHANA RAO DIRISALA, H.No. 3-8, lt/londikuntha KHAIVIVAM [-]507302. Dist. Khammam ...PETITIONER AND 1INCOIME TAX OFFICER, Ward - 11(1), Hyderabad. lncome Tax Office, l.T.Towers, A.C. Guards, Hyderabad - 500004.Towers, A.C. Guards, Hyderabad - 500004. 2PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOI/E TAX - 2, lncome Tax Towers,A.C.Guards, Hyderabad - 500004.A.C.Guards, Hyderabad - 500004. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia [praying ]that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may bepleased to issue a Writ of lvlandamus or any other appropriate writ, order ordirection, declaring the order [passed ]by the lncome Tax Officer, Ward [1 ]['1 ][(1),]Hyderabad, Under Order 148-A of the lncome Tax Act, 1961 Date of Order.23-03-2024 DIN No. ITBA/AST/F/148A12023-2411063255448(1) For the YearAssessment Year 2020-21 , as arbitrary illegal bad in law without [jurisdiction ]voidabinitio violative of principles of Natural Justice part from being violative of Article4, 19 and 265 of Constitution of lndia and consequently set aside the same in theinterests of [justice.] lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition r-rnder Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances statedin the affidavit f iled in support of the petition, the High Co rrt may be pleased tostay all further proceedings including any recovery, pursuant to the order passedby the lst respondent Under Order'l48-A of the lncome [-l-ax ]Act, 1961 Date ofOrder 23-03-2C24 DIN No. ITBA/ASTlFl148A12023-24110:63255448(1) For theYear Assessment Year 2020-21 pending disposal of writ p€)tition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI GAJANAND CHAKRAVAR l-HY, REP. FORSRI UPADHYAY RAGHAVENDER Counsel for the Respondents: SRI T.P.S.HARSHA, Jr. SC REP. FORMs. J.SUNITHA, Sr. SC lN(::OME TAXThe Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI WRIT PETITION No.2283s OF 2025 ORDER, [(per ]Hon'ble Sri Justice Suddala [Chalapathi ][Rao)] Heard Sri Gajanand Chakravarthy, lbarned [counsel]representing Sri Upadhyay Raghavender, learned [counsel ][for ][the]petitioner and Sri T.P.S.Harsha, leamed Junior Standing [Counsel]representing Ms.J.Sunitha, learned Senior Standing [Counsel ][for]Income Tax, for the respondents. Perused the [record.] 2. This is a writ petition where the [proceedings ][are ][either]challenged to the notices which were [issued ][under ][Section ][l48A]and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [(for ][short'the ][Act') ][or ][the]assessment orders those have been [passed ][uuder ][Section ][lzlT ][of]the Act which have been assailed" 3. This writ petition is being taken up [today ][only ][on one ][of ][the]grounds, that the notices issued under Section 148,4 of [the ][Act]and the subsequent initiation of [proceedings ][under Section ][148 ][of]the Act by the [jurisdictional ]Assessing Officer, [whereas ][in ][terms]of the amendment that was brought to the Income [Tax ][Act ][by ][way] 2. This is a writ petition where the [proceedings ][are ][either]challenged to the notices which were [issued ][under ][Section ][l48A]and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [(for ][short'the ][Act') ][or ][the]assessment orders those have been [passed ][uuder ][Section ][lzlT ][of]the Act which have been assailed" 3. This writ petition is being taken up [today ][only ][on one ][of ][the]grounds, that the notices issued under Section 148,4 of [the ][Act]and the subsequent initiation of [proceedings ][under Section ][148 ][of]the Act by the [jurisdictional ]Assessing Officer, [whereas ][in ][terms]of the amendment that was brought to the Income [Tax ][Act ][by ][way] of Finance Acl, 2021 w.e.f., 01.04.2021 onwards, proceedingsunder Section 148,4 of the Act as also under Section 148 of theAct ougtrt to have also been issued and proceede,J in a facelessmanneI4. The contention of the petitioner is that the issue ofproceedings being in violation of the Finance Act, 2021 i.e., theimpugnerl notices under Section l48A and Section 148 of the Actnot being issued in a f-aceless manner, have already been dealt withand decided by this Court in the case ol .I(ANKANALARAVINDRA REDDY vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICERT decidedon 14.09 2023 whereby a batch of, writ petitions wi)re allowed andthe procecdings initiated under Section 148A as also under Se<;tion148 of the Act were held to be bad with consequential reliels on theground o I it being in violation of the provisions of l:lectiorL i 5 1 A ofthe Act rr:ad with Notification 1812022 dated 29.03 2022. The saidjudgment passed by this Court has also been subsequentll,followedin a largr: number of writ petitions which were allc,wed on similarterms. ' l(2023) [56 ][taxrnann.com ] [78 ][(Telangana)l] , 5. Down the line, we find that the same issue [has also ][been]decided against the Revenue by various High Courts [i.e.,]by the Bombay High Court in the case of TECHNOLOGIES LTD., VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX & OTHERS2, Gauhati High Court [in ][the ][case]i'of RAM NARAYAN SAH vs. UNION OF INDIAT, [Punjab ][and]Haryana High Court in the case of JATINDER vs. UNION OF INDIA4, and Telangana High Court [in the ][case ][of]SRI VENKATARAMANA REDDY PATLOOLA [VS. ] COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX5 [where the ][issue was ][in]respect of international taxation, Bombay [High ][Court in the ][case ][of]ABHIN ANILKUI\{AR SHAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER'INTERNATIONAL TAXATION6 [which ][is ][again on ][international]taxation and central circle, High Court of [Himachal ][I'radesh ][in ][the]case of GOVIND SINGH vs. [OFFICERT,]Gujarat High Court in the case of ' Tzoz+1464 [430 ][(Bom)]'LQ024) [156 ][taxmann.com 478 ][(Gauhati)l] ^ l(2024) [165 ][taxmann.com ] [5 ][(Punjab ][& ][Haryana)l] ' 12024) [67 taxmann.com ][41 ] [(Telangana)l] " [2024) [166 ][taxmann.com 679 ][(Bombay)]] ' L2024) [165 ][taxmann.com ][113 ][(Himachal ][Pradesh)l] DAHYABHAI RADADIYA vs. TNCOME Tlr.X OFFICER,WARD 3(3)(5)8, Jharkand I{igh Court in the case of SHYAMSUNDAR SAW vs. UNION OF INDIAe, Rajasthan High Court [in]the case ol SHARDA DEVI CHHAJER [vs. ]INCOI\{E TAXOFFICER & ANOTHER and batch of writ [p::titionsr0 ]whichstood der:ided on 19.03.2024. Similar views have [,rlso ]been takenby the t)ivision Bench of Calcdtta High Court in the case ofGIRDH,\R GOPAL DALMIA vs. UNION OF INDIA. & ORS(M.A.T I 690 of 2023), decided on 25.09.2024.6. Even though the same issue having been der;ided by a iargenumber of High Courts, we are still confronted with largc filing ofidentical matters on daily basis ranging betrveer r 5 to 10 writpetitions. Ihat upon the instructions being so ught lrom theDepaftmr:nt, they have becn taking a solitary 1:,round thal thedecision ol the Bombay Fligh Courl in the cas,:) of HexawureTechnologies Lld., (2 supra) as also the one vzhich has beendecided by this Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy8202+ SCC Online Guj 4012"2015 S('( [()nLine ]Jhar 187to y2023 : RI-JD :4984-DBl ' ' (1 supra) has been subjected to challenge in a Special [Leave]Petition i.e., SLP No.3574 of 2024 before the [Hon'ble ][Supreme]Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court is seized of the [matter.]In addition, there are about I200 SLPs also filed arising out of [the]same issue being decided by various High Courts.7. To a query being put to the leamed counsel [for ][the ][Revenue,]they have categorically accepted the fact [that ][there ][is ][no ][interim]order granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in [any ][of ][these]rnatters pending before it. Meanwhile,, fresh writ [petitions ][of]identical nature are being piled up before this [Bench on ][daily ][basis]and the pendency is [getting ]increased [on ][matter ][which ][otherwise]has already been dealt and decided by [this ][very ][High ][Court ][itself.]8. On the one hand, even though the [order ]of [this ][Court ][that]was passed as early as on 14.09.2023 and [more ][16 ][months ][have]tapsed, titt date, wc do not find [any ][remedial ][steps ][having ][been]taken by the Income Tax Department [to ][take appropriate ][steps ][to]either hotd back issuance of notice [under Section 148A and ][under]Section 148 of the Act by the [jurisdictional ][Assessing ][OtIicer,]rather the authorities concemed in the teeth of series of [decisions] by alt the major High Courts in India [are continuously ][still]initiating proceedings under Section [148,{ ]of [th:: ][Act ][and ][also]initiating proceedings under Section 148 o1 the Act [in]contravention to the amendments brought [into ][the ][lncome ][Tax Act]pursuant to the Finance Act,2020 as also the Finanr.:e Acr [2021.]9. Upon a query being put as to why can't this [writ ][petition ][be]disposed of in the teeth of the decision rendered [by ][this Court ][in]the case of Knnakala Ravindrt Retfuly [(1 ]supra), l::arned StandingCounsel lor the Incorne Tax Department contends [l.hat ][those ][would]unnecessarily burden the lncome Tax Departmr::nt [where ]theywould be required to file equal number of S l,Ps before theHon'ble Supreme Courl and it would be further burdening theexchequt:r of the Union of India. It was also the c ontention of theleamed Standing Counsel that no prejudice would be caused to theinterest of the petitioners in case if this writ petitior, is kept pendingtill the finalization of the SLPs pending befole the Hon'bleSupreme Court and the fact that the petitioner is zrlready enjoyingthe benefit of interim protection. Nonetheless, on lhe earlier queryof this Court as to why the Income Tax Departmer t havc not oomeout with a mechanism to issue appropriate instru<:tions [,rr ]to take appropriate steps in ensuring that proceedings under Section 148.4of the Act as also the assessment orders under Section 148 of theAct are kept in a hold in the light ofthe decisions dedcided by thevarious High Courts, it was submitted by the leamed StandingCounsel that the said steps can only be taken at the level of CBDTas any such steps would have to be taken Pan India and cannot belimited to any of these [jurisdictional ]High Courts. 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 Courl allowing rvrit petitions on the very sameissue. The Income Tax authorities concemed are still even now in2025 also initiating proceedings in contravention to the provisionsof Section l51A of the Act and as a result by now, more than 600to 700 petitions have been already got piled up before this HighCourt on an issue which otherwise stands squarely covered by thejudgment of this Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy(1 supra). What is also surprising is the fact that though whileallowing the writ petitions in the case of Kanakala RavindraReddy (l supra), the Division Bench while reserving the right ofthe Revenue, has also protected the interest of the petitioners insofar as the liberty which was granted to ttre Revenue forinitiating fresh proceedings strictly in accordance uith the amendedprovisions of the Act, as amended by the Finance Act, 2020 andthe Finance Act,2021. The petitioner assessee worLld be entitled tochallenge or raise the other legal objections if the Flevenue initiatesfresh proceedings. The Department has made no endeavour inavailing the said liberty that was reserued for the Revenue. On thecontrary, they have been still sticking on to the srand, rvhich thisHigh Court as well as rnany other High Courts aheady held to bebad. 11. It appears that because ofthe aforesaid liberry that this HighCourt had granted permitting the Revenue lor initiating freshproceedings as a one-time measure in a facele ss manner. theIncome [-lax ]Deparlment wants to take advantagc of the same byprotractitrg thcse proceedings which would enable treln to meet thelimitation that would otherwise come in the way. t,ikewise, if thewrit petition is kept pending for a considerable lon;r 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 SI-Ps are still pending, tlie Income Tax Department would [get ]the advantage [of ][the ][liberty ][that is otherwise]protected in favour of the Revenue for initiation of [fresh]proceedings from the disposal of these matters at [a ][much later ][stage]which would be advantageous and [beneficial ][to ][the ][Revenue and]would be equally disadvantageous and detrimental [so ][far ][as ][interest]of the assesses are concerned. [As ][a consequence, ][the ][Income ][Tax]Department gets an extended [period ]of [time ][for ][initiation ][of ][fresh]proceedings 12. The alarming trend of docket [explosion in this Court, ][despite]the clear precedent set in Kanakala [Rovindra ][Reddy ][(l ][supra), ][is ][a]matter of grave concem. The [Income ][Tax ][Department's persistent]initiation of fresh [proceedings, ][disregarding ][the established ][judicial]pronouncements, has led to an [unprecedented ][surge ][in ][litigation]with over 600-700 [petitions ][piling ][up ][on ][the ][same issue- This]deliberate approach [not ][only ][undermines the ][principle ][of judicial]precedent but also strains the [judicial ][resources ][unnecessarily. ][The]of [awaiting the ][Supreme ][Court's decision on]Department's strategy pending SLPs while continuing to initiate [fresh ][proceedings]appears to be a calculated [move ]to buy [time ][and ][circumvent]limitation periods, rather than adhering to [the ][established ][legal] position. Such conduct raises serious questions about theadministrative efficiency and the respect Ibr [jud ]icialpronounc,ements, particularly when this Court has a lreadv provideda balanced approach by preserving both the Reve.rue's rights andassesses interests. 13. Another aspect which needs to be considered is that. in fact itshould have been realized by the Income Tax Department itsell- andshould havc found out via rnedia in ensuring tlrat procecdingsunder Sections 148-4 and 148 shouid not have b:en issued in afaceless rnanner, at least till the Hon'ble Supremc [(lourt ]decide thetwelve hundred (1200) odd SLPs which it is alreadl, seized of or, atleast the Income Tax Department should have firund out someremedial steps to ensule that whcrever the authc,r'ilies 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 assr:ssee thatthey shal[ initiate appropriate proceedings only aftr:r the SLP's aredecided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the v,.:1y sarne issue.This again, the Income Tax Department, has not becn able to give aconvincing reply, except for the fact that such a d:cision if at all has to be taken, has to be taken [for ][the ][whole ][of ][India, 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 ][learned]Standing Counsel for the lncome Tax [Department ][contended ][that]the Delhi High Courr dismissed a [writ petition ][of ][similar ][nature, ][on]the one hand when the High [Court ][is ][struggling ][to ][reduce ][its]pendency, such notices which are [under challenge ][in ][this ][writ]petition are forcing the assessee [to ][knock the ][doors ][of ][this ][High]Court resulting in filing olhundreds [of ][new ][writ ][petitions which ][in]the long run not only affects the [disposal ][of ][the ][writ ][petitions but]also consumes substantial time [of ][the ][Bench ][in ][hearing ][these]matters again and again on [daily ][basis. Admittedly, ][in spite of ][the]matter before the Hon'ble Supreme [Court ][having ][been ][taken on]many occasions, the Hon'ble [Supreme ][Court ][which ][is ][seized of the]matter has been reluctant [in ][granting any ][interim ][protection ][to the]Income Tax Departrnent. [Yet, ][the ][authorities ][concemed ][at ][the]State level are not [ready ][to ][accept the ][verdict ][passed ][by a ][majority]of High Courts of different [States on ][the ][same ][issue; and ][to ][make]things further worse, the [Income ][Tax ][Department ][is ][showing]audacity by issuing notices continuously [under Sections ][148-4 ][and] 148 thror:gh the [jurisdictional ]Assessing Officer rrhereas it oughtto have been only in the faceless manner. 14. In thc case of BANK OF INDIA vs, ASSISTANTCOMMISSIONER, INCOME TAXI', on o,., issu,.: r,r'hethet il wasjustihable on the part of the Incorne fax DeJrarlmerlt in notfollowing an order passed by the adjudicating auth()rity only on theground that the appeals are pending, the Division Bench of theHigh Court of Bombay held at paragraph No.25 as .rnder. viz., : "25. Mr. Paridwalla has rightly drawn out attertion to thedecision of this Court in Commissioner of lncome'll'ax vs. Smt.Godavaridevi Sarafl2 as also the recent decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Samp Furniture (P) l-td. v. lTOl3of which one of us (Justice G.S. Kulkarni) was a menber, whereinthe Court categorically observed that the Revenur: having not"accepted" the judgment of the High Court would not rnean thal tillthe same is set aside in a manner known to law, it would loose itsbindrng force. Referring to the decision of the Suprr:me 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 critir:ized by theSupreme Court. ln such decision, following are the relevantobservations made by the Supreme Court. " 120251 [170 ][raxmann.com ][422 (Bornbay)l] '' Jteztl [l3 ][ItR ][589 ][(Bombay)] t' IZOZ+1 [165 ][taxrnann.com 581/300 Taxrnan ][452 (Bombay)]IZOZ+1 [165 ][taxrnann.com 581/300 Taxrnan ][452 (Bombay)] 'o ltggzl [raxmann.com l6155 ] [(SC)] t. II " 120251 [170 ][raxmann.com ][422 (Bornbay)l] '' Jteztl [l3 ][ItR ][589 ][(Bombay)] t' IZOZ+1 [165 ][taxrnann.com 581/300 Taxrnan ][452 (Bombay)]IZOZ+1 [165 ][taxrnann.com 581/300 Taxrnan ][452 (Bombay)] 'o ltggzl [raxmann.com l6155 ] [(SC)] t. II "6. Sri Reddy is [perhaps ][right ][in ][saying ][that ][the]officers were not actuated by any [mala ][fides ][in]passing the impugned .orders. They [perhaps]genuinely felt that the claim of the assessee [was ][not]tenable and that, if it was accepted, [the ][Revenue]would suffer. But what Sri [Reddy overlooks ][is ][that ][we]are not concerned here [wlth ][the ][correctness ][or]otherwise of their conclusion or [of ][any ][factual]malafides but with the fact [that ][the officers, in reaching]in their conclusion, [by-passed ][two ][appellate ][orders ][in]regard to the same issue [which ][were ][placed ][before]them, one of the Collector [(Appeals) and ][the ][other ][of]the Tribunal. The [High Court ][has, ][in our ][view, ][rightly]critrcized this conduct of the [Assistant ][Collectors ][and]the harassment to the [assessee caused by ][the ][failure]of these officers to [give ]effect to [the ][orders ][of]authorities higher to them [in ][the appellate ][hierarchy. ][lt]cannot be too vehementl! [emphasized ][that ][it ][is ][of]utmost importance that, [in ][disposing ][of ][the]quasijudicial issues before them, [revenue ][officers ][are]bound by the decisions of [the ][appellate ][authorities-]The order of the Appellte Collector [is ][binding on ][the]Assistant Collectors [working ][within ][his ][jurisdiction ][and]the order of the [Tribunal is binding upon the Assistant]Collectors and the [Appellate Collectors who ][function]under the [jurisdiction of the ][Tribunal. ][The ][principles ][of]yudicial discipline require [that ][the ][orders ][of ][the ][higher]appellate authorities [should ][be ][followed ][unreservedly]by the subordinate authorities. [The ][mere ][fact ][that the]order of the appellate [authority ][is ][not ]["acceptable" to]the department - in itself [an objectionable phrase ]-and is the subject matter [of an appeal ][can furnish no]ground for not following it unless [its ][operation ][has]been suspended [by ]a [competent ][court. ][lf ][this ][healthy] rule is not followed, the result will only be undueharassment to assesses and chaos in adminir:rtrationof tax laws. 12. We have dealt with this aspect at some length,because it has been suggested by the lrarnedAdditional Solicitor General that the observationsmade by the High Court, have been harsh :n theofficers. lt is clear that the observations of the HighCourt, seemingly vehe,ment, and app arentlyunpalatable to the Revenue, are only intended io curba tendency in revenue matters which, if allo.ved tobecome widespread, could result in consir:lerableharassment to the assesses-public without any 3enefitto 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 udicialdiscipline and the need for giving effect to the ordersof the higher appellate authorities which are :rindingon them." 15. What is wonying this Bench more is tl c fact that anendeavour is being made whole heartedly to ensurt: not to generatefurther titigation on issues which have been laid t(, rest by a largenumber of High Courts all of whom have taken a lonsistent standthat the action of the lncome Tax Department beinp. violative of the ( 15. What is wonying this Bench more is tl c fact that anendeavour is being made whole heartedly to ensurt: not to generatefurther titigation on issues which have been laid t(, rest by a largenumber of High Courts all of whom have taken a lonsistent standthat the action of the lncome Tax Department beinp. violative of the ( Finance Act,2020 and Finance Act,202l. Now, in order to protectthe interest of the Revenue as also that of the assessee, it would betrite at this [juncture, ]if we disposc of the writ petition with anobseruation/direction that the disposal of the instant writ petition interms of the [judgment ]rendered by this High Court in the case ofKankanala Ravindra Reddy (l supra) shall however be subject tothe outcome of the SLPs which were hled 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 [the]considered opinion that unless and until we do not [timely ][dispose]of matters which are squarely covered by the decision [of this Court]and which stands fortified by the decisions of the [various ][other]High Courts on the very same issue, the [pendency ]of [this ][High]Court would further be burdened [which ][otherwise ][can ][be ][decided]and disposed of as a covered matter. 17 . So far as the interest far as the interest as the interest the interest of the Revenue is concemed, the Revenue is concemed, Revenue is concemed, [[we ][are ][of]][[are ][of]][[of]]the considered opinion that the interest of the Revenue [has ][already]been considered and protected, as has been observed in [paragraphs] So far as the interest far as the interest as the interest the interest of the Revenue is concemed, the Revenue is concemed, Revenue is concemed, [[we ][are ][of]][[are ][of]][[of]] 36,37 and 38 of the order which, for ready referenr. e, is reproducedhereunde:r: 36. For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugn3d noticesissued and the proceedings drawn by the re;pondent-Department is neither tenable. nor sr.stainable.The notices so issued and the procedure adot:ted beingper se illegal, deserves to be and are accor,lingly setaside/quashed. As a consequence, all the mpugnedorders getting quashed, the consequential orde rs passedby the respondent-Department pursuant to the noticesissued under Section 147 and 148 would also getquashed and it is ordered accordingly. The rilason weare [quashing ]the consequential order is on the principlesthat when the initiation of the proceedings tself wasprocedurally wrong, the subsequent orders also getsnullif ied automatically. 37. The [preliminary ]objection raised by the pr:ditioner issustained and all these writ petitions stands a'lowed onthis very [jurisdictional ]issue. Since the impugnr:rd noticesand orders are getting quashed on the point ofjurisdiction, we are. not rnclined to proceed further anddecide the other issues raised by the petitiorer whichstands reserved to be raised and contend,:d in anapproprrate proceedings. 38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, ir the caseof Ashish Agarwal, supra, as a one-time measureexercising the powers under Article 142 of theConstitution of lndia, permitted the Revenue trl proceedunder the substituted provisions, and this Coult allowingthe petitions only on the procedural flaw, the right conferred on the Revenue would remain reserved toproceed further lf they s6 want from the stage of theorder of the Supreme Court in the case ofAshishAgarwal, supra. 38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, ir the caseof Ashish Agarwal, supra, as a one-time measureexercising the powers under Article 142 of theConstitution of lndia, permitted the Revenue trl proceedunder the substituted provisions, and this Coult allowingthe petitions only on the procedural flaw, the right conferred on the Revenue would remain reserved toproceed further lf they s6 want from the stage of theorder of the Supreme Court in the case ofAshishAgarwal, supra. 18. We would only f'urther like to make observations that sincewc are inclined to dispose ol- the instant writ petition, conscious ofthe fact that the earlier order of this High Court in the case ofKanakalu Ravindro Reddy (l supra) is subjected to challengebcfore the Hon'ble Supreme Courl in SLP No.3574 of [2024,]prelerred by the Income Tax Departrnent, rve make it c lear thatallowing of the instant writ petition is subject to outcome of [the]aforesaid SLP preferred by the Revenue against the decision of [this]High Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (l stpra)This, in other words, would mean that either of the [parties, ]if [they]so want, rnay move an appropriate [petition ]seeking [revival ][of ][this]writ petition in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble SupremeCourt in the pending SLP on the [very ][same ][issue] t 9. Accordingly, the instant writ [petition ][stands ][allowed ][in]lavour of the assessee so far' as the issue of [jurisdiction]ISconcemed. As a consequence, the impugned notice [under]challenge under Sections 148-4 and [148 ]stands [set ][aside/quashed.] tI The consequential orders, if any, also stand set aride/quashed insimilar terms as have been passed by this High Cor rt in tlre case ofKankonula Ravintlrs Reddy (l supra). There shal be no ordcr asto costs Consequcntly, nriscellaneous petitions pendir:g, if any, shallstand closed SD/. K. AMMAJI,,NDPUTY REGISTRAR//TRUE COPY// , \\rSECTION OFFICER, \\rSECTION OFFICERTo,\\1The Towers. A.C. Guards, lncome Tax Off icer. Hyderabad Ward - 1 SOO6O+|-- f 1t 1, UyOerab\\d.,[---y]lncome Ta;< Office, l_T2Th^e f rincipal Commissione_r- Of lncome Tax - 2 lncome Tax Towers,A.C.Guards, Hyderabad - 5000041The Towers. A.C. Guards, lncome Tax Off icer. Hyderabad Ward - 1 SOO6O+|-- f 1t 1, UyOerab\\d.,[---y]lncome Ta;< Office, l_T2Th^e f rincipal Commissione_r- Of lncome Tax - 2 lncome Tax Towers,A.C.Guards, Hyderabad - 500004JOne CC to SRt UPADHYAY RAGHAVENDER, Advocate [OpUC]4One CC to Ms J.SUN|THA, Sr. SC TNCOME TAX 4One CC to Ms J.SUN|THA, Sr. SC TNCOME TAX Two CD CopiesBSRGJGGJG 4-i: i l HIGH COURTDATED:0410812025 ..--.::.-.--:\,l:'i-ai ' it: 5.',i r,l -,: ..\[:--].l1lj [sEP 206]*t/ o ORDERWP.No.22835 of 2025 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION,WITHOUT COSTS ,{-us