Sapnareddy, ][Learned ][Junior ][Standing]Counsel For The [Income ][Tax ][Department ][For ][The ][Respondents']Perused The Record v. Income-Tax Officert Decidedon 14.09.2023 Whereby A Batch Of Writ Petitions Were Allowed Andthe Proceedings Initia

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENW EIGHTH DAY OF APRILTWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA wRlT PETtTlOtt tto: rrrs oF 2o2s Between: Rahul Bal Govind Deshpande, S/o: B G Deshpande, Aged about 50 years,Occupation. Business, R/o. PLOT NO 100 GROUND Floor Durga Estates,Jeedimetla Hyderabad 5000f.5 Telangana, I ndia. ...PETITIONER AND 1- Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre, lncome TaxDepartment, Ministry of Finance, Room No. 4O1,2ndFloor, E-Ramp,Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, New Delhi - 110 003.Department, Ministry of Finance, Room No. 4O1,2ndFloor, E-Ramp,Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, New Delhi - 110 003. 2The Income Tax officer, ward 12(1), Hyderabad Aaykar Bhawan, Opposite LbStadium, Basheer Bagh, Hyderabad, Telangana, lndiaStadium, Basheer Bagh, Hyderabad, Telangana, lndia ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may becircumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may bepleased to pass an order or direction, especially one in the nature of WRIT OFMANDAMUS holding that the notice issued by the 2nd Respondent u/s. ['148 ]of theAct, dt.08.03.2024 with DIN No. ITBA/AST/S/148-112023-2411162220511(1)fot theMANDAMUS holding that the notice issued by the 2nd Respondent u/s. ['148 ]of theAct, dt.08.03.2024 with DIN No. ITBA/AST/S/148-112023-2411162220511(1)fot theAy. 2020-21 , as arbitrary, illegal, bad in law, void ab initio, violation of principles ofnatural [justice ]apart from violative of Articles 14, 19 (1Xg) and 265 of constitutionof lndia, apart from being violative of provisions of section 148A and section 1 49 ofnatural [justice ]apart from violative of Articles 14, 19 (1Xg) and 265 of constitutionof lndia, apart from being violative of provisions of section 148A and section 1 49 ofthe lncome Tax Act and also contrary to the circular issued by CBDT andprovisions of section 1 51A of the Act, and consequently set aside the orderprovisions of section 1 51A of the Act, and consequently set aside the orderpassed by 2nd Respondent u/s. 148 of the Act, dt. 08.03.2024 with DIN No. lrBA/AST/s/148- 1rzo23'24t1o6222oso1(1) for the Ay. 2o2o-21 and ailconsequential proceedings pursuant thereto. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to stayall further proceedings, incruding any recovery, pursuant to the order passed bythe 2nd Respondent u/s. 148 of the Act, dt. Og.03.2O24 with DINNo.ITBtuAST/S|148 1t2O23-24t10622205O1(1 ) for the Ay. 2O2O_21 . Counsel for the [petitioner: ]SRI THANNdRU CUalfAruyA KUMAR Counsel forthe Respondent No.1: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR Dy. SOL|CITOR GEN. OF tNDtA Counsel forthe Respondent No.2: tls. B. SAPNA REDDY, Sc FoR INcoME TAx DEPARTMENT The Court made the foilowing: ORDER THE HONOURABLE [P.SAM ] ANDTHE HONOURABLE NANDIKONDAWRIT PETITION No.1 r13 0F [202s] ORDER, [(per ][Hon'ble ][Sri ][Justice ][Narsing ][Rao Nandikonda)] Heard Mr. Thanneru [Chaitanya ][Kumar, ][learned ][counsel] for the petitioner and [Ms. ][B' ][SapnaReddy, ][learned ][Junior ][Standing]Counsel for the [Income ][Tax ][Department ][for ][the ][respondents']Perused the record. Z. This is a writ [petit{on ][where ][the ][proceedings ][are ][either]challenged to the [notices ][which ][were ][issued ][under ][Section ][148A]and 148 of the [Income ][Tax ][Act, ][1961 ][(for ][short'the ][Act') ][or ][the]assessment orders [those have ][been passed ][under ][Section ][147 ][of]the Act which have been [assailed.] THE HONOURABLE [P.SAM ] ANDTHE HONOURABLE NANDIKONDAWRIT PETITION No.1 r13 0F [202s] ORDER, [(per ][Hon'ble ][Sri ][Justice ][Narsing ][Rao Nandikonda)] Heard Mr. Thanneru [Chaitanya ][Kumar, ][learned ][counsel] for the petitioner and [Ms. ][B' ][SapnaReddy, ][learned ][Junior ][Standing]Counsel for the [Income ][Tax ][Department ][for ][the ][respondents']Perused the record. Z. This is a writ [petit{on ][where ][the ][proceedings ][are ][either]challenged to the [notices ][which ][were ][issued ][under ][Section ][148A]and 148 of the [Income ][Tax ][Act, ][1961 ][(for ][short'the ][Act') ][or ][the]assessment orders [those have ][been passed ][under ][Section ][147 ][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 ][1484 ][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 [tha6qas ][brought ][to ][the Income ][Tax ][Act ][by way]of Finance [Act, ][2021 ][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 contention of the petitioner is that the issue ofthe petitioner is that the issue ofpetitioner is that the issue ofis that the issue ofthat the issue ofissue ofofproceedings being in violation of the Finance Act,202l i.e., theimpugned notices under Section 148,4 and Section 148 of the Actnot being issued in a faceless manner, have already been dealt withand decided by this Court in the case of ICANKANALARAVINDRA REDDY vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICERT decidedon 14.09.2023 whereby a batch of writ petitions were allowed andthe proceedings initiated under Section l48A 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 15 1A 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. The contention contention of the petitioner is that the issue ofthe petitioner is that the issue ofpetitioner is that the issue ofis that the issue ofthat the issue ofissue ofof I l(2023) 156 taxmann.com 178 (Telangana)l 5. Down the line, we find that the same issue has also beenline, we find that the same issue has also beenwe find that the same issue has also beenfind that the same issue has also beenthat the same issue has also beenthe same issue has also beensame issue has also beenissue has also beenalso beenbeendecided against the Revenue by various High Courts i.e.,by the Bombay High Court 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 XmDDy 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 TAXATION6 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 MANST KHBHAI' 7zozt1464 [430 ][(Bom)]'[(2024) [156 ][taxmann.com ]478 (Gauhati)]^ l(2024) [165 ]taxmann.com I I 5 (Punjab & Haryana)l Down the line, we find that the same issue has also beenline, we find that the same issue has also beenwe find that the same issue has also beenfind that the same issue has also beenthat the same issue has also beenthe same issue has also beensame issue has also beenissue has also beenalso beenbeen Down the line, we find that the same issue has also beenline, we find that the same issue has also beenwe find that the same issue has also beenfind that the same issue has also beenthat the same issue has also beenthe same issue has also beensame issue has also beenissue has also beenalso beenbeen ' 12024) [1 ][67 ][taxmann.com4ll ](Telangana)] "12024) [166 ]taxmann.com 679 (Bombay)l '[2024) [165 ]taxmann.com l l3 (Himachalpradesh)] DAHYABHAI [VS. ] [OFFICER,]WARD 3(3X5)8, [Jharkand ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ] SUNDAR [vs. ] [OF INDIAe, ][Rajasthan ][High ][Court in]the case of SHARDA [vs. INCOME ] OFFICER & ANOTHER [and ][batch ][of ][writ ][petitionsro which]stood decided on [19.03.2024. ][Similar views ][have ][also ][been ][taken]by the Division [Bench ][of ][Calcutta ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]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 of High [Courts, we ][are ][still ][confronted ][with ][large ][filing ][of]identical matters on daily [basis ][ranging ][between ][5 ][to ][10 ][writ]petitions. That upon the instructions [being ][sought ][from ][the]Department, they [have ][been ][taking ][a ][solitary ][ground ][that ][the]decision of the [Bombay ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ][Hexaware]Technologies Ltd., [(2 ][supra) ][as ][also ][the ][one which ][has ][been]decided by this Court in [the ][case ][of ][Kanakala ][Rauindra ][Reddy] 82024SCC Online Guj 4012" [2025 ]SCC [Online ][Jhar ][287]I o 7202J [: ] [:4984-DBl] (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 of the matter.In addition, there are about 1200 SLPs also filed arising out ofthesame issue being decided by various High Courts. 7. To a query being put to the Iearned counsel for the Revenue,they have categorically accepted the fact that there is no interimorder granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in any of thesematters pending before it. Meanwhile, fresh writ petitions ofidentical nature are being piled up before this Bench on daily basisand the pendency is getting increased on matter which otherwisehas already been dealt and decided by this very High Court itself. 8. On the one hand, even though the order of this Court thatwas passed as early as on 14.09.2023 and more 16 months havelapsed, till date, we do not find any remedial steps having beentaken by the Income Tax Department to take appropriate steps toeither hold back issuance of notice under Section 148A and underSection 148 of the Act by the [jurisdictional ]Assessing Offrcer,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 Income Tax Department to take appropriate steps toeither hold back issuance of notice under Section 148A and underSection 148 of the Act by the [jurisdictional ]Assessing Offrcer,rather the authorities concerned in the teeth of series of decisions by all the major High Courts in India are continuously stillinitiating proceedings under Section 148,4. of the Act and alsoinitiating proceedings under Section 148 ol the Act incontravention to the amendments brought into the Income Tax Actpursuant to the Finance Act,2020 as alsq the Finance Act202l .9. Upon a query being put as to why can't this writ petition bedisposed of in the teeth of the decision rendered by this Court inthe case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra), leamed StandingCounsel for the Income Tax Department contends that those wouldunnecessarily burden the Income Tax Department where theywould be required to file equal number of SLPs before theHon'ble Supreme Court and it would be further burdening theexchequer of the Union of India. It was also the contention of thelearned Standing Counsel that no prejudice would be caused to theinterest of the petitioners in case if this writ petition is kept pendingtill the finalization of the SLPs pending before the Hon'bleSupreme Court 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 mechanism to issue appropriate instructions or to take appropriate [steps ][in ][ensuring that ][proceedings ][under Section ][148A]ofthe Act [as ][also ][the ][assessment ][orders ][under Section ] [ofthe]Act are kept [in ][a ][hold ][in ][the ][light ][ofthe ][decisions dedcided ][by ][the]various High [Courts, ][it ][was ][submitted ][by ][the ][leamed ][Standing]Counsel [that the ][said ][steps ][can ][only ][be ][taken. ][at ][the level ][ofCBDT]as any such [steps ][would ][have ][to ][be taken Pan ][India ][and cannot be]limited to any [of ][these ][jurisdictional High ][Courts']l0.Asaresultofwhich,whatwearefacingissteepincreaseoflitigation day [in ][and ][day out ][even ][though various ][orders have ][been]passed by this [High ][Court ][allowing ][writ ][petitions on ][the ][very ][same]issue. The [Income ][Tax ][authorities ][concemed ][are ][stitl ][even ][now in]2025 also [initiating ][proceedings in contravention ][to ][the ][provisions]of Section [151A ][of ][the ][Act ][and ][as ][a ][result ][by now' ][more ][than ][600]to 700 [petitions ][have been already ][got piled ][up before ][this ][High]court on [an ][issue ][which ][otherwise ][stands ][squarely ][covered ][by ][the]judgment of this Court [in ][the ][case ][of ][Kanakala ][Ravindra ][Reddy]What [is ][also surprising ][is ][the ][fact that ][though ][while](l supra). allowing [the ][writ ][petitions ][in ][the ][case ][of ][Kanakala ][Ravindra]Reddy (l supra), [the ][Division ][Bench ][while ][reserving ][the ][right ][of]the Revenue, [has also ][protected ][the ][interest ][of ][the ][petitioners] insofar as the liberty which was granted to the Revenue forinitiating fiesh proceedings strictly in accordance u.ith the amendedprovisions of the Act, as amended by the Financc Act, 2020 andthe Finance Act,2021 . The petitioner assessee would be entitled tochallenge or raise the other legal objectigns 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 matty other High Courts already held to bebad. insofar as the liberty which was granted to the Revenue forinitiating fiesh proceedings strictly in accordance u.ith the amendedprovisions of the Act, as amended by the Financc Act, 2020 andthe Finance Act,2021 . The petitioner assessee would be entitled tochallenge or raise the other legal objectigns 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 matty other High Courts already held to bebad. I l. It appears that because ofthe aforesaid appears that because ofthe aforesaid that because ofthe aforesaid because ofthe aforesaid ofthe aforesaid aforesaid liberty that this Highthis HighCourt had granted permifting the Revenue for initiating freshproceedings as a one-time measure in a faceless manner, theCourt had granted permifting 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 timeprotracting 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 TaxCourts in which the SLPs are still pending, the Income Tax It appears that because ofthe aforesaid appears that because ofthe aforesaid that because ofthe aforesaid because ofthe aforesaid ofthe aforesaid aforesaid liberty that this Highthis High Department would get the advantage of the liberfy that id,otherwiseprotected in favour of the Revenue for initiation of freshprotected in favour of the Revenue for initiation of freshproceedings from the disposal of these matters at a much later stagewhich would be advantageous and beneficial to the Revenue andwould be equally disadvantageous and d.etrimental so far as interestof the assesses are concerned.. As a consequence, the Income TaxDepartment gets an extended period of time for initiation of freshproceedings.which would be advantageous and beneficial to the Revenue andwould be equally disadvantageous and d.etrimental so far as interestof the assesses are concerned.. As a consequence, the Income TaxDepartment gets an extended period of time for initiation of freshproceedings. 12. The alarming trend oidocket 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. Thisdeliberate approach not only undermines the principle ofjudicialprecedent but also strains the judicial resources unnecessarily. TheDepartment's strategy of awaiting the Supreme Court's decision onpending SLPs while continuing to initiate fresh proceedingsappears to be a calculated move to buy time and circumventlimitation periods, rather than adhering to the established legal questions about the position. Such conduct raises serious administrative efhciency and the [respect ][for ][judicial]pronouncements, particularly when this Court [has ][already ][provided]a balanced approach by [preserving ]both [the ][Revenuc's ][rights ][and]assesses interests. questions about the position. Such conduct raises serious administrative efhciency and the [respect ][for ][judicial]pronouncements, particularly when this Court [has ][already ][provided]a balanced approach by [preserving ]both [the ][Revenuc's ][rights ][and]assesses interests. 13. Another aspect which.needs to be considered is that [in ][fact ][it]should have been realized by the Income Tax Department [itself ][and]should have found out via 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 Court [decide the]twelve hundred (1200) odd SLPs which it is already seized ofor, [at]least the Income Tax Department should have found out someremedial 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 defenedwithout precipitating the matter further intimating the [assessee ]thatthey 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 Income Tax Department, has not been able to [give ]aconvincing reply, except for the fact that such a decision if at all has to be taken, has to be taken for the whole of India, and whichotherwise has to be by way of a policy decision and that too at theotherwise has to be by way of a policy decision and that too at thelevel of Central Board of Direct Taxes. Though the leamedStanding counsel for the 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 filing of htindreds 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 thesethe 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 interim protection to themany occasions, the Hon'ble Supreme court which is seized of thematter has been reluctant in granting any interim protection to theIncome Tax Department. yet, the authorities concerned at theState level are not ready to accept the verdict passed by a majorityof High Courts of different States on the same issue; and to makethings further worse, the Income Tax Department is showingof 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 14g_A andcontinuously under Sections 14g_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 TAX", on an issue whether it wasjustifiable on the part of the Income Tax Department ln notlollowing an order passed bythe 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., : 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 TAX", on an issue whether it wasjustifiable on the part of the Income Tax Department ln notlollowing an order passed bythe adjudicating authority only on theground that the appeals are pending, the Division Bench of theHigh Court of Bombay held at paragraph No.25 as under, viz., : "25. Mr. Paridwalla has rightly drawn out attention to thedecision of this Court in Commissioner of lncome Tax vs. Smt.Godavaridevi Sarafl2 as also the recent decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Samp Furniture (P) Ltd. v. lTO13of which one of us (Justice G.S. Kulkarni) was a member, whereinthe Court categorically observed that the Revenue having not'accepted" the judgment of the High Court would not mean that tiltthe same is set aside in a manner known to law, it would loose itsbinding force. Referring to the decision of the Supreme Court inUnion of lndia vs. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd.t4, 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. I I [(2025) I 70 taxmann.co m 422 (Bombay)]121t9281 I l3 ITR 589 (Bombay) " 7202+1165 [taxmann.com ][581/300 ][Taxman ][452 ][(Bombay)] 'o ltggZltaxmann.com [l6155 ] [433 ][(S.\] "6. Sri Reddy [is ][perhaps ][right ][in ][saying ][that ][the ][']officers [were ][not ][actuated ][by ][any ][mala ][fides ][in]the [impugned ][orders ][They ][perhaps]passing 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 ][with ][the ][correctness ][or]otheMise [of ][their ][conclusion ][or ][of ][any ][factual]malafides [but ][with ][the ][fact ][that the ][otficers' ][in reaching]in their [conclusion, by-passed ][two ][appellate orders ][in]regard [to the ][same issue ][which were ][placed ][before]tnlm, [on" ][of ][the ][collector ][(Appeals) ][and the ][other ][of]the Tribunal. [The ][High ][Court ][has' ][in our ][view' ][rightly]criticized [this ][conduct ][of ][the Assistant ][Collectors and]" caused [bY ][the ][failure]the [harassment ][to the ][asses]''"" of these [office;s ][to ][give effect ][to ][the ][orders ][of]authorities [higher ][to ][them ][in ][the ][appellate ][hierarchy ][lt]cannot [be ][too ][vehemently emphasized ][that ][it is ][of]utmost [importance ][that' ][in ][disposing ][of ][the]quasijudicial [issues ][before ][them' ][revenue ][officers are]oornO [Oy ][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]Coilectors [and ][the ][Appellate Collectors ][who ][function]under [the ]iurisdiction [of the ][Tribunal ][The principles ][of]iudicial [discipline ][require that the orders of the higher]appettate [authorities should be followed ][unreservedly]. by the subordinate [authorities ][The ][mere ][fact ][that the]orO", [ot the ][appellate authority ][is not'acceptable" ][to]the department - [in ][itself ][an ][objectionable phrase ][-]and is [the ][subiect 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]J ruirl !s iror ioilowed ihe ies..i: will only be undueharassment to assesses and chaos in administrationof tax laws. ruirl !s iror ioilowed ihe ies..i: will only be undueharassment to assesses and chaos in administrationof tax laws. 12. We have dealt with this aspect at some length,because it has been suggested by the learnedAdditional Solicitor General lhat.'lhe 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 lendency in revenue matters which, if allowed tobecome widespread, could result in considerableharassment to the assesses-public without any benefitto the Revenue. We would like to say that thedepartment should take these observations in theproper spirit. The observations of the High Courtshould be kept in mind in future and the utmost regardshould be paid by the adjudicating authorities and theappellate authorities to the requirements of judicialdiscipline and the need for giving effect to the ordersof the higher appellate authorities which are bindingon them." 15. What is worrying this Bench more is the fact that anendeavour is being made whole heartedly to ensure not to generatefurther litigation on issues which have been laid to rest by a largenumber of High Courts all of whom have taken a consistent standthat the action of the Income Tax Department being violative of the Finance Act,2020 and FinaneeAct,202l. Now; in order tcj protectthe interest of the Revenue as also that of the assessee, it would betrite at this [juncture, ]if we dispose of the writ petition with anobservation/direction that the disposal of the instant writ petition interms of the [judgment ]rendered by this High Court in the case 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 matters 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 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, for ready reference, [is reproduced]hereunder: 36. For all the aforesaid reasons, lhe impugned noticesissued and the proceedings drawn by the respondent-Department is neither tenable, nor sustainable.The notices so issued and the prooedure adopted beingper se illegal, deserves to be and are accordingly setaside/quashed. As a qonsequence, all the impugnedorders getting quashed, the consequential orders [passed]by the respondenGDepartment pursuant to the noticesissued under Section 147 and 148 would also [get]quashed and it is ordered accordingly. The reason weare quashing the ionsequential order is on the [principles]that when thq, initiation of the proceedings itself wasprocedurally wrong, the subsequent orders also getsnullified automaticalty. 37. The preliminary objection raised by the [petitioner ]issuslained and all these writ petitions stands allowed onthis very [jurisdictional ]issue. Since the impugned noticesand orders are gefting 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-time measureexercising the powers under Article 142 of theConstitution of lndia, permitted the Revenue to proceedunder the substituted [provisions, ]and this Court allowingthe petitions only on the procedural flaw, the right /././.i/ ,/ ./ 37. The preliminary objection raised by the [petitioner ]issuslained and all these writ petitions stands allowed onthis very [jurisdictional ]issue. Since the impugned noticesand orders are gefting 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-time measureexercising the powers under Article 142 of theConstitution of lndia, permitted the Revenue to proceedunder the substituted [provisions, ]and this Court allowingthe petitions only on the procedural flaw, the right /././.i/ ,/ ./ 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 ][ofAshish]Agarwal, supra. 18. We would only further [like 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]Kanakala Ravindra [Reddy ][(l ][supra) ][is ][subjected ][to ][challenge]before the Hon'ble [Supreme ][Court ][in ][SLP No.3574 ][of ][2024,]preferred by the Income [TEx ][Department, we ][make ][it ][clear ][that]allowing of the [instant,writ petition ][is ][subj ][ect ][to ][outcome ][of ][the]aforesaid SLP [preferred ][by ][the Revenue against ][the ][decision ][ofthis]High Court in the case of [Kanakala Ravindrs ][Reddy ][(l ][s:upra)']This, in other words, [would ][mean ][that either ][of ][the parties, ][if ][they]so want, may move an [appropriate ][petition ][seeking ][revival of ][this]writ petition in the light of [the ][decision ][of ][the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme]Court in the [pending SLP ][on ][the ][very ][same ][issue.] 19. Accordingly, the [instant ][writ ][petition ][stands ][allowed ][in]favour of the assessee so [far ][as ][the ][issue ][of ][jurisdiction ][is]concemed. As a [consequence, ][the ][impugned ][notice ][under]challenge under Sections [148-4 ][and ][148 ][stands ][set ][aside/quashed'] II The consequerrtial [c.'-ders, ][if ][any, also ][stand set ][aside/quashed ][in]similar teims [as ][have been ][passed ][by ][this ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]Kankanala Ravindra [Reddy ][(1, ][supra)' ][There shall be no order ][as] to costs Consequently, [tnisce[laneous ][petitions pending, ][if ][any, ][shall] stand closed. SD/-T. JAYASREEDEPUTY REgISTRARSECTIONFICER //TRUE COPY// To,1. Assessment Unit, National [Ciceless ][Assessment Centre, lncome ][Tax]Oeoartment. Miniitrv of Finance, [Room ][No. ][4O1,2nd Floor, ][E-Ramp,]Jawaharlal Nehru Siadiunn, [New Delhi ][- ][110 003.] Z. if,,jlniom" Tax [officer, ][wdrd ][12(1), ][Hyderabad Aaykar Bhawan, Opposite ][Lb]Stadium, Basheer Bagh, [Hyderabad, Telangana, lndia]a. One CCio Sri Thanniru [Chaitanya ][Kumar' ][Advocate ][OPUCI+. One CC to Sri Gadi [Praveen ][Kum'ar ][Dy. Solicitor Gen. of ][lndia ][[OP^UC]^-]d. on; aa i; Ms. B. Sapna [Reddy, ] [f6r ][lncome Tax Department ][[oPUc]]6. Two CD CopiesTJLS\0- HIGH COURT DATED:2810412025 ORDER WP.No.1113 ot 2025 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS @ $h,. 1HE 514I(€oo16 JUL zffi.,;*r:.(-.: l