Sri Venkatesh Vorsu v. Tr/Allaiah, Aoed About 56 Vears.occ. Business, H

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYT}ERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, TI-IE THIRTIETH DAY OF APRILTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYAND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION NO: 28535 0F 2024 Between: Sri Venkatesh Vorsu, S/o. Sri V. tr/allaiah, aoed about 56 vears.Occ. Business, H.No.1-1^-306/364, Sri Ram Nagei Coiony, noaa No.S, (ipiiiECIL, Hyderabad - 500062. ...PETITIONER AND 1 . Ttre lncome T_ax O,fficer, Ward - 1 5(1 ), I.T. Towers, A.C. Guards, Masabtank,Hyderabad - 500004.Hyderabad - 500004. 2. Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre, lncome TaxDepartment, Ministry of Finance, Room No. 4O1 ,2nd Flobr, E-Ramp,Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, Delhi - 1 10 003.Department, Ministry of Finance, Room No. 4O1 ,2nd Flobr, E-Ramp,Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, Delhi - 1 10 003. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of rndia praying that in thecircurnstances stated in the affidavit fited therewith, the High Court may bepleased to pass an order or direction, especially one in the nature of WRIT OFMANDAMUS holding that the order passed by lstRespondent u/s.148A(d) of theAct, dt.0710412023 with DIN and Notice No.tTBtuAST/F t14BN2O23_2411051931634(1 ) and the notice dated otto4t2o23 issued under section 14g ofthe Act with DIN and Notice No. |TBAJAST/S/14B it2o23-241105193i887(1) for ttreassessment year 2019-20, as being illegal, arbitrary and passed in gross violationof principles of natural justice without application of mind, and consequerfly setaside the same. 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 ][pleased ][to]the [operation of ][the ][notice issued ][by ][the ][1st Respondent ][u/s ][148 ][of ][the]suspend Acl, dt.O7 t}4t2023 [for the ][assessmenl year ][2O19-2O ][with ] [and ][Notice ][No' ][lT]consequential ProceedingsBA/AST/S/148 [112023-24t1051931887(1) ][and ][all]thereto. Counsel [for the Petitioner: ] [A' ][V' ] Counsel for [the ][Respondents: ] (Jr. SC FOR INCoME [TAX)] The Court [made ][the ][following: ] ,:J TIIE IIONOURABLE [JUSTICE P'SAM KOSITY]ANDTHE IIONOURABLE NANDIKONDA TITIO [No.][28535 o][f2024] WRIT ORDER [(per ][Hon'ble ][Sri ][Jrt'stice ][P'Sam Koshy)] Heard [Mr. ][A'V'Raghu ][Ram' ][leamed counsel ][for ][the]petitioner [and ][Ms' ][B'Sapna ][Reddy' ][leamed ][Junior ][Standing]Counsel [for ][the ][Income Tax ][Department for ][the ][respondents']Perused [the ][record'] 2.Thisisawritpetitionwheretheproceedingsareeitherchallenged [to ][the ][notices ][which ][were ][issued ][under ][Section ][l48A]andl48ofthelncomeTaxAct'1961(forshort'theAct')ortheassessmentordersthosehavebeenpassedunderSectionl4Tofthe 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 ][l48A ][of ][the Act]and the [subsequent ][initiation of ][proceedings ][under ][Section ][148 ][of]the Act [by ][the ][jurisdictional ][Assessing ][Officer' ][whereas ][in ][terms]ofthe [amendment that was ][brought ][to the ][InSm6 ][Tax Act by way]of Finance [Act, ][202l ][w'e'f ]' [01'04'2021 onwards' ][proceedings] under Section l48A of the Act as also [under Section ][148 ][of ][the]Act ought to have also been issued [and proceeded ][in ][a ][faceless]manner. 3. This writ [petition ][is ][being ][taken up ][today ][only ][on ][one ][of ][the]grounds, [that ][the notices ][issued ][under Section ][l48A ][of ][the Act]and the [subsequent ][initiation of ][proceedings ][under ][Section ][148 ][of]the Act [by ][the ][jurisdictional ][Assessing ][Officer' ][whereas ][in ][terms]ofthe [amendment that was ][brought ][to the ][InSm6 ][Tax Act by way]of Finance [Act, ][202l ][w'e'f ]' [01'04'2021 onwards' ][proceedings] under Section l48A of the Act as also [under Section ][148 ][of ][the]Act ought to have also been issued [and proceeded ][in ][a ][faceless]manner. 4. The contention of the petitioner is that the contention of the petitioner is that the of the petitioner is that the the petitioner is that the petitioner is that the is that the that the the [[issue ]]ofproceedings being in violation of the Finance Act,202l i.e., theimpugned notices under Section l48A and Section [148 ]ofthe [Act]not being issued in a faceless malner, have already [been dealt ][with]and decided by this Court in the case of KANKANALARAWNDRA REDDY vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICERT [decided]on 14.09.2023 whereby a batch of writ [petitions ][were ][allowed ][and]the proceedings initiated under Section l48A as also under [Section]148 of the Act were held to be bad with consequential [reliefs on ][the]ground of it being in violation of the provisions of Section l5 A ofthe Act read with Notification 1812022 dated29.03.2022. [The ][said]judgment passed by this Court has also been subsequently followedin a large number of writ petitions which were allowed [on ][similar]terms. The contention of the petitioner is that the contention of the petitioner is that the of the petitioner is that the the petitioner is that the petitioner is that the is that the that the the [[issue ]]of \r-- 'l(2023) [156 ][taxmann.com ][178 ][(Telangana)l] EI .,n 5. Down the line, we find the line, we find line, we find find that the same issue has also beenthe same issue has also beensame issue 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 COMMTSSTONEROF INCOME TAX & OIIIERS2, Gauhati High Court in rhe caseof RAM NARAYAN SAH vs. UNION OF INDIA3, punjab andHaryana High Court in the case of JATINDER SINGH BANGUvs. IJNION OF INDIA4, and Telangana High Court in the case ofSRI VENKATARAMANA REDDY PATLOOLA vs. DEPUTYCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX5 where the issue was inrespect of international taxation, Bombay High Court in the case ofABHIN ANILKT,MAR SHAH vs. INCOME 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 Down the line, we find the line, we find line, we find find that the same issue has also beenthe same issue has also beensame issue has also beenalso beenbeen ' lzoz+1464 [rrR ][430 ][(Bom)]'[(2024) [156 ]taxmann.com [478 (Gauhati)]]" l(2024) 165 taxmann.com I l5 (Punjab & Haryana)l'12024) [167 ]taxmann.com 4l [ts{T-elangana)l]" [2024) 166 taxmano.com 679 [(Bombay)]]'[2024) 165 taxmann.com 113 (Himachal Pradesh)] Down the line, we find the line, we find line, we find find that the same issue has also beenthe same issue has also beensame issue has also beenalso beenbeen ' lzoz+1464 [rrR ][430 ][(Bom)]'[(2024) [156 ]taxmann.com [478 (Gauhati)]]" l(2024) 165 taxmann.com I l5 (Punjab & Haryana)l'12024) [167 ]taxmann.com 4l [ts{T-elangana)l]" [2024) 166 taxmano.com 679 [(Bombay)]]'[2024) 165 taxmann.com 113 (Himachal Pradesh)] DATIYABHAI RADADIYA [vs. INCOME ] [OFFICE&]WARD 3(3)(18, [Jharkand ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ][SIfYAM]SUNDAR SAW [vs. ] [INDIAe, ][Rajasthan ][High ][Court ][in]the case of SHARDA [DEVI CIIHAJER vs' ] OFFICER & [and ][batch ][of writ ][petitionsro which]stood decided on [19.03.2024. ][Similar views ][have ][also been ][taken]the Division [Bench ][of ][Catcutta ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]by GIRDHAR GOPAL [vs.IIMON ] [& ] (M.A.T 1690 of 2023), decided [on ][25.09.2024']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 ][Ravindra ][Reddy]82024 sCC online Guj 4012'2025 [Online ][Jhar ][287]'012021, [RJ-JD:4984-DBl] (l supra) has been subjected to challenge in a Special LeavePetition i.e., SLP No.3574 of 2024 before the Hon,ble SupremeCourt and the Hon'ble Supreme Court is seized of the maffer.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 leamed 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 rnore 16 months havelapsed, till date, we do not find any remedial sreps having beentaken by the Income Tax Department to take appropriate steps toeither hold back issuance of notice under Section l4gA and underSection 148 of the Act by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer.rather the authorities concemed 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 rnore 16 months havelapsed, till date, we do not find any remedial sreps having beentaken by the Income Tax Department to take appropriate steps toeither hold back issuance of notice under Section l4gA and underSection 148 of the Act by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer.rather the authorities concemed in the teeth of series of decisions by all the major High [Courts ][in ][India ][are ][continuously still]initiating proceedings under [Section ][148,{ ][of ][the ][Act ][and ][also]initiating proceedings under Section [148 ][of ][the ][Act ][in]contravention to the amendments [brought into the ][Income ][Tax ][Act]pursuant to the Finance Act,2020 [as ]also [the ][Finarce ][Lct202l.]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 ol Kanakala Ravindra [Reddy ][(l ][supra), leamed ][Standing]Counsel for the Income [Tax ][Department ][contends ][that ][those ][would]unnecessarily burden the [lncome ][Tax ][Department ][where ][they]would be required to file equal [number ]of [SLPs ][before ][the]Hon'bte Supreme Court and it [would ]be [further ][burdening ][the]exchequer of the Union ol lndia. [It ][was also ][the ][contention ][of ][the]learned Standing Counsel [that ][no ][prejudice ][would ][be ][caused ][to ][the]interest of the petitioners in [case ][if ][this ][writ ][petition ][is ][kept pending]till the finalization oF the [SLPs pending before ][the ][Hon'ble]Supreme Court and the [fact that the petitioner ][is ][already ][enjoying]the benefit of interim [protection' ][Nonetheless, ][on ][the ][earlier query]of this Court as to why the Income Tax [Department ][have ][not ][come]out with a mechanism to issue appropriate instructions [or to ][take] -,'| appropriate steps in ensuring that proceedings under Section 148,4.of 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 learned 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 Court allowing writ petitions on the very sameissue. The Income Tax authorities coflcemed are still even now in2025 also initiating proceedings in contravention to the provisionsof Section l5 I A 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(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 petitioners insofar as the [liberty which was ][granted ][to ][the ][Revenue for]fresh [proceedings ][strictly ][in ][accordance ][with ][the ][amended]initiating of [the ][Act, ][as ][amended ][by ][the ][Finance ][Act' ][2020 ][an,d]provisions theFinanceAct,202I.ThepetitionerassesseewouldbeentitledtochallengeorraisetheotherlegalobjectionsiftheRevenueinitiatesfresh proceedings. [The ][Department has made ][no ][endeavour ][in]the [said ][liberty ][that ][was reserved ][for ][the ][Revenue' ][On ][the]availing contrary, they [have ][been ][still ][sticking ][on ][to ][the ][stand, ][which ][this]Court [as ][well ][as ][many ][other ][High ][Courts ][already ][held ][to ][be]High bad. insofar as the [liberty which was ][granted ][to ][the ][Revenue for]fresh [proceedings ][strictly ][in ][accordance ][with ][the ][amended]initiating of [the ][Act, ][as ][amended ][by ][the ][Finance ][Act' ][2020 ][an,d]provisions theFinanceAct,202I.ThepetitionerassesseewouldbeentitledtochallengeorraisetheotherlegalobjectionsiftheRevenueinitiatesfresh proceedings. [The ][Department has made ][no ][endeavour ][in]the [said ][liberty ][that ][was reserved ][for ][the ][Revenue' ][On ][the]availing contrary, they [have ][been ][still ][sticking ][on ][to ][the ][stand, ][which ][this]Court [as ][well ][as ][many ][other ][High ][Courts ][already ][held ][to ][be]High bad. I 1. It appears [that ][because ][of ][the aforesaid ][liberty ][that this ][High]Court had [granted ][permitting ][the ][Revenue ][for ][initiating ][fresh]proceedings as a [one-time ][measure ][in ][a ][faceless ][manner' ][the]Income Tax [Department ][wants ][to ][take ][advantage ][of ][the ][same ][by]these [proceedings ][which would ][enable ][them ][to ][meet the]protracting limitation that [would ][otherwise come ][in ][the ][way' ][Likewise' ][if ][the]rirrit petition is [kept pending ][for ][a ][considerable long ][period ][of ][time]and finally at a [later ][stage ][if ][the ][Hon'bte ][Supreme ][Court confirms]the decision taken [by ][this High ][Court ][as also ][by ][the ][other ][High]Courts in which [the ][SLPs are ][still ][pending, ][the ][Income ][Tax] T Department would get the advantage of the liberty that is otherwiseprotected 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 detrimental so far as interestof the assesses are concemed. As a consequence, the Income Taxwhich would be 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 gets an extended period of time for initiation of freshproceedings.proceedings. 12. The alarming trend of docket explosion in this Court, despite the clear precedent set in Kanakaln 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 ulnecessarily. 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 position. Such conduct raises 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 interests. position. Such conduct raises 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 interests. 13. Another aspect which needs to be considered is that in fact itshould have been realiz:ed by the lncome Tax Department itself andshould have found out via media in ensuring that proceedingsunder Sections l4g_A and I4g 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 I4g-A and l4g, other than in afaceless manner, the proceedings should have been defenedwithout 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 reply, except for the fact that such a decision if at all 'a has to be taken, has to be taken for the whole of India, and whichotherwise has to be by way ofa policy decision and that too at thelevel of Central Board of Direct Taxes. Though the learnedStanding Counsel for the lncome Tax Department contended thatthe Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition of similar nature, onthe one hand when the High Court is struggling to reduce itspendency, such notices which are under challenge in this writpetition are forcing the assessee to knock the doors of this HighCourt resulting in fiting of hundreds of new writ petitions which inthe long run not only affects the disposal of the writ petitions butalso consumes substantial time 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 theIncome Tax Departmenr. 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 showingaudacity by issuing notices continuously under Sections l4g-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 OF [vs. ] COMMISSIONE& INCOME [TAXrr, ][on ][an issue ][whether ][it ][was]justifiable on the part of the lncome Tax Department in [not]following an order [passed ]by the [adjudicating authority only ][on ][the]ground that the appeals are [pending, ][the ][Division ][Bench ][of ][the]High Court of Bombay held at [paragraph ][No.25 ][as ][under, ][viz., ][:] "25. Mr. Paridwalla has rightly drawn out attention to [the]decision of this Court in Commissioner [of lncome ][Tax ][vs- ][Smt.]Godavaridevi Sarafl2 as also the [recent ][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 iudgment of the High Court would [not ][mean ][that ][till]the same is set aside in a manner [known ][to ][law, ][it ][would loose ][its]binding force. Referring to the [decision ][of ][the ][Supreme Court ][in]Union of India vs. Kamlakshi Finance [Corporation ][Ltd.r4, the]Court observed that the approach of the [officials ][of ][Revenue ][of]treating decisions being ["not ]acceptable" [was ][criticrzed ][by ][the]Supreme Court. ln such decision, [following ][are the ][relevant]observations made by the Supreme [Court.] " 11zozs1 [170 ][taxmaon.com 422 ][(Bombay)l] '' 1t9281 [113 ] [589 ][@ombay)] " 11zozs1 [170 ][taxmaon.com 422 ][(Bombay)l] '' 1t9281 [113 ] [589 ][@ombay)] " 12Oz+1165 [taxmann.com 581/300 Taxman 452 ][(Bombay)] 'o 119921taxmann.com [16/55 ] [433 (SC)] I' ,l "6. Sri Reddy is perhaps right in saying that theofficers were not actuated by any mala fides inofficers were not actuated by any mala fides inpassing the impugned orders. They peftapsgenuinely felt that the claim of the assessee was nottrenable and that, if it was accepted, the Revenuewould suffer. But what Sri Reddy overlooks is that weare not concerned here with the correctness orwould suffer. But what Sri Reddy overlooks is that weare not concerned here with the correctness orotherwise of their conclusion or of any factualmalafides but with the fact that the offrcers, in reachingin their conclusion, by-passed two appellate orders inregard to the same issue which were placed beforemalafides but with the fact that the offrcers, in reachingin their conclusion, by-passed two appellate orders inregard to the same issue which were placed beforethem, one of the Collector (Appeals) and the other ofthe Tribunal. The High Court has, in our view, righ ythe Tribunal. The High Court has, in our view, righ ycriticized this conduct of the Assistant Collectors andthe harassment to the assessee caused by the failweof these officers to give effect to the orders ofthe harassment to the assessee caused by the failweof 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 areutmost importance that, in disposing of thequasijudicial issues before them. revenue officers arebound by the decisions of the appellate authorities.The order of the Appeltte Collector is binding on theAssistant Collectors working within his jurisdiction andthe order of the Tribunat is binding upon the AssistantAssistant Collectors working within his jurisdiction andthe order of the Tribunat is binding upon the AssistantCollectors and the Appellate Collectors who functionunder the [jurisdiction ]oF the Tribunat. The principles ofjudicial discipline require that the orders of the higherunder the [jurisdiction ]oF the Tribunat. The principles ofjudicial discipline require that the orders of the higherappellate authorities should be followed unreserrredlyby the subordinate authorities_ The mere fact that theby the subordinate authorities_ The mere fact that theorder of the appellate authority is not 'acceptable" tothe department - in itself an objectionable phrase -and is the subject matter of an appeal can furnish noand 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 followed, [the ][result ][will ][only ][be ][undue]harassment to assesses [and chaos ][in ][administration]of tax laws. rule is not followed, [the ][result ][will ][only ][be ][undue]harassment to assesses [and chaos ][in ][administration]of tax laws. 12. We have dealt [with ][this ][aspect ][at ][some ][length,]because it has [been ][suggested ][by the ][learned]Additional Solicitor [General ][that ][the ][observations]made by the High Court, [have been harsh ][on ][the]ofticers. 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 [mafters which, ][if ][allowed ][to]become widespread, [could ][result ][in ][considerable]harassment to the assesses-public [without any benefit]to the Revenue. [We ][would ][like ][to ][say ][that ][the]should [take these ][observations ][in ][the]department proper spirit. The observations [of ][the ][High Cou(]should be kept [in ][mind ][in ][future ][and ][the utmosl ][regard]should be [paid by ][the ][adjudicating authorities and ][the]to [the ][requirements ][of ][judicial]appellate authorities discipline and the [need ][for giving ][effect ][to the ][orders]of the higher appellate [authorities ][which ][are ][binding]on them." 15. What is [worrying ][this ][Bench ][more ][is ][the ][lact that ][an]endeavour 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 ][stand]that the action of the Income Tax [Department being ][violative of ][the] Finance Act, 2020 and Finance Act, 2OZl. Now, in order to protectthe interest of the Revenue as also that of the assessee, it would bethe 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 inobservation/direction that the disposal of the instant writ petition interms of the judgment rendered by this High Court in the case ofKankanala Ravindra Reddy (1 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,bleKankanala Ravindra Reddy (1 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. [n 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 decidedard disposed ofas 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 paragraphs\\\ .__ .__ 36,37 and 38 of the order [which, 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 ][being]per se illegal, deserves to be and are accordingly [set]aside/quashed. As a consequence, [all ][the ][impugned]orders [getting quashed, ]the [consequential orders ][passed]by the respondent-Department [pursuant ][to ][the ][notices]issued under Section 147and 148would also [get]quashed and it is ordered accordingly. The reason [we]are [quashing ]the consequential [order ][is ][on ][the ][principles]that when the initiation of the [proceedings ][itself ][was]procedurally wrong, the subsequenl orders also [gets]nullified automatically. hereunder: 36. For all the aforesaid [reasons, the impugned notices]issued and the [proceedings ]drawn [by ][the ][respondent-]Department is neither tenable, nor [sustainable.]The notices so issued and the [procedure adopted ][being]per se illegal, deserves to be and are accordingly [set]aside/quashed. As a consequence, [all ][the ][impugned]orders [getting quashed, ]the [consequential orders ][passed]by the respondent-Department [pursuant ][to ][the ][notices]issued under Section 147and 148would also [get]quashed and it is ordered accordingly. The reason [we]are [quashing ]the consequential [order ][is ][on ][the ][principles]that when the initiation of the [proceedings ][itself ][was]procedurally wrong, the subsequenl orders also [gets]nullified automatically. 37. The [preliminary ]objection [raised ][by ][the ][petitioner ][is]sustained and all these writ [petitions stands allowed ][on]this very iurisdictional issue. [Since ]the [impugned ][notices]and orders are [getting ][quashed ]on the [point ][of]jurisdiction, we are not inclined to proceed further anddecide the other issues raised by the [petitioner ][which]stands reserved to be raised and [conlended ][in ][an]appropriate [proceedings.] 38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme [Court had, ][in ][the case]of Ashish Agatwal, supra, as a [one-time ][measure]exercising the [powers ][under ][Article ][142 ][of ][the]Constitution of [lndia, permifted ][the ][Revenue ][to ][proceed]under the substituted [provisions, and this Court ][allowing]the [petitions ]only [on ][the ][procedural ][flaw, ][the ][right].>-- .) ;, confened on [the ][Rev€nue ][would ]remain reserved toproceed further if they so want from the stage of theorder of the Supreme Court in the case of AshishAgarwal, supra. 18. We would only further like to make observations that sincewe are inclined to dispose of tlre instant writ petition, conscious ofthe fact that the earlier order of this High Court in the case ofKanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra) is subjected to challengebefore the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No.3574 of 2024,preferred by the Income Tax Department, we make it clear thatallowing of the instant writ petition is subject to outcome of theaforesaid SLP preferred by the Revenue against the decision ofthisHigh Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra).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 Hon'ble SupremeCourt in the pending SLP on the very same issue. 19. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands allowed infavour of the assessee so far as the issue of jurisdictionlsconcerned. As a consequence, the impugned notice underchallenge under Sections 148-4 and 148 stands set aside/quashed ( ( lII 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 Ravindra [Reddy ][(l ][supra). ][There shall be ][no ][order ][as] to costs. miscellaneous [petitions pending, ][if ][any, ][shall]Consequently, stand closed. SD/- A. [S] TANT //TRUE SECTION A.C. [Guards, Masabtank'] To, 1. The lncome Tax Officer, Ward - 1 5(1)' l'T' TA.C. Hvderabad [- ][500004]2. Assessment [Unit, National Faceles][s ][Assessment Centre, ][lncome ][Tax]Depa[rtment, ][N4inistry o][f ][Finance, Room ][No. ][401' 2nd ][Floor, E-RamP,]Jawaha [rlal Nehru Stadium' Delhi ][- ][110 003]ucl3One CC [tc][ Sri ] [Raghu Ram,][ Advocate]Cfor lncolnco[[me ][Tax) ]][[Tax) ]][[ ]]4One CC [to ][N4s ][Bo]karo Sa[pna ][ReddY ][(Jr. ][S][ toP]5Two CD [CoPies] uclCfor lncolnco[[me ][Tax) ]][[Tax) ]][[ ]][[ toP]] TJGJI HIGH COURT DATED:3010412025 iiit S i4re.,(t-\ORDERI2 [[l]B ][206]jj/*- ,'/WP.No.28535 of 2024,.. [* ],.i' Di-'< ;'a' r'.'i ;':/ ALLOWING THE WITHOUT COSTS