T Petition Where The Petition Where The [[Proceedings ]][[Are ][Either]][[Either v. Income-Tax Offtcert Decidedon 14.09.2023 Whereby A Batch Of Writ Petitions Wcre Allowed Andthe Proceedings Initiated Under Section 148A As Also Under Section148

HIGH COURT AT HYDERABAD(Special Original [Jurisdiction)] FRIDAY ,THE TWO THOUSAND PRESENT THE HONOURABLE [JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY]ANDTHE HONOURABLE WRIT PETITI [NO: ][29097 ][0F ][2024] Between: Kakkirala Suiana, [Wo ][Kakkirala ][Ramesh,go ]-Pullaiah' [aged ][about ][58 ][years']rif ib:a-27d. [Vidvanasar, ][Karimnagar-505001] ...PETITIONER AND 1. The Assistant [Commissioner ][of ][lncome Tax Circle ][l ][Karimnaqar]2. National [Faceless ][ntse"tsiie]-'t ][c"nq" ][tn"orne ][Tax ][Deoartment' Ministry ot]Finance, Room [No ][aor ][i;i"?iio]E-'namp-,-Jawanarlal ][Nehru ][stadium, ][Delhi]1 10 00310 003003[[of]]2. National [Faceless ][ntse"tsiie]-'t ][c"nq" ][tn"orne ][Tax ][Deoartment' Ministry ot]Finance, Room [No ][aor ][i;i"?iio]E-'namp-,-Jawanarlal ][Nehru ][stadium, ][Delhi]1 10 00310 003003[[of]] 1 10 00310 0030033. Union of [lndia. rep. ][by its ][Secretary' ][Ministry- ][of ][Finance' ][Department ][[of]]" E;;;;;. i.rortn erdcx, 6"nirrl Secretdriat, New-Delhi-110 001'" E;;;;;. i.rortn erdcx, 6"nirrl Secretdriat, New-Delhi-110 001' ...RESPONDENTS Petition under [Artrcle ][226 ][of ][the Constitution ][of ][lndia ][praying ][that ][in ][the]circumstances [stated ][in ][the ][affidavit ][filed ][therewith' ][the ][High ][Court may ][be]pleased to issue an [order ][or ][direction, especially ][one ][like ] [OF MANDAMUS']holding that the [notice ][daled ][29tO312024 ][issued ][by ][1't ][Respondent under ][section]l4SoftheActwithDlNandNoticeNo|TBA/AST/S/,148112023.24t1063639126(1)aSbeingwithoutjurisdictionarbitraryillegalbadinlaw,voidabinitio apart [from ][being ][violative ][of ][provisions ][of section ][148A and ][section ]['149 ][of]theActandalsocontrarytothecirCUlarissuedbyCBDTandprovisionsofSectionl5,lAoftheActandconsequentlysetasidethenoticeundersection,l4SDlNandNoticeNoITBA/AST/S/148112023.2411063639126(1)daled2910312024 $ lA NO: 1 OF 2024 PetitionunderSectionl5lCPCprayingthatintheCircumstancesstatedinthe affidavit filed [in ][support of ][the ][petition, the High Court may ][be ][pleased ][to ][stay]the notice dated [2910312024 ][issued ][by ][1't ][Respondent ][under section ][148 ][of ][the]ActwithDlNandNoticeNoITBA/AST/S/1481t2023-2411063639126(1)andallconsequential [proceedings pending ][the ][disposal ][of the writ ][petition] Counsel for the [Petitioner: ][SRl. RAJA SHEKAR ] Counsel for the [Respondent ][Nos. ][1&2: ][Ms' ][J' ] Jr. SC FOR INCOME Counsel for the [Respondent ][No. ][3: ] [B. MUKHERJEE ] SRI GADI PRAVEEN [KUMAR, ][DY. ][SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA] The Court made [the ][following: ] TIIE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE [P.SAM ] ANDTHE HONOT]RABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSINGRAONANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION No.29097 OF 2024 QRD.EB, [(per ][Hon'ble ][Sri ][Justice P.Sam ][Koshy)] Heard Mr. Raja Shekar Salvaji, [learned counsel ][for] the petitioner, Ms. J.Sunitha, [leamed ][Junior ][Standing ][Counsel]for the Income Tax Department for [respondent ][Nos.l ][and ][2 ][and]Mr. B. Mukherjee, learned counsel [representing the ][Union ][of ][India]for respondent No.3. Perused the record. This is a writ petition where the is a writ petition where the writ petition where the petition where the [[proceedings ]][[are ][either]][[either]] 2This is a writ petition where the is a writ petition where the writ petition where the petition where the [[proceedings ]][[are ][either]][[either]]challenged to the notices which [were ][issued ][under Section 1484]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 petitioner, Ms. J.Sunitha, [leamed ][Junior ][Standing ][Counsel]for the Income Tax Department for [respondent ][Nos.l ][and ][2 ][and]Mr. B. Mukherjee, learned counsel [representing the ][Union ][of ][India]for respondent No.3. Perused the record. This is a writ petition where the is a writ petition where the writ petition where the petition where the [[proceedings ]][[are ][either]][[either]] 2This is a writ petition where the is a writ petition where the writ petition where the petition where the [[proceedings ]][[are ][either]][[either]]challenged to the notices which [were ][issued ][under Section 1484]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 ][148,{ ][of ][the ][Act]and the subsequent initiation of [proceedings under ][Section ][148 ][of]the Act by the [jurisdictional ][Assessing Off,rceq whereas ][in ][terms]of the amendment that was brought [to ][the ][Income ][Tax Act by way] of Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f., 01.04.2021 onwards, proceedingsunder Section 1484. of the Act as also under Section 148 ol 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 ofthe issue ofissue ofofproceedings being in violation of the Finance Act, 2021 i.e., theimpugned notices under Section l48A 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 KANKANALARAVINDRA REDDY vs. INCOME-TAX OFFTCERT decidedon 14.09.2023 whereby a batch of writ petitions wcre allowed andthe proceedings initiated under Section 148A as also under Section148 of the Act were held to be bad with consequential reliefs on theground of it being in violation of the provisions of Section l5 I A ofthe Act read with Notification 1812022 dated29.03.2022. The saidjudgment passed by this Court has also been subsequently followedin a large nurrber of writ petitions which were allorved 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 ofthe issue ofissue ofof '[(2023) [156 ]taxmann.com 178 (Telangana)] i 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]of RAM NARAYAN SAH [vs. ]UNION [OF INDIA3, ][Punjab ][and]Haryana High Court in the case of JATINDER SINGH vs. UNION OF INDIA4, and Telangana High Court [in ]the case ofSRI VENKATARAMANA REDDY PATLOOLA [VS. ] COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX5 where the [issue ][was ][in]respect of international taxation, Bombay High Court in the case ofABHIN ANILKUMAR SHAH VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER,INTERNATIONAL TAXATION6 which [is ]again on [intemational]taxation and central circle, High Court [of ][Himachal ][Pradesh ][in ][the]case of GOVIND SINGH [vs. ]INCOME [OFFICERT,]Gujarat High Court in the case of 'yzoz+1464 [430 (Bom)]'[(2024) [156 ][taxmarur.com 478 ][(Gauhati)]]^ [(2024) [165 ][taxmann.com ][1 ] [5 ][(Punjab ][& ][Haryana)]]' 12024) [67 ][taxmaim.com ][4 ][1 ] [(Telangana)l]" 12024) [166 ][taxmann.com 679 ][(Bombay)l]'[2024) [165 ]taxmam.^om [113 ][(Himachal ][Pradesh)]] t\ t\ DAH}ABHAi :(ADADIYA VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 3(3X5)8, Jharkand High Court in the case ot'SHyAMSUNDAR SAW vs. UNION OF INDIAe, Rajasthan High Court inthe case of SHARDA DEVI CHHAJER vs. INCOME TAXOFFICER & ANOTHER and batch of writ petitionsro whichstood decided on 19.03.2024. Similar views have also been takenby the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in the case ofGIRDHAR GOPAL DALMIA vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS(M.A.T 1690 of 2023), decided on25.09.20246. Even though the same issue having been decjded by a largenumber of High Courts, we are still confronted with large filing ofidentical matters on daily basis ranging between 5 to 10 writpetitions. That upon the instructions being sought fiom theDepartment, they have been taking a solitary ground that thedecision of the Bombay High Court in the case of llexawareTechnologies Ltd., (2 supra) as also the one which has beendecided by this Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy tz02+ SCC Online Guj 4012'2025 SCC Online Jhar287'o [y2oz3, ] [:4984-DBl] ) (1 supra) has been subjected to [ohallenge'in ][a. ][Special ][{-eave]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 [1200 ][SLPs also ][filed ][arising out ][ofthe]same issue being decided [by ][various High ][Courts.] 7. To a query being [put ]to the [learned 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]matters 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]lapsed, till date, we do [not hnd any ][remedial ][steps ][having ][been]taken by the Income [Tax ][Department ][to take ][appropriate steps ][to]either hold back issuance [of ][notice under Section ][l48A ][and under]Section 148 of the Act by [the ][jurisdictional ][Assessing ][Officer,]rather the authorities concemed [in ][the teeth ][of ][series ][of ][decisions] \ \ by all the rnajor High Courts in India are continuously stillinitiating proceedings under Section 1484 of the Act and alsoinitiating proceedings under Section 148 of the Act incontravention to the amendments brought into the [ncome Tax Actpursuant to the Finance Act,2020 as also the Finance Act202l9. Upon a query being put as to why can't this writ petition bedisposed of in the teeth of the decision rendered b1, this Court inthe case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra), leamed StandingCounsel for the lncome Tax Department contends that those woutdunnecessarily bulden the Income Tax Department where theywor,rld be required to hle equal number of SI-Ps before theHon'ble Supreme Cour-t 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 instrucJions or to take l-) l-) appropriate steps in ensuring that [prooeedings under ][Sectibn ][l48A]of the Act as also the assessment orders under Section [148 ][of ][the]Act are kept in a hold in the light ofthe decisions dedcided by [the]various High Courts, it was submitted by the leamed StandingCounsel that the said steps can only be [taken ][at ][the ][level ][of CBDT]as any such steps would have to be taken [Pan ][India ][and cannot ][be]limited to any of these [jurisdictional ]High Courts. 10. As a result of which, what we [are ][facing is ][steep ][increase ][of]litigation 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 concerned [are ]still [even ][now ][in]2025 also initiating proceedings [in ]contravention [to ][the provisions]of Section 15 tA 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(l supra). What is also surprising is the fact [that though while]allowing the writ petitions in the [case ]of [Kanakala ][Ruvindra]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 fresh proceedings strictly in accordance u,ith the amendedprovisions of the Act, as amended by the Finance Act, 2020 andthe Finance Act, 2021 . The petitioner assessee would be entitled tochallenge or raise the other legal objections if the Revenue initiatesinitiating fresh proceedings strictly in accordance u,ith the amendedprovisions of the Act, as amended by the Finance Act, 2020 andthe Finance Act, 2021 . The petitioner assessee would be entitled tochallenge or raise the other legal objections if the Revenue initiatesfresh proceedings. The Department has made no endeavour inavailing the said liberly that was reserued for the Revenue. On theavailing the said liberly that was reserued for the Revenue. On thecontrary, they have been still sticking on to the stand, which thisHigh Court as well as lrany other High Courts already held to bebad.High Court as well as lrany other High Courts already held to bebad. 11. It appears that because ofthe aforesaid liberty that this HighCourt had granted permitting the Revenue for initiating freshproceedings as a one-time measure in a faceless manner, theIncome Tax Department wants to take advantage of the same byprotracting these proceedings which would enable them to meet thelimitation that would otherwise come in the way. Likewise, if thewrit petition is kept pending for a considerable long period of timeand finally at a later stage if the Hon'ble Supreme Court confirmsthe decision taken by this High Court as also by the other HighCourts in which the SLPs are still pending, the Income Tax Department would get the advantage of the liberty that is otherwiseprotected in favour of the Revenue for initiation of freshproceedings from the disposal ofthese 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 TaxDepartment gets an extended period of time for initiation of freshproceedings Department would get the advantage of the liberty that is otherwiseprotected in favour of the Revenue for initiation of freshproceedings from the disposal ofthese 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 TaxDepartment gets an extended period of time for initiation of freshproceedings 12. The alarming trend of docket explosion in this Court, despitethe clear precedent set in Kanakula Ravindra Reddy (l supra), is amatter of grave concem. The Income Tax Department's persistentinitiation of fresh proceedings, disregarding the established [judicial]pronouncements, 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 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 lnterests. 13. Another aspect which needs to be considered is that in fact itshould have been realized by the Income Tax Department itself andshould have found out via media in ensuring that proceedingsunder Sections 148-A and 148 should not have been issued in afaceless manner, at least till the Hon'ble Supreme Court decide thetwelve hundred (1200) odd SLPs which it is alreadl.seized ofor, atleast the Income Tax Department should have found out someremedial steps to ensure that wherever the authorities intend toinitiate proceedings under Sections 148-A and 148, other than in afaceless manner, the proceedings should have been 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 r 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 Income Tax Department contended thatthe Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition of similar nature, onthe one hand when the High Court is struggling to reduce itspendency, such notices which are under challenge in this writpetition are forcing the assessee to knock the doors of this HighCourt resulting in filing 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 [these]matters again and again on daity 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 Department. Yet, the authorities concemed at theState 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 showingaudacity by issuing notices continuously under Sections 148-,{ and 14ii :i-:rcugn the lurisdiclionai Assessing Officer rvhereas it oughtto have been only in the faceless manner 14ii :i-:rcugn the lurisdiclionai Assessing Officer rvhereas it oughtto have been only in the faceless manner 14. In the case of BANK OF INDIA vs. ASSISTANTCOMMISSIONER, INCOME TAXrr, on an issue whether it wasjustifiable on the part of the Income Tax Department rn notfollowing an order passed by the adjudicating authority only on theground that the appeals are pending, the Division Bench of theHigh Court of Bombay held at paragraph No.25 as under, viz., : "25. l\.4r. Paridwalla has rightly drawn out attention to thedecision of this Court in Commissioner of lncome Tax vs. Smt.Godavaridevi Saraflz 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 tillthe 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.14, theCourt observed that the approach of the officials of Revenue oftreating decisions being "not acceptable" was criticized by theSupreme Court. ln such decision, following are the relevantobservations made by the Supreme Courl. tt 11zOZS:1170 [taxmann.com ][422 ][(Bombay)l]t2 yt9781 1 t 3 ITR 589 (Bombay)" TZOZ+1 [65 ][taxmann.com ][5 ][8 ] [/300 ] axman [452 (Bomba y)]'o 1t992ltaxmann.com [16155 ] 433 (SC) -r "6. Sri Reddy is perhaps righl in saying. that theofficers were not actuated by any mala fides inpassing the impugned orders. They perhapsgenuinely felt that the claim of the assessee was nottenable and that, if it was accepted, the Revenuewould suffer- But what Sri Reddy overlooks is that weare not concerned here with the correctness orotheruise of their conclusion or of any factualmalafides but with the fact that the officers, in reachingin their conclusion, by-passed two appellate orders inregard to the same issue which were [placed ]beforethem, one of the Collector [(Appeals) ]and the other ofthe Tribunal. The High Court has, in our view, rightlycriticized this conduct of the Assistant Collectors andthe harassment to the assessee caused by the failureof these officers to give effect to the orders ofauthorities higher to them in the appellate hierarchy. ltcannot be too vehemently emphasized that it is ofutmost importance that, in disposing of [the]quasijudicial issues before them, revenue officers arebound by the decisions of the appellate authorities.The order of the Appellte Collector is binding on theAssistant Collectors working within his [jurisdiction ]andthe order of the Tribunal is binding upon the AssistantCollectors and lhe Appellate Colleclors who [function]under the [jurisdiction ]of the Tribunal. The [principles ]ofjudicial discipline require lhat the orders of the higherappellate authorities should be followed unreservedlyby 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 administrationof tax laws. rule is not followed, the result 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 that the observationsmade by the High Court, have been harsh on theofficers. lt is clear that the observations of the HighCourt, seemingly vehement, and apparenflyunpalatable to the Revenue, are only intended to curba tendency in revenue mafters 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 an endeavour 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 standfurther 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 t Finance Act,2020 and Finance Act, 2021 . Now, in order to [protect]the 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 (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. 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] 35,3i allrC i8 oi"the order rn,hich, for ready reference. is reproducedhereunder: 36. For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned noticesissued and the proceedings drawn by the respondent-Department is neither lenable, nor sustainable.The notices so issued and the procedure adopted beingper se illegal, deserves to be and are accordingly setaside/quashed. As a consequence, all the impugnedorders getting quashed, the consequential orders passedby the respondent-Department pursuant to the noticesissued under Section 147 and 148 would also getquashed and it is ordered accordingly. The reason weare quashing the consequential order is on the principlesthat when the initiation of the proceedings itself wasprocedurally wrong, the subsequent orders also getsnullified automatically. 37. The preliminary objection raised by the petitioner issustained and all these writ petitions stands aliowed onthis very [jurisdictionai ]issue_ Since the impugned noticesand orders are getting quashed on the point ofjurisdiction, we are not inclined to proceed further anddecide the other issues raised by the petitioner whichstands reserved to be raised and contended in anappropriate proceedings. 37. The preliminary objection raised by the petitioner issustained and all these writ petitions stands aliowed onthis very [jurisdictionai ]issue_ Since the impugned noticesand orders are getting quashed on the point ofjurisdiction, we are not inclined to proceed further anddecide the other issues raised by the petitioner whichstands reserved to be raised and contended in anappropriate proceedings. 38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the caseof Ashish Aganaral, 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 \-- r-- I I II 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 ][of ][Ashish]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 ] [No ][3574 ][of ][2024']preferred by the Income [Tax Department, we ][make ][it ][clear that]allowing 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 ][(1 ][supra)']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. Accordingty, the [instant ][writ ][petition ][stands ][allowed ][in]favour of the [assessee ][so ][far ][as ][the ][issue ][of ][jurisdiction]1Sconcemed. As a [consequence, ][the ][impugned ][notice ][under] under [Sections ][148-4 ][and ][148 ][stands set aside/quashed']challenge The consequential orders, if any, also stand set aside/quashed insimilar terms as have been passed by this High Coufl in the case of Kankansla Ravindra Reddy (l supra). There shall be no order as to costs Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed P. PONNA SSISTANT '\ '\-*= - //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1 The Assistant [Commissioner ][of ][lncome ][Tax ][Circle ][1' Karimnagar]i +ii;'Ni;iiffii'rr"Jr..i [,{i.."ir"ni ][centre ][rncome ][rax ][Deoartment, ][Ministry]of Finance, [Room ][No ][;6ila""i'"[; ][e-nimp, ][Lawaharldl Nehru stadium,]Delhi 1'10 003i +ii;'Ni;iiffii'rr"Jr..i [,{i.."ir"ni ][centre ][rncome ][rax ][Deoartment, ][Ministry]of Finance, [Room ][No ][;6ila""i'"[; ][e-nimp, ][Lawaharldl Nehru stadium,]Delhi 1'10 003o " inJ'u'.i"" lndra, Secretary, [Ministry ][qf ].F.i111qe, [Department ][of ][Revenue']f.f ortn ortn [glo"f, ]"i Central [[Secretariat, ]][New Delhi-1.10 ][001]f.f ortn ortn [glo"f, ]"i Central [[Secretariat, ]][New Delhi-1.10 ][001] f.f ortn ortn Central [[Secretariat, ]]4 ij;;' b"Ci;' snr ij;;' b"Ci;' snr b"Ci;' snr snr [nAL[sirrnn ][nno ][qn!yl!!'.4*o.qale ][[t-gP.51cl]][[INCoME ][rAx ][IoPUCI]][[rAx ][IoPUCI]][[IoPUCI]][[INCoME ][rAx ][IoPUCI]][[rAx ][IoPUCI]][[IoPUCI]] 4 ij;;' b"Ci;' snr ij;;' b"Ci;' snr b"Ci;' snr snr [[t-gP.51cl]]5 5;;66 [io ][rr,rr ] [sJr.rrfHA ][,Jr. ][sc ][FoR ][[INCoME ][rAx ][IoPUCI]][[rAx ][IoPUCI]][[IoPUCI]]6 one cc [to ][SRI onor ][pirnveiil ][xuH/lAn, ][DY' ][sollclroR ] [oF]rNDIA 5 5;;66 [io ][rr,rr ] [sJr.rrfHA ][,Jr. ][sc ][FoR ][[INCoME ][rAx ][IoPUCI]][[rAx ][IoPUCI]][[IoPUCI]]6 one cc [to ][SRI onor ][pirnveiil ][xuH/lAn, ][DY' ][sollclroR ] [oF]rNDIA rNDIA 7 Two CD CoPies BMBSM HIGH COURT DATED:02105t2025 f.f ortn ortn Central [[Secretariat, ]]4 ij;;' b"Ci;' snr ij;;' b"Ci;' snr b"Ci;' snr snr [nAL[sirrnn ][nno ][qn!yl!!'.4*o.qale ][[t-gP.51cl]][[INCoME ][rAx ][IoPUCI]][[rAx ][IoPUCI]][[IoPUCI]][[INCoME ][rAx ][IoPUCI]][[rAx ][IoPUCI]][[IoPUCI]] 4 ij;;' b"Ci;' snr ij;;' b"Ci;' snr b"Ci;' snr snr [[t-gP.51cl]]5 5;;66 [io ][rr,rr ] [sJr.rrfHA ][,Jr. ][sc ][FoR ][[INCoME ][rAx ][IoPUCI]][[rAx ][IoPUCI]][[IoPUCI]]6 one cc [to ][SRI onor ][pirnveiil ][xuH/lAn, ][DY' ][sollclroR ] [oF]rNDIA 5 5;;66 [io ][rr,rr ] [sJr.rrfHA ][,Jr. ][sc ][FoR ][[INCoME ][rAx ][IoPUCI]][[rAx ][IoPUCI]][[IoPUCI]]6 one cc [to ][SRI onor ][pirnveiil ][xuH/lAn, ][DY' ][sollclroR ] [oF]rNDIA rNDIA 7 Two CD CoPies BMBSM HIGH COURT DATED:02105t2025 -.2 [__-- ][-'+-__.\-].u?':,,,.it'':,.,..-i. //_.\"-.:L..' \r.,)t-2t lu[ 2UOp!paTCtlLo[*] ORDER WP.No.29097 of [2024] ALLOWING THE 1q6Lb