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 I v. ' L(2023) [I ][56 ][Taxmann.com ][178 ][(Telangana)L

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MAYTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDAWRIT PETITION NO: 29485 OF 2024 Between; Adivi [Leela ][Nagaraju (HUF), ][8-2-268llallb and ][C, ][Tulasi ][Homes, ] , [Arora ][Colony,]Road No.3, Banjara Hills, Hyderabfr - 500034. Rep., by its Kartha, Sri Adivi LeeliNagaraju, S/o. Sd Adivi Kanakalingeswara Rao. .....PETITIONER AND The lncome Tax Officer, Ward -14(1), l.T. Towers, A.C. Guards, IVlasabtank,Hyderabad - 500004. .....RESPONDENT Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may bepleased to pass an order or direction, especially one in the nature of WRIT OFMANDAMUS holding that the order passed by Respondent u/s.148A(d) of the Act,dt.15.O4.2024 with DIN and Notice No.ITBA/AST/Ft14BAt2O24-2St1O641O9t2s(1)and the notice dated 15.O4.2O24 issued under section 148 of the Act with DIN andNotice No.ITBA/AST/S/148 112024-2511064110279(1) for the assessment year2O2O-21 , as beirig illegal, arbitrary and passed in gross violation of principles ofnatural justice without application of mind, and consequenfly set aside the same. I.A.NO:1 OF 2024 Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated inthe affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased tosuspend the operation of the notice issued by the Respondent u/s.148 of the Act, d1.15.O4.2024 for [the ][assessment ][year ][2020-21 ][with]DIN and Noticeall consequentialNo.ITBA/AST/S/148 [112024- ][2511064110279(1) ][and]proceedings thereto. Counsel for the [Petitioner ][: SRI ][A.V.RAGHU ] Counsel for the [Respondents ][: ][Ms. B.SAPNA ][REDDY, SENIOR STANDING]COUNSEL The Court made [the ][following ] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAONANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION No.29485 OF 2024 ORDER: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy) Heard Mr. A.V. Raghu Ram, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. B.Sapna B"ddV, learned Senior StandingCounsel for the Income Tax Department for the respondent.Perused the recordPerused the record 2. This is a writ pgtition where the proceedings are eitherchallenged to the notices which were issued under Section 148-,4.and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 196l (for short'theAct') ortheassessment orders those have been passed under Section 147 ofthe 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 Actand the subsequent initiation of proceedings under Section 148 ofthe Act by the [jurisdictional ]Assessing Officer, whereas in termsof the amendment that was brought to the Income Tax Act by wayof Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f., 01.04.2021 onwards, proceedingsthe Act by the [jurisdictional ]Assessing Officer, whereas in termsof the amendment that was brought to the Income Tax Act by wayof Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f., 01.04.2021 onwards, proceedings under Section 148,{ ofthe Act as also under Section 148 oftheAct ought to have also been issued and [proceeded ]in a [faceless]manner. 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 under Section 148,{ ofthe Act as also under Section 148 oftheAct ought to have also been issued and [proceeded ]in a [faceless]manner. 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 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 Ac[202l [i.e., ][the]impugned notices under Sectien l48A and Section [148 ]ofthe [Act]not being issued in a faceless manner, [have already ][been ][dealt ][with]and decided by this Court in the [case ]of RAVINDRA REDDY vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER1 [decided]on 14.09.2023 whereby a batch of writ [petitions were ][allowed ][and]the proceedings initiated under Section 1484, as also [under Section]148 of the Act were held to be bad with consequential [reliefs ]on [the]ground of it being in violation ofthe provisions ofSection 15lA ofthe Act read with Notification 18/2022 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. ' l(2023) [56 ][taxmann.com ][178 ][(Telangana)l] 5. Down the line, we find that the same issue has also line, we find that the same issue has also we find that the same issue has also find that the same issue has also that the same issue has also the same issue has also same issue has also issue has also beendecided against the Revenue by various High Courts i.e.,by the Bombay High Courl in the case of HEXAWARETECHNOLOGIES LTD., vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX & OTHERS2, Gauhati High Courr in the caseof RAM NARAYAN SAH vs. UNION OF INDIA3, punjab andHaryana High Court in the case of JATINDER SINGII BANGUvs. IINION OF INDIA4, and Telangana High Court in the case ofSRI \.ENKATARAMANA REDDY PATLOOLA vs. DEPUTYCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX5 where the issue was inrespect of intemational 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 cOlaIND SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERT,Gujarat High Court in the case of MANSUKHBHAI Down the line, we find that the same issue has also line, we find that the same issue has also we find that the same issue has also find that the same issue has also that the same issue has also the same issue has also same issue has also issue has also been 'lzoz+7464 [rrR ]430 [(Bom)]'1Q024) 156 raxmann.com 478 (Gauhati)l" [(2024) 1 65 taxmann.com I I5 (punjab & Haryana)]s 12024) 167 taxmann.com 4l I (Telangana)l" 12024) 166 taxmann.com 679 (Bombavrl' 12024\ 165 taxmann.com I I3 iHimac(ai e@r,rl DAI{YABHAI RADADIYA [vs. INCOME ] [OFFICE&]WARD 3(3X5)8, Jharkand [High Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ] SUNDAR SAW [vs. ] [INDIAe, ][Rajasthan ][High ][Court in]the case of SHARDA [vs. ] 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 ] [0 ][writ]petitions. That upon the [instructions ][being ][sought ][fiom ][the]Department, they [have been ][taking ][a ][solitary ][ground ][that ][the]decision of the Bombay High [Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ][Hexawure]Technologies Ltd., (Z supra) [as ][also ][the ][one ][which ][has ][been]decided by this Court [in ][the ][case ][of ][Kanakala Ravindra ][Reddy] '2024 [online ][G$ ][4012]'2025 [Online ][Jhar287]o ' 72021, RJ- JD : 4984-DBl (1 supra) has been subjected to challenge in a Special LeavePetition i.e., SLP No.3574 of Z0Z4 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 oftheCourt 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 learned 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 ot 14.09.2023 and more 16 months havelapsed, till date, we do not hnd any remedial steps having beentaken by the Income Tax Department to take appropriate steps toeither hold back issuance of notice under Section 14gA 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 [148,4' ][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 [Finance ]Act202l. 9. Upon a query being putas to why can't [this ]writ [petition ][be]disposed of in the teeth of the [decision ][rendered ][by this ][Court ][in]the case of Kanakala Ravindru [Reddy ][(1 ][supra), ][leamed ][Standing]Counsel for the Income Tax [Department contends ][that ][those ][would]unnecessarily burden the Income Tax [Department ][where ][they]would be required to file equal number of [SLPs ][before ][the]Hon'ble Supreme Court and it would be [further ][burdening ][the]exchequer of the Union of India. It [was ][also ][the contention ][of ][the]leamed 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 hnalization 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 l4gAof the Act as also the assessment orders under Section l4g of theAct are kept in a hold in the light ofthe decisions dedcided by thevarious-High Courts, it was submitted by the leamed StandingCounsel that the said steps can only be taken at the level of CBDTof the Act as also the assessment orders under Section l4g of theAct are kept in a hold in the light ofthe decisions dedcided by thevarious-High Courts, it was submitted by the leamed StandingCounsel that the said steps can only be taken at the level of CBDTas any such steps would have to be taken pan India and cannot belimited to any of these jurisdictional High Courts.limited to any of these jurisdictional High Courts. appropriate steps in ensuring that proceedings under Section l4gAof the Act as also the assessment orders under Section l4g of theAct are kept in a hold in the light ofthe decisions dedcided by thevarious-High Courts, it was submitted by the leamed StandingCounsel that the said steps can only be taken at the level of CBDTof the Act as also the assessment orders under Section l4g of theAct are kept in a hold in the light ofthe decisions dedcided by thevarious-High Courts, it was submitted by the leamed StandingCounsel that the said steps can only be taken at the level of CBDTas any such steps would have to be taken pan India and cannot belimited to any of these jurisdictional High Courts.limited 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 concemed are still even now in2025 also initiating proceedings in contravention to the provisionsof Section I 5 1A of the Act and as a result by now, more than 600to 700 petitions have been already got piled up before this HighCourt on an issue which otherwise stands squarely covered by thejudgment of this Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy(1 supra). What is also surprising is the fact that though whileallowing the writ petitions in the case of Kanakala RavindraReddy (l supra), the Division Bench while reserving the right ofthe Revenue, has also protect&1e interest of the petitioners insofar as the liberly which was [granted ]to the [Revenue for]initiating fresh proceedings strictly in accordance with the [amended]provisions of the Act, as amended by the Finance Act, 2020 andthe Finance Act,202l. The petitioner [assessee ][would ][be ][entitled ][to]challenge or raise the other legal objections if the Revenue [initiates]fiesh proceedings. The Department has made no endeavour [in]availing the said liberty that was reserved for the [Revenue. On ][the]contrary, they have been still sticking on to [the ][stand, ][which ][this]High Court as well as man! 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 [fresh]proceedings 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 [time]and finally at a later stage if the Hon'ble Supreme Courl 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 freshprotected in favour of the Revenue for initiation of freshproceedings fiom 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 concerned. 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 concerned. As a consequence, the Income TaxDepartment gets an extended period of time for initiation of freshproceedings.proceedings. Department would get the advantage of the liberty that is otherwiseprotected in favour of the Revenue for initiation of freshprotected in favour of the Revenue for initiation of freshproceedings fiom 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 concerned. 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 concerned. 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, 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 of judicialprecedent 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.6:stablished [legal]ff" position. Such conduct [raises ][serious questions ][about ][the]administrative efhciency [and ][the ][respect ][for ][judicial]pronouncements, particularly [when ][this Court ][has ][already ][provided]a balanced approach [by ][preserving ][both the ][Revenue'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-,{ 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 ][some]remedial steps to ensure [that ][wherever ][the ][authorities intend ][to]initiate proceedings under [Sections ][148-4. ][and ][148, ][other ][than ][in ][a]faceless manner, the [proceedings ][should ][have ][been ][deferred]without precipitating the [matter further ][intimating ][the ][assessee ][that]they shall initiate [appropriate proceedings ][only ][after the ][SLP's ][are]decided by the [Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Court on the very ][same ][issue']This again, the Income Tax Department, [has ][not ][been ][able to ][give ][a]convincing reply, except for the fict [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 thelevel of Central Board of Direct Taxes. Though the leamedStanding 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 fiundreds 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 Department. yet, the authorities concemed 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 und". S"Jioos 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 ] [vs' ] COMMISSIONER, [TAXl1, ][on ][an issue ][whether ][it ][was]justifiable on the [part ][of ][the ][Income ][lTax ][Department ][in ][not]following [an ][order ][passed ][by ][the ][a ][judicating authority only ][on the]that [the ][appeals ][are pending' ][the ][Division ][Bench ][of ][the]ground Court [of Bombay ][hetd. ][at paragraph ][No'25 ][as ][under' ][viz'' ][:]High "25. Mr. Paridwalla [has ][rightly drawn ][out ][attention ][to ][the]decision of [this Court ][in ][Commissioner ][of ][lncome ][Tax ][vs' ][Smt']Godavaridevi [Saraf'2 ][as ][also ][the ][recent decision ][of ][the ][co-]ordinateBenchofthiscourtinSampFurniture(P)Ltd.v.lTo13of which [one of us (Justice G ] [Kulkarni) was a member' wherein]the Court [categorically observed ][that ][the ][Revenue ][having ][not]"accepted" the [judgment of ][the ][High Court would not mean that ][till]the same [is set aside in ][a ][manner known ][to law' ][it would loose ][its]force. [Referring ][to ][the decision of the Supreme Court ][in]binding Uniondflndiavs.KamlakshiFinanceCorporationLtd.l4,theCourt observed [that the ][approach ][of the ][officials ][of ][Revenue of]decisions [being ]["not ][acceptable" ][was ][criticized ][by ][the]treating Court [ln ][such ][decision' following ][are the ][relevant]Supreme observations [made ][by ][the ][Supreme Court'] rt [(zOzs) 170 taxmann.com 422 (Bombay)]" 1t9181113 [589 (BombaY)]" iZOZqi [165 ][taxmann.com ][581/300 ][Taxman ][452 ][(Bombay)]to llggzltaxmann.com 16155 ELT 433 (SC) '1 rt [(zOzs) 170 taxmann.com 422 (Bombay)]" 1t9181113 [589 (BombaY)]" iZOZqi [165 ][taxmann.com ][581/300 ][Taxman ][452 ][(Bombay)]to llggzltaxmann.com 16155 ELT 433 (SC) '1 "6. Sri Reddy is perhaps right 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 orotherwise of their conclusion o,i. 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 oflhe Tribunal. The High Court has, in our view, righflycriticized this condrJct 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 vehemenfly emphasized that it is ofutmost importance that, in disposing of thequasijudicial 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 the Appellate Collectors who functionunder the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The principles ofjudicial discipline require that the orders of the higherappellate authorities should be followed unreservedlyby the subordinale authorilies. The mere fact that theorder of ,,acceptable,, the appellate authority is not tothe department - in itself an objectionable phrase _and is the subject mafter of an appeal can furnish noground for not following it unless its operation hasbeen suspended by a competent court. lf this healthy if 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]officers. lt is clear [thalthe ][observations ][of ][the ][High]Court, seemingly [vehement, ][and ][apparently]unpalatable to the [Revenue, ][are only ][intended to curb]a tendency in revenue [matters ][which, ][if ][allowed ][to]become widespreaj, [could result ][in ][considerable]harassment to [the assesses-public without any benefit]to the Revenue. [We ][would ][like ][to ][say ][that ][the]depa(ment should [take these ][observations ][in ][the]proper spirit. The observations [of ][the ][High ][Court]should be kept [in mind ][in ][future ][and ][the ][utmost regard]should be [paid ]by the [adjudicating authorities and the]appellate authorities [to ][the ][requirements ][of ][judicial]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 ][fact ][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] '...1 15. What is [worrying ][this ][Bench ][more ][is ][the ][fact ][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] '...1 Finance Act,2020 and Finance Act,202l. Now, in order to protectthe interest of the Revenue as also that of the assessee, it wourd betrite at this juncture, if we dispose of the writ petition with anobservation/direction trite 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 frled by the Income TaxDepartment and which is pending consideration before the Hon,bleKankanala Ravindra Reddy (l.supra) shall however be subject tothe outcome of the SLPs which were frled 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 concemed, we are ofthe considered opinion that the interest of the Revenue has alreadybeen considered and protected, as has been observed in paragraphs 36,3't [and38 ][ofthe ][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-]is neither [tenable, ][nor ][sustainable']DepartmentThe noticesso issued [and ][the ][procedure adopted being]per se illegal, deserves [to ][be and ][are ][accordingly set]coflsequence' [all the ][imPugned]aside/quashed. [As ][a]orders [getting quashed], [the consequential orders ][Passed]by the [respondent-Department pursuant ][to ][the ][notices]issued [under ][Section ][147 ][and ][148 ][would ][also ][get]quashed and [it ][is gldered 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 ][subsequent ][orders also ][gets]nullified [automaticallY'] 37. [The preliminary obiection raised ][by ][the ][petitioner ][is]sustained [and all these ][writ ][petitions stands ][allowed ][on]Since the [imPugned notices]this [very ][jurisdictional ][issue]quashed on the Point [of]and orders [are ][getting].iurisdiction' [we ][are not ][inclined ][to ][proceed further ][and]decide the [other ][issues ][raised ][by the ][petitioner ][which]raised [and ][contended ][in ][an]stands [reserved ][to ][be]approPriate Proceedings 38. [Since ][the ][Hon'ble Supreme Court ][had' ][in ][the ][case]of Ashish [Agarwal, ][supra' ][as ][a ][one-time ][measure]exercising [the ][powers ][under ][Article ][142 ][of ][the]Constitution [of ][lndia, ][permitted ][the ][Revenue ][to ][proceed]under the [substituted ][provisions' and this ][Court allowing]the [petitions ][only ][on the ][procedural ][flaw' ][the ][right] ry ..., conferred on the Revenue would remain reserved toproceed further if they so want from the stage of theorder of the Supreme Court in the case of AshishAgarwal, supra.Agarwal, supra. 38. [Since ][the ][Hon'ble Supreme Court ][had' ][in ][the ][case]of Ashish [Agarwal, ][supra' ][as ][a ][one-time ][measure]exercising [the ][powers ][under ][Article ][142 ][of ][the]Constitution [of ][lndia, ][permitted ][the ][Revenue ][to ][proceed]under the [substituted ][provisions' and this ][Court allowing]the [petitions ][only ][on the ][procedural ][flaw' ][the ][right] ry ..., conferred on the Revenue would remain reserved toproceed further if they so want from the stage of theorder of the Supreme Court in the case of AshishAgarwal, supra.Agarwal, supra. 18. We would only further like to make observations that sincewe are inclined to dispose of the 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 yrit petition is subject to outcome of theaforesaid SLP preferred by the Revenue against the decision of thisHigh 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 jurisdiction isconcemed. As a consequence, the impugned notice underchallenge under Sections 148-4 and 14g stands set aside/quashed. {I The consequential orders, if [any, also ][stand ][set ][aside/quashed ][in] similar terms as [have been passed ][by ][this ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of] Kankanala Ravindra Retldy [(l ][supra). ][There ][shall ][be ][no order ][as] to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous [petitions pending, ][if ][any, shall] stand closed SD/. M. NAGAMANIISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To1. The lncome Tax Officer, [Ward -14(1}, ][l.T. ][Towers]Hyderabad - 500004.1. The lncome Tax Officer, [Ward -14(1}, ][l.T. ][Towers]Hyderabad - 500004. Guards, Masabtank, 2. Ohe CC to SRI A.V.RAGHU RAM, [Advocate ]IOPUCI 3. One CC to Ms. B.SAPNA [REDDY, SENIOR STANDING COUNSEL ] THE INCOME TAX DEPARTIMENTIOPUC]THE INCOME TAX DEPARTIMENTIOPUC]4. Two CD CopiesSAGJPQrGJPQr HIGH COURT DATED:0210512025 ORDER WP.No.29485 of 2024 ALLOWING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. PA-4 '{tF. Sc,)o//(.'.)\I11lllEM\r,.: l'io,->'''