The Contention Contention Of The The [[Petitioner ]]Is [[That ][The ][Issue ][Of]][[The ][Issue ][Of]][[Issue ][Of]][[Of v. 'L(2023) [156 ][Taxmann.com ][178 ][(Telangana)L

t34471 HIGH COURT FOR AT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE [P.SAM KOSHY]AND THE HONOURABLE SRI [JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA] WRIT PETITION NO: 9330 [2025] Between: Sneha Shukla, D/o Late [Naveen]Kumar Shukla, Aged about [40 ][years' ][Occ]Business, F/o 8-3-1063, [Flat No. ][501]. Plot No. ['15, ]Jyothi Palace, [Sri ][Nagar ][Colony,]Hyderabad- 500073. ,....PETITIONER AND 1. The lncome Tax Officer, [ward 6(1), lncome ][Tax ][Department, Hyderabad'] 2. Assessment Unit, [Income ][Tax Department, ][National ][e-Assessment Center]- f.f e* O"f ni, Room No [401 ],2nd [Fldor, E-Ramp Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium']New Delhi [1 ]['10 ]003.- f.f e* O"f ni, Room No [401 ],2nd [Fldor, E-Ramp Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium']New Delhi [1 ]['10 ]003. .....RESPONDENTS Petition Under Article [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 a writ of Mandamus or [any other ][appropriate ][writ ][order ][or]the [Notice under section ][148 ][of ][lncome ][Tax ][Act, ][dated ][21-03-]Direction declaring 2O24 in DIN No. ITBA/AST/S/14 [8A ][1t2123-24t1063103090(1) ][for ][the ][Assessment]Year 2017-18 as arbitrary [illegal bad ][in law ][void-ab-initio violative ][of ][the principles]of natural [justice ]apart [from ][being violative ][of ][Articles ][14,199 ][and 265 ][of ][the]Constitution of lndia and [Sec ][148A ][of ][the ][lncome Tax ][Act ][1961 ][and consequently]set aside the same in [the interests ][of justice.] |.A.NO:1 OF 2025 Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that ln the ciicumstances stated [in]the affidavit filed in support of the [petition, ]the [High ][Coud may ][be pleased ][to]direct the respondents to stay all further [proceedings, including ][any ][recovery,]pursuant to the notice issued by the 1st Respondent, notice under section 148 oflncome Tax Act, dated 21-03-2024 in DIN No. ITBATAST/S/148A [112023-]24110631 03090(1 ) for the Assessment [year ]2017-18, [pending disposal ]of [the]main writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : Ms. HIMANGINI SANGHI Counsel for the Respondent 1 : Ms. BOKARO SAPNA REDDY [(Jr. ]SC FORtNcoME TAX) The Court made the following ORDER .> THE HONOURABLE SRI [P.SAM ][KOSI{Y]ANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAONANDIKONDA W.P.No.9330 OF 2025 Heard Ms. Himangini Sanghi, [leamed counsel ][for ][the] petitioner and Ms. B.Sapna Reddy, learned Junior [Standing]Counsel for the Income Tax Department [for ][respondent ][No.l']Perused the record.Counsel for the Income Tax Department [for ][respondent ][No.l']Perused the record. 2. This is a writ petition where [the ][proceedings ][are ][either]challenged to the notices which [were ][issued ][under Section ][148A]and 148 of the Income Tax Act, [1961 ][(for ][short ]['the ][Act') ][or ][the]assessment orders those have [been ][passed ][under ][Section ][147 ][of]the Act which have been assailed. 3. This writ petition is being taken [up today ][only ][on one ][of ][the] grounds, that the notices issued under Section [1484. ][of ][the Act]and the subsequent initiation of [proceedings ][under Section ][148 ][of]the Act by the [jurisdictional ][Assessing ][Officer, ][whereas ][in ][terms]of the amendment that was [brought ][to ][the Income ][Tax ][Act by ][way]of Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f., [01.04.2021 onwards, ][proceedings] under Section 148,{ of the Act [as ][also under Section 148 ][of ][the]Act ought to have also [been ][issued ][and ][proceeded ][in ][a ][faceless]manner. The contention contention of the the [[petitioner ]]is [[that ][the ][issue ][of]][[the ][issue ][of]][[issue ][of]][[of]] 3. This writ petition is being taken [up today ][only ][on one ][of ][the] grounds, that the notices issued under Section [1484. ][of ][the Act]and the subsequent initiation of [proceedings ][under Section ][148 ][of]the Act by the [jurisdictional ][Assessing ][Officer, ][whereas ][in ][terms]of the amendment that was [brought ][to ][the Income ][Tax ][Act by ][way]of Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f., [01.04.2021 onwards, ][proceedings] under Section 148,{ of the Act [as ][also under Section 148 ][of ][the]Act ought to have also [been ][issued ][and ][proceeded ][in ][a ][faceless]manner. The contention contention of the the [[petitioner ]]is [[that ][the ][issue ][of]][[the ][issue ][of]][[issue ][of]][[of]] 4. The contention contention of the the [[petitioner ]]is [[that ][the ][issue ][of]][[the ][issue ][of]][[issue ][of]][[of]]proceedings being in violation of [the Finance ][Act,2021 ][i.e., ][the]impugned notices under Section [148A ][and ][Section ][148 ][of ][the ][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 [decided]on 14.09.2023 whereby a batch [of ][writ ][petitions wcrc ][allowed ][and]the proceedings initiated under Section [l48A ][as ][aisrl ][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 ][15lA ][of]the Act read with Notification [1812022 ][dated ][29.03.2022. ][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) [156 ][taxmann.com ][178 ][(Telangana)l] 5. Down the line, we find that the same issue has also beendecided against the Revenue by various High Courts i.e.,by the Bombay High Court in the case of HEXAWARETECHNOLOGIES LTD., vs, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX & OTHERS2, Gauhati High Court in the caseof RAM NARAYAN SAH vs. UNION OF INDIA3, Punjab andHaryana High Court in the case of JATINDER SINGH BANGUvs. UNION OF INDIA4, and Telangana High Court in the case ofSRI VENKATARAMANA REDDY PATLOOLA vs. DEPUTYCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX5 where the issue was inrespect of international taxation, Bombay.High Court in the case ofABHIN ANILKUMAR SHAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,INTERNATIONAL TAXATION6 which is again on intemationaltaxation and central circle, High Court of Himachal Pradesh in thecase of GOVIND SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERT,Gujarat High Court in the case of MANSUKHBIIAI'lzoz+1464 [rrR ][430 ][(Bom)]'[(2024) [156 ][taxmann.com 478 ][(Gauhati)]]'U2024) [165 ][taxmann.com I ][l5 ][(Punjab ][& ][Haryana)l]' 12024\ [67 ][taxmann.com ][4l ] [(Telangana)l]"12024) [166 ][taxmann.com 679 ][(Bombay)l]'12024) [165 ]taxmann.com [113 ][(Himachal ][Pradesh)l] DAHYABHAI RADADIYA vS. INCOME TAX OFFICE&WARD 3(3X5)8, Jharkand High Court in the case of SHYAMSUNDAR SAW vs. UNION OF INDIAe, Rajasthan High Coufi inthe case of SHARDA DEVI CHHAJER vs, INCOME TAXOFFICER & ANOTHER and batch of writ pctitionsro 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 INI)IA & ORS(M.A.T 1690 of 2023), decided on25.09.2024.6. Even though the same issue having been decidcd by a largenumber of High Courts, we are still conhonted wilh large filing ofidentical matters on daily basis ranging between 5 to 10 writpetitions. That upon the instructions being souglrt fiom theDepartment, they have been taking a solitary ground that thedecision of the Bombay High Court in the case of HexawareTechnologies Ltd., (2 supra) as also the one uhich has beendecided by this Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy 'zozq [scc online ][Guj ][4012]'2025 Online Jhar287I o 12023 [: ] [: ][4984-DB ]l II 'zozq [scc online ][Guj ][4012]'2025 Online Jhar287I o 12023 [: ] [: ][4984-DB ]l II (1 supra) has been subjected to challenge in a Special LeavePetition i.e., SLP No.3574 of 2024 before the Hon'ble SupremeCourt and the Hon'ble Supreme Court is seized of the matter.In addition, there are about 1200 SLPs also filed arising out ofthesame issue being decided by various High Courts. 7. To a query being put to the 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 olidentical nature are being piled up before this Bench on daily basisand the pendency is getting increased oh matter which otherwisehas already been dealt and decided by this very High Court itself.8. On the one hand, even though the order of this Court thatwas passed as early as on 14.09.2023 and more 16 months havelapsed, till date, we do not find any remedial steps having beentaken by the Income Tax Department to take appropriate steps toeither hold back issuance of notice under Section 148A and underSection 148 of the Act by the [jurisdictional ]Assessing Ofhcer,rather the authorities concemed in the teeth of series of decisions by a1l the major High Courts in India are continuously stillinitiating proceedings under Section 148,{ of the r\ct and alsoinitiating ploceedings under Section 148 of the Act incontravention to the amendments brought into the Income 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 o[ the decision rendered by this Court inthe case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra), leanred StandingCounsel for the Income Tax Department contends that those wouldunnecessarily burden the Income Tax Department where theywould be required to file equal nurf,ber of SLPs before theHon'ble Supreme Court and it would be further burdening theexchequer o[ the Union of India. It was also the contention of theleamed Standing Counsel that no prejudice would be caused to theinterest of the petitioners in case if this writ petition is kept pendingtill the finalization of the SLPs pending before the Hon'bleSupreme Court and the fact that the petitioner is already enjoyingthe benefit of interim protection. Nonetheless, on the earlier queryof this Court as to why the Income Tax Department have not comeout with a mechanism to issue appropriate instructions or to take appropriate steps in ensuring that proceedings under Section 148,{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 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 betimited to any of these [jurisdictional ]High Courts. 10. As a result of which, what we are facing is steep increase ollitigation 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 concerned are still even now in2025 also initiating proceedings in contravention to the provisionsof Section l51A of the Act and as a result by now, more than 600to 700 petitions have been already got piled up before this HighCourt on an issue which otherwise stands squarely covered by thejudgment of this Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy(1 supra). What is also surprising is the fact that though whileallowing the writ petitions in the case of Kanakala [Ravindra]Reddy (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 forinitiating fresh proceedings strictly in accordance rvith the amendedprovisions of the Act, as amended by the Finance Act, 2020 andthe Finance Act,202l. The petitioner assessee would be entitled tochallenge or raise the other legal objections if the Revenue initiateslresh proceedings. The Department has made no endeavour inavailing the said liberty that was reserved for the Revenue. On thecontrary, they have been still sticking on to the stand, which thisHigh Court as well as many other High Courts already held to bebad.initiating fresh proceedings strictly in accordance rvith the amendedprovisions of the Act, as amended by the Finance Act, 2020 andthe Finance Act,202l. The petitioner assessee would be entitled tochallenge or raise the other legal objections if the Revenue initiateslresh proceedings. The Department has made no endeavour inavailing the said liberty that was reserved for the Revenue. On thecontrary, they have been still sticking on to the stand, which thisHigh Court as well as many other High Courts already held to bebad.I l. It appears that because of the afofesaid 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 HighIncome 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 a) 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 benehcial to the Revenue andwould be equally disadvantageous and detrimental so far [as ]interestof the assesses are concerned. As a consequence, [the Income Tax]Department gets an extended period of time for initiation of freshproceedings. 12. The alarming trend of docket explosion in this Court, despitethe clear precedelt set in Kanakala Ravindra Reddy [(l ]supra), [is ][a]matter of grave concem. The Income Tdx Department's [persistent]initiation 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 a.lready provideda balanced approach by preserving both the Revenue's rights andassesses lnterests. position. Such conduct raises serious Questions about theadministrative efficiency and the respect for judicialpronouncements, particularly when this Court has a.lready 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 148-4 and 148 should not have been issued in afaceless manner, at least till the Hon'ble Supreme Court decide thetwelve hundred (1200) odd SLPs whichit is alreadl.seized ofor, atleast the lncome 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 deferredwithout 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 Iricome Tax Department, has not been able to give aconvincing reply, except for the fact that such a decision if at all I has to be taken, has to be taken for the whole oflndia, and whichotherwise has to be by way of a policy decision and that too at theotherwise has to be by way of a policy decision and that too at thelevel of Central Board of Direct Taxes. Though the learnedStanding Counsel for the Income Tax Department contended thatthe Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition of similar nature, onStanding 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 Highpetition 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 thesethe long run not only affects the disposal of the writ petitions butalso consumes substantial time of the Bench in hearing thesematters again and again on daily basis. Admittedly, in spite of thematter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court having been taken onmany occasions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court which is seized of thematter has been reluctant in granting any interim protection to themany occasions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court which is seized of thematter has been reluctant in granting any interim protection to theIncome Tax Department. Yet, the authorities concemed at theState level are not ready to accept the verdict passed by a maj orityof High Cou(s of different States on the same issue; and to makethings further worse, the Income Tax Department is Showingof High Cou(s of different States on the same issue; and to makethings further worse, the Income Tax Department is Showingaudacity by issuing notices continuously under Sections 148-4 andG.G. 148 through the [jurisdictional ]Assessing Officer whereas it oughtto have been only in the faceless manner 14. In the case of BANK OF INDIA vs. ASSISTANTCOMMISSIONER, INCOME TAXrt, on an issue whether it wasjustifiable on the parl of the Income Tax Department in notfollowing an order passed by the adjudicating authority only on theground that the appeals are pending, the DivisiorL Bench of theHigh Court of Bombay held at paragraph No.25 as under, viz., : 148 through the [jurisdictional ]Assessing Officer whereas it oughtto have been only in the faceless manner 14. In the case of BANK OF INDIA vs. ASSISTANTCOMMISSIONER, INCOME TAXrt, on an issue whether it wasjustifiable on the parl of the Income Tax Department in notfollowing an order passed by the adjudicating authority only on theground that the appeals are pending, the DivisiorL Bench of theHigh Court of Bombay held at paragraph No.25 as under, viz., : "25. Mr. Paridwalla has rightly drawn out attention to thedecision of this Court in Commissioner of lncome Tax vs. Smt.Godavaridevi Sarafl2 as also the recent decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Samp Ftirniture (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 Court. rr;1202S) 170 taxmann.com 422 (Bombay)I '' U9781 I t3 ITR 589 (Bombay)" 12OZ+1165 [taxmann.com 581/300 Taxman452 (Bombay)]to lgeZltaxmann.com 16155 ELT 433 (SC) \ t rr;1202S) 170 taxmann.com 422 (Bombay)I '' U9781 I t3 ITR 589 (Bombay)" 12OZ+1165 [taxmann.com 581/300 Taxman452 (Bombay)]to lgeZltaxmann.com 16155 ELT 433 (SC) \ t "6- Sri Reddy is perhaps right in saying that theofficers were not actuated by any mala fides inpassing the impugned orders. They perhapsofficers were not actuated by any mala fides inpassing the impugned orders. They perhapsgenuinely felt that the claim of the assessee was nottenable and lhat, 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 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 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 subordinate authorities. The mere fact that theorder of the appellate authority is not ["acceptable" ]totenable and lhat, 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 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 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 subordinate authorities. The mere fact that theorder of the appellate authority is not ["acceptable" ]tothe department - in itself an objectionable [phrase ]-and is the sub.iect matter of an appeal can fumish noand is the sub.iect matter of an appeal can fumish noground for not following it unless its operation hasbeen suspended by a competent court. lf [this healthy]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.harassment 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.harassment 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 obsenrationsmade by the High Court, have been harsh on theofficers. lt is clear that the observations of the HighCourt, seemingly vehement, and apparentlyunpalatable to the Revenue, are only intended to curba tendency in revenue matters which, if allowed tobecome widespread, could result in considerableharassment to the assesses-public without any benefitto the Revenue. We would like to say that thedepartment should take these observations in theproper spirit. The observations.of the High Courtshould be kept in mind in future and the utmost regardshould be paid by the adjudicating authorities and theappellate authorities to the requirements of [judicial]discipline and the need for giving effect to the ordersof the higher appellate authorities which are bindingon them." 1 5. What is worrying this Bench more is the fact that anendeavour is being made whole heartedly to ensure not to generatefurther litigation on issues which have been laid to rest by a largenumber of High Courts all of whom have taken a consistent standendeavour is being made whole heartedly to ensure not to generatefurther litigation on issues which have been laid to rest by a largenumber of High Courts all of whom have taken a consistent standthat the action of the Income Tax Department being violative of the Finance 4ct,2020 and Finance Act,202l. Now, in order to protectthe interest of the Revenue as also that of the assessee, it would betrite at this [juncture, ]if we 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 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 CourtDepartment and which is pending consideration before the Hon'bleSupreme Court 16. In the given facts and circumstances, this Bench is of theconsidered opinion that unless and until we do not timely disposeof matters which are squarely covered by the decision of this Courtand which stands fortified by the decisions of the various otherHigh Courts on the very same issue, the pendency of this HighCourt would further be burdened which otherwise can be decidedand disposed of as a covered matter. 17. So far as the interest of the Revenue is concerned, we are ofthe considered opinion that the interest of the Revenue has alreadybeen considered and protected, as has been observed in paragraphs 36,37 atd 38 ofthe order which, for ready reference, is reproducedhereunder: 36. For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned noticesissued and the proceedings drawn by the respondent-Department is neither tenable, 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. 36,37 atd 38 ofthe order which, for ready reference, is reproducedhereunder: 36. For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned noticesissued and the proceedings drawn by the respondent-Department is neither tenable, 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 allowed onthis very [jurisdictional ]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 Aoarwal, supra, as a one{ime measureexercising the powers under Article 142 of theConstitution of lndia, permifted the Revenue to proceedunder the substituted provisions, and this Court allowinglhe petitions only on the procedural flaw, the rightconferred on the Revenue would remain reserved to {a:, I proceed further if they so want from the stage of theorder of the Supreme Court in the case of AshishAqarwal, supra.Aqarwal, 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 that allowing of the instant writ 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 jurisdiction1Sconcemed. As a consequence, the impugned notice underchallenge under Sections 148-4 and 148 stands set aside/quashed II 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. Consequently, miscelianeous petitions [pending, ]if any, shall stand closed. SD/. A. SRINIVASA ASSISTANT REGISTRARSECfu#,,".* //TRUE COPY// To 1The lncome Tax Officer, [ward 6(1)']lncome Tax DePafiment, [HYderabad.]2The Assessment Unit, [lncome Tax ][DeP]artment, National [e-Assessment]Center New Delhi, [Room No ][401, 2nd ][Floor,][ E-Ramp .lawaharlal ][Nehru]StadhITo ooene CC to Ms. HIMANGINI [SANGHI, Advocate ] One CC to Ms. o SAPNA REDDY(Jr. TAX) Advocate 5Two CD Copiess SAGJ HIGH COURT DATED:2410412025 ORDER WP.No.9330 of 2025 ALLOWING THE W.PWITHOUT COSTS. o [3 \'.\. i