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

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF APRILTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDAWRIT PETITION NO: 36842 OF 2024 Between: Mrs. Padma Kota, D/o. Sri Donthula Veda Reddy, aged about 64 years,Occupation. House Wife, 15-1-30111, 4th Floor, Vindhya Towers, Rangampet,warangal - 506002' ...PETrroNER AND 1. The lncome Tax Officer, Ward- 1, D.No.1-8-6'10, 3rd Floor, lvlayuri Complex,Opp. TSNPDCL Bhawan, Nakkalagutta, Hanamkonda, Warangal - 506001 [.]Opp. TSNPDCL Bhawan, Nakkalagutta, Hanamkonda, Warangal - 506001 [.]2. Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre, lncome TaxDepartment, Ministry of Finance, Room No. 4O1 ,2nd Floor, E-Ramp,Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, Delhi - ['1 ]['10 ]003.Department, Ministry of Finance, Room No. 4O1 ,2nd Floor, E-Ramp,Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, Delhi - ['1 ]['10 ]003. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia [praying ]that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may bepleased toto pass an order or direction, especially one in the nature of WRIT OFMANDAI/US holding that the order passed by Respondent u/s.148A(d) of the Act,dt.31 .O3.2024 with DIN and Notice No.ITBA/AST/F1148A12023-2411063788276(1)and the notice dated 31 .03.2024 issued under section 148 of the Act with DIN andNotice No.ITBA/AST/S/148 112023-2411063790169(1) for the assessment year2017-18, as being illegal, arbitrary and passed in gross violation of principles ofnatural [justice ]without application of mind, and consequently set aside the same. lA 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 1st Respondent u/s.'148 of theAct, dt.3'l .03.2O24 for the assessment [year ]2017-18 with DIN and Notice I No.ITBAJAST/SI148 112023-2411063790169(1)and all cons;ecuential proceedingsthereto. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI A.V.RAGHU RAMCounsel for the Respondents: M/s. BOKARO SAPNA REDDY, Jr. SC FORINCOME TAX The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAONANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION No.36842 OF 2024 QBDEB, [(per ][Hon'ble ][Sri ][Justice ][Narsing ][Rao ][Nandikanda)] Heard Mr. A.V.Raghu Ram, learned counsel for thepetitioner and Ms. B.Sapna Reddy, leamed Junior StandingCounsel for the Income Tax Department for the respondents.Perused the record. 2. This is a writ petition where the proceedings are eitherchallenged to the notices which were issued under Section 148Aand 148 of the Income Tax Act, 196l (for short'the Act') or theassessment 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 thegrounds, that the notices issued under Section 148.4 of the Actand the subsequent initiation ofproceedings under Section 148 ofthe Acf, by the [jurisdictional ]Assessing Officer, whereas in terms\of 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 l48A of the [Act ][as also ][under ][Section ][148 ][of ][the]Act ought to have also been [issued and ][proceeded ][in ][a ][faceless]ma nner The contention contention of the the [[petitioner ]][[is ][that ][the ][issue: ]][[that ][the ][issue: ]][[the ][issue: ]][[issue: ]][[of]] 3. This writ petition is being taken up today only on one of thegrounds, that the notices issued under Section 148.4 of the Actand the subsequent initiation ofproceedings under Section 148 ofthe Acf, by the [jurisdictional ]Assessing Officer, whereas in terms\of 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 l48A of the [Act ][as also ][under ][Section ][148 ][of ][the]Act ought to have also been [issued and ][proceeded ][in ][a ][faceless]ma nner The contention contention of the the [[petitioner ]][[is ][that ][the ][issue: ]][[that ][the ][issue: ]][[the ][issue: ]][[issue: ]][[of]] 4. The contention contention of the the [[petitioner ]][[is ][that ][the ][issue: ]][[that ][the ][issue: ]][[the ][issue: ]][[issue: ]][[of]]proceedings being in violation of [the ][Finance ][Act, ][202 ] [i ][e.. ][the]impugned notices under Section [148A and Section ][148 ][ofthe ][Act]not being issued in a faceless manner, [have already ][tleen ][dealt ][u'ith]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 ][werc ][allou'ed ][and]the proceedings initiated under Section [148A ][as ][also under Section]148 of the Act were held to be bad [with ][consequentiirl ][reliefs ][on ][the]ground of it being in violation of the [provisions ][of ][Scction ][151.A ][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 sinrilar]terms. 5. Down the line, we find that the same issue has also beendecided against the Revenue byvanous 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 IJigh Courl in the case olSRI 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,INTBRNATIONAL TAXATION6 which is again on internationaltaxation and central circle, High Court of Himachal Pradesh in thecase of GOVIND SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERT,Gujarat High Court in the case of MANSUKHBHAI 'pozql464 [430 ][(Bom)]'l(2024) [156 ][taxmann.com ][478 (Gauhati)l]'[(2024) [165 ][taxmann.com ][115 ][(Punjab ][& ][Haryana)]] ' {2024) [167 ][taxmang.cgm ][4l ] [(Telangana)l] " 12024) [166 ][taxmann.com 679 ][(Bombay)l] '12024) [165 ][taxmann.com ][113 ][(Himachal ][Pradesh)l] DAIIYABHAI RADADIYA vs. INCOME TAX OFF'ICER,WARD 3(3X5)8, Jharkand High Court in the case o1'SIfYAMSUNDAR SAW vs. UNION OF INDIAe, Rajasthan High Courr inthe case ol 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 olGIRDHAR GOPAL DALMIA vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS(M.A.T 1690 o12023), decided o125.09.2024.6. Even though the same issue having been decided by a lar.genumber of High Courts, we are still confionted with large filing ofidentical matters on daily basis ranging between 5 to l0 writpetitions. That upon the instructions being sought from theDepartment, they have been taking a solitary ground that thedecision of thc Bombay High Court in the case of HexawareTechnologies Ltd., (2 supra) as also the one which has beendecided by this Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy '2024 [Online ][Guj ][4012]'2025 SCC OnLine Jl'nr 287o ' 12023 [: ] [: ][49 84- ] l ,' '2024 [Online ][Guj ][4012]'2025 SCC OnLine Jl'nr 287o ' 12023 [: ] [: ][49 84- ] l ,' (l supra) has been subjected to challenge in a Special IravePetition 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 of thesame 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 vely 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 l48A and underSection 148 ol the Act by the [jurisdictional ]Assessing Officer,rather the authorities concerned in the teeth of series of decisions by all the major High Courts in India are continuously. stillinitiating proceedings under Section 148,4. of the Act and alsoinitiating proceedings under Section 148 o l- the Act incontravention to the amendments brought into the Income Tax Actpursuant to thc Finance Lc|2020 as also the Finance Lct20219. Upon a query being put as to why can't this writ petiti()n bedisposed of in the teeth of the decision rendered by this Court inthe case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra), learned StandingCounsel for the Income Tax Department contends that those u,ouldunnecessarily burden the Income Tax Departurent where theywould be required to file equal number of SLPs before theHon'ble Supreme Court and it would be further burdening theexchequer of the Union of India. It was also the contention of thelearned Standing Counsel that no prejudice would be caused to theinterest of the petitioncrs 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 l48Aof 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 [be]limited to any of these [jurisdictional ]High Courts. 10. As a result of which, what we are facing is steep [increase ]ofIitigation day in and day out even though various orders [have been]passed by this High Court allowing writ petitions on the very sameissue. The Income Tax authorities concerned are still even [now ][in]2025 also initiating proceedings in contravention to the [provisions]of Section 151A of the Act and as a result by now, [more ][than 600]to 700 petitions have been already [got piled ]up [before this High]Court on an issue which otherwise stands [squarely covered ][by ][the]judgment of this Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy(l 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] was granted to the Rcvenue granted to the Rcvenue to the Rcvenue the Rcvenue Rcvenue for was granted to the Rcvenue granted to the Rcvenue to the Rcvenue the Rcvenue Rcvenue for insofar as the I iberty whichwas granted to the Rcvenue granted to the Rcvenue to the Rcvenue the Rcvenue Rcvenue forinitiating fresh proceedings strictly in accordance u ith the amendedprovisions of the Act, as amended by the Finance Act. 202() andthe Finance Act,202l. The petitioner assessee would be entitled tochallenge or raise thc other Iegal objections if the Revenue initiatesfresh proceedings. The Department has made no endeavour inavailing the said liberty that was reserved for the Revenue. On thecontrary, they have been still sticking on to the stand, which thisHigh Court as well as many other High Courts already held to bebad. 1 1. It appears that because of the aforesaid liberty that this HighCourt had granted permitting the Revenue for initiating freshproceedings as a one-time measure in a faceless manner. theproceedings as a one-time measure in a faceless manner. theIncome Tax Depaftment wants to take advantage ,cf the same byprotracting these proceedings which would enable them to meet thelimitation that would otherwise come in the way. I-ikewise, if thewrit petition is kept pending for a considerable long period of timeprotracting these proceedings which would enable them to meet thelimitation that would otherwise come in the way. I-ikewise, 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 l.'ome TaxCourts in which the SLPs are still pending, the l.'ome Tax Department would get the advantage of the liberty that is otherwiseprotected1n 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 [and]would be equally disadvantageous and detrimental so [far ]as [interest]of the assesses are concerned. As a consequence, the [Income ][Tax]Department gets an extended period of timp for initiation of [fiesh]proceedings. 12. The alarming trend of docket explosion in this Court, [despite]the clear precedent set in Kanakala Ruvindra Reddy [(1 ]supra), [is ][a]matter of grave concern. The Income Tax 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. ][This]deliberate approach not only undermines [the ][principle of judicial]precedent but also strains the [judicial ]resources unnecessarily. [The]Department's strategy of awaiting the Supreme Court's [decision on]pending SLPs while continuing to initiate fresh [proceedings]appears to be a calculated move to buy time and circumventlimitation pfiriods, rather than adhering to the established [legal] position. Such conduct raises serious questions aboul. 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 position. Such conduct raises serious questions aboul. 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 {act itshould have been realized by the Income Tax Deparlment 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 lcast till the Hon'ble Supreme [(lotrrt ]decide thetwelve hundred (1200) odd SLPs which it is already seized ofor, atleast the Income Tax Deparlment 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 issueThis again, the Income Tax Department, has not been able to give aconvincing reply, except for the fact that such a decision if at all Jl [.! 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 lncome Tax Department contended thatthe Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition of similar nature, onthe one hand when the High Court is struggling to reduce itspendency, such notices which are under challenge in this writpetition are forcing the assessee to knock the doors of this HighCourt resulting in 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 thesematters again and again on daily basis. Admittedly, in spite of thernatter bclore the Hon'blc 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 under Sections 148-4 and 148 through the jurisdictional Assessing Officer u,hcreas it rtughtto have been only in the faceless lnanner. 14. hr the case of BANK OF INDIA vs. ,\SSISTANTCOMMISSIONER, INCOME TAXIT, on an issr.rc u.hether it wasjustifiable on the part of the Income Tax Deparlment in notfollowing an order passed by the adjudicating authority only on theground that the appeals are pending, the Division Ilench ol theHigh Court of Bornbay held at paragraph No.25 as uncler, viz., : .25. Mr. Paridwalla has righfly drawn out atter tion to thedecision of this Court in Gommissioner of lncome Tax vs. Smt.Godavaridevi Sarafl2 as also the recent decision of the co_ordinate Bench of this Court in Samp Furniture (p) Ltd. v. lTOr3of which one of us (Justice G.S. Kulkarni) was a memb,er, whereinthe Court categorically observed that the Revenue having not"accepted" the judgment of the High Court would not nrean that tillthe same is set aside in a manner known to law, it woutd loose itsbinding force. Referring to the decision of the Suprerne 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 critici;:ed by theSupreme Court- ln such decision, following are fl- e relevantobservations made by the Supreme Court. t,t_l(2025) I 70 taxmann.com 422 (Bombay)J '" fl9781 ll3 ITR 589 lBombay) " 120241 [165 ][taxrnann.com ][58 ][1/300 ]Taxman 452 (Bombay) " 1t99z1taxmann.com [l6155 ] [433 ][(SC)] I' t,t_l(2025) I 70 taxmann.com 422 (Bombay)J '" fl9781 ll3 ITR 589 lBombay) " 120241 [165 ][taxrnann.com ][58 ][1/300 ]Taxman 452 (Bombay) " 1t99z1taxmann.com [l6155 ] [433 ][(SC)] I' "6. Sri Reddy is perhaps right in saying that theofficers were not actuated by any mala fides inofficers were not actuated by any mala fides inpassing the impugned orders. They 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 correetness 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, [rightly]criticized this conduct of the Assistant Collectors [and]the harassment to the assessee caused by the [failure]of these officers to give effect lo 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 theAssistanl Collectors working within his [jurisdiction ][and]the order of the Tribunal is binding [upon the Assistant]Collectors and the Appellate Collectors who [function]under the [jurisdiction ]of the Tribunal. The [principles ]ofjudicial discipline require that the orders of the higherappellate aulhorities should be followed [unreservedly]by 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]tenable and that, if it was accepted, the Revenuewould suffer. But what Sri Reddy overlooks is that weare not concerned here with the correetness 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, [rightly]criticized this conduct of the Assistant Collectors [and]the harassment to the assessee caused by the [failure]of these officers to give effect lo 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 theAssistanl Collectors working within his [jurisdiction ][and]the order of the Tribunal is binding [upon the Assistant]Collectors and the Appellate Collectors who [function]under the [jurisdiction ]of the Tribunal. The [principles ]ofjudicial discipline require that the orders of the higherappellate aulhorities should be followed [unreservedly]by 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 hasbeen suspended by a competent court. lf this healthybeen suspended by a competent court. lf this healthy \ rule is not followed, the result will only be 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 tength,because it has been suggested by the l,larnedAdditional Solicitor General that the obsen/ationsmade by the High Court, have been harsh on theofficers. lt is clear that the observations of thr: HighCourt, seemingly vehement, and appilrelflyunpalatable to the Revenue, are only intended t: curba tendency in revenue matters which, if allowed tobecome widespread, could result in consid3rableharassment to the assesses-public without any irenefitto the Revenue. We would like to say that thedepartment should take these observations in lheproper 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 wonying this Bench more is thc fact that anendeavour is being made whole heartedly to ensure not to generatefurther litigation on issues which have been laid to resr by a largenumber of High courts all of whom have taken a ccnsiste nt standthat the action of the Income Tax Department being violative of the 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 [be]trite at this [juncture, ]if we dispose of the writ [petition ]with [an]observation/direction that the disposal of the [instant ][writ petition ][in]terms of the [judgment ]rendered by this High Court [in ]the [case ]ofKankanala Ravindra Reddy (l supra) shalt [however be ][subject ][to]the outcome of the SLPs which [were ][filed ]by [the ][Income ][Tax]Department and which is pending consideration before [the ][Hon'ble]Supreme Court. 16. In the given facts and circumstances, this [Bench ]is of [the]considered opinion that unless and until [we ][do ][not timely ][dispose]of matters which are squarely covered by the [decision ][of this Court]and which stands fortified by the decisions of [the ][various ][other]High Courts on the very same issue, the [pendency ][of ][this ][High]Court would further be burdened [which ]otherwise [can ][be ][decided]and disposed of as a covered matter. 17. So far as the interest of the Revenue is concerned, [we ][are ][of]the considered opinion that the interest of the [Revenue ][has ][already]been considered and protected, as has been observed [in ][paragraphs] 36,37 and 38 of the order which, for ready referenc:c, is reprorlucedhereunder: 36. For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned noticesissued and the proceedings drawn by the respondent-Depa.lment is neither tenable, nor suita nableThe notices so issued and lhe 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 thr: noticesissued under Section 147 and 148 would erlso 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 issustarned and all these writ petitions stands allowed onthis very jurisdictional issue. Since the impugned noticesand orders are getting quashed on the l)oint ofjurisdiction, we are not inclined to proceed furlher anddecide the other issues raised by the petitioner whichstands reserved to be raised and contended i1 anappropriate proceedings. 37. The preliminary objection raised by the petitioner issustarned and all these writ petitions stands allowed onthis very jurisdictional issue. Since the impugned noticesand orders are getting quashed on the l)oint ofjurisdiction, we are not inclined to proceed furlher anddecide the other issues raised by the petitioner whichstands reserved to be raised and contended i1 anappropriate proceedings. 38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the caseof Ashish Agarwal, supra, as a one{ime r-teasureexercising 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, t-e right 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 ofAshishAgarwal, 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 writ petition is subject to outcome of theaforesaid SLP prefened by the Revenue against the decision ofthisHigh Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra).This, in other words, would mean that either of the parties, if theyso want, may move an appropriate petition seeking revival of thiswrit petition in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble SupremeCourt in the pending SLP on the very same issue I 9. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands allowed1nfavour of the assessee so far as the issue of jurisdictionlsfavour of the assessee so far as the issue of jurisdictionlsconcerned. As a consequence, the impugned notice underchallenge under Sections 148-4 and 148 stands set aside/quashed. I The consequential orders, if any, also stand set aside/quashed insimilar terms as have been passed by this High Courl in the case of Kankanala Ravindra Reddy (1 supra). There shal. be no order as to costs Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shalt stand closed. SD/- T. JAYASREEDEPUTY REGISTRAR//TRUE COPY//(-l': SECTION OFFICER HIGH COURT DATED:2810412025 ORDERWP.No.36842 of 2024 .-,:i,5Xi\,BB :r* DFi:l ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITIONWITHOUT COSTS ,{