The Contention Contention Of The The [[Petitioner ]]Is That The That The The [[Issue ]]Of v. The Income Tax Officer

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF APRILTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SR! JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYTHE HoNoURABLE SRI .TusTfleDrunnslNc RAo NANDIKoNDAWRIT PETITION NO: 26316 OF 2024 Between: Baswarajam Kadem, S/o. SoMATAH KADEM, Aged about 67years, occupation.Busine_ss, No.2-21 ,venkatapur Main Road sirbritikirimnaga. dossoi, TJ;fi;;r.Busine_ss, No.2-21 ,venkatapur Main Road sirbritikirimnaga. dossoi, TJ;fi;;r.lndia. PAN. ABZPKI2A43 Asbessment yea.. ZOtS-tO'- ..,PETITIONER AND 1.The lncome Tax Offiier, Ward 2,Karimnagar lncome Tax Office, AayakarBhavan, Near Natraj Theatre, Karimnagar Tdlingin;Bhavan, Near Natraj Theatre, Karimnagar Tdlingin;2The Principal Cfrief Commis_sioner of lncome Tax Telangana and A p,Iyderabad, [tT ][Towers, ] [Guards, ][tvlasab ][Tank, ]UvOeia-niO-_ soo'oz'a,TelanganaIyderabad, [tT ][Towers, ] [Guards, ][tvlasab ][Tank, ]UvOeia-niO-_ soo'oz'a,Telangana The central Board of Direct raxes, Represented by its chairman, Departmentof Rerenue, Ministry of Finance, Gov6rnment of tirali,-selietr;irt iirik]]il;,New Delhiof Rerenue, Ministry of Finance, Gov6rnment of tirali,-selietr;irt iirik]]il;,New Delhi 4The National Faceless Assessment Center, lncome Tax Department, NewDelhi.Delhi. 5The Union of lndia, Represented_ by its Secretary to the Government,Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finince, ttew beifli _ 1.10 001.Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finince, ttew beifli _ 1.10 001. ,..RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of rhe constitution of lndia praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may bepleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particurarry one inthe nature of writ of lvlandamus, declaring the order passed by the lncome TaxAuthorities (National Faceless E-Assessment centre completed the assessmentuls 147 r.w.s 144 read with section 1448 of the lncome Tax Act, .1961 vide DINand Notice No. dated 26to2t2024 trBA/AST/s/t4tt2o23-24t1061487863(.1 ) for the assessment year 2o1s-16 determining the totar income of Rs71,94,353/-asarbitrary, illegal, bad in law, without jurisdiction, void ab initio, violative of theprinciples of natural justice apart from being violative of Artictes i a, i 9(1)(g) and265 of the constitution of lndia and Sec. 14gA of {he rncome Tax Act, 1961, andconsequently set astde the same in the interests of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI THANNERU CHAITANYA KUMAR counsel for Respondents No.1to4 : Ms.J.SUN|rHA(JR.sc FoR rNcoME TAx) counser ror the Respondent No'5 '3[i3Xf,Xt#,Eili[rro*, Dy.so.cENThe Court made the following: ORDLR THE HONOURABLE SRT JUSTTCE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAONANDTKONDA WRIT PETITION No.26316 OF 2024 ORDER. (per Hon'ble Sri Justice Narsing Rao Nandikonda) Heard Mr.Thannenr Chaitanya Kumar, learned counselfor the petitioner, Ms. J.Sunitha, leamed Junior Standing Counselfor the Income Tax Department for respondent Nos.l to 4 andMr. B. Mukherjee, learned counsel representing the Union of Indiafor respondent No.5. 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, 1961 (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 l48A of the Actand the subsequent initiation ofproceedings under Section 148 ofthe Act by the [jurisdictional ]Assessing Officer, whereas in terms of the amendme$u,,yulb.ought to the Income Tax Act by way of Finance [Act, ][2021 ][w.e.f., ][01.04.2021 ][onwards, ][proceedings]under Section [148A ]ofthe [Act ][as also ][under ][Section ][148 ][ofthe]Act ought to have also [been issued ][and ][proceeded ][in ][a ][faceless]manner. 3. This writ petition is being taken up today only on one of thegrounds, that the notices issued under Section l48A of the Actand the subsequent initiation ofproceedings under Section 148 ofthe Act by the [jurisdictional ]Assessing Officer, whereas in terms of the amendme$u,,yulb.ought to the Income Tax Act by way of Finance [Act, ][2021 ][w.e.f., ][01.04.2021 ][onwards, ][proceedings]under Section [148A ]ofthe [Act ][as also ][under ][Section ][148 ][ofthe]Act ought to have also [been issued ][and ][proceeded ][in ][a ][faceless]manner. The contention contention of the the [[petitioner ]]is that the that the the [[issue ]]of 4. The contention contention of the the [[petitioner ]]is that the that the the [[issue ]]ofproceedings being in [violation ]of [the Finance ][Act,2021 ][i.e., ][the]notices under [Section 148A and Section ][148 ][ofthe ][Act]impugned 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 were ][allowed ][and]the proceedings [initiated under Section ][148A ][as ][also ][under ][Section]148 of the Act [were held ][to ][be bad ][with ][consequential ][reliefs ][on ][the]ground of it being in violation of the [provisions ]ofSection [l51A ]ofthe Act read [with ][Notification ][1812022 ][dated29.03.2022. ][The said]judgment passed by this Court has also been subsequently followedin a large number of writ [petitions which ][were ]allowed on similarterms. -"'''taxmann.com [178 ][(Telangana)l ]'l(2023) [156 ] l 5. Down the line, we find that ther we find that ther that ther ther sayre [['issr.lo:ha-s ]]arlsbi beenbeendecided against the Revenue by various High Courts i.e.,by the Bombay High Courr 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 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 GOVIND SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERT,Gujarat High Court in the case of MANSUKIIBHAI2 yzozt1464 rrR 430 (Bom)'l(2024) [156 ]taxmann.com 478 [(Gauhati)l]'l(2024) [165 ][taxmann.com ] [(Punjab ]& Haryana)l5 [2024) 167 taxmann.coru4l I (Telangana)]"[2024) 166 taxmam.com 679 [(Bombay)]]'12024) 165 taxmann.com 113 [(Himachal ]Pradesh)l Down the line, we find that ther we find that ther that ther ther sayre [['issr.lo:ha-s ]]arlsbi beenbeen DAIIYABHAI'RADADIYA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE&WARD 3(3X5)8, Jharkand High Court in the case of 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 on25.09.2024.6. Even though the same issue having been decided 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 HexawareTechnologies Ltd., (2 supra) as also the one which has beendecided by ttn3 Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy 82024 SCC Online Guj 4012'2025 Online Jhar287'o 1zoz3 [: ] [: ][49 ][84-DBl] 82024 SCC Online Guj 4012'2025 Online Jhar287'o 1zoz3 [: ] [: ][49 ][84-DBl] (l supra) has been subjected to challenge in a. Special LeavePetition i.e., SLP No.3574 of 2024 before the Hon'ble SupremeCourt and the Hon'ble Supreme Court is seized of the 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 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 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 ][continnously ][still]initiating proceedings under Section [1484. ]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 put as to why can't this [writ ][petition ][be]disposed of in the teeth of the decision rendered by this Court [in]the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra), learned StandingCounsel for the Income Tax Department contends that [tl.rose ]wouldunnecessarily burden the Income Tax Department where theywould be required to flle 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 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.,ofthe Act as also the assessment orders under Section I4g oftheAct are kept in a hold in the light of the 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. 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 concerned are still even now in2025 also initiating proceedings in contravention to the provisionsof Section l5lA of the Act and as a result by now, more than 600to 700 petitions have been already got piled up before this HighCourt on u, irru. 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 Kanukala RavindraReddy (l supra), the Division Bench while reserving the right ofthe Revenue, has also protected the interest of the petitioners-[I " " i : [- ]- :'r: . tr : ['.lr'1r ]--: [.vli -.'.r ][',.' ][ii ][granteC ][to ][tire ][itJvenue IJr]initiating fresh [proceedings ][strictly ][in ][accordance ][with ][the ][amended]provisions of the Act, as amended [by ][the ][Finance ][Act, ][2020 ][and]the Finance Act,2O2l. [The ][petitioner ][assessee ][wouid ][be ][entitled to]challenge or raise [the ][other ][legal objections ][if ][the Revenue ][initiates]fresh 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 [many other ][High ][Courts ][alreadl'held to ][be]bad I 1. It appears that because [of ][the aforesaid ][liberty ][that this ][High]Court had [granted ][permitting ][the ][Revenue ][for ][initiating ][fresh]proceedings as a one-time [measure ][in ][a ][faceless manner, ][the]Income Tax Department [wants ][to ][take ][advantage ][of ][the ][same ][by]protracting these proceedings [which ][worild ][enable ][them to meet ][the]limitation that would otherwise [come ][in ][the ][way. ][Likewise, ][if ][the]writ petition is kept [pending ][for ][a ][considerable ][long period ][of ][time]and finally at alater stage [if ][the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Court ][conflrms]the decision taken by this [High ][Court ][as ][also ][by ][the ][other High]Courts in which the SLPs [are ]stilt [pending, ][the ][Income ][Tax] tt -' !t'tr!Gtttt!t! t! - I Department would.get the a4vantagoiof the liberty that is otherwiseprotected in favour of the Revenue for initiation of freshprotected in favour of the Revenue for initiation of freshproceedings from the disposal ofthese matters at a much later stagewhich would be advantageous and beneficiat 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.would 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, despite the clear precedent set in Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (1 supra), is amatter of grave concem. 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 to the established legalI position. Such conduct raises serious questions about theadministrative efficiency and the respect for judicialadministrative efficiency and the respect for judicialpronouncements, particularly when this Court has alrcady provideda balanced a1;proach by preserving both the Revenue's rights andassesses rnterests.a balanced a1;proach by preserving both the Revenue's rights andassesses rnterests. position. Such conduct raises serious questions about theadministrative efficiency and the respect for judicialadministrative efficiency and the respect for judicialpronouncements, particularly when this Court has alrcady provideda balanced a1;proach by preserving both the Revenue's rights andassesses rnterests.a balanced a1;proach by preserving both the Revenue's rights andassesses rnterests. 13. Another aspect which needs to be considered is that in fact itshould have been realized by the Income Tax Deparlment 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 hundrcd (1200) odd SLPs which it is already seized ofor, atleast the Income Tax Department should have found out someremedial steps to ensure that wherever the authorities intend toinitiate proceedings under Sections 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 Income Tax Department, has not been able to give aconvincing reply, except for the fact 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 ofa policy decision and that too at thelevel of Central Board of Direct Taxes. Though the leamedStanding Counsel for the [ncome Tax Department contended thatthe Dethi High Court dismissed a writ petition of similar nature, onthe one hand when the High Court is struggling to reduce itsotherwise has to be by way ofa policy decision and that too at thelevel of Central Board of Direct Taxes. Though the leamedStanding Counsel for the [ncome Tax Department contended thatthe Dethi 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 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 showingCourt 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 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 under Sections 148-4 and i 48 thrcugh the _lurisCictionai Assessing Officer whereas it oughtto have been only in the laceless manner.to have been only in the laceless manner. i 48 thrcugh the _lurisCictionai Assessing Officer whereas it oughtto have been only in the laceless manner.to have been only in the laceless manner. 14. [n the case of BANK OF INDIA vs. ASSISTANTCOMMISSIONER, INCOME TAX'r, on an issue wherher it wasjustifiable on the part of the [ncome Tax Department ln notfollowing an order passed by the adjudicating authority only on theground that the appeals are pending, the Division Bench of theHigh Court o f 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 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 Court. 'l ttzOzsl [170 ][raxmann.com 422 ][(Bombay)l]'' [978j I l3 ITR 589 (Bombay)t3 IZOZ+1165 taxmann.com 58 l/300 Taxman 452 (Bombay) 'o 1tfZ1 [taxnann.com ][l6155 ] [433 (SC)] '6. Sri Reddy is perhaps right .in saying,,that the...officers 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 or of any factualmalafides but with the fact that the officers, in reachingin their conclusion, by-passed two appellale 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, righflycriticized this conduct of the Assistant Collectors andthe harassment to ti.rl 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 subject matter of an appeal can furnish noground for not following it unless its operation hasbeen suspended by a competent court. lf this healthy rule is not fcllowed, the result will only be undueharassment to assesses and chaos in administrationof tax laws. rule is not fcllowed, 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 apparenllyunpalatable to the Revenue, are only intended to curba tendency in revenue matters which, if allowed tobecome widespread, could result in considerableharassment to lhe 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 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 standthat the action of the Income Tax Department being violative of the Finance [Act,2020 ][and ][Finance ][Act'2021' Now' ][in ][orderto ][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/d [irection ][that the disposal ][of ][the instant ][writ ][petition ][in]terms [of ][the ][judgment ][rendered ][by ][this ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]KankunalaRavindraReddy(|supra)shallhoweverbesubjecttothe outcome [of ][the ][SLPs ][which were ][filed by ][the ][lncome 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'] l7 . So far [as ][the interest ][of ][the Revenue ][is concemed' 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 ofthe order which, for ready reference, is reproduced hereunder 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 atso getguashed and it is ordered accordingly. The reason weare quashing the consequential order is on the principlesthat when the initistion of the proceedings itself wasprocedurally wrong, the subsequent orders also getsnullifi ed 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 furlher 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 allowed onthis very [jurisdictional ]issue. Since the impugned noticesand orders are getting quashed on the point ofjurisdiction, we are not inclined to proceed furlher 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 Agarwal, 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 confened on the Revenue [would ][remain ][reserved ][to]proceed further if they so want from the stage of theorder 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 ][SLP No'3574 ][of ][2024,]preferred by the lncome Tax Department, [we ][make ][it ][clear ][that]allowing of the instant writ [petition ][is ][subject ][to ][outcome ][of ][the]aforesaid SLP [prelerred by ][the Revenue against ][the ][decision ][ofthis]High Court in the case of [Kanakala Ravindra ][Reddy ][(l ][sttpta).]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.] I 9. Accordingly, 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]challenge under Sections 148-A and [148 ][stands set aside/quashed.] r( \\ I i,i; ci-:rsequ si. ,,.:i '.. . -.tS ir r_ .;., ;r._ro stand ser asir!;iquashe., ir similar terms as have been passed by this High Court in the case of Kankanala Ravindra Reddy (1 supra). There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed SD/1P,C h. Naga bh ushambaI \dF:1a*ScrsrRAR/,/ [.]''jsectroruoFFtcER //TRUE COPY// To, \, 1The lncome Tax Officer, Ward 2,Karimnagar lncome Yax Office, AayakarBhavan, Near Natraj Theatre, Karimnagar Telangana.Bhavan, Near Natraj Theatre, Karimnagar Telangana. 2The Principal Chief Commissloner of lncome Tax Telangana and A P,Hyderabad, lT Towers, AC Girards, Masab Tank, Hydeiabad - 500 028,TelanganaHyderabad, lT Towers, AC Girards, Masab Tank, Hydeiabad - 500 028,Telangana .lThe Central Board of Dir'ect Taxes, Represented by its Chairman, Departmentof Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of lndia, Secretariat Buildings,New DelhiThe Central Board of Dir'ect Taxes, Represented by its Chairman, Departmentof Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of lndia, Secretariat Buildings,New Delhi 4The National Faceless Assessment Center, lncome Tax Department, NewDelhi.Delhi. The Secretary to the Government, Department of Revenue. I\,4inistry ofFinance, Union of lndia, New Delhi - 1 10 001 .Finance, Union of lndia, New Delhi - 1 10 001 . One CC to SRI THANNERU CHAITANYA KUIMAR, Advocate. IOPUCI 6 one cc to MS.J SUN|THA (JUN|OR SC FOR tNCOrvlE TAX). tOpUCl 7 One CC to SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, (Deputy Soticitor Generat of lndia),High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. Two CD Copies. BSKuKS r:i-r,ii,*i HIGH COURT DATED:28104t2025 ORDER WP.No.26316 of 2024 .--a : : ['.-]k" o,:'\)__1i,)2E il8 [2ffi],)'+rJ,',r jr:\:.1: -,:::.'---' ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITIONWITHOUT COSTS