This Is A Writ Petition Is A Writ Petition Writ Petition Petition Where The Proceedings The Proceedings Proceedings Are Eithereither v. Income Tax Officer

t3447l IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction)[/ONDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF APRILTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSTNG RAO NANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION NO: 3177 OF 2025 Between: Shakunthala Bachu, Wo Parandamulu Kande aged about 59 years, Occ.Business,R/o Plot No 38, Flat No 102, Sri Manu Plaza Apartments, B'rindayan Colony, ASRao Nagar Secundrabad, Telangana, 500062,R/o Plot No 38, Flat No 102, Sri Manu Plaza Apartments, B'rindayan Colony, ASRao Nagar Secundrabad, Telangana, 500062, ...PETITIONER AND 1 . lncome Tax Officer, Ward 15( l ), Hyderabad Income Tax Towers, Masab Tank500004500004 2Principal Commissioner of lncome Tax- 4, lncome Tax Towers, Masab Tank,Hyderabad 500004Hyderabad 500004 2The National Faceless Assessment Centre, lncome Tax Department Ministryof Finance Govt. of lndia, New Delhiof Finance Govt. of lndia, New Delhi ..,RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed t\erewith, the High Court may bepleased to l. lssue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly, one, in the natureof Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondent No. 2 in passing anOrder dated 29.03.2024 u/s. ['148A(d) ]and Notice u/s. 148 dated 29.03.2024calling for income for A.Y.2020-21 as illegal, arbitrary, bad in law and violative ofArticles 14, 19 and 265 of the Constitution of lndia ll. Set aside the Order dated29.03.2024u1s 148A(d) and Notice issued by Respondent No.2 u/s. 148 oflncome Tax Act, 1961 dated 29.03.2024calling for the return of income of thePetitioner for A-Y. 2020-21 and any consequent proceedings as lacking injurisdiction and lll. Set aside proceedings against the Petitioner for Ay 2020-21on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction of the AO to proceed since the alleged income escaping [assessment is less than ][Rs][ 50 ][lakhs, ][in ][view of ][the ][Imitation]imposed [under Section 149(1Xb) ][of ][the ][lncome Tax ][Act' ][1961] lA NO:'1 O Petition [under ][Section ][l5'l ][CPC praying ][that ][in ][the ][circumstances stated ][in]the affidavit [filed ][in support of the ][petition' the ][High Court ][may ][be ][pleased ][to ][stay]the [proceedings pursuant ][to ][the ][Order passed ][by ][the ][lncome ][Tax ][Department]under Section [148A(d) dated 29 ][03 ][2024 ][for Asse'ssment ][Year ][2O2O-21 ][and direct]the Department [to ][not ][take any coercive steps ][for ][recovery ][of ][demand] Counsel for [the Petitioner :'SRl ] Counsel for [the Respondents: ][Ms'B'SAPNA ][REDDY' ][Jr'SC ][for ][lT ] The Court [made ][the ][following: ] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSITYANDTHE HONOT]RABLE SRIJUSTICE NARSING RAONANDIKONDA WRIT PETTTTON No.3l77 OF 2025 ORDER, (per Hon'ble Sri Justice p.Sam Koshy) Heard Mr. Polkampally Pavan Kumar Rao, leamed counsel for the petitioner 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 is a writ petition writ petition petition where the proceedings the proceedings proceedings are eithereitherchallenged to the notices which were issued under Section l4gAand 148 of the Income Tax Act, l96t (for short [,the ]Act,) ortheassessment orders those have been passed under Section 147 ofthe Act which have been assailed. This is a writ petition is a writ petition writ petition petition where the proceedings the proceedings proceedings are eithereither WRIT PETTTTON No.3l77 OF 2025 ORDER, (per Hon'ble Sri Justice p.Sam Koshy) Heard Mr. Polkampally Pavan Kumar Rao, leamed counsel for the petitioner 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 is a writ petition writ petition petition where the proceedings the proceedings proceedings are eithereitherchallenged to the notices which were issued under Section l4gAand 148 of the Income Tax Act, l96t (for short [,the ]Act,) ortheassessment orders those have been passed under Section 147 ofthe Act which have been assailed. This is a writ petition is a writ petition writ petition petition where the proceedings the proceedings proceedings are eithereither 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 l4g 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, proceedings &' under Section 148A of [the ][Act ][as ][also under ][Section ][148 ][of ][the]Act ought to have also [been ][issued ][and ][proceeded ][in ][a ][faceless]manner.4. The contention of the [petitioner ]is [that ][the ][issue ][of]proceedings being in violation of [the ][Finance Act, 2021 ][i.e., ][the]impugned notices under Section [t48A ][and Section ][148 ][ofthe ][Act]not being issued in a faceless rnnner, [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 ][l48A ][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 ][15lA ][of]the 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 ][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 INDIAT, 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 SHAII vs. INCOME TAx OFFICER,INTERNATIONAL TAXATION6 which is again on inrernationaltaxation and central circle, High Court of Himachal pradesh in thecase of GO!'IND SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERT,Gujarat High Court in the case of MANSUKHBHAI 'zTzoz+1464 [430 ][(Bom)]'1Q024) 156 taxmann.com 478 (Gauhari)l'l(2024) 165 taxmann.com I 15 (Punjab & Haryana)l' [2024) I 67 taxmann.com 4 I I (Telangana)] " 12024) 166 taxmann.com 679 (Bombay)l ' 12024) 165 taxmann.com I 13 (Himachal Pradesh)l 'zTzoz+1464 [430 ][(Bom)]'1Q024) 156 taxmann.com 478 (Gauhari)l'l(2024) 165 taxmann.com I 15 (Punjab & Haryana)l' [2024) I 67 taxmann.com 4 I I (Telangana)] " 12024) 166 taxmann.com 679 (Bombay)l ' 12024) 165 taxmann.com I 13 (Himachal Pradesh)l DAHYABHAI [VS. ] [OFFICE&]WARD [3(3X5)8, Jharkand ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ] SUNDAR [vs. ] [INDIAe, ][Rajasthan ][High ][Court in]the case [of ] [vs. ] OFFICER [& ] [and ][batch ][of writ ][petitionsro ][which]stood [decided ][on ][19.03.2024. ][Similar views ][have ][also been taken]the [Division ][Bench ][of ][Calcutta ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]by GIRDHAR [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 ][l0 ][writ]petitions. [That ][upon ][the ][instructions ][being ][sought ][from ][the]Department, [they ][have been ][taking ][a ][solitary ][ground ][that ][the]decision [of ][the ][Bombay ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ][Hexawure]Technologies [Ltd., ][(2 ][supra) ][as ][also ][the ][one ][which ][has ][been]decided [by ][this Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ][Kanakala Ravindta ][Reddy]'2024 [SCc ][online ][Guj ][4012]" [2025 ] [Online ][Jhar ][287]" 12023, [:49 ][84-DB ][l] l - (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'bre 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 l4gA and underSection 148 of the Act by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer,rather the authorities concerned in the teeth of series of decisions all [the major ][High ][Courts ][in ][India ][are ][continuously still]by 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 Act ][2021']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 ][(1 ][supra), ][leamed ][Standing]CounselforthelncomeTaxDepartmentcontendsthatthosewouldunnecessarily [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]interestofthepetitionersincaseifthiswritpetitioniskeptpendingtillthefinalizationoftheSLPspendingbeforetheHon'bleSupreme [Court ][and ][the fact ][that the petitioner ][is ][already enjoying]the benefrt [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] appropnate steps in ensuring that proceedings under Section 14gAof the Act as also the assessment orders under Section r4g of theAct are kepr in a hold in the light ofthe decisions dedcided by thevarious High Courts, it was submitted by the learned 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 daytrut 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 151A 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(l supra). What is also surprising is the fact that though whileallowing the writ petitions in the case of Kanakara RavindraReddy (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 ][for]initiating [fresh proceedings ][strictly in ][accordance ][with ][the ][amended]of [the ][Act, ][as amended ][by the ][Finance ][Act, ][2020 ][and]provisions the Finance [Act,202l. ][The ][petitioner ][assessee ][would ][be ][entitled ][to]challenge [or ][raise ][the ][other ][tegal ][objections ][if ][the ][Revenue ][initiates]fiesh [proceedings. ][The ][Department ][has ][made ][no ][endeavour ][in]the [said ][liberty ][that ][was reserved ][for ][the ][Revenue' ][On ][the]availing contrary, [they ][have been ][still ][sticking on ][to ][the ][stand, ][which ][this]Court [as ][well ][as ][matiy other ][High ][Courts already held ][to ][be]High bad. insofar [as ]the [liberty which ][was ][granted ][to ][the ][Revenue ][for]initiating [fresh proceedings ][strictly in ][accordance ][with ][the ][amended]of [the ][Act, ][as amended ][by the ][Finance ][Act, ][2020 ][and]provisions the Finance [Act,202l. ][The ][petitioner ][assessee ][would ][be ][entitled ][to]challenge [or ][raise ][the ][other ][tegal ][objections ][if ][the ][Revenue ][initiates]fiesh [proceedings. ][The ][Department ][has ][made ][no ][endeavour ][in]the [said ][liberty ][that ][was reserved ][for ][the ][Revenue' ][On ][the]availing contrary, [they ][have been ][still ][sticking on ][to ][the ][stand, ][which ][this]Court [as ][well ][as ][matiy other ][High ][Courts already held ][to ][be]High bad. 11. It appears [that ][because ][ofthe ][aforesaid ][liberty ][that ][this ][High]Court had [granted ][permitting ][the ][Revenue ][for ][initiating ][fresh]a [one-time ][measure ][in ][a ][faceless ][manner, ][the]proceedings [as ]Income [Tax ][Department wants ][to ][take ][advantage ][of ][the ][same ][by]these [proceedings ][which would ][enable ][them ][to ][meet ][the]protracting 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 [a ][later ][stage ][if ][the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Court ][confirms]the decision [taken ][by ][this ][High ][Court ][as also ][by ][the ][other ][High]Courts in which the [SLPs ][are ][still ][pending, ][the ][Income ][Tax] Department would get the advantage of the liberfy that is otherwiseprotected in favour of the Revenue for initiation of freshproceedings from the disposal ofthese matters at a much later stagewhich would be advantageous and beneficial to the Revenue andwould be equally disadvantageous and detrimentar so far as interestof the assesses are concemed. As a consequence, the Income Taxwould be equally disadvantageous and detrimentar so far as interestof the assesses are concemed. As a consequence, the Income TaxDepartment gets an extended period of time for initiation of freshproceedings.proceedings. l2The 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 titigationwith 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 legal Such [conduct raises ][serious questions ][about ][the]position. administrative [efficiency ][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.] Such [conduct raises ][serious questions ][about ][the]position. administrative [efficiency ][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 ][th'e ][Income ][Tax ][Department ][itself ][and]shouldhavefoundoutviamediainensuringthatproceedingsunder Sections [148-4 ][and" ][148 ][should ][not ][have been ][issued ][in ][a]faceless manner, [at least ][till ][the ][Hon'bte ][Supreme ][Court ][decide ][the]twelve hundred [( ][1 ][200) odd ][SLPs ][which ][it ][is already ][seized ][of ][or' ][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-A 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 ][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 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 pelition 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 hling 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 concerned at theState level are not ready to accept the verdict passed by a maj orityof 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 l4g_A and u 148 through the [jurisdictional ][Assessing ][Officer ][whereas ][it ][ought]to have been only [in ][the ][faceless ][manner'] 14. In the case of [vs' ] COMMISSIONER, [TAXlr, ][on ][an issue ][whether ][it ][was]justifiable on the part of the [Income ][Tax ][Department ][in ][not]an order [passed ][by ][the ][adjudicating authority ][only ][on ][the]following ground that the appeals [are ][pending, ][the Division ][Bench ][of ][the]High Court of Bombay [held ][at ][paragraph ][No'25 ][as ][under' ][viz'' ][:] u 148 through the [jurisdictional ][Assessing ][Officer ][whereas ][it ][ought]to have been only [in ][the ][faceless ][manner'] 14. In the case of [vs' ] COMMISSIONER, [TAXlr, ][on ][an issue ][whether ][it ][was]justifiable on the part of the [Income ][Tax ][Department ][in ][not]an order [passed ][by ][the ][adjudicating authority ][only ][on ][the]following ground that the appeals [are ][pending, ][the Division ][Bench ][of ][the]High Court of Bombay [held ][at ][paragraph ][No'25 ][as ][under' ][viz'' ][:] "25. Mr. Paridwalla has [rightly drawn ][out ][attention ][to ][the]decision of this [Court in ][Commissioner ][of ][lncome ][Tax ][vs' ][Smt']Godavaridevi [Sarafr2 ][as ][also ][the ][recent ][decision ][of ][the ][co-]ordinate Bench of [this ][Court in ][Samp ][Furniture ][(P) ][Ltd' ][v' ][lTO13]of which one of [us (Justice G.S. 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]binding force. [Referring ][to the decision ][of ][the Supreme ][Court ][in]Union of lndia [vs. ][Kamlakshi Finance Corporation ][Ltd'14' the]Court observed [that ][the approach ][of the ][officials ][of ][Revenue of]treating decisions [being "not ][acceptable" ][was ][criticized ][by ][the]Court. [ln ][such ][decision, ][following ][are the ][relevant]Supreme observations [made ][by ][the ][Supreme Court'] " 11zozs; [170 ][taxmann.com ][422 ][(Bombay)l] " [yt9t81 ] [l3 ITR ][589 ][(Bombay)] '3 lzoz+1 [165 ][taxmann.com ][581/300 ]['faxman ][452 ][(Bombay)] to taxmann.com 16155ELT 433 (SC)taxmann.com 16155ELT 433 (SC)TtSgZl " 11zozs; [170 ][taxmann.com ][422 ][(Bombay)l] " [yt9t81 ] [l3 ITR ][589 ][(Bombay)] '3 lzoz+1 [165 ][taxmann.com ][581/300 ]['faxman ][452 ][(Bombay)] to taxmann.com 16155ELT 433 (SC)taxmann.com 16155ELT 433 (SC)TtSgZl "6. Sri Reddy is perhaps right in saying that theofficers were not actuated by any mala fides inpassing the impugned orders. They perhapspassing 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 conctusion or of any factualmalafides but with the fact that the officers, in reachingin their conclusion, by-passed two appellate orders inwould suffer. But what Sri Reddy overlooks is that weare not concerned here with the correctness orotherwise of their conctusion 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, righflythe Tribunal. The High Court has, in our view, righflycriticized this condugt 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. ltthe 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 theutmost importance that, in disposing of thequasuudicial issues before them, revenue offlcers arebound by the decisions of the appellate authorities.The order of the Appellte Collector is binding on theThe order of the Appellte Collector is binding on theAssistant Collectors working within his jurisdiction andthe order of the Tribunal is binding upon the Assistantthe order of the Tribunal is binding upon the AssistantCoilectors and the Appellate Collectors who functionunder the [jurisdiction ]of the Tribunal. The principles ofjudicial discipline require that the orders of the higherunder 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" toorder of the appellate authority is not "acceptable" tothe department - in itself an objectionable phrase -and is the subject matter of an appeal can furnish noand 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 ][followed, ][the ][result ][will ][only ][be ][undue]harassment [to ][assesses ][and ][chaos ][in ][administration] of tax [laws] rule is [not ][followed, ][the ][result ][will ][only ][be ][undue]harassment [to ][assesses ][and ][chaos ][in ][administration] of tax [laws] 12We have [dealt with ][this ][aspect ][at ][some ][length']the [Iearned]because [it ][has ][been ][suggested ][bY]observationsAdditional [Solicitor General ][that ][the]made [by ][the ][High ][Court' have been harsh ][on ][the]officers. [lt ][is ][clear tha! ][the ][observations ][of the ][High]Court, [seemingly ][vehement' ][and ][apparently]unpalatable [to the ][Revenue' are ][only ][intended ][to ][curb]" [t"nd"n"y in ][revenue matters ][which' ][if ][allowed ][to]become [widespread, ][could result ][in ][considerable]harassment [to ][the ][Lssesses-public without any benefit]to the [Revenue ][We ][would ][like ][to ][say that ][the]department [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 ][adiudicating authorities and the]appellate [authorities ][to ][the ][requirements ][of ][iudicial]discipline [and ][the ][need ][for ][giving ][effect ][to the ][orders]of the [higher appellate authorities which ][are ][binding]on them." 15. [What ][is ][worrylng][ 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 ][lncome ][Tax ][Department being ][violative ][of ][the] - Finance Act,2020 and Finance Act,2O2l. 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 antrite 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 toterms 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 filed by the Income TaxDepartment and which is pending consideration before the Hon,bleDepartment 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 ofas a covered matter. ll . So far as the interest far as the interest as the interest the interest of the Revenue is concemed, the Revenue is concemed, Revenue is concemed, is concemed, concemed, we are are ofthe considered opinion that the interest of the Revenue has alreadybeen considered and protected, as has been observed in paragraphs So far as the interest far as the interest as the interest the interest of the Revenue is concemed, the Revenue is concemed, Revenue is concemed, is concemed, concemed, we are are of 36,37 and3 8 [of ][the order ][which, ][for ][ready reference, is reproduced]hereunder: ll . So far as the interest far as the interest as the interest the interest of the Revenue is concemed, the Revenue is concemed, Revenue is concemed, is concemed, concemed, we are are ofthe considered opinion that the interest of the Revenue has alreadybeen considered and protected, as has been observed in paragraphs So far as the interest far as the interest as the interest the interest of the Revenue is concemed, the Revenue is concemed, Revenue is concemed, is concemed, concemed, we are are of 36,37 and3 8 [of ][the 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-]Department is [neilher tenable, ][nor ][sustainable']The notices so [issued ][and the ][procedure adopted ][being]per se illegal, deserves to be [and ][are ][accordingly ][set]aside/quashed. As a [consequence, ][all the ][impugned]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.grdered accordingly. [The ][reason ][we]are [quashing ]the [consequential ][order ][is ][on ][the ][principles]that when the initiation [of ][lhe ][proceedings ][itself ][was]procedurally wrong, the subsequent [orders ][also ][gets]nullified automaticallY. 37. The [preliminary objection raised ][by ][the ][petitioner ][is]sustained and all [these ][wdt ][petilions stands allowed ][on]this very [jurisdictional issue. Since ][the ][impugned notices]and orders are [gefting quashed ][on the ][point ][of]jurisdiction, we are not inclined to'proceed [further ][and]decide the other [issues ][raised ][by the ][petitioner ][which]stands reserved to [be ][raised ][and ][contended ][in ][an]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] confened 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. 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 preferred by the Revenue against the decision ofthisHigh Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra).This, in other words, would mean tlat either of the [parties, ]if theyso want, may move an appropriate [petition ]seeking revival of [this]writ 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 ]isconcerned. As a consequence, the impugned notice underchallenge under Sections 148-A 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, miscellaneous petitions [pending, ]if [any, shall] stand closed SECTION \ To, .l.ThelncomeTaxofficer,wardl5(1)'HyderabadlncomeTaxTowers'MasabTank 500004 .l.ThelncomeTaxofficer,wardl5(1)'HyderabadlncomeTaxTowers'MasabTank 500004 z - - The Principal Tjnk, Principal Hyderabad 500004[Commissroner of lncome Tax- ][4' ][lncome Tax ][Towers' ][Masab] 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, miscellaneous petitions [pending, ]if [any, shall] stand closed SECTION \ To, .l.ThelncomeTaxofficer,wardl5(1)'HyderabadlncomeTaxTowers'MasabTank 500004 .l.ThelncomeTaxofficer,wardl5(1)'HyderabadlncomeTaxTowers'MasabTank 500004 z - - The Principal Tjnk, Principal Hyderabad 500004[Commissroner of lncome Tax- ][4' ][lncome Tax ][Towers' ][Masab] z - - The Principal Tjnk, Principal Hyderabad 500004 1 The National Faceless [Assessment ][Centre' ][lncome ][Tax ][Department Ministry]" Covt of [lndia ][New ][Delhi]"i'Fii-tr".t" [[Advocate ][lOPUCl]][[lOPUCl]]" Covt of [lndia ][New ][Delhi]"i'Fii-tr".t" [[Advocate ][lOPUCl]][[lOPUCl]] "i'Fii-tr".t" 4 One CC [to SRI POLKAMPALLY PAVAN KUMAR RAO' ][[Advocate ][lOPUCl]][[lOPUCl]] 5. One [to ][tTIs ] [(Jr' ][SC FOR INCOME TAX)]loPUClloPUCl 6. Two [CD CoPies] BSK BS HIGH COURT DATED:2810412025 a'\ rt l: SIZ16o&Ja-)O2 [zffi]ORDER;/WP.No.3177 [of ][2025] ALLOWING WITHOUT