This Writ Petition Is Being Taken Up Today Only On One Of The v. Income-Tax Officert Decidedon 14.09.2023 Whereby A Batch Of Writ Petitions Were Allowed [And]The Proceeding

- Ar HY r N r H E [r ][c H ][co ][u ][Rr ]^ [s?: [J#%?,l,lll! ][f,1,]8,:t]f)^ ] MONDAY, TWO THOUSAND PRESENT THE HONOURABLE [P'SAM ] ANDTHE HoNouRABLE [sRl ]'rusrrLe-tlanslNc [RAo ][NANDIKoNDA]WRIT [ ON ][NO:][ 1976 ][0] Between: YtY1"83,1?,3H?j!i''."-Hl"rfi::8, a'['-E:"11"?3".','ll'I33'h8'ii;"H'HI33:iiJ.:jiig,;oi, [Hvoeiauab - 500 082' Telansana'] ...PETITIONER AND 1.ft :trB'JI|::[::hl$S:TS,]il.8??"1ff [S,XX'i".j}X':;lil:ii'ls?'lL?;Jli"*]ft :trB'JI|::[::hl$S:TS,]il.8??"1ff [S,XX'i".j}X':;lil:ii'ls?'lL?;Jli"*]New Delhi [- ][110 003.] 2.!?tjf ilis;$+;Hffi [:tEi,.^rfr:',ltiifiilri1"fl+fiift"fl3s'tsiT:T;]!?tjf ilis;$+;Hffi [:tEi,.^rfr:',ltiifiilri1"fl+fiift"fl3s'tsiT:T;] .l:i*::'ip213"m.,::ls:,:llt?:[:"oi%353fi?!,],.ll'"x?'., [o'o'''] - 1', r rowe [rs', ][1 ][0-2 ][-3' AC]31", Ir* [ij9eL","#fl';6"dS5 ][S: ][l[3 [%l3l ] 5. The Central [Board ][of ][Direct ][Taxes ]' [BeOreserfe-!.by ][its ][Chairman']DeDartmentofRevenue,"til'ini;G;iFi';";"'Goveinmentoflndia'Secretanaterif O'"S.. [New Delhi - ][1 ][10 001 ][']DeDartmentofRevenue,"til'ini;G;iFi';";"'Goveinmentoflndia'Secretanaterif O'"S.. [New Delhi - ][1 ][10 001 ]['] ...RESPONDENTS PetitionunderArticle226oflheConstitutionoflndiaprayingthatinthecircumstances [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]Direction, declaration [that the Order ][passed by ][the ][1st ][Respondent' ][uls ][147 ][rlw]Sec. 1448 of [the ][lncome ][Tax ][Act' ][1961' ][dated ][15103t2O23' ][bearing DlN"]rrBA/ASTis/i4 [7rzo22_23t1oso8o4809(1), ][for ][the Assessment ][year ][2016 - ][17. ][as]confirmed by [the ][order ][of ][the ][2nd ][Respondent daled ][2110912024' ][vide ] [and] order No.. lrBA/NFAc/s/2sot2o24-2st1068939818(1), passed u/s 250 of thelncome Tax Act, 1961, as arbitrary, iflegar, barred by rimitation, bad in raw, void-ab-initio, violative of the principles of natural justice, apart from being violative ofArticles 1a, 1 9(1 Xg) and 265 of the constitution of lndia and Sec 1 48A of theIncome Tax Act, 1961, and consequenfly set aside the same in the interests ofjustice. lA NO: 1 OF 202s Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated inthe affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to stayall further proceedings, incruding any recovery, pursuant to the order passed bythe 1st Respondent, uls 14r r/w sec. 1448 of the Income Tax Ac, 1961, dated1510312023' bearing DrN.. rrBtuASTrsr14712022-23/1050804809(1), for theAssessment Year 2016 - 17. as confirmed by the order of the 2nd Respondentdated 2110912024, vide DrN and order No.. rrBAiNFAc/s/2sol2o24-25l1068939818(1), passed u/s 250 of the rncome Tax Act, .1961,pending disposarof the above Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI A.V.A.SIVA KARTIKEYA Counsel for the Respondents: Ms.B.SAPNA REDDy, Jr.SC for lT DEPTThe Court made the following: ORDER 'l) THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOTJRABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAONANDTKONDA WRIT PETITION No.1976 OF 2025 ORDER, (per Hon'bte Sri Justice Narsing Rao Nanrtikonda) Heard Mr. A.V.A.Siva Kartikeya, 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 I48Aand 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 the 'l) THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOTJRABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAONANDTKONDA WRIT PETITION No.1976 OF 2025 ORDER, (per Hon'bte Sri Justice Narsing Rao Nanrtikonda) Heard Mr. A.V.A.Siva Kartikeya, 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 I48Aand 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 the grounds, that the notices issued under Section l48A of the Actand the subsequent initiation ofproceedings under Section 148 ofand the subsequent initiation ofproceedings under Section 148 oft\[the ][Act ][by ][the ][jurisdictional ][Assessing ][Officer, ][whereas ][in ][terms]of the amendment that was brought to the Income Tax Act by wayof Finance Act,202l w.e.f., 01.04.2021 onwards, proceedings\[the ][Act ][by ][the ][jurisdictional ][Assessing ][Officer, ][whereas ][in ][terms]of the amendment that was brought to the Income Tax Act by wayof Finance Act,202l w.e.f., 01.04.2021 onwards, proceedings under Section 148.4 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 ]ofproceedings being in violation of the Finance Act,202l i.e., theimpugned notices under Section 148A and Section 148 ofthe [Act]not being issued in a faceless manner, have already been dealt withand decided by this Court in the case of KANKANALARAVINDRA REDDY vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICERT decidedon 14.09.2023 whereby a batch of writ petitions were allowed [and]the proceedings initiated under Section l48A as also under Section148 of the Act were held to be bad with consequential reliefs on theground of it being in violation of the provisions of Section l51A ofthe Act read with Notification 1812022 dated 29.03.2022. [The ]saidjudgment passed by this Cou( has also been subsequently followedin a large number of writ petitions which were allowed on similarterms. 'l(2023) [156 ][taxmann.com ][178 ][(Telangana)l] . ,,J.,1 5. Down the line, we find that [the ][same ][issue has also ][been]decided against the [Revenue ][by ][various ][High ][Courts ][i.e',]by the Bombay High [Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ] TECHNOLOGIES LTD., [VS. ] OF INCOME TAX & [OTHERS2, ][Gauhati ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case]of RAM NARAYAN [SAH vs. ] [INDIA3, ][Punjab ][and]Court [in ][the ][case ][of ] Haryana High vs. UNION OF INDI#, [and Telangana ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]SRI VENKATARAMANA [VS. ] COMMISSIONER [where the ][issue ][was ][in]respect of intemational [taxation, ][Bombay ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]ABHIN ANILKUMAR [VS. ] [OFFTCER,]INTERNATIONAL [which ][is again ][on ][intemational]taxation and central [circle, ][High ][Court ][of ][Himachal ][Pradesh ][in ][the]case of GOVIND SINGH [vs. ] [OFFICER?,]Guj arat High Court [in ][the ][case][ of ] ' lzoz+1464 [430 ][(Bom)]'ft2q241 [56 taxmann.com 478 ][(Gauhati)l]" t(20?4) 65 [taxmann.com ] [l5 ][(Punjab ][& ][Haryana)l]' 12024) [1 ][67 ][taxmann.com ][41 ][1 ][(Telangana)l]"12024) [166 ][taxmann.com ][679 ][(Bombay)l] '12024) [165 ][taxmann.com ][113 ][(Himachal ][Pradesh)l] ' lzoz+1464 [430 ][(Bom)]'ft2q241 [56 taxmann.com 478 ][(Gauhati)l]" t(20?4) 65 [taxmann.com ] [l5 ][(Punjab ][& ][Haryana)l]' 12024) [1 ][67 ][taxmann.com ][41 ][1 ][(Telangana)l]"12024) [166 ][taxmann.com ][679 ][(Bombay)l] '12024) [165 ][taxmann.com ][113 ][(Himachal ][Pradesh)l] DAHYABHAI RADADIYA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 3(3X5)8, Jharkand High Court in rhe case of SHyAMSUNDAR SAW vs. UNION OF INDIAe, Rajasthan High Courr inthe case of SHARDA DEVI CHHAJER vs. INCOME TAXWARD 3(3X5)8, Jharkand High Court in rhe case of SHyAMSUNDAR SAW vs. UNION OF INDIAe, Rajasthan High Courr inthe case of SHARDA DEVI CHHAJER vs. INCOME TAXOFFICER & ANOTIIER and batch of writ petirionsr0 whichstood decided ot 19.03.2024. Similar views have also been takenby the Division Bench of Calcutta High Courl in the case ofby the Division Bench of Calcutta High Courl 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 large(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 from theDepartment, they have been taking a solitary ground that theidentical matters on daily basis ranging between 5 to 10 writpetitions. That upon the instructions being sought from 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 b) tfois Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy82024 SCC Online Guj 4012'2025 Online Jhar 287'o 12023 [: ] [: ][4984-DB ]l'2025 Online Jhar 287'o 12023 [: ] [: ][4984-DB ]l ' .;:. ':il i) (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 hnd 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 Off,rcer,rather the authorities concemed in the teeth of series of decisions by all the major High Courts in [India ][are ][continuously still]initiating proceedings [under Section 148A ][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-] 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 hnd 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 Off,rcer,rather the authorities concemed in the teeth of series of decisions by all the major High Courts in [India ][are ][continuously still]initiating proceedings [under Section 148A ][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 Standing]Counsel for the Income [Tax ][Department contends ][that ][those ][would]unnecessarily burden the [Income ][Tax ][Deparlment ][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]learned Standing Counsel that [no ][prejudice ][would ][be ][caused ][to ][the]interest of the petitioners in case [if ][this ][writ ][petition ][is kept pending]till the hnalization of the SLPs [pending ][before ][the ][Hon'ble]Supreme Court and the fact that the [petitioner ][is already enjoying]the benefit of interim protection. Nonetheless, [on ][the ][earlier ][query]of this Court as to why the Income Tax [Department have not ][come]out with a mechanism to issue appropriate instructions or to takea-. appropriate steps in ensuring that [proceedings ][under Section 148A]of the Act as also the assessment [orders under ][Section ][148 ][of ][the]Act are kept in a hold in the light ofthe decisions [dedcided ][by ][the]various High Courts, it was submitted by [the ][leamed ][Standing]Counsel that the said steps [can ][only ][be taken ][at ][the ][level ][ofCBDT]as 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 ][of]litigation day in and day out [even though ][various ][orders ][have been]passed by this High Court allowing writ [petitions on ][the ][very ][same]issue. The Income Tax authorities [concerned are ][still ][even ][now in]2025 also initiating proceedings [in contravention ][to ][the ][provisions]of Section 15lA 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 Ruvindra Reddy(l supra). What is also surprising is [the fact that ][though while]allowing the writ [petitions ]in [the ][case ][of ][Kanakala ][Ravindra]Redtly (l supra), the Division Bench [while ][reserving ][the ][right ][of]the Revenue, has also [protected ]the [interest ][of ][the ][petitioners],/ , [^-"] IIIII insofar as the liberty which was granted to the Revenue forinitiating fresh proceedings strictiy in accordance with the amendedprovisions of the Act, as amended by the Finance Act, 2020 andthe Finance Act,2021. The petitioner assessee would be entitled tochallenge or raise the other legal 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. 11. It appears that because ofthe aforesaid liberty that this High , [^-"] IIIII insofar as the liberty which was granted to the Revenue forinitiating fresh proceedings strictiy in accordance with the amendedprovisions of the Act, as amended by the Finance Act, 2020 andthe Finance Act,2021. The petitioner assessee would be entitled tochallenge or raise the other legal 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. 11. It appears that because ofthe aforesaid liberty that this High Court 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 Highprotracting 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 ,:l Department would [get ]the [advantage ][of ][the ][liberty ][that is otherwise]protected in favour of the Revenue [for ][initiation ][of ][fresh]proceedings from the disposal of these [matters ][at a ][much ][later ][stage]which 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 ][time ][for initiation ][of ][fresh]proceedings. 12. The alarming trend [of docket explosion in ][this ][Court, ][despite]the clear precedent set it [Kanakala Ravindra ][Reddy ][(l ][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 ][litigation]with over 600-700 [petitions ][piling ][up ][on ][the ][same issue. This]deliberate approach not only [undermines ][the principle ][ofjudicial]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 ][circumvent]limitation [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 already provideda balanced approach by presewing 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 already provideda balanced approach by presewing 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 which it is already seized of or, 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 ][which]otherwise has to [be ][by ][way ][of ][a ][policy ][decision ][and ][that too ][at ][the]level of Central Board of [Direct ][Taxes. ][Though ][the ][leamed]Standing Counsel [for ][the ][Income ][Tax ][Department ][contended ][that]the Delhi High Court [dismissed ][a ][writ ][petition ][of ][similar ][nature, ][on]the one hand when [the ][High ][Court ][is ][struggling ][to ][reduce ][its]pendency, such notices [which ][are ][under ][challenge ][in ][this writ]petition are forcing the assessee [to knock ][the ][doors ][of ][this ][High]Court resulting in [hling ][of ][hundreds ][of ][new ][writ ][petitions ][which in]the long run not only [affects ][the ][disposal ][of ][the ][writ ][petitions ][but]also consumes substantial [time ][of ][the ][Bench ][in ][hearing ][these]matters again and again [on ][daily basis. ][Admittedly, ][in ][spite ][of ][the]matter before the Hon'ble [Supreme ][Court having ][been taken ][on]many occasions, the [Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Court ][which ][is seized ][of ][the]matter has been reluctant in [granting any ][interim ][protection to ][the]Income Tax Department. Yet, [the ][authorities ][concemed ][at ][the]State level are not ready to [accept the ][verdict ][passed ][by ][a ][majority]of High [Courts ][of ][different ][States ][on ][the ][same ][issue; ][and ][to ][make]things further [worse, ][the ][Income ][Tax ][Department ][is ][showing]audacity by [issuing ][notices ][continuously under ][Sections ][148-A ][and] 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 TAX'1, on an issue whether it wasjustifiabte on the part of the Income Tax Department in notfollowing an order passed by the adjudicating authority only on theground that the appeals are pending, the Division 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 TAX'1, on an issue whether it wasjustifiabte on the part of the Income Tax Department in notfollowing an order passed by the adjudicating authority only on theground that the appeals are pending, the Division Bench of theHigh Court of Bombay held at paragraph No.25 as under, viz., : "25. Mr. Paridwalia has righfly 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. ITO13of 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, theCou( 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. ','"1<zOzS1 [170 taxmann.co ]m 422 (Bombay)l '" tl978l I I3 ITR 589 (Bombay)tl978l I I3 ITR 589 (Bombay) " TZOZ+1 65 [taxmann. ]com 5 8 I /3 00 T axmar 4 52 (Bombay) 'o ltggZltaxmann.com [16155ELT ]433 (SC) i. ','"1<zOzS1 [170 taxmann.co ]m 422 (Bombay)l '" tl978l I I3 ITR 589 (Bombay)tl978l I I3 ITR 589 (Bombay) " TZOZ+1 65 [taxmann. ]com 5 8 I /3 00 T axmar 4 52 (Bombay) 'o ltggZltaxmann.com [16155ELT ]433 (SC) i. "6. Sri Reddy is perhaps right in saying that theofficers were not actuated by any mala fides [in]officers were not actuated by any mala fides [in]passing the impugned orders. They perhapsgenuinely felt that the claim of the assessee was nottenable and that, if it was accepted, the [Revenue]would suffer. But what Sri Reddy overlooks [is that ][we]are not concerned here with the correitness [or]otherwise of their conclusion or of any [factual]malafides but with the fact that the officers, [in reaching]in their conclusion, by-passed two appellate orders [in]regard to lhe same issue which were [placed ][before]them, one of the Collector [(Appeals) ]and the other [of]the 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 to the [orders ][of]authorities higher to them in the appellate hierarchy. [lt]cannot be too vehemently emphasized [that ][it ][is ][of]utmost importance that, in disposing of [the]tenable and that, if it was accepted, the [Revenue]would suffer. But what Sri Reddy overlooks [is that ][we]are not concerned here with the correitness [or]otherwise of their conclusion or of any [factual]malafides but with the fact that the officers, [in reaching]in their conclusion, by-passed two appellate orders [in]regard to lhe same issue which were [placed ][before]them, one of the Collector [(Appeals) ]and the other [of]the 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 to the [orders ][of]authorities higher to them in the appellate hierarchy. [lt]cannot be too vehemently emphasized [that ][it ][is ][of]utmost importance that, in disposing of [the]quasUudicial issues before them, revenue officers arebound by the decisions of lhe appellate [authorities.]The order of the Appellte Collector is binding on [the]Assistant Colleclors 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 of]judicial discipline require that the orders of the higherappellate authorities 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 mafter of an [appeal ][can ]furnish [no]bound by the decisions of lhe appellate [authorities.]The order of the Appellte Collector is binding on [the]Assistant Colleclors 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 of]judicial discipline require that the orders of the higherappellate authorities 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 mafter of an [appeal ][can ]furnish [no]ground 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. rule is not followed, the result will only be undueharassment to assesses and chaos in administrationof tax laws. 12We have dealt with this aspect at some length,because it has been suggested bythe learnedAdditional Solicitor Generat that theobservationsmade by the High Court, have been harsh on theAdditional Solicitor Generat that theobservationsmade by the High Court, have been harsh on theofficers. lt is clear that the observations of the HighCourt, seemingly vehement, and apparenflyunpalatable to lhe Revenue, are only intended to curba tendency in revenue matters which, if allowed toa tendency in revenue matters which, if allowed tobecome widespread, could result in considerableharassment to the assesses-public without any benefitto the Revenue. We would tike to say that theto the Revenue. We would tike 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 theshould 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."of the higher appellate authorities which are bindingon them." 15. What is worry.ing this Bench more is the fact that an endeavour 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 standfurther 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,202l ][. ][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 ][of]Kankanala Ravindra [Reddy ][(l ][supra) ][shall however ][be ][subj ][ect ][to]the outcome of the [SLPs ][which were ][filed by ][the ][Income ][Tax]which [is ][pending consideration ][before ][the ][Hon'ble]Department and 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 ][concemed, ][we ][are ][of]the considered [opinion that ][the ][interest ][of ][the ][Revenue ][has ][already]been considered [and ][protegfed, ][as ][has been ][observed ][in ][paragraphs] 36, 37 afi, 3 8 of the 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 142 and 14g 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 afi, 3 8 of the 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 142 and 14g 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 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 :t conferred on the Revenue would remain reserved toproceed further if they so want from the stage of theorder of the Supreme Court in the case of AshishAgarwal, supra. 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 Ravindru 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 of thisHigh Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (l stryra).This, in other words, would mean that either of the parties, if theyso want, may move an appropriate petition seeking revival of thiswrit petition in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble SupremeCourt in the pending SLP on the very same issue. 19. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands allowed infavour of the assessee so far as the issue of [jurisdiction ]isconcerned. As a consequence, the impugned notice underchallenge under Sections 148-4 and 148 stands set aside/quashed. 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. Sd/- P. GOWRI EPUTY REGTSTRAR//TRUE COPY//SECTION To,Tax DePartmene-AssessmentTax DePartmene-Assessment1. The Assessment [Unit, lncome]Center. New [Delhi, Room No"]40'1 , 2nd Floor,Jawaharlal [Nehru]Stadium, New [Delhi ][- ][110 003]Center. New [Delhi, Room No"]40'1 , 2nd Floor,Jawaharlal [Nehru]Stadium, New [Delhi ][- ][110 003] 2. ' The i&i;;[).-ri;ii;;l Joint [Commissioner (Appeals), ]F;;"i;lIJIip'6'rbJntre' [/ ][the ][Commissioner of lncome ]D-elh.i'.rhrouoh [the Principal][Tax]chief commissioner [oI ][,ri.",,i'i* ][iu#Aci'-oetni' ][NortliBlock' ][New Delhi ][-]1 10 001.chief commissioner [oI ][,ri.",,i'i* ][iu#Aci'-oetni' ][NortliBlock' ][New Delhi ][-]1 10 001. 3 The Assistant [Commissioner ][of ][lncome ][Ta1^C1919 ][Q(1 ][)' ][HVderabad' lT]" i;;;il'Tb-z-e, AC cGtos. Hvderabad - 500 004' Telangana'" i;;;il'Tb-z-e, AC cGtos. Hvderabad - 500 004' Telangana' 2. ' The i&i;;[).-ri;ii;;l Joint [Commissioner (Appeals), ]F;;"i;lIJIip'6'rbJntre' [/ ][the ][Commissioner of lncome ]D-elh.i'.rhrouoh [the Principal][Tax]chief commissioner [oI ][,ri.",,i'i* ][iu#Aci'-oetni' ][NortliBlock' ][New Delhi ][-]1 10 001.chief commissioner [oI ][,ri.",,i'i* ][iu#Aci'-oetni' ][NortliBlock' ][New Delhi ][-]1 10 001. 3 The Assistant [Commissioner ][of ][lncome ][Ta1^C1919 ][Q(1 ][)' ][HVderabad' lT]" i;;;il'Tb-z-e, AC cGtos. Hvderabad - 500 004' Telangana'" i;;;il'Tb-z-e, AC cGtos. Hvderabad - 500 004' Telangana' 4 The Princioal Commissioner [of ][lncome ][Tax ][- ]['1 ]' [lT ][Towers' ][10-2-3' AC]Guards. Hyderabad [- ][500 ][004' ][Telangana']Guards. Hyderabad [- ][500 ][004' ][Telangana'] 5. The Chairman. [Department of ][Revenu-e, ][Ministry ][of ][Finance' Governmenl'oJ]" Buildinss [New ][Delhi ][- ]['1'10]t;fir:b;;i;Ji'eor-'Io? Dli;"i'riiii ,S""ietaridt 001 ." Buildinss [New ][Delhi ][- ]['1'10]t;fir:b;;i;Ji'eor-'Io? Dli;"i'riiii ,S""ietaridt 001 . 6. One CC to [A.V.A.SIVA KARTIKEYA, ][Advocate ][lOPUCl] 7. One CC [to ][Ms ][B.SAPNA REDDY, ] [for ][lncome ][Tax Department ][ B. Two CD [CoPies] BSK PVL YY (.r HIGH COURT DATED:2810412025 ORDER WP.No.1976 of 2025 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITIONWITHOUT COSTS \o[*fr] &^" a [iir:' ]l-i,,iaA_\i'r,lO2 sEP fl6,',-),*,i ,//".'/.-J+ ;:,