This Writ Petition Is Being Taken Up Today Only On One Of The v. Income-Tax Offi(]Err Decidedon 14.09.2023 Whereby A Batch Of Writ Petitions Wdrc Allowed Andthe Proceedings Initiated Under Sect

HIGH GOURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF APRILTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDTKONDA WRIT PETITION NO: 7171 0F 2025 Between: HSC CONSTRUCTTONS, Rep. by pa(ner TATtpARTHt SUDHAKAR S/o.HUSSAIN TATIPAR_TH| aged abSut 47 yearc, Occupafion Au;;#; Ry".H.No 1-8-506/55/1/B_,^prakash Nagar Exin, Hyderabio soOolO-iJa"'gi;",lndia PAN. , Assessmdnt year. 20tg_2O .,.PETITIONER AND 1. Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre, lncome TaxPepa,rtm,el!.Yinistryof [Finance, ][RooqNo ][401 ][,2nd ][flobi, f_nimp,']Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium. Delhi - 1 10 003.Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre, lncome TaxPepa,rtm,el!.Yinistryof [Finance, ][RooqNo ][401 ][,2nd ][flobi, f_nimp,']Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium. Delhi - 1 10 003. 2. The lncome tax officer, Ward 15(1), Hyderabad/ I T TOWER, AC Guards,Masab Tank, Hyderabad Tetangaria-SbOOOaMasab Tank, Hyderabad Tetangaria-SbOOOa 3. Union of lndia, Represent by its secretary Ministry of Finance North Brock,New Delhi-1 10 001New Delhi-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 ma-y be pleasedto pass an order or direction, especially one in the nature of wrrt oi mandamusholding that the order passed by lst Respondenl uls. 141 r.w.s 144 read withsection ['1448 ]of the lr Act, dt. 23.01.2o2s with DtN No. trB/AJAST/s/.1 4il2024-2511072480080(1) for the Ay. 2o1g-20, as arbitrary, iilegal, bad in taw, void abinitio, violation of principles of natural justice apart from violation of Articles .14, .lg(1Xg) and 265 of constitution of lndia apart from being violative of provisions ofsection 14BA and section 149 of the Act and also contrary to the circuiar issued byGBDT and provisions of section 151A of the Act, and consequenfly set aside theorder passed by l st Respondent u/s. 141 r.w.s 144 rcad with section 1448 of thelr Act, dt 23.01.2025 with DtN No. |rBA/ASTtst147t2o24-2s/1072480080(1) forthe Ay. 2019-20 and all consequential proceedings pursuant thereto lA NO: ['l ]OF 2025 Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the ,;ircumstances stated inthe_affidavit fired in support of the petition, it,,J nigr, court ray oe preaseo io-stayall further all further proceedings, incruding any recovery, puluant to rhe order passed by the1 st Respondent u/s r 47 r.w.s 144 read with section 'r 448 of the rr A.i ot23'01 .2025 wirh DrN No |rBA/ASTrst147r2o24-2sr1o72,r}Oolo(1 I ro,. in"'ny2019-201 st Respondent u/s r 47 r.w.s 144 read with section 'r 448 of the rr A.i ot23'01 .2025 wirh DrN No |rBA/ASTrst147r2o24-2sr1o72,r}Oolo(1 I ro,. in"'ny2019-20 counsel for the Petitioner: SRr. MS. ArswARyA suNrL rearned councerrepresenting THANNERU CHA|TANyA KUMAR 99y.ns_e1for [the Respondent ][No.1: ][SRt ][GAD| PRAVEEN ]KUMAR Dy. SOL|C|TORGEN. OF INDIA 99^rl:"] [for the Respondent ][Nos.2&3: ][Ms. ][B.SApNA ]REDDy JR.SC FORINCOME TAX DEPARTMENT The Court made the following: ORDER w THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAONANDIKONDA W.P.No.7l71 OF 2025 ORDER; tper Hon'ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy) Heard Ms. Aishwarya Sunil, leamed counsel representingMr. Thaneeru Chaitanya Kumar, learned counsel lor the petitionerMr. Thaneeru Chaitanya Kumar, learned counsel lor the petitioner and Ms. B.Sapna Reddy, learned Junior Standing Counsel for theIncome Tax Department for respondent Nos.2 and 4. Perused therecord. 2. This is a writ petition where the proceedings are eitherchallenged to the notices which were issued under Section l48Aand 148 of the Income Tax Act, 196l (for short 'the Act') or theassessment orders those have been passed under Section 147 ofthe Act which have been assailed 3. w THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAONANDIKONDA W.P.No.7l71 OF 2025 ORDER; tper Hon'ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy) Heard Ms. Aishwarya Sunil, leamed counsel representingMr. Thaneeru Chaitanya Kumar, learned counsel lor the petitionerMr. Thaneeru Chaitanya Kumar, learned counsel lor the petitioner and Ms. B.Sapna Reddy, learned Junior Standing Counsel for theIncome Tax Department for respondent Nos.2 and 4. Perused therecord. 2. This is a writ petition where the proceedings are eitherchallenged to the notices which were issued under Section l48Aand 148 of the Income Tax Act, 196l (for short 'the Act') or theassessment orders those have been passed under Section 147 ofthe Act which have been assailed 3. This writ petition is being taken up today only on one of the grounds, that the notices issued under Section l48A of the Actand the subsequent initiation of proceedings under Section 148 ofthe Act by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, whereas in termsof the amendment that was brought to the Income Tax Act by way of Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f., 01.04.2021 onwards, proceedingsunder Section 1484' of the Act as also under Set:tion 148 of theAct ought to have also been issued and proceeded in a facelessma nner.4. The contention contention of the petitioner is that the issue ofthe petitioner is that the issue ofpetitioner is that the issue ofis that the issue ofthat the issue ofissue ofofproceedings being in violation of the Finance A<t, 2021 i.e., theimpugned notices under Section 148,,4. and Section 148 ofthe Actnot being issued in a faceless manner, have alreadl been dealt withand decided by this Court in the case ol- KANKANALARAVINDRA REDDY vs. INCOME-TAX OFFI(]ERr decidedon 14.09.2023 whereby a batch of writ petitions wDrc allowed andthe proceedings initiated under Section l48A as alst under Section148 of the Act were held to be bad with consequential reliels on theground of it being in violation of the provisions of Section l5lA ofthe Act read with Notification 1812022 dated 29.03..1022. The saidjudgment passed by this Court has also been subsequcntly followedin a large number of writ petitions which were allowed on similarterms. The contention contention of the petitioner is that the issue ofthe petitioner is that the issue ofpetitioner is that the issue ofis that the issue ofthat the issue ofissue ofof 'l(2023) taxmarLn.com [178 ][(Telangana)I] 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. ] [OF INDIA3, ][Punjab ][and]l{aryana High Court [in ][the ][case ][of ] vs. UNION OF INDIA4, and [Telangana ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]SRI VENKATARAMANA [NbNOY ] [VS. ] COMMISSIONER [II\COME ] [where the ][issue ][was in]respect of intemational [taxation, Bombay ][High ][Court in ][the ][case ][of]ABHTN ANILKTMAR SHAH [VS. ] [OFFICER,]INTERNATIONAL TAXATION6 [which ][is again on ][intemational]taxation and central circle, [High ][Court ][of ][Himachal ][Pradesh ][in ][the]case of GOVIND SINGH [vs. INCOME ] [OFFICERT,]Gujarat High Court in the [case ][of ] '7zoz+1464 [430 ][(Bom)]'l(2024) [156 ][taxmann.com 478 ][(Gauhati)l]' l(2024) I 65 taxmann.com [l5 ][(Punjab ][& ][Haryana)l]' [2024) [167 ][taxmann.com ][41 ] [(Telangana)]]" 12024) [166 ][taxmann.com ][679 ][(Bombay)l] ' 12024) I 65 taxmann.com [(Himachal ][Pradesh)l] ' 12024) I 65 taxmann.com [(Himachal ][Pradesh)l] DAHYABHAI RADADIYA vs. INCOME I'r\X OFFICER,WARD 3(3X5)13. Jharkand High Court in the case of SHYAMSUNDAR SAW vs. UNION OF INDIAe, Rajasthan High Court inthe case ol SHARDA DEVI CHHAJER vs. IN(IOME TAXOFFICER & ANOTHER and batch.of writ p,:titionsr0 whichstood decided on 19.03.2024. Similar views have rlso 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), decihed on25.09.2024.6. Even though the same issue having been decided by a largenumber ol High Courts, we are still confronted witL large filing ofidentical matters on daily basis ranging between 5 to 10 writpetitions. That upon the instructions being sought ltom theDepartme nt, 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 wtrich has beendecided by this Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy 8202q scc online Guj 4012'2025 [Online ][lhar ][287]' o y2023 : RJ- JD : 49ti 4- D B l ) (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.1. To a query being a query being query being put to the leamed counsel the leamed counsel for the Revenue,Revenue, To a query being a query being query being put to the leamed counsel the leamed counsel for the Revenue,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 1 6 months havetapsed, titl date, we do not find any remedial steps having beentaken by the [ncome 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 IIigh Courts in India are continuously stillinitiating proceedings under Section l48A of the Act and alsoinitiating proceedings under Section 148 of the Act incontravention to the amendments brought into the Income Tax Actpursuant to the Finance Act.2020 as also the Finan:e Act202l9. Upon a query being put as to why can't this writ petition bedisposed of in the teeth of the decision rendered by this Court inthe case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (1 supra), k:arrred StandingCounsel for the Income Tax Department contends that those wouldunnecessarily burden the Income Tax Department where theywould be required to file equal number of SLPs before theHon'ble Supreme Coun and it would be further burdening theexchequer of the Union of tndia. It was also the contention of theleamed Standing Counsel that no prejudice would br: 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 alr:ady enjoyingthe benefit of interim protection. Nonetheless, on thc earlier queryof this Court as to rvhy the Income Tax Department f ave not comeout with a mechanism to issue appropriate instructic,ns or to take - \--,r - \--,r appropriate [steps ][in ][ensuring that ][proceedings ][under Section ][l48A]of the Act [as ][also ][the ][assessment ][orders ][under Section ][148 ][of ][the]Act are kept [in ][a ][hotd 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 ][lndia ][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 concemed ][are ][still ][even ][now ][in]2025 also [initiating ][proceedings ][in ][contravention ][to ][the ][provisions]of Section [l5lA ][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 ]lavindra [Reddy](l supra). [What ][is ][also surprising ][is ][the ][fact that ][though while]altowing [the ][writ ][petitions ][in ][the ][case ][of ][Kanakala ][Ravindra]Reddy [(l ][supra), ][the ][Division ][Bench ][while ][reserving ][the ][right ][of]the Revenue, [has also ][protected ][the ][interest ][of ][the ][petitioners]\ insofar as the liberly which was granted to the Revenue forinitiating fresh proceedings strictly in accordance v.,ith the amendedinitiating fresh proceedings strictly in accordance v.,ith the amendedprovisions of the Act, as amended by the Financ,: Act, 2020 andthe Finance Act,202l. The petitioner assessee worrld be entitled tochallenge or raise the other legal objections if the Flerenue initiatesfresh proceedings. 1'he Department has made no endeavour inavailing the said liberty that was reserved for the Revenue. On thecontrary, they have been still sricking on to the stand, which thisHigh Courl as well as many other High Courts alr:ady held to bebad.the Finance Act,202l. The petitioner assessee worrld be entitled tochallenge or raise the other legal objections if the Flerenue initiatesfresh proceedings. 1'he Department has made no endeavour inavailing the said liberty that was reserved for the Revenue. On thecontrary, they have been still sricking on to the stand, which thisHigh Courl as well as many other High Courts alr:ady held to bebad. 11. It appears that because of the aloresaid libert..,that this High Court had granted permitting the Revenue for nitiating freshproceedings as a one-time mcasure in a faceless manner, theIncome Tax Department wants to take advantage c,f the same byprotracting these proceedings which would enable thsnr to meet thelimitation that wpuld 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 ( ourt confirmsthe decision taken by this High Court as also by the other HighCourts in which the Sl.Ps are still pending, the I ncome Tax ( - \ ["-1] \. .l Department would get the advantage of the liberty that is otherwiseprotected in favour of the Revenue for initiation of freshproceedings from the disposal of these matters at a much later stagewhich would be advantageous and beneficial to the Revenue andwould be equally disadvantageous and detrimental so far as interestof the assesses are concemed. As a consequence, the lncome TaxDepartment gets an extended period of time for initiation of freshproceedings ( - \ ["-1] \. .l Department would get the advantage of the liberty that is otherwiseprotected in favour of the Revenue for initiation of freshproceedings from the disposal of these matters at a much later stagewhich would be advantageous and beneficial to the Revenue andwould be equally disadvantageous and detrimental so far as interestof the assesses are concemed. As a consequence, the lncome TaxDepartment gets an extended period of time for initiation of freshproceedings 12. The alarming trend oldocket 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 lresh 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 white continuing to initiate fresh proceedingsappears to be a calculated move to buy time and circumventlimitation periods, rather than adhering to the established legal position. Such conduct raises serious questions about theadministrative efficiency and the respect for [judicial]pronouncements, particularly when this Court has iLlready provideda balanced approach by preserving both the Revenue's rights andassesses lnterests 13. Another aspect which needs to be considered is that in fact itshould have been realized by the Incorne Tax [)epartnrent itself andshould have found out via media in ensuring that proceedingsunder Sections 148-4 and 148 should not have b,:en issued in afaceless manner, at least till the Hon'ble Supreme [( ]ourt decide thetwelve hundred (1200) odd SLPs which it is already seized ofor, atleast the Income Tax Department should have fc,und out someremedial steps to ensure that wherever the authorities rntend 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 beer able to give aconvincing reply, except for the fact that such a de,;ision 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 ['faxes. ]Though the learnedStanding Counsel for the Income Tax Department contended thatthe Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition of similar nature, onthe one hand when the Fligh Court is struggling to reduce itspendency, such notices which are under challenge in this writpetition are forcing the assessec to knock the doors of this HighCourt resulting in filing of hundreds of new writ petitions which inthe long run not only allects the disposal of the writ petitions butalso consumes substantial time of the Bench in hearing thesematters again and again on daily basis. Admittedty, 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 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-A and 148 through the [jurisdictional ][Assessing ][Olficer ][v"hereas ][it ][ought]to have been only in the [faceless manner.] 148 through the [jurisdictional ][Assessing ][Olficer ][v"hereas ][it ][ought]to have been only in the [faceless manner.] 14. In the case of BANK OF [vs. ][.,\SSISTANT]COMMISSIONER, [INCOME TAXrr, ][on ][an issuc ][ri'hether ][it ][was]justifiable on the pa( of the Income Tax Dcpartmcnt in [not]foltowing an order passed by the [adjudicating ][authcrity only ][on ][the]ground that the appeals are [pending, ][the ][Division ][f]ench ][of ][the]High Court of Bombay held at [paragraph No.25 ][as rLnder, ][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-]ordrnate 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]"accepled" the [judgment ]of the High Court would not [nrean ][that ][till]the same is set aside [in ]a [manner known to law, ][it ][world ][loose ][its]binding force. Refernng to the [decision ][of ][the ][Suprerne ][Court ][in]Union of lndia vs. Kamlakshi [Finance Corporatiorr ][Ltd.14, ][the]Court observed that the approach [of the ][officials ][of ][Revenue ][of]treating decisions being ["not ][acceptable" ][was ][criticized ][by ][the]Supreme Court. ln such decision, [following ][are ][t ][le ][relevant]observations made by the Supreme [Court.] " [(2025) [170 ][taxmann.com 422 ][(Bombay)]]t2 t2 t2 yt9781 I 13 ITR 589 (Bombay)yt9781 I 13 ITR 589 (Bombay) " 1ZOZI1l65 [taxmann.com ][581/300 ][Taxman ][452 ][(Bornba)'t] to llggzltaxmanr.com l6155 ELT 433 (SC)llggzltaxmanr.com l6155 ELT 433 (SC) -7 " [(2025) [170 ][taxmann.com 422 ][(Bombay)]]t2 t2 t2 yt9781 I 13 ITR 589 (Bombay)yt9781 I 13 ITR 589 (Bombay) " 1ZOZI1l65 [taxmann.com ][581/300 ][Taxman ][452 ][(Bornba)'t] to llggzltaxmanr.com l6155 ELT 433 (SC)llggzltaxmanr.com l6155 ELT 433 (SC) -7 "6. Sri Reddy is perhaps right in saying that theofficers were not actuated by any mala fides inofficers were not actuated by any mala fides inpassing the impugned orders. They perhapsgenuinely felt lhat the clarm 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 wrlh the borrectness orare not concerned here wrlh the borrectness orotherwise of their conclusion or of any factualmalafides but with the fact that the officers, in reachingmalafides but with the fact that the officers, in reachingin their conclusion, by-p?ssed two appellate orders inregard to the same issue which were placed beforethem, one of the Collector (Appeals) and the other ofregard to the same issue which were placed beforethem, one of the Collector (Appeals) and the other ofthe Tribunal. The High Court has, in our view, rightlycriticized this conduct of the Assistant Collectors andthe harassment to the assessee caused by the failureof these officgrs to give effect to the orders ofcriticized this conduct of the Assistant Collectors andthe harassment to the assessee caused by the failureof these officgrs 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 wilhin his [jurisdiction ]andutmost 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 wilhin 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 authoritres. 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 noCollectors 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 authoritres. 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 healthybeen suspended by a competent court. [lf ]this healthy rule is not followed, the result will only be undueharassment to assesses and chaos in administrationof tax laws. rule is not followed, the result will only be undueharassment to assesses and chaos in administrationof tax laws. 12. We have dealt with this aspect at some length,because it has been suggested by the learnedAdditional Solicitor General that the obser/ationsmade by the High Court, have been harsh :n theofficers. lt is clear that. the observations of th3 HighCourt, seemingly vehement, and apparentlyunpalatable to the Revenue, are only rntended lo curba tendency in revenue matters which, if allovred tobecome widespread, could result in considerableharassment lo the assesses-public without any benefitto the Revenue. We would like to say thirt thedepartment should take these observations n theproper spirit. The observalions 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 [jrdicial]discipline 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 lact that anendeavour is being made whole heartedly to ensure tot 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 r iolative of the t '\] iI Finance Act,2020 and Finance Act,202l . Now, in order to protectthe interest of the Revenue as also that of the assessee, it would betrite at this [juncture, ]if we dispose of the writ petition with anobservation/direction that the disposal of the instant writ petition interms of the [judgment ]rendered by this High Court in the case ofKankanala Ravindra Reddy (l supra) shall however be subject tothe outcome of the SLPs which were fited by the Income TaxDepartment and which is pending consideration before the Hon'bleSupreme Court. 16. In the given facts and circumstances, this Bench is of theconsidered opinion that unless and until we do not timely disposeof matters which are squarely covered by the decision of this Courtand which stands fortified by the decisions of the various otherHigh Courts on the very same issue, the pendency of this HighCourt would further be burdened which otherwise can be decidedand disposed of as a covered matter. 11 . So far as the interest of the Revenue is concemed, we are ofthe considered opinion that the interest of the Revenue has alreadybeen considered and protected, as has been observed in paragraphsthe considered opinion that the interest of the Revenue has alreadybeen considered and protected, as has been observed in paragraphs r-i 36,37 and 38 ofthe order [which, ][for ][ready reference, ][is ][reproduced]hereundt:r 36 For all the aforesaid reasons, the [impugned notices]issued and the [proceedings ]drawn by [the ][respondent-]Department is neither tenable, nor [sustainable.]The notices so issued and the [procbdure ]adopted [being]per se illegal, deserves to be and are accordingly setaside/quashed. As a consequence, all the [inlpugned]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 ordered accordingly. The reEtson weare [quashing ]the consequential order [is ][on ]the [p-inciples]that when the'initiation of the [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 writ [petitions ]stands [allcwed ][on]this very [jurisdictional ]issue. Since the [impugned notices]and orders are getting [quashed ]on the [point ][of]jurisdiction, we are not inclined to proceed further anddecide the other issues raised by the [petitione' ][which]stands reserved to be raised and contended [in ][an]appropriate [proceedings.] 37. The [preliminary ]objection [raised ][by ]the [petitioner ][is]sustained and all these writ [petitions ]stands [allcwed ][on]this very [jurisdictional ]issue. Since the [impugned notices]and orders are getting [quashed ]on the [point ][of]jurisdiction, we are not inclined to proceed further anddecide the other issues raised by the [petitione' ][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{ime [lrreasure]exercising the powers under Article 142 cf [the]Conititution of lndia, [permitted ]the [Revenue ]to [p,166ss6]under the substituted [provisions, ]and this Court [ellowing]the petitions only on the [procedural ]flaw, the [right] .l conferred on the Revenue [would ][remain ][reserved ][to]proceed further if they so want from [the ][stage ][of ][the]order of the Supreme Court [in ][the ][case ][of ][Ashish]Agarwai, 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 ll [supra) ][is ][subjected ][to ][challenge]before the Hon'ble [Supreme ][Court ][in ] [No.3574 ][of ][2024,]preferred by the Income,Jax [Department, we ][make ][it ][clear ][that]allowing of the [instapt ][writ ][petition ][is ][subject ][to ][outcome ][of ][the]aforesaid SLP [preferred ][by ][the Revenue against ][the ][decision ][of ][this]High Court in the case of [Kanakala Ravindra ][Reddy ][(l ][supra)']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 ][o[ ][the Hon'ble ][Supreme]Court in the pending SLP [on ][the ][very ][same ][issue.] I 9. Accordingly, the [instant ][writ ][petition ][stands ][allowed ln]favour of the assessee so [far ][as ][the ][issue ][of ][jurisdiction]ISconcemed. As a [consequence, ][the ][impugned ][notice ][under]challenge under [Sections 148-A ][and ][148 ][stands set aside/quashed] (( The consequential orders, if any, also [stand set ][asitle,'quashed in] similar terms as have been [passed ][by this ][High Court ][in ][the ][case ][of] Kankanola Ravindra Reddy (l supra). [There shall ][be ][no order ][as] to costs Consequently, miscellaneous petitions [pending, ]if [any, shall] stand closed SD/. AHMED ASSISTANT BEGISTRARfto,SECflOil OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, 1 ' ii;."";;;;i. . Assessment [Unit, National Faceless ]vinl.t.v of Finance' Room [Assessm^ent^Centre' ]No 401 ' 2nd F loor' [lncome Tax]E-Ramp'Jaiit'.raaat Nehru [Sladiom, Delhi - ][110 ][003']Jaiit'.raaat Nehru [Sladiom, Delhi - ][110 ][003'] 2. - The lncome [tax officer' ][Ward ][1 ][5(1 ][), ][Hy ]^erabad/ [TCTWER' ][AC Guards']tvlasab Tank, Hyderabad Telangana-500004tvlasab Tank, Hyderabad Telangana-500004 3. The Secretary [Union ][of ][lndia' ][Ministry of Finance North ][Block' ][New ][Delhi-110]001001 4. One CC to SRl. [Arlvocate ][ ] 5. One CC [to ] [Dy ] loPUClloPUCl 6. One CC [to ][tvls ][B.SAPNA REDDY JR SC FOR INCOI/ ] loPUClloPUCl7Two CD Copies KKS6T \ HIGH COURT DATED:24104t202s ORDERWP.No.7171 of 2O2S ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITIONWITHOUT COSTS ..:i?,j\'\./,./ii't- ,,!)-llts sEP [206]a' 4,,,.,:l\. I