This Writ Writ [[Petition ]][[Is Being Taken ][Up ][Today ]][[Up ][Today ]][[Today ]][[Only ][On ][One ][Of ][The]][[On ][One ][Of ][The]][[One ][Of ][The]][[Of v. Income Tax Officerward17(1)

13447l TELANGANAHrcn [couRr ][t?+ ]IIESJAJEASF (SPeciai [Original ][Jurisdiction)] *''o" r H uRS [DAY, ][rHE.lu'^[x'trPftIt ]95 ffl, PRESENT THE HONOURABLE [JUSTICE P'SAM KOSHY] THE HONOURABLE [NARS{NG ] WRIT [P]ETITION NO:9[364 ][0] [2025] Between: Vision [rnfoter ][tndil ][Plvai?*'fii?o;,T3.?'.,i'..,i:13: ];-5*?i,ib1[t5*'r:lf,ili$treH*#,5?f;,3[?fffi'u .....pE.roNER AND ." 6(P )'r ' ffi ffi"fi;J:ffi#i'il1[] +fs]'"*t :":"'i#'H;Lifshl' ffi ffi"fi;J:ffi#i'il1[] +fs]'"*t :":"'i#'H;Lifshl' 2. Tfte Principal [Cornmissioner of lncome' ]-xonoapur' Hvderabad-500084'[[ax-- ][2 ][Hvderabad' SignaUre]Towers, [opp' ][eot'oi"?"iJiolnt ]Towers, [opp' ][eot'oi"?"iJiolnt ] 3. " rhe [Assessrnentunit, ][rncom.e ][rax ][ogpll?ll ]ffiH"'ti:tff [;. ][Fbor, ] n"#iiii"", *"I".i&:Ib,HlJ'P3:'illiiffi..Ramp, [Jawaharlal ][Nehru ][staolullr' ][L''crrrr- ] [tvvvv']n"#iiii"", *"I".i&:Ib,HlJ'P3:'illiiffi..Ramp, [Jawaharlal ][Nehru ][staolullr' ][L''crrrr- ] [tvvvv'] .....RESPONDENTS Petition [Under ][Article ][226 ][of ][the ][Constitutron ][of ][lndia ][p][raying ][that ][in'the]circumstances [stated ][in ][the ][affidavrt ][filed ][therewith' ][the ][Hig][h ][Court ][maY ][be]pleased to [issue ][an appropriate ][writ ][order ][or ][drrection more parti][cularlY ][ore ][in ][the]nature of [Writ ][of ][MaMamus'][ declaring ][the ][Assessment ][Order][ dt. ][1010312025]passed bY the [3rd ][respondent][ uls ][147 ][r.w.s ][14411448 ][of the lnconretax ][Act ][for]A.Y.2O2O-21 [vide ] [No ] [ Al ] [t ] [t ][1 ][47 ] [2O2 ][4'25 ][t ][1 ][07 ][42849 75( ][1 ][)' ][co ][nsequent]dt [27to3t2o24 ][vide DIN ][No]to the [order ]Passed [u/s]148A(d) r TBtuAST/F/1 [4 ] [2023'24 ][t 1 ][053][ 487829(1) anC ][the ][nctice ][u/s ][148 ][dt' ][27t0312O24]vide DIN No. lTaA/ASTlSl149 [1][ /2o23-24t 1o634sog4i(1 ][)' ][issued by ][the ][JAO(1 ][st] respondent) instead of FAO(3rd respondent) as void, illegal,provisions of lncome_tax Act and contrary to ther.A.NO: 10F 2025and contrary to the Principles of Natural Justice. the affidavit filed in support of the petition Under Section 151 cpc petition,i praying that in the circumstances stated inttr&igh Court all further proceedings pursuant to the .Assessmermay be pleased to stayby the 3rd respondent u/s 147 Lw.s 144t1448Jln::::i,,:1::,r^lir,:::T.20 20 -2 1 vide D I N No. I TBA/AST/S1 Ua4?!lp! p! gq4s t s (1 ). Counsel for the petitioner: SRI DUNDU MANMOHAN 3sil_:1r;3Hft ilii[1",fi Eifl i;tBi[I#ai,LEARNEDJUNToRSTANDTNG The Court made the following ORDER THE IIONOURABLE [JUSTICE P'SAM KOSHY]ANDTHE TIONOT'RABLE NANDIKONDA \il.P.No. 93640 [2025] ORDER: [(per ][Hon'ble ][Sri ][Justice ][P'San Koshy)] Heard Mr. [Dundu ][Manmohan' learned counsel ][for ][the] petitioner and Ms. [J.Sunitha, learned ][Junior ][Standing ][Counsel]for the Income [Tax ][Department ][for ][respondent ][Nos'l]and 2. Perused [the ][record'] z.Thisisawritpetitionwheretheproceedingsareeitherchallenged [to the ][notices ][which ][were ][issued ][under Section ][148A]andt4SoftheIncomeTaxAct,lg6l(forshort.theAct,)ortheassessment [orders ][those ][have ][been passed ][under ][Section ][147 ][of]the Act which [have been assailed'] This writ writ [[petition ]][[is being taken ][up ][today ]][[up ][today ]][[today ]][[only ][on ][one ][of ][the]][[on ][one ][of ][the]][[one ][of ][the]][[of ][the]][[the]] 3. This writ writ [[petition ]][[is being taken ][up ][today ]][[up ][today ]][[today ]][[only ][on ][one ][of ][the]][[on ][one ][of ][the]][[one ][of ][the]][[of ][the]][[the]]that [the ][notices ][issued ][under ][Section 148A ][of ][the Act]grounds, and the subsequent [initiation ][ofproceedings ][under Section ][148 ][of]the Act by [the ][jurisdictional ][Assessing ][Officer' ][whereas ][in ][terms]o f the amendment [that ][was ][brought to the ][Income Tax Act ][by ][way]of Finance [Act, ][202L ][w.e'f., ][01.04.2021. ][onwards, ][proceedings] This writ writ [[petition ]][[is being taken ][up ][today ]][[up ][today ]][[today ]][[only ][on ][one ][of ][the]][[on ][one ][of ][the]][[one ][of ][the]][[of ][the]][[the]] 3. This writ writ [[petition ]][[is being taken ][up ][today ]][[up ][today ]][[today ]][[only ][on ][one ][of ][the]][[on ][one ][of ][the]][[one ][of ][the]][[of ][the]][[the]]that [the ][notices ][issued ][under ][Section 148A ][of ][the Act]grounds, and the subsequent [initiation ][ofproceedings ][under Section ][148 ][of]the Act by [the ][jurisdictional ][Assessing ][Officer' ][whereas ][in ][terms]o f the amendment [that ][was ][brought to the ][Income Tax Act ][by ][way]of Finance [Act, ][202L ][w.e'f., ][01.04.2021. ][onwards, ][proceedings] under Section l4gA of the Act as also under Section l4g of theAct ought to have also been issued and proceeded in a facelessmanner.4. The contention of the petitioner is that the issue contention of the petitioner is that the issue of the petitioner is that the issue the petitioner is that the issue petitioner is that the issue is that the issue that the issue the issue issue of- proceedings being in vioratisn of the Finance ,{ er; 2Q27 i.e., theimpugned notices under Section 14gA and section r4g of the Actnot being issued in a faceress manner, have already been dealt withand decided by this Court in the case of KAITIKANALARAVTNDRA REDDY vs. INCOME-TAX OF,F.ICERT decidedon 14.09.2023 whereby a batch of writ petitions were a,owed andthe proceedings initiated under Section l4gA as also under Sectionl4g of the Act were herd to be bad with consequentiar reriefs on theground of it being in violation of the provisions of Section l5lA ofrhe Acr read with Norificarion Lg/2022 dated2g.03.2022. The saidjudgment passed by this court has arso been subsequently fo,owedin a rarge number of writ petitions which were allowed on sim,arterms. The contention of the petitioner is that the issue contention of the petitioner is that the issue of the petitioner is that the issue the petitioner is that the issue petitioner is that the issue is that the issue that the issue the issue issue of '[(2023) 156 taxmann.com l7g (Telangana)] Down [the line, ][we ][find ][that the ][same issue ][has also ][been] 5Down vanous[High ][Courts ][t.e'']decided [against ][the ][Revenue ][bY]the [BombaY ][High ][Court ][in ][the]caseof IIEXAWAREby TECHNOLOGIES [LTD', ][vs' ] OF INCOME [& OTERS2' ][Gauhati ][HighCourt ][in ][the ][case]of RAM [vs' ] [INDIAT' ][Punjab ][and]Haryana [High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ] vs. UNION [oF ][INDIA4, ][and ][Telangana ][High ][court in ][the ][case ][of]SRI VENKATARAMANAREDDY [VS. ] COMMISSIONER [where ][the ][issue ][was in]respect [of ][intemational ][taxition' ][Bombay ][High ][Court ][in ][the case ][of]ABTIIN [VS. ] [OFFICER"]INTERNATIONAL [TAXATIOIf ][which ][is ][again ][on ][international]taxation [and ][central circle, ][High ][Court ][of ][Himachal ][Pradesh ][in ][the]case of [vs' ] [OFFICERT']Gujarat [High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ] 'pozq1464 [430 ][(Bom)]'i}ozil [l56 ][taxmann.com 478 ][(Gauhati)l]" l(2024) [165 ][taxmann.com ][115 ][(Punjab ][& ][Haryana)l]'lZO24) [167 ][taxmann.com ][41 ] [(Tetangana)l] " 12024) [taxmann.com 679 ][(B-ombay).1 ]^ , . -L\.,. -L\.,-L\.,[[taxmann.com ][1 ]][[1 ]][[1 ][3 ][(Himachal ]][[3 ][(Himachal ]][[(Himachal ]][[Pradesh) ]][[taxmann.com ][1 ]][[1 ]][[1 ][3 ][(Himachal ]][[3 ][(Himachal ]][[(Himachal ]][[Pradesh) ]] , . -L\.,. -L\.,-L\.,' izOz+l [1 ][65 ][[taxmann.com ][1 ]][[1 ]][[1 ][3 ][(Himachal ]][[3 ][(Himachal ]][[(Himachal ]][[Pradesh) ]][l] DAHYABHAI RADADIYA vs. INCOME TAx OFFICER, " 12024) [taxmann.com 679 ][(B-ombay).1 ]^ , . -L\.,. -L\.,-L\.,[[taxmann.com ][1 ]][[1 ]][[1 ][3 ][(Himachal ]][[3 ][(Himachal ]][[(Himachal ]][[Pradesh) ]][[taxmann.com ][1 ]][[1 ]][[1 ][3 ][(Himachal ]][[3 ][(Himachal ]][[(Himachal ]][[Pradesh) ]] , . -L\.,. -L\.,-L\.,' izOz+l [1 ][65 ][[taxmann.com ][1 ]][[1 ]][[1 ][3 ][(Himachal ]][[3 ][(Himachal ]][[(Himachal ]][[Pradesh) ]][l] DAHYABHAI RADADIYA vs. INCOME TAx OFFICER, WARD 3(3x5)8, Jharkand High court in rhe case of SrryAMSUNDAR SAW vs. UNION OF INDIAe, Rajasthan High Courr inthe case of SIfARDA DEVI CIIHAJER vs. INCOME TAXOFF'ICER & ANOTHER andbatch of writ petitionsro whichstood decided on 19.03.2024. Similar views have also been takenby the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in the case ofGIRDHAR GOPAL DALMIA vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS(M.A.T t69O 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, the_v have been taking a solitary ground that thedecision of the Bombay High Court in the case of HexawareTechnologies Ltd-, (Z supra) as also the one which has beendecided by this Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy 8202+ SCC online Guj 4012"2025 SCC Online Jhar 2g7'o 72023 [: ]RJ-JD:4984_DBl (1 supra) [has been ][subjected ][to ][challenge ][in ][a ][Special ][[rave]Petition [i.e., ][SLP No.3574 ][of ][2024 ][before ][the Hon'ble ][Supreme]Court and [the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Court ][is ][seized ][of ][the ][matter']In addition, [there are ][about ][1200 SLPs also ][filed ][arising ][out ][ofthe]same issue [being decided by various ][High Courts'] To a query a query query [[being ]][[put to ][the leamed counsel ]][[the leamed counsel ]][[for ][the Revenue']][[the Revenue']] 1. To a query a query query [[being ]][[put to ][the leamed counsel ]][[the leamed counsel ]][[for ][the Revenue']][[the Revenue']]they have [categoricalty ][accepted ][the fact that ][there ][is ][no interim]order [granted ][by ][the Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Court ][in ][any ][of ][these]matters [pending ][before ][it' ][Meanwhile' ][fresh ][writ ][petitions ][of]identical [nature ][are ][being ][piled ][up before ][this ][Bench ][on daily ][basis]and the [pendency ][is ][getting ][increased ][on ][matter which ][otherwise]has already [been ][dealt ][and decided ][by this ][very ][High ][Court ][itself'] 8. On the one [hand, even though ][the order ][of ][this ][Court ][that]was passed [as ][early ][as ][on ][14'09'2023 and ][more ][16 ][months ][have]till [date, ][we do not ][find ][any ][remedial ][steps ][having ][been]lapsed, taken by [the Income ][Tax ][Department ][to ][take ][appropriate ][steps to]either hotd [back ][issuance ][ofnotice ][under ][Section ][148A ][and under]Section [148 ][of ][the ][Act ][by ][the ][jurisdictional ][Assessing ][Offrcer']rather the [authorities ][concemed ][in ][the teeth ][of ][series ][of ][decisions] by all the major High courts in lndia are continuously stillinitiating proceedings under Section l4gA of the Act and alsoinitiating proceedings under Section l4g of the Act incontravention to the amendments brought into the Income Tax Actpursuant to the Finance Act,,2020 as also the Finance Act2021. by all the major High courts in lndia are continuously stillinitiating proceedings under Section l4gA of the Act and alsoinitiating proceedings under Section l4g of the Act incontravention to the amendments brought into the Income Tax Actpursuant to the Finance Act,,2020 as also the Finance Act2021. 9' 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 (l supra), leamed Standingcounsel for the Income Tax Department contends that those wourdunnecessarily burden the [ncome Tax Depaftment where theywould be required to file equal number of SLps before theHon'ble Supreme Court and it would be further burdening theexchequer of the Union of India. [t was arso the contention of theleamed standing Counser that no prejudice would be caused to theinterest of the petitioners in case if this writ petition is kept pendingtill the finalization of the SLps pending before the Hon,bleSupreme Court and the fact that the petitioner is already enjoyingthe benefit of interim protection. Nonetheless, on the earlier queryof this Court as to why the Income Tax Department have not comeout with a mechanism to issue appropriate instructions or to take appropriate [steps ][in ][ensuring ][that ][proceedings under ][Section ][l48A]ofthe Act [as ][also the ][assessment ][orders ][under Section ][148 ][ofthe]Act are [kept ][in ][a ][hold in ][the ][light of ][the 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 ][of CBDT]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 ][ol ][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 [t5lA ][of ][the ][Act ][and ][as ][a ][result ][by ][now' ][more than ][600]to 700 [petitions ][have been ][already ][got ][piled up ][before ][this High]Court on [an ][issue ][which ][otherwise ][stands ][squarely covered ][by ][the]judgment of this [Court ][in ][the ][case ][of Kanakala ][Ravindra ][Reddy](1 supra). [What is ][atso ][surprising ][is ][the fact ][that ][though ][while]the [writ ][petitions ][in ][the ][case ][of ][Kanakals ][Ravindra]allowing Reddy (l supra), [the ][Division ][Bench ][while ][reserving the ][right ][of]the Revenue, [has also ][protected ][the ][interest ][of ][the ][petitioners] insofar as the liberfy which was granted to the Revenue forinitiating fiesh proceedings strictly in accordance with the amendedinitiating fiesh proceedings strictly in accordance with the amendedprovisions of the Act, as amended by the Financ e Act, 2020 and,the Finance Act,202r. The petitioner assessee wourd be entitled toghatlgngg or raisg the other legal objections if rhe Revenue initiatesfresh proceedings. The fresh 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.availing 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. ll. It appears appears that because of rhe aforesaid of rhe aforesaid rhe aforesaid aforesaid liberty that this Highthat this Highthis HighCourt 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 orherwise come in the way. Likewise, if thewrit petition is kept pending for a considerable tong penod 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 stiltpending, the Income Tax It appears appears that because of rhe aforesaid of rhe aforesaid rhe aforesaid aforesaid liberty that this Highthat this Highthis High Department [would ][get ][the ][advantage ][of ][the ][liberty that ][is otherwise]in [favour ][of ][the ][Revenue ][for ][initiation ][of ][fresh]protected proceedings [from ][the ][disposal ][of ][these matters ][at ][a ][much later ][stage]which woutd [be ][advantageous and benef,rcial ][to ][the ][Revenue ][and]would be [equally ][disadvantageous and ][detrimental ][so ][far ][as ][interest]of the assesses [are ][concemed' 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 ][in ][Kanakala Ravindra ][Rerkty ][(l ][supra)' ][is ][a]matter of [grave concern. ][The ][lncome ][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 ][sarne ][issue' ][This]deliberate [approach ][not ][only ][undermines ][the principle of ][judicial]but [also strains ][the ][judicial ][resources ][unnecessarily' ][The]precedent Department's [strategy ][of ][awaiting the ][Supreme Court's decision on]SLPs [while ][continuing ][to ][initiate ][fresh ][poceedings]pending to [be ][a ][calculated ][move ][to ][buy time ][and ][circumvent]appears limitation [periods, rather ][than ][adhering ][to ][the ][established ][legal] posltlon. Such conduct raises serious questions about the administrative efficiency and the respect tbr judicialpronouncements, particularly when this Court has already providedpronouncements, particularly when this Court has already provideda balanced approach by preserving both the Revenue,s rights andassesses rnterests.assesses rnterests. 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 l4g-A and l4g should not have been issued in afaceless manner' at least t,r the Hon'bre Supreme Court decide thetwelve hundred (1200) odd SLps which it is already seized ofor, atleast the Income Tax Department should have found out someremedial steps to ensure that wherever the authorities intend toinitiate proceedings under Sections t4g_A and l4g, orher rhan 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 allF\ 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 ][learned]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]are [forcing the ][assessee ][to ][knock the ][doors ][of ][this ][High]petition Court [resulting ][in ][filing ][of ][hundreds ][of ][new ][writ ][petitions which ][in]the long [run ][not ][only ][affects ][the disposal ][of ][the ][writ ][petitions but]also consumes [substantial ][rime ][of ][the ][Bench ][in ][hearing ][these]matters [again ][and again ][on daity ][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]Siate tevet [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 ][lncome ][Tax ][Department ][is ][showing]- notices continuously [under Sections 148-A and]?s9'issuing { v-n 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. ASSISTANTCOMMISSIONE& INCOME TAxr,, on an issue wherher it wasjustifiable on the part of_tle Iaeome Tax Department in notfollowing an orderpassed bythe 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. [paridwara ]has righry dfawn out attention to thedecision of this Court in Commissioner of lncome Tax vs. Smt.ordinate Godavaridevi Sarafl2 Bench of this Cas also the recent decision of the co_or wh ch one or us u*,,J:: iil:;il:::J::::, ;r::;the Court categorically observed that the Revenue having not"accepted" the judgment of the High Court woutd nol mean that tiltthe 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 Co.porution Ltd.,4, theCourt observed that the approach of the officials of Revenue oflreating decisions being "not acceptable" was criticizect by theSupreme Court. ln such decision, following are the relevantobservations made by the Supreme Court_ (2025) 170 taxmann.com 422 (Bombay)l"I"I19781 I l3 ITR 589 (Bombay)t, I20241 165 taxmann.com 581/300 Taxman 452 (Bombay)to I19921 taxmann.com 16/55 ELT 433 (SC)t, I20241 165 taxmann.com 581/300 Taxman 452 (Bombay)to I19921 taxmann.com 16/55 ELT 433 (SC) (2025) 170 taxmann.com 422 (Bombay)l"I"I19781 I l3 ITR 589 (Bombay)t, I20241 165 taxmann.com 581/300 Taxman 452 (Bombay)to I19921 taxmann.com 16/55 ELT 433 (SC)t, I20241 165 taxmann.com 581/300 Taxman 452 (Bombay)to I19921 taxmann.com 16/55 ELT 433 (SC) "6. Sri Reddy [is ][perhaps ][right ][in ][saying ][that ][the]officers [were ][not ][actuated ][by ][any ][mala ][fides ][in]the [impugned ][orders ][They ][perhaps]passing felt [that the ][claim ][of the ][assessee ][was ][not]genuinely tenable [and that, ][if ][it ][was ][accepted' ][the ][Revenue]would suffer. [But ][what Sri ][Reddy ][overlooks ][is ][that ][we]the conectness [or]are not [concerned ][here ][with]or of [any ][factual]otheMise [of ][their ][conclusion]malafrdes [but with the fact that ][the ][officers' ][in reaching]in their conclusion' [by-passed ][two ][appellate ][orders ][in]to [the same ][issue ][which were placed ][before]regard them, one [of the ][C-ollector ][(Appeals) and ][the ][other ][of]the Tribunal. [The ][High ][Cou( ][has' ][in ][our view' ][righ{ly]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]&nnot G [too ][vehemently emphasized ][that ][it is ][of]utmost [importance ][that, ][in ][disposing ][of ][the]quasijudicial issues [before them' ][revenue officers ][are]bound by [the decisions ][of ][the ][appellate ][authorities']The order [of ][the App€llte ][Collector ][is binding ][on ][the]Assistant [Collectors working within ][his ][iurisdiction ][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]jud'cial discipline [require ][that ][the orders ][of the ][higher]ahb 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 ][-]afld is tfe [subiect mafter ][of an ][appeal can ][furnish ][no]ground for not foltowing [it ][unless ][its ][operation ][has]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.of tax laws. 12We have dealt with this aspect at some length,because it has been suggested bythe learneddealt with this aspect at some length,because it has been suggested bythe learnedAdditional Solicitor General that theobservationsmade by the High Court, have been harsh on theofficers. lt is clear that the observations of the HighCourt, seemingly vehement, and apparenflyofficers. lt is clear that the observations of the HighCourt, seemingly vehement, and apparenflyunpalatable to the Revenue, are only intended to curba tendency in revenue matters which, if allowed tobecome widespread, could result in considerablea tendency in revenue matters which, if allowed tobecome widespread, could result in considerableharassment to the assesses_public without any benefitto the Revenue. We would like to say that theto the Revenue. We would like to say that thedepartment should take these observations in theproper spirit. The observations of the High Courtshould be kept in mind in future and the utmost regardproper spirit. The observations of the High Courtshould be kept in mind in future and the utmost regardshould be paid by the adjudicating authorities and theappellate authorities to the requirements of judicialdiscipline and the need for giving effect to the ordersof the higher appellate authorities which are bindingon them."of the higher appellate authorities which are bindingon them." 15 what is worrying this Bench more is the fact that anendeavour is being made whole heartedly to ensure not to generatefurther litigation on issues which have been laid to rest by a largenumber of High Courts all of whom have taken a consistent standthat the action of the Income Tax Department being violative of the Finance [Act,2020and ][Finance ][Act,ZoZl. ][Now, ][in order to protect]the interest [of ][the Revenue ][as ][also ][that ][of ][the ][assessee' ][it ][would ][be]trite at [this jurrcture, ][if ][we ][dispose ][of ][the ][writ ][petition ][with ][an]obsewation/direction [that ][the disposal ][of ][the instant ][writ ][petition in]terms of [the ][judguent ][rendered ][by ][this ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]Kankanala [Ravindra ][Reddy ][(l ][supra) ][shall however ][be subject ][to]the outcome [of ][the ][SLPs ][which were ][filed by ][the ][lncome ][Tax]Department [and ][which ][is pending ][consideration ][before ][the ][Hon'ble]Supreme [Court.] In the the [given ][facts ][and ][circumstances' ][this ][Bench ][is ][of ][the] 16.In the the considered [opinion ][that uuless 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]Courts [on ][the ][very ][same ][issue' ][the ][pendency ][of ][this ][High]High Court would [further ][be burdened ][which ][otherwise can ][be decided]and disposed [ofas ][a ][covered ][matter'] So far as the far as the as the the [[interest ][of ][the Revenue ][is ][concemed' we are ][of]][[of ][the Revenue ][is ][concemed' we are ][of]][[the Revenue ][is ][concemed' we are ][of]][[is ][concemed' we are ][of]][[concemed' we are ][of]][[of]] 17 . So far as the far as the as the the [[interest ][of ][the Revenue ][is ][concemed' we are ][of]][[of ][the Revenue ][is ][concemed' we are ][of]][[the Revenue ][is ][concemed' we are ][of]][[is ][concemed' we are ][of]][[concemed' we are ][of]][[of]]the considered [opinion ][that the interest ][ofthe ][Revenue ][has ][already]been considered [and ][protected, ][as ][has been ][observed ][in ][paragraphs] 36,37 and 38 ofthe order which, for ready reference, is reproduced hereunder: 36. For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned noticesissued and the proceedlngs drawn by the respondent_Department is neither tenable, nor sustainable.The notices so issued and the procedure adopted beingper se illegal, deserves to b6 arid are accordingly setaside/quashed. As a conseorders sertins quashed, ,n" *T.";?.;: I:"H:::::by the respondent-Department pursuant to the noticesrssued under Section 147 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 stiands 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 beraised and contended in anappropriate proceedings. 38Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the caseof Ashisharwalsupra, as a one_timemeasureof Ashisharwalsupra, as a one_timemeasureexercising the powers undere 142of theConstitution of India, permitted the Revenue to proceedunderthe substituted provisions, and this Court allowingunderthe substituted provisions, and this Court allowingthe petitions only on the procedural flaw, the rightconferred on the Revenue would remain reserved to proceed further if [they so want from ][the ][stage ][of ][the]order of the [Suprerne ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ][Ashish]Aoarwal, suPra. 38Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the caseof Ashisharwalsupra, as a one_timemeasureof Ashisharwalsupra, as a one_timemeasureexercising the powers undere 142of theConstitution of India, permitted the Revenue to proceedunderthe substituted provisions, and this Court allowingunderthe substituted provisions, and this Court allowingthe petitions only on the procedural flaw, the rightconferred on the Revenue would remain reserved to proceed further if [they so want from ][the ][stage ][of ][the]order of the [Suprerne ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ][Ashish]Aoarwal, suPra. 18.Wewouldonlyfurtherliketomakeobservationsthatsincewe are inclined [to ][dispose ][of ][the ][instant ][writ ][petition, ][conscious ][of]the fact that the [earlier ][order ][of ][this ][High Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]Kanakala Ravindra [Reddy ]\l [supra) ][is ][subjected ][to ][challenge]before the Hon'ble [Supreme ][Court ][in ] [No'3574 ][of ][2024']preferred by the Income [Tax Department, we ][make ][it ][clear ][that]allowing of the [instant ][writ ][petition is ][subject ][to ][outcome ][of ][the]aforesaid SLP [preferred ][by ][the ][Revenue against the ][decision ][ofthis]High Court in the [case ][of ][Kanakata ][Ravindra ][Reddy ][(l ][supra)']This, in other words, [would ][mean ][that either ][o[ ][the ][parties, ][if ][they]so want, may move [an appropriate ][petition ][seeking ][revival ][of ][this]writ petitioo in the [tight ]of [the decision ][o[ ][the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme]Court in the [pending ] [on ][the ][very ][same issue'] 19. Accordingly, the [instant ][writ ][petition ][stands ][allowed ][in]favour of the assessee so [far ][as the ][issue ][of ][jurisdiction]ISconcerned. As a consequence, the [impugned ][noticc ][under]challenge under Sectiom 148-4 and [48 stands [set ][aside/quastred.] The consequential orders, if any, also stand set asidey'quashed insimilar terms as have been passed by this High Court in the case ofKankanala Ravindra Reddy (l supra). There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/-K.BHAVANI SWAMYASSISTANT REGISTRAR//TRUE COPYIIro sec*fKoFFicER1. The lncome Tax Offic_erWargll(1), of Kondapur.Sv No.3T(p) .lk"th6;;"-, Hyderabad, Opp]aotanicat Signature Towers, Sy.No.6(p)Gardens,2. The Serlinsampailv. [principat ]naigg neoov, iydffi;;, ietangana_500084.bommissjo_n.. irf f ri,rcmJfai _f, nyOeraOaO, Signature3. ^ The Towers, Opp. Botanical Caroers, Xon-0.i,i., fryo.rroad_500084.Assessmenl Unit, lncome fax Oepaftmlni, ruational FacelessAssessment Cenlre, Dethi, M,.ri.ir;iH;;n"u*, noo..,, No. 401, 2nd Ftoor. E_. Brrnp, [Jawahartat ][r.rerrru ]stjoium]d"ri,i:i'i btds4. one cc ro sRt DUND.U MANMb*Ai:Ajr;";L 5 ONC CC tO MS. J.SUNITHA, LEANr.rEb'JirriiSlSTANDING topUCITH E I N Co M E TAX DE PARTMT Ni: il;"**ie,ioPuc]COUNSEL FOR6. Two CD CooiesSAGJP( .,,1/ HIGH COURT D{T!D:2 4to4t2o2s ORDER WP.No.9364 of ZO2S ALLOWING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS./0)1l//[r4/] i^t/LlhL r.)$(21 [Zffi]za,5)tTnr.tEO