Those ][Have ][Been ][Passed ][Under Section ][147 ][Of]The Act Which [Have Been Assailed' v. The Income Tax Officer

HreH [couRr'?T ]lTEDSltliS: ]'T*"^n^(SPecial [Original ][Jurisd'ctronl] o F [L] * JAY "ff [3'f,'"']5^'-'#illJ'i[ PRESENT THE [J-USTIiE P'SAM ] THE HONOURABLE [IUS# ][T'TANSING ] WRIT TION [ 1195][50F] 2o25 ' ""*""n;;ch:rg-11?,.["]'itil,.$'ilr-ffi '''figlJ5S "Ti'$,';,#f ^x?x:" [Il]'^;"#il0?l!,.. [i ][3BB?ot ][rerangana]...PETITIONER ANDn o,. as [a ][r ] [n ][com ][e ][ta ][x ][orri ][ce' ] [Eo]n o,. as [a ][r ] [n ][com ][e ][ta ][x ][orri ][ce' ] [Eo]1"o' l[?JJ [iH8','i:.""[8s[ ]"l'r'il-{ [lL# ][? ]l[?JJ [iH8','i:.""[8s[ ]"l'r'il-{ [lL# ][? ]2i:*;tlrl::[I'ff [:"g?f ][lxLl"fi:"'aH":!63"'j8ll$;ll;3Tf"] ...RESPONDENTS Petition [under ][Article ][226 ][of ][lhe ][Constitution ][of ][lndia ][praying ][that in ][the]circumstances [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' [declaring the Assessment ][Order ][passed ][by ][the ][1't ][Respondent' ][u/s ][147]r/w Sec [144 ][rtw ][Sec ][1448 ][of ][the ][lncome ][Tax ][Act' ][1961' ][dated ][1110212025']bearing [f ][Bt147l2o24-25l1073'169699(1)' ][for the ][Assessment Year]2O2O-21,as [arbitrary' ][illegal' ][bad in law' void-ab-initio' violative ][of ][the ][principles of]natural iustice [apart ][from ][being violative ][of ][Articles ][14' ][19(1)(g) ][and ][265 of ][the]Constitution [of ][lndia ][and ][Sec ][148A ][of ][the ][lncome ][Tax ][Act' ][1961' ][and]consequently [set ][aside the same ][in ][the ][interests ][of ][iustice'] lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated inthe affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to stayall further proceedings, including any recovery, pursuant to the [.1't ]Respondent,uls 147 r/w Sec. 144 rlw Sec. 1448 of the lncome Tax Act, i961, datedall further proceedings, including any recovery, pursuant to the [.1't ]Respondent,uls 147 r/w Sec. 144 rlw Sec. 1448 of the lncome Tax Act, i961, dated11.02.2025, bearing DlN., ITBA/AST/S/147t2024-25t1073169699(1), for theAssessment Year 2020-21, pending disposal of the above writ petition.Assessment Year 2020-21, pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI PATURI RAMA KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondents: MS. BOKARO SAPNA REDDY (Jr. SC FOR INCOME TAx) The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE [JUSTICE P'SAM ] ANDTHE TIONOURABLE NANDTKONDA WRIT PETITION[ No.119][55 ][of ][2025] 9BDEB, [@er ][Hon'ble ][Sri ][Justice ] [Sam ][Koshv)] . Heard Mr. [Paturi ][Rama ][Krishna' ][leamed ][counsel ][for ][the]and [Ms. ][B'Sapna ][Reddy' ][learned ][Junior ][Standing]petitioner CounselforthelncomeTaxDepartmentfortherespondents.Perused the [record.] 2. This is a [writ ][petition ][where ][the ][proceedings ][are ][either]challenged [to ][the ][noticds ][which ][were ][issued ][under Section ][l48A]and 148 [of ][the Income ][Tax ][Act, ][1961 ][(for ][short ]['the ][Act') ][or ][the]assessment [orders ][those ][have ][been ][passed ][under Section ][147 ][of]the Act which [have been assailed'] 3. This writ [petition ][is ][being taken ][up ][today ][only ][on one ][of ][the]that [the ][notices ][issued ][under ][Section ][1484 ][of ][the ][Act]grounds, and the subsequent [initiation ][of ][proceedings ][under Section ][148 ][of]the Act [by ][the ][jurisdictional ][Assessing ][Officer' ][whereas ][in ][terms]by wayof the amendment [that was brought ][to ][the ][Income ][ilJ..' ]of Finance [Act,202l ][w.e.f., ][01'04'2021 onwards' ][proceedings] 2. This is a [writ ][petition ][where ][the ][proceedings ][are ][either]challenged [to ][the ][noticds ][which ][were ][issued ][under Section ][l48A]and 148 [of ][the Income ][Tax ][Act, ][1961 ][(for ][short ]['the ][Act') ][or ][the]assessment [orders ][those ][have ][been ][passed ][under Section ][147 ][of]the Act which [have been assailed'] 3. This writ [petition ][is ][being taken ][up ][today ][only ][on one ][of ][the]that [the ][notices ][issued ][under ][Section ][1484 ][of ][the ][Act]grounds, and the subsequent [initiation ][of ][proceedings ][under Section ][148 ][of]the Act [by ][the ][jurisdictional ][Assessing ][Officer' ][whereas ][in ][terms]by wayof the amendment [that was brought ][to ][the ][Income ][ilJ..' ]of Finance [Act,202l ][w.e.f., ][01'04'2021 onwards' ][proceedings] under Secrion l4gA of fhe Act as also under Section l4g of theAct ought to have also been issued and proceeded in a facelessmanner.4. The contention contention 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 ofproceedings being in violation of the Financ e Act, 2021 i.e., theAct ought to have also been issued and proceeded in a facelessmanner.4. The contention contention 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 ofproceedings being in violation of the Financ e Act, 2021 i.e., theimpugned notices under Section 14gA and Section I4g ofthe Actnot being issued in a faceless manner, have already been dealt withnot 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 RAVINDRA REDDY vs. INCOME_TAX OFFICERT decidedon 14.09.2023 whereby a batch of writ petitions were allowed andthe proceedings initiated under Section 14gA as arso under Section148 of the Act were held to be bad with consequenrial reliefs on theground of it being in vioration of the provisions of Section r5rA ofthe Act read.with Notification lg/2022 dared 29.03.2022. The said,judgment passed by this court has arso been subsequently foilowedin a large number of writ petitions which were allowed on similarterms.the Act read.with Notification lg/2022 dared 29.03.2022. The said,judgment passed by this court has arso been subsequently foilowedin a large number of writ petitions which were allowed on similarterms. The contention contention 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)] )t 5. Down the line, we hnd 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. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX & OTIIERS2, Gauhati High Court in the caseof RAM NARAYAN SAH vs. UNION OF INDIA3, Punjab andHaryana High Court in the case of JATINDER SINGH BANGUvs. UNION OF INDIA4, and Telangana High Court in the case ofSRI VENKATARAMANA.REDDY PATLOOLA [VS. ] COMMISSIONER OF'INCOME, TAX5 where the issue was inrespect of intemational taxation, Bombay High Court in the case ofABHIN ANILKUMAR SHAH VS. INCOME TAX OFFTCER,INTERNATIONAL TAXATION6 which is again on [international]taxation and central circle, High Court of Himachal [Pradesh ][in ]thecase of GOVIND SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERT,Gujarat High Court in the case of MANSUKHBHAI'7zozt1464 [430 ][(Bom)]'l(2024) [156 ][taxmann.com 478 ][(Gauhati)l]'[(2024) [165 ]taxmann.com I [15 ][(Punjab ]& Haryana)]'[2024) [167 ][taxmann.com ][4l ] [(Telangana)]]"12024) [166 ]taxmann.com 679 [(Bombay)l]' 12024) [165 ]taxmann.com I l3 [(Himachal ][Pradesh)l] DAHYABHAI RADADIYA vs. INCOME TAx OFFTCER,WARD 3(3X5)8, Jharkand High Court in the case of SHyAMSUNDAR SAW vs. UNION OF INDIAe, Rajasthan High Court inthe case of SHARDA DEVI CHHAJER vs. INCOME TAXOFFICER & ANOTHER and batch of writ petitionsro whichstood decided on 19.03.2024. Similar views have also been takenby the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in the case ofGIRDHAR GOPAL DALMIA vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS(M.A.T 1690 of 2023),decided on25.09.2024. 6. Even though the same issue having been decided by a targenumber of High Courts, we are still confronted with large filing ofidentical matters on daily basis ranging between 5 to I 0 wdtpetitions. 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 by this Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy '202q online Guj 4012'2025 SCC Online JharZgTIo p2023 : RJ-JD :4984-DBl l )r has [been ][subjected ][to ][challenge ][in ][a ][Special ][Leave](1 supra) 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'] 7. To a query [being put to ][the learned counsel ][for the ][Revenue']have [categorically ][accepted ][the fact ][that ][there ][is ][no interim]they order [granted ][by ][the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Court ][in ][any ][of ][these]matters [pending ][before ][it' ][Meanwhite, ][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 alreadybeen [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 hold [back ][issuance ][of ][notice under Section ][l48A ][and under]Section [148 ]of [the ][Act by ][the ][jurisdictional ][Assessing ][Officer']rather the authorities [concemed ][in ][the teeth ][of ][series ][of ][decisions] by all the major High Courts in India are 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 Act 2021 .9' Upon a query being put as to why can't this writ petition beinitiating 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 Act 2021 .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 Rovindra Reddy (l supra), leamed Standingthe case of Kanakala Rovindra Reddy (l supra), leamed 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 Court and it would be further burdening theunnecessarily burden the Income Tax Department 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. It was also the contention of thelearned Standing Counsel that no prejudice would be caused to theinterest of the petitioners in case if this writ petition is kept pendingtill the finaiization of the SLps pending before the Hon,bleinterest of the petitioners in case if this writ petition is kept pendingtill the finaiization 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 takeof this Court as to why the Income Tax Department have not comeout with a mechanism to issue appropriate instructions or to take \i .l i .t ..)) 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 ][learned ][Standing]counsel [that ][the ][said ][steps ][can onry be taken at ][the ][level of ] 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 ][Ouy ][ooi ][even ][though various ][orders ][have been]on the [very ][same]passed [by ][this ][High ][Court ][allowing ][writ ][pettttons]issue. [The Income ][Tax ][authorities ][concerned are ][still ][even ][now ln]2025 [alsoinitiating ][proceedings ][in ][contravention ][to ][the provisions]of Section [15lA ][of ][the ][Act ][and ][as ][a result ][by ][now' ][more than ][600]toT00petitionshavebeenalreadygotpiledupbeforethisHighCourt 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 ][also surprising ][is ][the fact that ][though while]allowing [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] rnsofar as the liberty which was granted to the Revenue forinitiating fresh proceedings strictry in accordance with the amendedprovtsions of the Act, as amended by the Financ e Act, 2020 andthe Finance Act,202l. The petitioner assessee would be entitled tocha'enge or raise the other legal objections if the Revenue initiatesfresh proceedings. The Department has made no endeavour inavailing the said Iiberty that *u. ."r.*"d 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 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 otherwise come in the way. Likewise, if thewrit petition is kept pending for a considerable long period of timeand frnally at a latil stage if the Hon,ble Supreme Court conf*msthe [decision taken ][by ][this ][High ][Court ][as ][also ][bv ][the ][other High] COU$ [in ][whlch ][the ][SLPs ][are ][still ][pending' ttre rncome ][Tax] Department [would ][get the ][advantage ][of ][the ][liberty ][that ][is ][otherwise]in favour [of ][the ][Revenue ][for ][initiation ][of ][fresh]protected from [the ][disposal ][ofthese ][matters ][at ][a ][much later ][stage]proceedings 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 ][fiesh]proceedings. 12. The alarming [trend ][of ][docket ][explosion in this ][Court' ][despite]the clear [precedent ][setitKanakala ][Ravindra ][Reddy ][(l ][supra), ][is ][a]matter of [grave concem. The Income ][Tax ][Department's persistent]initiation of [fresh proceedings, disregarding ][the established ][judiciat]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 ][principte ][of judicial]but [also strains the ][judicial ][resources ][unnecessarily' ][The]precedent Department's [strategy ][of ][awaiting the ][Supreme ][Court's decision ][on]pending SLPs [while ][continuing ][to ][initiate ][fresh ][proceedings]to be [a ][calculated ][move ][to ][buy ][time ][and ][circumvent]appears limitation [periods, rather ][than ][adhering ][to ][the ][established ][legal] position. Such conduct raises senousquestions about theadministrative efficiency and the respect for [judicial]pronouncements, particularly when this Court has already [provided]a balanced approach by preserving both the Revenue's [rights ][and]assesses 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 [proceedings]under Sections 148-,4 and 148 should not have been issued in [a]faceless manner, at least till the Hon'ble 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 I48-A and 148, other than in afaceless manner, the proceedings should have been deferredwithout precipitating the matter further intimating the [assessee ][that]they shall initiate appropriate proceedings only after the [SLP's ][are]decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the very same issue.This again, the Income Tax Department, [has ][not ][been able ][to give ][a]convincing reply, except for the [fact that ][such ][a decision ][if ][at ][all] '"'' 1- r '"'' 1- r 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]leve1 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]theonehandwhentheHighCourtisstrugglingtoreduceitspendency, [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 ][af,fects ][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 ][concerned ][at ][the]State level are not ready to accept the verdict passed by a majorityof High Courts of different States on the same issue; and [to ][make]things further worse, the Income Tax Department is showingaudacity by issuing notices continuously under Sections 148-A and 148 through the .iurisdictionar Assessing officer whereasrt oughtto have been only in the faceless manner. 14. In rhe case of BANK OF TNDIA TNDIAvsASSISTANTCOMMISSIONER, INCOME TAXIr, on an issue whether it wasjustifiable 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 Couft of Bombay held at paragraph No.25 as under, viz., : "25. Mr. [paridwalla ]has righfly drawn out attention to thedecision of this Court in Commissioner of lncome Tax vs. Smt.Godavaridevi Sarafr2 as also the recent decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Samp Furniture (p) Ltd. v. lTOr3of which one of us (Justice G.S. Kulkarni) was a member, whereinthe Coud 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.r4, theCourt observed that the approach of the officials of Revenue oftreating decisions being [,.not ]acceptable,, was criticized by theSupreme Court. ln such decision, following are the relevantobservations made by the Supreme Court. l] [ttzOZsl ] [raxmann.com 422 ][(Bombay)l] l] '' ll978l ll3 ITR 589 (Bombay)'' ll978l ll3 ITR 589 (Bombay) '1 12OZ+1165 [taxmann.com ][581/300 ][Taxman ][452 ][(Bombay)] 'o llggZltaxmann.com [16/55 ] [433 ][(SC)] ,t, l] [ttzOZsl ] [raxmann.com 422 ][(Bombay)l] l] '' ll978l ll3 ITR 589 (Bombay)'' ll978l ll3 ITR 589 (Bombay) '1 12OZ+1165 [taxmann.com ][581/300 ][Taxman ][452 ][(Bombay)] 'o llggZltaxmann.com [16/55 ] [433 ][(SC)] ,t, "6. Sri Reddy [is ][perhaps right ][in ][salng ][that ][the]officers [were ][not ][actuated ][by ][any ][mala fides ][in]the [impugned ][orders ][They ][perhaps]passing genuinely [felt ][that ][the ][claim of the ][assessee ][was ][not]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 ][correctness ][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 ][the ][same issue which ][were ][placed ][before]tnem, [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 ][ihe ][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]quasiiudicial [issues before ][them' ][revenue ][officers ][are]bound [by ][the ][decisions ][of ][the ][appellate ][authorities']The order [of ][the Appellte 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 ][ofthe ][Tribunal ][The principles ][of]judicial discipline [require ][that the ][orders ][of ][the ][higher]appellate [authorities should be followed ][unreservedly]by the [subordinate ][authorities ][The mere ][fact ][that ][the]order of [the ][appellate ][authority ][is ][not ]["acceptable" to]the departmenl - [in ][itself ][an ][objectionable phrase ][-]and is the [subiect matter ][of ][an ][appeal can ][fumish ][no]ground for not [following ][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. 12. We have dealt with this aspect at some length,because it has been suggested by the learnedAdditional Solicitor General that the observationsmade by the High Court, have been harsh on theofficers. lt is clear lhat.the observations of the HighCourt, seemingly vehement, and apparenflyunpalatable to the Revenue, are only intended lo curba 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 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 adiudicating 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." 1 5. 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 standendeavour 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 1 5. 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 standendeavour is being made whole heartedly to ensure not to generatefurther litigation on issues which have been laid to rest by a largenumber of High Courts all of whom have taken a consistent standthat the action of the Income Tax Department being violative of the Finance [Act,2020 ][and ][Finance ][Lct'2021' ][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 ][subject ][to]theoutcomeofthesLPswhichwerefrledbythelncomeTaxDepartment [and ][which ][is pending consideration before ][the ][Hon'ble]Supreme [Court.] 16. In the [given facts and ][circumstances, ][this ][Bench ][is of ][the]considered opinion [that ][unless and ][until ][we ][do ][not ][timely ][dispose]of matters which [are ][squarely covered by ][the ][decision ][of this Court]and which stands fortihed 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 decidedand disposed of as a covered matter. 17. So far as the interest of the Revenue is concerned, we are ofthe considered opinion that the interest of the Revenue has alreadybeen considered and protected, as has been observed in paragraphs 36,37 and3g ofthe order which, for ready referencehereunder: ls reproduced 36. For all the aforesaid I issued and ,n" ,."""*i""sons' Idrawn bv the impugned noticesthe respondent-Departmenr ; ['';ilr'tt ]t"nao,", nor sustainabre.The notices so issued tli o'o""0"" per se ilegar, deserves "no adopted beingaside/quashed. ,o be and are accordingly setDepartmenr ; ['';ilr'tt ]t"nao,", nor sustainabre.The notices so issued tli o'o""0"" per se ilegar, deserves "no adopted beingaside/quashed. ,o be and are accordingly setAs a cons all the impugnedorders getting quashed, ,nu'"ou"nt"' by the respondenao";";;ton"equential [orders passed]issued under section Pursuant to the notices,orent and it is ordere. :-T:r:. ,jj::" lJ""""::#;;".t orders getting quashed, ,nu'"ou"nt"' by the respondenao";";;ton"equential [orders passed]issued under section Pursuant to the notices,orent and it is ordere. :-T:r:. ,jj::" lJ""""::#;;".t are quashing the consequential order is on tne princlpteJprocedurally that when thg initiation of the proceedings itsetf waswrong, the subrsequent orders also getsnu[ified automaticaly. procedurally that when thg initiation of the proceedings itsetf waswrong, the subrsequent orders also getsnu[ified automaticaly. 37. The preliminary obiection 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 case of Ashish Agarwal, supra, as a one-lime measuregxgfo\Sing the powers [underArticle ][142 ][or ][the]i-d"::::T:'"'.::'i':"T::Const\tutronottnoiu'p'*ft u'* [*"'1:]i-d"::::T:'"'.::'i':"T::Const\tutronottnoiu'p'*ft u'* [*"'1:] llJ',:i:::":':;';'"il:1'J;;'u' a, confened 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 ][ofAshish]Agarwal, supra. 38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the case of Ashish Agarwal, supra, as a one-lime measuregxgfo\Sing the powers [underArticle ][142 ][or ][the]i-d"::::T:'"'.::'i':"T::Const\tutronottnoiu'p'*ft u'* [*"'1:]i-d"::::T:'"'.::'i':"T::Const\tutronottnoiu'p'*ft u'* [*"'1:] llJ',:i:::":':;';'"il:1'J;;'u' a, confened 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 ][ofAshish]Agarwal, supra. 18. We [would only ][further ][likc ][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 Ravinilra [Reddy ][(l ][supra) ][is ][subjected ][to ][challenge]before the Hon'ble [Supreme ][Court ][in ] [No'3574 ][of ][2024']the [Income ][Tax Department, ][we ][make ][it ][clear ][that]preferred by 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 ][Kanakala Ravindrs ][Reddy ][(l ][supta)']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 i.n [the ][light ][of ][the decision ][of ][the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme]Court in the [pending SLP on the ][very ][same ][issue'] 19. Accordingly, [the ][instant ][writ ][petition ][stands ][allowed ][in]lsfavour of the assessee [so ][far ][as the ][issue ][of ][jurisdiction]concemed. As a [consequence, ][the ][impugned ][notice ][under]under [Sections ][148-4 ][and ][148 ][stands ][set ][aside/quashed]challenge The consequential orders, if any, also stand set aside/quashed insimilar terms as have been passed by this High court in the case ofKankanala Ravindra Reddy (l supra). There shall be no order asto costs Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. sD/-s.ALLIKARJUNA RAOTANT REGISTRARTANT REGISTRAR$\.ECTION OFFICERECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To,1The lncome Tax Officer, Ward (1), Mahabubnaoarme tax office, DEO1The lncome Tax Officer, Ward (1), Mahabubnaoarme tax office, DEOOffice Road, Mehaboobhagar-fjO0OOi [--"-""""'] 2. The Principal Commissionerof income Tax _ 4. Hyderabad, lncome TaxTowers. AC Guards. naasao rant<, Ht;";rj_ s66 ooa, TetanganaTowers. AC Guards. naasao rant<, Ht;";rj_ s66 ooa, Tetangana3. One CC to Sri paturi Rama Krishna, Advocate 4. One CC to Ms. Bokaro Sapna Reddy, lncome Tax DepartmenttOpucl 5 Two CD CopiesTwo CD Copies TJBSfrBSfr HIGH COURT DATED:30 tO4t2O2S ORDERWP.No.119S5 of 2O2S ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITIONWITHOUT COSTS +#tbX* -iilF (sI..1i')2 2 rlJ8 2025't ,)\'ri '\:..:,' I