Under S,:Ction 14Ga Of The Act As Also Under Section T4G Of Theact Ought To Have Also Been Issued And Proceedrd In A Facelessmanner v. Income_Tax Officert Decidedon 14.09.2023 Whereby A Batch Of Writ Petitions W( R.c Arowed Andthe Proceedings Initiated Under Section T+Sa M Olso Undc.r. Section1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF MAYTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENTTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYAND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION NO:31359 OF 2024 Between: PRIMARY AGRICULTURA CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIN/ITED, NERADIGONDA,Rep. By CEO BARE NAGABHUSHAN, S/o. BARE CHINNAIAH, Occupation.Business, Aged about 48 years, Rl/O. Neradigonda [post ]adilbad dist, ADILABADADILABAD 504001 , Telangana, lndia. PAN. AABAPB591P, Assessment Year.2019-20. .....PETITIONER AND 'l . The lncome Tax Officer ward '1 , Nirmal/ NIRIVAL, NIRIVAL, Telangana,504101 , Telangana State.504101 , Telangana State. 2. The Principal Chief Commissioner of lncome Tax -, Telangana and A.P,Hyderabad, lT Towers, AC Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad - 500 028,Telangana.Hyderabad, lT Towers, AC Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad - 500 028,Telangana. 3. The National Faceless Assessment Center, lncome Tax Department, NewDelhi.Delhi. 4. The Central Board of Direct Taxes, Represented by its Chairman, Departmentof Revenue, N/inistry of Finance, Government of lndia, Secretariat Buildings,New Delhi - 1 10 001 .of Revenue, N/inistry of Finance, Government of lndia, Secretariat Buildings,New Delhi - 1 10 001 . 5. The Union of lndia, Represented by its Secretary to the Government,Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi - 110 001 .Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi - 110 001 . .....RESPONDENTS Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court [may ][be]pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one [in]the nature of Writ of N/andamus, declaring the order [passed ]by the lncome [Tax]Authorities (National Faceless E-Assessment Centre) completed the assessment UIS 147 t.w.s 144 read with section 1448 of the lnc)me{ax Act Date of2210312024, Dlt{ ITBA/ASTlsl14712023-2411063223829(1, for the AssessmentYeat 2019-20 determining the total income of Rs.'13,85 95,8711- as arbitrary,illegal, bad in law, without jurisdiction, void-ab-initio, viotat ve of the principles ofnatural [justice ]apart from being violative of Articles 14, 1(r(1 Xg) and 265 of theConstitution of lndia and Sec. 148A of the lncome Tax Act, 1961 , andconsequently set aside the same in the interests of justice.l.A.NO:1 OF 2024 Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the c rcumstances stated rnthe affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High CoL rt may be pleased tosuspend the orrler Under section 147 r.w.s 144 rcad witl section 144B of thelncome-tax A.ct Date of 2210312024, DtN TBA/AST/S/14712023-2411O63223829t 1) for the Assessment Year 2019-20 deterrrining the total incomeof Rs.1 3,85,95 ,8711- and Demand notice u/s 156 of the ncome Tax act ['1961,]vide DIN and Notice No. ITBAiAST/S115612023-2411O6322a,840(1) Dt.22lO3l2O24for the assessment year 2019-20 pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI THANNERU C|{A|TANYA (UMAR Counsel for the Respondents : Ms. J.SUNITHA (JUNIOR S C FOR TNCOME TAX)The Court made the following ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTTCE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING NANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION No.31359 of 2024 ORDER, [(per ]llon'ble Sri Justice [P.Sam Koshy)] Heard Mr. T.Chaitanya Kumar, learned counsel for [the]petitioner and Ms.J.Sunitha, leamed Junior Standing Counsel lorthe Incomc Tax Departrrent tbr [the ][respondents. ][Perused ][the]record. 2. This is a rvlit pctition [whcre ][the ][proceedings ][are ][either]challenged to the notices which were issued [under Section ][148A]and 148 of the Income'fax Act, 1961 [(for ][short'the ][Act') ][or ][the]asscssment orders thosc have been [passed ][under Section ] [of]the Act which have been assailed. Counsel for the Respondents : Ms. J.SUNITHA (JUNIOR S C FOR TNCOME TAX)The Court made the following ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTTCE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING NANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION No.31359 of 2024 ORDER, [(per ]llon'ble Sri Justice [P.Sam Koshy)] Heard Mr. T.Chaitanya Kumar, learned counsel for [the]petitioner and Ms.J.Sunitha, leamed Junior Standing Counsel lorthe Incomc Tax Departrrent tbr [the ][respondents. ][Perused ][the]record. 2. This is a rvlit pctition [whcre ][the ][proceedings ][are ][either]challenged to the notices which were issued [under Section ][148A]and 148 of the Income'fax Act, 1961 [(for ][short'the ][Act') ][or ][the]asscssment orders thosc have been [passed ][under Section ] [of]the Act which have been assailed. 3. This writ petition is being Laken up today [only ][on ][one ][of ][t[.re]grounds, that the notices issued under Section 1484, of [the Act]and the subsequent initiation ofproceedings under Section [148 ][of]the Act by the [jurisdictional ]Assessing Officer, whereas in [terms]of the amendment that was brought to the Income Tax Act [by way]of Finance Act, 2021 [w.e.f'., ]01.04.2021 onwards, [proceedings] under S,:ction 14gA of the Act as also under Section t4g of theAct ought to have also been issued and proceedrd in a facelessmanner. 4. J'he contcntion contcntion of the pctitioner the pctitioner pctitioner is tha the issue tha the issue the issue issue ofproceedings being in violation of the Finance Acl. 202 I i.e., theirnpugned notices under Section IzlgA and Sectior l.tg of tire Actnot being issued in a faceless rnan,er, have alreadl, been dealt rvithand decided by this Courl in rhe case of I(ANKANALARAVINDRA REDDY vs. INCOME_TAX OFFICERT decidedon 14.09.2023 whereby a batch of writ petitions w( r.c arowed andthe proceedings initiated under Section t+Sa m olso undc.r. Section148 of the Act wer.e held to be bad with consequenti rl rclicfs on theground of it bcing in violation of the provisior.rs o1_ S:ction I 5 I A olthe Act re,rd wirh Norificarion lgl2lz2dated 29.03.:,(.)22. The saidjudgment passed by this Courl has also been subsequcntly lollowedin a large number of writ petitions which were alloried on similarterms. J'he contcntion contcntion of the pctitioner the pctitioner pctitioner is tha the issue tha the issue the issue issue of ' K2023) 156 taxnrann.con.rI 78 (Tclangana)l 5. Down the [ine, we find that the same issue has also beendecided against the Revenue by [various ][High ][Courls ][i.e.,]by the Bombay High Court in the [case ]of TECHNOLOGIES LTD., [VS. ]ASSISTANT OF INCOME TAX & OTHERS2, Gauhati [High ][Court in the ][case]of RAM NARAYAN SAH vs. UNION OF [INDIA3, ][Punjab ][and]Haryana High Courl in the case of vs. UNION OF INDIAI, and [Telangana ][High Court ][in the ][case ][of]SRI VENKATARAMANA REDDY PATLOOLA [VS. ] COMMISSIONER OF INCOME [where ][the ][issue ][was ][in]respect of international taxation, Bombay [High Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]ABHIN ANILKUMAR SHAH [VS. ]INCOME [OFFICBR']INTERNATIONAL TAXATION6 [which ][is ][again ][on ][international]taxation and central circle, High Court [of ][Himachal ][Pradesh ][in ][the]case of GOVIND SINGH vs. INCOME [OFFICERT,]Gujarat High Court in the case ol t lzoz+1464 ITR 430 (Bom)'l(2024) [156 ][taxrnann.com 478 ][(Gauhati)l]^ l(2024) [165 ]taxrnann.com [1 ]l5 [(Punjab ][& ][Haryana)l]' 12024) [167 ][taxmann.com ][4 ][1 ] [(Telangana)l]"[2024) [166 ][taxmann.com ][679 ][(Bombay)]]' [2024) [165 ][taxmann.com ] [l3 ][(Himachal ][I']radesh)l] t lzoz+1464 ITR 430 (Bom)'l(2024) [156 ][taxrnann.com 478 ][(Gauhati)l]^ l(2024) [165 ]taxrnann.com [1 ]l5 [(Punjab ][& ][Haryana)l]' 12024) [167 ][taxmann.com ][4 ][1 ] [(Telangana)l]"[2024) [166 ][taxmann.com ][679 ][(Bombay)]]' [2024) [165 ][taxmann.com ] [l3 ][(Himachal ][I']radesh)l] DAHYABHAI RADADIYA vs. INCOME TI\x OFFICER,WARD 3(3X5)8, Jharkand High Court in thc ci sc of SIfyAMSUNDAR SAW vs. UNION OF INDIAe, Ra.iasthr,n High Courr inthe case ol SI{ARDA DEVI CHHAJER vs. TNCOME TAXOFFICER & ANOTHER and batch of u,rit peririonsr0 rvhichstood decided on 19.03.2024. Sirnilar views have also been takcnby the Division Bench ol Calcutta High Court in thc case ofGIRDH,{R GOPAL DALMIA vs. UNION OF INDIA & OIIS(M.A.T 1690 of 2023), decided on25.09.2024.6Even though the same issue having been de,:ided by a largenumber of High Courls, we are still confronted rvirh large filing ofidentical matters on daily basis rangine betwee:t .i to I 0 rvritpetitions. That upon the instructions bcing scLreht fi.orr thcDepartment, they have been taking a solitary i r.ound that thedecision of the Bombay High Court in the casr. <tf lle:tnx,ureTechnologies Ltd., (2 supra) as also the one v,,hich has beendecided by this Court in the case of Kanakalo tr'at,indra Retldy8202q SCC Online Guj 4012'2025 SCrl Onl-ine Jhar 287I o 12023 [: ][R.J-JD:4984-DBl] (l supra) has been subjected to challenge in a [Special ][Leave]Petition i.e., SLP No.3574 ol 2024 [before ][the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme]Couft and the Hon'ble Suprcme [Courl ][is ][seized ][of ][the ][matter.]In addition, there are about 1200 SLPs [atso ][filed ][arising out ][of ][the]same issue being decided [by ][various ][High ][Coutts.]7. To a query being put to the learned [counsel ][for ][the ][Revenue,]they have categorically acceptcd [the ][fact ][that ][there ][is ][no ][interim]older granted by the [Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Court ][in ][any ][of ][these]rnatters pending belore it. [Mcanrvhile, ][fresh ][writ ][petitions ][of]identical nature are being [pited up ][before ][this ][Bench ][on ][daily ][basis]and the pendency is [getting ][increased ][orF ][matter ][which ][otherwise]has already been dealt and decided [by ][this ][very ][High ][Court ][itself']8. On the one hand, everr [though ][the order ][of ][this ][Court ][that]was passed as early as on [14.09.2023 ][and ][more ] [6 ][months ][have]lapsed, till date, [we do ][not find ][any remedial ][steps ][having ][been]taken by the Income [Tax ][Deparlment ][to ][take ][appropriate ][steps to]either hold back issuance [of ][notice under Section 148A ][and ][under]Section 148 of the Act by [the ][jurisdictional ][Assessing ][Officer,]rather the authorities concerned [in ][the teeth ][of ][series ][of ][decisions] by all the rnajor High Courts in India are :oritinrurusll, 51illinitiating proceedings under Section I4gA of ht Act and alsoinitiating proceedings trnder Section l4g rl. the Act incontravention to the amendrnents brought into tht Incorre Tax Actpursrrant to the Irinance Act,2020 as also the Fina rcc Act 2021 . 9' Llpon a query being put as to why can,t this rvrit petition bedisposed of in the teeth o1- the clecision rendered bv this Court inthe case. of Kanakdo Ravintlra Reddy (1 supra). leamed StandingCounsel for the Inconre Tax Depaftment contends ritat those wouldunnecessar.ily burden the Income Tax Depaftnrcnt wher.e theywould be required to file equal ,r*.,0., of S,L.l,s befbr.e rheHon'ble Suprerne Court and it would be lurthe r burdening theexchequer of the Union of India. It was also the (.ontention ol. thelearned Standing counsel that no prejudice would rrc caused to thcinterest of the petitioners in case ilthis writ petitiorr is kept pendingtill the finalization of the SLPs pending befor.e the Hon,bleSupreme Court and the fact that the petitioner is i,lrcady enjoyingthe benefit of interim protection. Nonetheless, on ht_ car.lier queryof this Court as to why the lncome Tax Depaftment have not comeout with a mechanism to issue appropriate instt.urtir)ns or lo take', appropriate steps in ensuring that proceedings under Section l4EAof tl.re Act as also the assessment orders under Section 148 of theof tl.re Act as also the assessment orders under Section 148 of theAct are kept in a hold in the light ofthe decisions dedcided by thevarious High Courts, it was submitted by the learned StandingCounsel that the said steps can only be taken at the level of CBDTas any such steps would have to be taken Pan India and cannot belimited to any of these [jurisdictional ]High Coults.various High Courts, it was submitted by the learned StandingCounsel that the said steps can only be taken at the level of CBDTas any such steps would have to be taken Pan India and cannot belimited to any of these [jurisdictional ]High Coults. 10. As a result of wl-rich, what we are lacing is steep increase ollitigation day in and day out cven though various orders have beenpassed by this High Court allowing writ petitions on the very sameissue. The Income Tax authorities concemed are still even now in2025 also initiating proceedings in contravention to the provisionsof Section I 5 I A of the Act and as a lesult by now, more than 600to 700 petitions have been already got pited up before this HighCourt on an issue which otherwise stands squalely covered by thejudgment of this Courl in the case of Kanakula Ravindra Redd1,( I supra). What is also surprising is the fact that though whileallowing the writ petitions in the case of Kanakala RavindraReddy (1 supra),.the Division Bench while reserving the right ofthe Revenue, has also protected thc interest of the petitioners insofar as the liberty which was granted to th: Revenue lorinitiating fresh proceedings strictly in accordance u' th the amenclcdprovisions of thc Act, as amended by the Fir.rancc r\ct, 2020 andthe Financc Act. 2021. [-the ]petitioner assessee wou d be cntitlecl tochallenge or raisc the other legal ob.jections if the R:r enuc initiatt-sfresh proceedings. The Department has made n r ondeavourlnavailing thc said Iiberty that was reserved for the R:r.cnue. On thecontrary., they have been still sticking on to the st rnd, w.hich thisHigl'r Court as wcll as rnany other High Courls alr.:arly held to bebadt 1. lt appears that because of the aforesaid liberrl, rhat this I IighCouft had granted pennitting the Revenue for initiating fr.eshproceedings as a one-time measure in a facele;s lnanner, thelncome 1'ax Department wants to take advantage ol'the same byprotractirLg these proceedings which would enablc t tern to rneet tlrelimitatiorr that would otherwise come in the way. .ikewise. if thewrit petition is kcpt pending for a consider.able lon1l period of tinreand finalty at a later stage if the Hon,ble Supr.eme Court confirmsthe decision taken by this High Couft as also by the other HighCourts in which the SLps are still pending, tLre Incorne Tax Department would get the advantage of the liberty that is otherwiseprotected in favour of the Revenue for initiation of freshpr:oceedings from the disposal olthese matters at a much later stagewhich would be advantageous and beneficial to the Revenue andwould be equally disadvantageous and detrimental so far as interestol the assesses are concerned. As a consequence, the Income TaxDepartment gets an extended period ol time for initiation of [fresh]proceedings Department would get the advantage of the liberty that is otherwiseprotected in favour of the Revenue for initiation of freshpr:oceedings from the disposal olthese matters at a much later stagewhich would be advantageous and beneficial to the Revenue andwould be equally disadvantageous and detrimental so far as interestol the assesses are concerned. As a consequence, the Income TaxDepartment gets an extended period ol time for initiation of [fresh]proceedings 12. The alarming trend of docket explosion in this Court, [despite]the clear precedent set in Kanakala Rsvindra Reddy (l [supra), is ][a]matter of grave concern. The Income Tax [Department's ][persistent]initiation of fresh proceedings, disregarding the [established ][judicial]pronouncements, has led to an unprecedented surge in [litigation]with over 600-700 petitions piling up on the [same ][issue. This]deliberate approach not only undermines the [principle ][of judicial]precedent but also strains the [judicial ]resources unnecessarily. [The]Deparlment's strategy of awaiting the [Supleme ][Court's decision ][on]pending SLPs while continuing to initiate tiesh [proceedings]appears to be a' calculated [move ][to ][buy ]time [and ][circumvent]limitation periods, rather [than adhering ][to ][the ][established ][legal] position. Such conduct raises serious questions about theadministlative elficiency and the respect tbr judiciulpronouncements, particularly when this Court has alrcady providcda balancr:d altproach by preserving both the Reve ruc,s rights andassesscs tnterests. 13. Another aspect which needs to be considered is that in fact itshould h:Lve beeu realized by the rncome Tax [)epar trnent itself andsirould have lbund out via media in ensur.ing tlrar proceedingsunder Sections 148-,4 and 148 should not have b:eu issued in af-aceless rnaltncl', at least till the Hon,ble Supreme (,ourt decide thetwelve hr-Lndrcd (1200) odd SLps rvhich it is alreadl scizecl of or. atleast the lncorne Tax Deparlment should have frund out sonrercrnedial stcps to cnsure that wherever the authorities iutenrl toinitiatc p'ocecdings under Sections 14g-A and l4g. other.tha. in alaceless manner, the proceedings should have bcen deferr.edwithout precipitating the matter further intimating t re assessee [hatthcy shall initiate appropriate proceedings only after rhe SLp,s ar.edecided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the vt,r.r, sarne issue.This agaitr, the Income Tax Department, has not been able to give aconvincing reply, except for the fact that such a d:cision if at all ).) has to be taken, has to be taken for the whole of India, and whichotherwise has to be by way of a policy decision and that too at thelevel of Central Board of Direct Taxes. Though the leamedStanding Counsel for the Income Tax Department contended [that]the Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition of similar nature, onthe one hand when the High Court is struggting to reduce itspendency, such notices which are under challenge in this writpetition are forcing the assessee to knock the doors of this IlighCourt resulting in flling of hundreds of ncw [writ ][petitions ][which ][in]the long run not only affects the disposal of the writ [petitions ][but]also consumes substantial time of the Bench [ln][ hearing ][these]rnatters again and again on daily basis. Admittedly, [in ]spite [of ][the]n.ratter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court having been [taken ][on]many occasions, the Hon'ble Supreme Couft which is seized [of ][the]matter has been reluctant in granting any interim protection to [the]lncome [-lax ]Department. Yet, the authorities [concerned ]at [the]State level are not ready to accept [the ][verdict ][passed ][by ][a ][majority]of High Courls of different States [on the ][same issue; and ][to ][make]things further worse, the [Income ]Tax DepartmentIS showingaudacity by issuing notices [continuously ]under Sections [148-A ][and] I.18 thrrrugh the .jurisdictional Assessing Olhcer. rvher.eas it oughtto havc been only in the faccless tnanner. I.18 thrrrugh the .jurisdictional Assessing Olhcer. rvher.eas it oughtto havc been only in the faccless tnanner. l,4. Irr tlre case of BANK OF INDIA vr. ASSISTANTCOMMISSIONER, INCOME TAXIT, on an isstLe whether iI u,asjustifiable o. thc part or the Income Tax Deoartment in notfollowing an order passed by the adjudicating ar-rthority only on theground thal the appears are pending, the Divisir,, Bcrch or thcFligh Courr ol'Bornbay helcl at paragraph No.25 as uuder. r,iz., : "25. l\,4r. [paridwalla ]has righfly drawn out att(,ntion to thedecrsion of this Court in Commissioner of lncome lax vs. Smt.Godavaridevi Sarafl2 as also the r@ent 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 men,ber, whereinthe Court categorically observed that the Revenut, having not"accepted' the ludgment of the Htgh Court would not .nean that tillthe same ts set aside in a manner known to law, it would loose ttsbind ng force. Referring to the decision of the Suprr:me Court inUnion of lndia vs. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd.i4, thecoud observed that the approach of the officiars of Revenue oftreating decisrons being,,not acceptable,, was criticized by theSupreme Court. ln such decision, following are the relevantobs€rvations made by the Supreme Court. " ]l Ilr^qli, ]l Ilr^qli, Ilr^qli, il.lrxnri,nn.corn |19781 IB IIR 589 (Btrrnbay) " ]l Ilr^qli, ]l Ilr^qli, Ilr^qli, il.lrxnri,nn.corn [422 tBombay)J] ','^ [1024] 165 raxmann.corn 5g l/300 Taxman 452 (Bom ralJ 'o llOgZl [taxmann.conr ]16155E,LT433 (SC) " ]l Ilr^qli, ]l Ilr^qli, Ilr^qli, il.lrxnri,nn.corn |19781 IB IIR 589 (Btrrnbay) " ]l Ilr^qli, ]l Ilr^qli, Ilr^qli, il.lrxnri,nn.corn [422 tBombay)J] ','^ [1024] 165 raxmann.corn 5g l/300 Taxman 452 (Bom ralJ 'o llOgZl [taxmann.conr ]16155E,LT433 (SC) "6. Sri Reddy is perhaps right rn 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 that the claim of the assessee was nottenable and that, if it was accepted, the Revenuewould suffer. But what Sri Reddy overlooks is that weare not concerned here with the correetness orotherwise of their conclusion or of any factualmalafides but wrth the fact that the officers, in reachingare not concerned here with the correetness orotherwise of their conclusion or of any factualmalafides but wrth the fact that the officers, in reachingin their conclusion, by-passed two appellate orders inregard to the same issue which were placed beforethem, one of the Collector (Appeals) and the other ofthe Tribunal. The High Court has, in our view, rightlycriticized this conduct of the Assistant Collectors andthe harassment to the assessee caused by the failureof these officers to give effect to the orders ofauthorities higher to them in the appellate hierarchy. ltcannot be too vehemently emphasized that it is ofutmost importance that, in 6isposing of thequasijudicial issues before them, revenue officers arebound by the decisions of the appellate authorities.regard 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 officers 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 6isposing of thequasijudicial issues before them, revenue officers arebound by the decisions of the appellate authorities.The order of the Appellte Collector is bindrng on theAssistant Collectors working within 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 authorilies should be followed unreservedlyby the subordinate authorities. 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 healthyAssistant Collectors working within 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 authorilies should be followed unreservedlyby the subordinate authorities. 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 healthy rule is not followed, the result will only be undueharassment to assesses and chaos in adminis trationof tax laws.of tax laws. rule is not followed, the result will only be undueharassment to assesses and chaos in adminis trationof tax laws.of tax laws. 12. We have dealt with this aspect at some ength,because it has been suggested by the loarnedAdditional Solicitor General that the obsen,ationsmade by the High Court, have been harsh ,rn theofficers. lt rs clear that the observations of th _. HighCourt, seemingly vehement, and apprrenflyunpalatable to the Revenue, are only intended 1o curba tendency in revenue matters which, rf allor red tobecome widespread, could result in consic erableharassment to the assesses-public without any lenefitto the Revenue. We would |ke to say that thedepartment should take these observations in theproper spirit. The observations bf the High Courtshould be kept in mind in future and the utmost [.egard]should be paid by the adjudicating authorities and theappellate authorities to the requirements of .udicialdiscipline and the need for giving effect to the ordersof the higher appellate authorities which are t,indingon thell." 15. What is rvorrying this Bench more is tt e lact that anendeavour is bcing made whoie heartedty to cnsure not to generatefurther litigation on issues rvhich havc been laid tc, rest by a largenurnber ol I Iigh Coults all of whom have taken a jotlsistent standthat the action ol thc Incorre Tax Department being violative of the Finance Act,2020 and Finance Act,202l. Now, in order to protecttl-re interest of the Revenue as also that ol 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 intenns of the [judgment ]rendered by this High Court in the case ofKankanala Rtvindra Reddy (l supra) shall however be subject tothe outcome of the SLPs which were filed by the Income TaxDepaftrnent 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 rvliich are squarely covered by the decision of [this ]Courland which stands fortifled by the decisions of the various otherIligh Courts on the very same issue, the [pendency ]of [this ][High]Cor-rrt would further be burdened [which ][otherwise can ][be decided]and disposed ol as a covered matter. 17 . So far as the interest [of ][the Revenue ][is ][concemed, we are ][of]the oonsidered opinion that [the interest ][of the ][Revenue ][has ][already]been consideled and [protected, ][as ][has been ][observed ][in ][paragraphs] 36,37 and 38 ofthe order which, for ready reference. is reproducedhereunder 36. For all lhe aforesaid reasons, the impugnr:d noticesissued and the proceedings drawn by the respondent-Department is neither tenable, nor sLStatnableThe notices so issued and the procedure ado6 ted beingper se illegal, deserves to be and are accorJingly setaside/quashed. As a consequence, all the mpugnedorders getting quashed, the consequential orders passedby the respondent-Department pursuant to the noticesissued under Section 147 and 14g would tlso getquashed and it is ordered accordingly. The rr)ason weare quashing the consequential order is on the crinciplesthat when the initiation of the proceedings tself wasprocedurally wrong, the subsequent orders llso gelsnullified automatically. 37. The preliminary objection raised by the p€ titioner issustained and all these writ petitions stands a lowed onthis very jurisdictional issue Since the impugned noticesand orders are getting quashed on the point ofjurisdrction, we are not inclined to proceed fu(her anddecide the other issues raised by the petitior er whichstands reserved to be raised and contendr:d rn anappropriate proceedings. 38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had in the caseof Ashish Agarwal, supra, as a one{ime measureexercising the powers under Article 142 of theConstitution of lndia. permitted the Revenue tc proceedunder the substituted provisions, and this Court allowrngthe petitions only on the procedural flaw, :he right 37. The preliminary objection raised by the p€ titioner issustained and all these writ petitions stands a lowed onthis very jurisdictional issue Since the impugned noticesand orders are getting quashed on the point ofjurisdrction, we are not inclined to proceed fu(her anddecide the other issues raised by the petitior er whichstands reserved to be raised and contendr:d rn anappropriate proceedings. 38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had in the caseof Ashish Agarwal, supra, as a one{ime measureexercising the powers under Article 142 of theConstitution of lndia. permitted the Revenue tc proceedunder the substituted provisions, and this Court allowrngthe petitions only on the procedural flaw, :he right conferred on the Revenue would remain reserved [to]proceed further if they so want from the stage of theorder of the Supreme Court in the case of AshishAganrual, supra 18. We would only fuflher like to make observations that sincewe are inclined to dispose of the instant writ petition, conscious ofthe fact that the earlier order of this High Court in [the ][case ]ofKantkdo Rsvindra Reddy (l supra) is subjected to [challenge]belore the llon'ble Supreme Court in SLP [No.3574 ][of ][2024,]prefen'ed by the Income Tax Deparlment, we make it clear thatallowing of thc instant 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 Konakolu Rwindra [Reddy ][(l ][supra)]This, in othel rvords, would mean that either of [the ][parties, ][if ][they]so want, may lnove an appropriate [petition ][seeking ][revival ][of ][this]writ petition in the light of the decision of the [Hon'ble ][Supreme]Court in the pendir.rg SL[) on the [very ][same ][issue.] t9 . Accordingly, the instant [writ ][petition ][stands ][allowed ][in]I'avour ol the assessee so far as the [issue ][of ][jurisdiction]lsconcemed. As [.a ]consequence, the [impugned ][notice ][under]challenge under Sections [148-A and ][148 ][stands set aside/quashed'] { I I The corrsequcntial orders, if any, also stand set rsideiquashcd in similar lerms as have been passed by this High CoLrrl in the case of Konkanolo Rovittdra Retltt.y (l supra). There shall be no order asto costs. C,cnsequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/. A.I-I.S. GOWRI SHANKARAS:;ISTANT REGISTRARAS:;ISTANT REGISTRAR secrbPorrrcrn [/] ,TRUE COPY// To1. The lncome Tax Officer ward ['1 ], Nirmal/ NIRIVAL, NlRl/AL, Telangana,50410'1 , [-lelangana ]State.2. The Principal Chief Commissioner of lncome Tax -, Telangana and A.P,Hyderabad, lT Towers, AC Guards, Masab Tank, Hydt:rabad - S00 028,Telangarra.3. The Natbnal Faceless Assessment Cente?, lncome T:rx Department, NewDelhi.4. The Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes, Departrnent of Revenue,Ministry of Finance, Government of lndia, Secretariat tiuildings, New Delhi -1 10 001.5. The Secretary to the Government, Union of lndia, Departrnent of Revenue,Ministry of Finance, New Delhi - 1 10 001 .6. One CC to SRI THANNERU CHAITANYA KUMAR, A(tvocate tOpUCl7. One CC to lt4s J.SUNITHA (JUNIOR SC FOR tNCOtVE TAX) Advocite[oPUC]B. Two CD CopiesSAaGJ\ ItiII HIGH COURT DATED:01 10512025 ORDER WP.No.31359 of 2024 ALLOWING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. \\L ,/si,-,'.'/-J:i [)]10 stP 2mi.,.)n/.:-,.,/\- -""',,' ,. I