Under Section 148,{ Of The Act As Also Under Secticn [148 ][Of ][The]Act Ought To Have Also Been Issued And [Proceeded ]In [A ][Faceless]Manner v. The Contention Contention Of The Petitioner The Petitioner Petitioner Is That The Issue Olthat The Issue Olthe Issue Olissue Olol

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD(Speciat Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF APRILTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTIGE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA WRIT PETITIOR NO:6124 OF 2025 Between: Venkat Reddy Ramidi, S/o: Buchi Reddy Ramidi, Aqed about 53 vears.uccupatron. tsusiness, H.No.5-61/3, Street No. 09, W Nagar, Habsirfuda,Hyderabad, Telangana-500007.uccupatron. tsusiness, H.No.5-61/3, Street No. 09, W Nagar, Habsirfuda,Hyderabad, Telangana-500007. ...PETITIONER AND 1lncome Tax Officer Ward 15(1), Hyderabad, lT Tower, AC Guards, MasabTank, Hyderabad-500004.Tank, Hyderabad-500004.2ThePrincipal Commissioner of lncome Tax-4 Hyderabad, l.T. Towers, 10_2_3,A.C. Guards, Hyderabad-5000043,A.C. Guards, Hyderabad-5000043The Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, National FacelessAssessment.Centre. Delhr, Ministry_of [-Finance, ]Room No. 401 ,2nd Floor, E-Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium. Delhi-1 [.10003.]Assessment.Centre. Delhr, Ministry_of [-Finance, ]Room No. 401 ,2nd Floor, E-Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium. Delhi-1 [.10003.] ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may bepleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in thenature of writ of Arlandamus, declaring the notice u/s 14g dt.ol .o4.2o23 vide DINNo. ITBA/AST/S/148_1t2123-24t1051929790(1) issued by the JAO(1strespondent) instead of FAo(3'd respondent) for A.y- 2o1g-2o, as void, illegal, andnature of writ of Arlandamus, declaring the notice u/s 14g dt.ol .o4.2o23 vide DINNo. ITBA/AST/S/148_1t2123-24t1051929790(1) issued by the JAO(1strespondent) instead of FAo(3'd respondent) for A.y- 2o1g-2o, as void, illegal, andcontrary to the provisions of lncome-tax Act and contrary to the principles ofNatural Justice.Natural Justice. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the c rcumstances stated inthe affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court nray be preased to staya'further proceedings pursuant to the notice urs 14g dt. 07 04.2023 vide DrN No.,,BA/AST/S/148 112023- 2411051929790(1) issued by the JAo(1st respondent)instead of FAO(3rd respondent) for A.y. 2O,lg-2O. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI DUNDU MANMOHAN Counsel for the Respondents: MS. BOKARO SAPNA REDDY (Jr. SC.FOR TNCOME TAX) The Court made the following: ORDER l TTIE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAONANDIKONDA W.P.No.6l24 OF 2025 QRDER, [(per ][Hon'ble ][Sri ]Justice [p.Sam ]Koshy) Heard Mr. Dundu Manmohan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. B.Sapna Reddy, learned Junior StandingCounsel for the Income Tax Department for respondent No.3.Perused the record. 2. This is a writ pelition is a writ pelition writ pelition pelition where the proceedings the proceedings proceedings are eithereitherchallenged to the notices which were issued under Section 14gAand 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short [,the ]Act,) or theassessment orders those have been passed under Section 147 ofthe Act which have been assailed. This is a writ pelition is a writ pelition writ pelition pelition where the proceedings the proceedings proceedings are eithereither 3. This writ p"ti#n is being taken up today only on one of thegrounds, that the notices issued under Section l4gA of the Actand the subsequent initiation of proceedings under Section l4g ofthe Act by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, whereas in rermsof the amendment that was brought to the Income Tax Act by wayof Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f., 01.04.2021 onwards, proceedings under Section 148,{ of the Act as also under Secticn [148 ][of ][the]Act ought to have also been issued and [proceeded ]in [a ][faceless]manner This is a writ pelition is a writ pelition writ pelition pelition where the proceedings the proceedings proceedings are eithereither 3. This writ p"ti#n is being taken up today only on one of thegrounds, that the notices issued under Section l4gA of the Actand the subsequent initiation of proceedings under Section l4g ofthe Act by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, whereas in rermsof the amendment that was brought to the Income Tax Act by wayof Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f., 01.04.2021 onwards, proceedings under Section 148,{ of the Act as also under Secticn [148 ][of ][the]Act ought to have also been issued and [proceeded ]in [a ][faceless]manner 4. The contention contention of the petitioner the petitioner petitioner is that the issue olthat the issue olthe issue olissue ololproceedings being in violation of the Finance Acq202l i.e., theimpugned notices under Section 148,4. and Section l4tt of the Actnot being issued in a faceless manner, have already tteen dealt [with]and decided by this Court in the case of KANKANALARAVINDRA REDDY vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICERT decidedon 14.09.2023 whereby u 6rt.t of writ petitions were allowed andthe proceedings initiatdd under Section 148A as alsc under Section148 of the Act were held to be bad with consequential reliefs on theground of it being in violation of the provisions of Section l5lA olthe Act read with Notification 1812022 dated 29.03.;1022. [The ]saidjudgment passed by this Court has also been subseqrrently followedin a large number of writ petitions which were allowed on similarterms. The contention contention of the petitioner the petitioner petitioner is that the issue olthat the issue olthe issue olissue olol ' l(2023) [56 ][taxmann.com ][178 ][(Telangana)l] .t I 5. Down the line, we find that the same issue has also beendecided against the Revenue by various High Courts i.e.,by the Bombay High Court in the case of HEXAWARETBCHNOLOGIES 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. DEPUTYCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX5 where the issue was inrespect of international taxation, Bombay High Court in the case ofABHIN ANILKUMAR SHAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,INTERNATIONAL TAXATION6 which is again on intemationaltaxation 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 ' 1zoz11464 [430 ][(Bom)]'l(2024) [156 ][taxmann.com 478 ][(Gauhati)l]' l(2024) 165 taxmann.com I 1 5 [(Punjab ]& Haryana)l ' 12024) [67 taxmann.com ][41 1 ][(Telangana)l] " 12024) 166 taxmann.com 679 [(Bombay)l] ' 12024) [165 ]taxmann.com [(Himachal ][Pradesh)l] DAHYABHAI RADADIYA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE&WAR-D 3(3X5)8, Jharkand High Court in the ca:;e of SHYAMSUNDAR SAW vs. UNION OF INDIAe, Rajasthar High Court inthe case of SHARDA DEVI CHHAJER vs. II,{COME TAXOFFICER & ANOTHER and batch of writ petitionsr0 whichstood decided on 19.03.2024. Similar views have irlso been takenby the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in the case ofGIRDHAR GOPAL DALIWA vs. UNION OF'INDIA & ORS(M.A.T 1690 of 2023), decided on25.09.20246. Even though the same issue having been decided by a largenumber of High Courts, we are still confionted witJr large filing ofidentical matters on daily basis ranging betweer, 5 to 10 writpetitions. That upon the instructions being so rglrt fiom theDepartment, they have been taking a . solitary ground that thedecision of the Bombay High Court in the casr of HexawareTechnologies Ltd., (2 supra) as also the one u'hich has beendecided by this Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy '202+ [scc online ][Guj ][4012]'2025 SCC Online [lhar ][287]l o 12023 [: Rr- ] [D :498 ][4-DB ]l .l '202+ [scc online ][Guj ][4012]'2025 SCC Online [lhar ][287]l o 12023 [: Rr- ] [D :498 ][4-DB ]l .l (1 supra) has been subjected to chattengti in. a Special LeavePetition i.e., SLP No.3574 of 2024 before the Hon'ble SupremeCourt and the Hon'ble Supreme Court is seized of the matter.In addition, there are about 1200 SLps also filed arising out ofthesame issue being decided by various High.Courts. 7. To a query being put to thp learned counsel for the Revenue,they have categorically accepted the fact that there is no interimorder granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in any of thesematters pending before it. Meanwhile, fresh writ petitions ofidentical nature are being piled up before this Bench on daily basisand the pendency is getting increased on matter which otherwisehas already been dealt and decided by this very High Court itself.8. On the one hand, even though the order of this Court thatwas passed as early as on 14.09.2023 and more 16 months havelapsed, till date, we do not find any remedial steps having beentaken by the Income Tax Department to take appropriate steps toeither hold back issuance ofnotice under Section 14gA and underSection 148 of the Act by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer,rather the authorities concerned in the teeth of series of decisions , by ail tirc mz:jol. .{igh Courts -r india are cotittnuc usly siiiinitiating proceedings under Section l4gA of the Act and alsoinitiating proceedings under Section l4g of the Act incontravention to the amendments brought into the krcome Tax Actpursuant to the Finance Act,2020 as also the Financt, Act202l.9. Upon a query being put as to why:can,t this r,,rit petition bedisposed of in the teeth of thedecision rendered b1 this Court inthe case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra), lezmed StandingCounsel for the Income Tax Department contends that those wouldunnecessarily burden the ['income ]TaxDepartment where theyiwould be required to' file equat number of SLI,s 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 pendingtiil 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 hlve not comeout with_a mechanism to issue appiopriate instruclions or to take .appropnate, s tops. i n ensuring tbat, Broceedingq under.S ection I 4 gAof the Act as also the assessment orders under Section l4g of theAct are kept in a hold in the light ofthe decisions dedcided by thevarious High courts, it was submitted by the reamed 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 belimired to any of rhese jurisdictional High Courts. 10. As a result of which, what we are facing is steep increase oflitigation day in and ouy out even 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 l5lA of the Act and as a result bynow, more than 600to 700 peritions have been already got piled up before this HighCourt on an issue which otherwise stands squarely covered by thejudgment of this Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy(l supra). What is also surprising is the fact that though while::;,il:,,:T., :: : J;,,m- : :,^::::: the Revenue, has also protected the interest of the petitioners{l 10. As a result of which, what we are facing is steep increase oflitigation day in and ouy out even 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 l5lA of the Act and as a result bynow, more than 600to 700 peritions have been already got piled up before this HighCourt on an issue which otherwise stands squarely covered by thejudgment of this Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy(l supra). What is also surprising is the fact that though while::;,il:,,:T., :: : J;,,m- : :,^::::: the Revenue, has also protected the interest of the petitioners{l insofar as the liberty [which was ][granted ][to ][the ][Revenue for]initiating fresh proceedings [strictly in ][accordance ][with ][the ][amended]provisions of the Act, as amended [by ][the ][Finance ][,\ct, ][2020 ][and]the Finance Act,2021 [. ][The petitioner ][assessee ][woulc ][be ][entitled ][to]challenge or [raise the ][other legal objections ][if ][the Revenue ][initiates]fiesh proceedings. The [Department ][has ][made ][no ][endeavour in]availing the said [liberty ][that ][was reserved ][for ][the ][Re ][renue. ][On ][the]contrary, they have been still [sticking on ][to ][the ][stand. ][which ][this]High Court as well as [man! ][other ][High ][Courts already held ][to ][be]bad. 11. It appears that because ofthe aforesaid [libertl ][that this ][High]Court had granted [permitting ]the [Revenue ][for ][initiating ][fiesh]proceedings as a one-time measure in a [laceless manner, ][the]Income Tax Department wants to take [advantage ][of ][the ][same ][by]protracting these proceedings which would [enable ][tlem ][to meet ][the]limitation that would otherwise come [in ][the ][way. ][l.ikewise, ][if ][the]writ petition is kept pending [for ][a considerable ][long period ][of ][time]and finally at a [later ][stage ][if ][the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Court ][confirms]the decision taken by this [High ][Court ][as also ]by [the other High]Courts in which the SLPs are stitl [pending, ]the [Income ][Tax] t Department would get the advantage of the liberty that is otherwiseprotected in favour of the Revenue for initiation of freshprotected in favour of the Revenue for initiation of freshproceedings from the disposal ofthese matters at a much later stagewhich would be advantageous and beneficial to the Revenue andwould be equally disadvantageous and detrimental so far as interestof the assesses are concemed. As a consequence, the Income TaxDepartment gets an extended period of time for initiation of fieshproceedings.which would be advantageous and beneficial to the Revenue andwould be equally disadvantageous and detrimental so far as interestof the assesses are concemed. As a consequence, the Income TaxDepartment gets an extended period of time for initiation of fieshproceedings. 12. The alarming trend of docket explosion in this Court, despitethe clear precedent set in Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra), is amatter of grave concem. The Income Tax Department's persistentinitiation of fresh proceedings, disregarding the established judicialpronouncements, has led to an unprecedented surge in litigationwith over 600-700 petitions piling up on the same issue. Thisdeliberate approach not only undermines the principle of judicialprecedent but also strains the judicial resources unnecessarily. TheDepartment's strategy of awaiting the Supreme Court's decision onpending SLPs while continuing to initiate fresh proceedingsappears to be a calculated move to fftrn" and circumventlimitation periods, rather than adhering to the established legal i.' [: ][i.t,,.t ][jucir ][,.c ][:.*i;t ][,-aises ][seious ][questions ][about ][the] adn{nistrative efficiency and the respect for [judicial]pronouncements, particularly when this Court has already provideda balanced approach by preserving both the Reverrue's rights andassesses lnterests i.' [: ][i.t,,.t ][jucir ][,.c ][:.*i;t ][,-aises ][seious ][questions ][about ][the] adn{nistrative efficiency and the respect for [judicial]pronouncements, particularly when this Court has already provideda balanced approach by preserving both the Reverrue's rights andassesses lnterests 13. Another aspect which needs to be considered is that in fact itshould have been realized by the Income Tax Department itself andshculd have found out via media in ensuring ttat proceedingsunder Sections 148-,4. and 148 should not have b,)en issued in afaceless manner, at least till the Hon'ble Supreme [( ]ourt decide thetwelve hundred (1200) odd SLPs which it is already seized ofor, atleast the Income Tax Department should have flrund out someremedial steps to ensure that wherever the authorities intend toinitiate proceedings under Sections 148-,4. and 148, other than in afaceless manner, the proceedings should have been defenedwithout precipitating the matter further intimating t te assessee thatthey shall initiate appropriate proceedings only after the SLP's aredecided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the vr-'ry same issue.This again, the Income Tax Department, has not bet'n able to give aca"' . incing regl.i, exc.:-:i icr tle fact that such a decision if at all has to be taken, has to be taken for the whole oflndia, and whichotherwise has to be by way of a policy decision and that too at thelevel of Central Board of Direct Taxes. Though the learnedStanding Counsel for the Income Tax Department contended thatthe Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition of similar nature, onthe one hand when the High.Court is struggling to reduce itspendency, such notices which are under challenge in this writpetition are forcing the assessee to knock the doors of this HighCourt resulting in filing of h'undreds of new writ petitions which inthe long run not only affects the disposal of the writ petitions butalso consumes substantial time of the Bench in hearing thesematters again and again on daily basis. Admittedly, in spite of thematter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court having been taken onmany occasions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court which is seized of thematter has beien reluctant in granting any interim protection to theIncome Tax Department. Yet, the authorities concerned at theState level are not ready to accept the verdict passed by a majorityof High Courts of different States on the same issue; and to makethings further worse, the Income tu* nspi.t-ent is showingt'audacity by issuing notices continuously under Sections 148-A and a & I 148 through the jurisdictional Assessing Ofhcer whereas it oughtto have been only in the faceless manner.to have been only in the faceless manner. 14. In the case of BANK OF INDIA vs. ASSISTANTCOMMISSIONER, INCOME TAXrr, on an issue wherher it wasjustifiableon the part of the Income Tax Dcprrrtrnent tn notfollowing an order passed by the adjudicating autho [-it1, ]only on theground that the appeals are pending, the Divisior Bench of theHigh Court of Bombay held at paragraph No.25 as under, viz., : "25. Mr. Paridwalla has rightly drawn out attertion to thedecision of this Court in Commissioner of lncome Tax vs. Smt.Godavaridevi Sarafl2 as atso the recent decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Samp Furniture (p) Ltd. v. lTOl3of which one of us (Justice G.S. Kulkarni) was a memt er, whereinthe Court categorically observed that the Revenue having not"accepted" the judgment of the High Court would not nrean that tillthe same is set aside in a manner known to law, it wo ld loose itsbinding force. Referring to the decision of the Suprerne Court inUnion of lndia vs. Kamlakshi Finance Corporatior Ltd.14, theCourt observed that the approach of the officials of levenue oftreating decisions being "not acceptable" was criticized by theSupreme Court. ln such decision, following are the relevantobservations made by the Supreme Court. Ir [(2025) 170 taxmann.com 422 (Bombay)l Ir [(2025) 170 taxmann.com 422 (Bombay)l '' [978] I I3 ITR 589 (Bombay)tr 720241165 taxmann.com 581/300 581/300 Taxman 452 tr 720241165 taxmann.com 581/300 581/300 Taxman 452 'o |gg2ltaxmann.com [16155ELT ]433 [(SC)] tr 720241165 taxmann.com 581/300 581/300 Taxman 452 (Bomtay)720241165 taxmann.com 581/300 581/300 Taxman 452 (Bomtay) "6. Sri Reddy is perhaps right in saying that theofficers were not actuated by any mala fides inpassing the impugned orders. They perhapspassing the impugned orders. They perhapsgenuinely felt that the claim of the assessee was nottenable and that, if it was accepted, the Revenuetenable and that, if it was accepted, the Revenuewould suffer. But what Sri Reddy overlooks is that weare not concerned here with the correctness orotherwise of their conclusion or. of any factualmalafides but wilh the fact that the officers, in reachingin their are not concerned here with the correctness orotherwise of their conclusion or. of any factualmalafides but wilh the fact that the officers, in reachingin their conclusion, by-pagsed two appellate orders inregard to the same issue which were placed beforethem, one of the Collector (Appeals) and the other ofthem, one of the Collector (Appeals) and the other ofthe Tribunal. The High Court has, in our view, righflycriticized 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 the 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 vehemenfly emphasized that it is ofutmost importance that, in disposing of thequasijudicial issues before them, revenue officers arebound by the decisions of the appellate authorities.The order of the Appellte Collector is binding on theThe order of the Appellte Collector is binding on theAssistant Collectors working within his jurisdiction andthe order of the Tribunal is binding upon the AssistantCollectors and the Appellate Collectors who funclionunder the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The principles ofjudicial discipline require that the orders of the higherunder the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The principles ofjudicial discipline require that the orders of the higherappellate authorities should be followed unreservedlyunreservedlyby the subordinate authorities. The mere fact that theorder of the appellate authority is not "acceptable" toorder of the appellate authority is not "acceptable" tothe department - in itself an objectionable phrase _ l'and is lhe subiect matter of an appeal can furnish noand is lhe subiect 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 administrationof tax laws.of tax laws. 12. We have dealt with this aspect at some longth,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 that the observations of the HighCourt, seemingly vehement, and apparentlyunpalatable to the Revenue, are only intended k) 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 thzLt thedepartment should take these observations ir theproper spirit. The observations of the High Courtshould be kept in mind in future and the utmost regardshould be paid by the adjudicating authorities arrd theappellate authorities to the requirements of judicialdiscipline and the need for giving effect to the ordersof the higher appellate authorities which are b ndingon them." 15. What is worrying this Bench more is th,: 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 ofwhom have taken a (onsistent standthat the action of the Income TaxDepartment being violative of the Finance Act,2020 and Finance Act, 2021 . Now, in order to protectthe interest of the Revenue as also that of the assessee, it would betrite at this [juncture, ]if we dispose of the writ petition with anobservation/direction that the disposal of the instant writ petition interms of the [judgment ]rendered by this.High Court in the case ofKankanala Ravindra Reddy (l supra) shall however be subject tothe outcome of the SLPs which were filed by the lncome TaxDepartment and which is pending consideration before the Hon'bleSupreme Court. I 6. In the given facts and circumstances, this Bench is of the considered opinion that unless and until we do not timely disposeof matters which are squarely covered by the decision of this Courtand which stands fortified by the decisions of the various otherHigh Courts on the very same issue, the pendency of this HighCourt would further be burdened which otherwise can be decidedand disposed ofas a covered matter. 11 . So far as the interest ofthe Revenue is concerned, we are ofthe considered opinion that the interest of the Revenue has alread vbeen considered and protected, as has been observed inraphsthe considered opinion that the interest of the Revenue has alread vbeen considered and protected, as has been observed inraphs 36, 37 and,38 of the order which, for ready referencc, is reproducedhereunder 36 For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugnei noticesissued and the proceedings drawn by the rescondent-Department is neither tenable, nor sus tainable.The notices so issued and the procedure adopted beingper se illegal, deserves to be and are accordrngly setaside/quashed. As a qonsequence, all the irnpugnedorders gelting quashed, the consequential order; passedby the respondent-Department pursuant to tho noticesissued under Section 1 47 and 148 would a lso getquashed and it is ordered accordingly. The reason weare quashing the ionsequential order is on the t)rinciplesthat when thq initiation of the proceedings ilself wasprocedurally wrong, the subsequent orders elso getsnullified automalically. 37. The preliminary objection raised by the pe itioner issustained and all these writ petitions stands allowed onthis very [jurisdictional ]issue. Since the impugne 1 noticesand orders are getting quashed on the point ofjurisdiction, we are not inclined to.proceed further anddecide the other issues raised by the petitioner whichstands reserved to be raised and contended in anappropriate proceedings. 38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the caseof Ashish Agarwal, supra, as a one{ime measureexercising the powers under Article 142 of theConstitution of lndia, permitted the Revenue to proceedunder the substituted provisions, and this Courl allowingthe petitions only on the procedural flaw, .he right II conferred on lhe Revenue would remain reserved toproceed further if they so want from the stage of theorder of the Supreme Court in the case of AshishAgarwal, supra.order of the Supreme Court in the case of AshishAgarwal, supra. 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 to proceedunder the substituted provisions, and this Courl allowingthe petitions only on the procedural flaw, .he right II conferred on lhe Revenue would remain reserved toproceed further if they so want from the stage of theorder of the Supreme Court in the case of AshishAgarwal, supra.order of the Supreme Court in the case of AshishAgarwal, supra. 18. We would only further like to make observations that sincewe are inclined to dispose of the instant writ petition, conscious o[the fact that the earlier order of this High Court in the case ofKanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra) is subjected to challengebefore the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No.3574 of 2024,preferred by the Income TOx Department, we make it clear thatallowing of the instant, writ petition is subject to outcome of theaforesaid SLP preferred by the Revenue against the decision of thisHigh Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (l stpra).This, in other words, would mean that either of the parties, if theyso want, may move an appropriate petition seeking revival of thiswrit petition in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble SupremeCourt in the pending SLP on the very same issue. 19. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands allowedlnfavour of the assessee so far as the issue of jurisdictionlsconcemed. As a consequence, the impugned notice underchallenge under Sections 148-4 and 148 stands set aside/quashed. e II The consequential orders, if any, also stand set aside'/quashed in similar terms as have been passed by this High Court in the case of Kunkanala Ravindra Reddy (l supra). There shall be no order as to costs. Conseque ntly, miscellaneous petitions pendinl;, if any, shalt stand closed I I I HIGH COURTDATED:2410412025 ..,z,'i'..-..:' [i,r' ][., ]+"\'ORDERWP.No.6124 of 202,5'1..,.10 sEP 2025\.,--a:*-.? ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITIONWITHOUT COSTS?+-ur24