> Under Section 148,{ Of The Act As Also Under Section 148 Of The Act Ought To Have Also Been Issued And Proceeded In A Laceless Manner 4. The Contention Of The v. Tncome-Tax Officert Decided On 14.09.2023 Whereby A Batch Of Writ Petitions Were Aliowed And

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY ,THE FIRST DAY OF MAYTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYTHE HoNoURABLE SRI .IusTHeDunnSING RAo NANDIKoNDAWRIT PETITION NO:3142I OF 2024 Between: PRIMARI AGRTCULTURAL gO_OpERAI|VE SOCtETy, Rep. by the SecretaryPAT|L JAGANNATH S/o pnrir EArrrc-SH-EriV, Aged about 40 vears.PAN 9:9.rgq1ig, pRrMARt AGRtcULTURAT, :AAEAP6 [Business, R/o. ]1 98H, Assessment year. [opp ]snrrrcnnEooi" rAiive iOl en'r\'i S _ZO- so'zzeo bi [" -']irv"or,q,-r.ririn7n&"xtBi"rrigr;r;'.inifi; ...PETITIONER AND 1The lncomeTax Officer, Ward 1.SangareddyIncomeVeerabhadraNagar, New Bus Stand.VeerabhadiaNagar,Sangareddy,[Tax ][Office,]Telangana.VeerabhadraNagar, New Bus Stand.VeerabhadiaNagar,Sangareddy,[Tax ][Office,]Telangana.2The Hyderabad,Principal lT Chief Towers, Commissioner AC Guards, of lncome tvtasao Tax Tint<, _ Telangana and Hr;;I;; 500028,A.p.,Telangana.Telangana. 3The Central Board of Direct Taxes, Represented by its Chairman, Departmentof F i n a n ce, covern m en i 6iill;, s;;;;i;;iri"ffiljiffi !:of F i n a n ce, covern m en i 6iill;, s;;;;i;;iri"ffiljiffi !:ft,"["J:lly [:,, ]Y6"6'Jry 4The Delhi.National Faceless Assessment Center, lncome Tax Department, NewDelhi.National Faceless Assessment Center, lncome Tax Department, New 5The Union of lndia. Renresented_ by its Secretary to the Government, Government,Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finince. NJ* o"ir{i _'!vl!'!0!\rvsrrrrrrerrt' ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Articre 226 0f the constitution of rndia praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may bepleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one inthe nature of writ of Mandamus, decraring the order passed by the rncome TaxAuthorities (Nationar Faceress E-Assessment centre) compreted the assessmentU/S. 147 r.w.s144 Date of 06-03-2024, DtNrTBA/ASTiS/147t2023_24t1062132960(1)for the Assessment yeat 2O1g_20determining the total income of [Rs]3,71.2O,377 l- [as ][arbitrary, illegal, bad ][in ][law' ][without ][jurisdiction']void-ab-initio,violative of the [prrnciples ][of ][natural ][justice ][apart from ][being]violative of [Articles ][1a, ][19(1Xg) and ][265 of ][the ][Constitution ][of ][lndia and ][Sec]l4BAofthelncomeTaxAct,lg6l,andconsequenttysetasidethesameintheinterests of [justice] IA NO:1 OF [2O24] Petition under [Section ][151 ][CPC praying ][that ][in ][the ][circumstances ][stated]intheaffidavitfiledinsupportofthepetition,theHighCourtmaybepleasedtothe [order Under ][section ][147 ][r'w ][s ][144 Date ][of ][06-03-2024' ] suspend ITBA/AST/S/147t2023-24t1062132960(1) [for ][the ][Assessment ][Year ][2019-20]determining [the ][total ][income ][of ][Rs ][3,7'1 ]'20'377t- [and ][Demand ][notice u/s ]['1 ][56 ][of]the lncome [Tax ][act ][1961 ], [vide DIN and ][Notice ][No ][IT8A/45T/5/15612023']24t1062172547(1) [Dt ][06-03-2024 ][for ][the ][assessment ][year ][2O19-2O pending]disposal of [the ][above ][Writ ][Petition] Counsel for [the Petitioner: ][SRI' ] Counsel for the [Respondent Nos' 1to4: ][Ms' ][J' ] (JUNIOR SC FOR [lNcoME ][TAX)]Counsel for the [Respondent ][No'S: SRI GADI ][PRAVEEN KUMAR']DY. SOLICITOR The Court made [the ][following: ] ?) THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOI]RABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAONANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION No.31428 of 2024 ORDER, (per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy) Heard Mr. T.Chaitanya Kumar, learned counsel for thepetitioner and Ms.J.Sunitha, learned Junior Standing Counsel forthe Income Tax Department for the respondents. perused therecord.petitioner and Ms.J.Sunitha, learned Junior Standing Counsel forthe Income Tax Department for the respondents. perused therecord. Counsel for [the Petitioner: ][SRI' ] Counsel for the [Respondent Nos' 1to4: ][Ms' ][J' ] (JUNIOR SC FOR [lNcoME ][TAX)]Counsel for the [Respondent ][No'S: SRI GADI ][PRAVEEN KUMAR']DY. SOLICITOR The Court made [the ][following: ] ?) THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOI]RABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAONANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION No.31428 of 2024 ORDER, (per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy) Heard Mr. T.Chaitanya Kumar, learned counsel for thepetitioner and Ms.J.Sunitha, learned Junior Standing Counsel forthe Income Tax Department for the respondents. perused therecord.petitioner and Ms.J.Sunitha, learned Junior Standing Counsel forthe Income Tax Department for the respondents. perused therecord. 2This is a writ petition where the proceedings are eitherchallenged to the notices which were issued under Section 14gAand 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short [,the ]Act,) or thechallenged 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.the Act which have been assailed. 3. This writ petition is being taken up today only on one of thegrounds, that the notices issued under Section 148A of the Actand the subsequent initiation of proceedings under Section 148 ofthe Act by the jurisdictional Assessing Oflicer, whereas in terrnsof the amendment that was brought to the Income Tax Act by way of Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f., 01 .04.2021 onrfrffs, proceedings under Section 148,{ of the Act as also under Section 148 of theAct ought to have also been issued and proceeded in a lacelessmanner4. The contention of the petitioner is that the issue ofAct ought to have also been issued and proceeded in a lacelessmanner4. The contention of the petitioner is that the issue ofproceedings being in violation of the Finance Act, 202 I i.e., theimpugned notices under Section 148A and Section 148 of the Actnot being issued in a f'aceless manner, have already been dealt rvithand decided by this Courl in the case ol KANKANALARAVINDRA REDDY vs. TNCOME-TAX OFFICERT decidedon 14.09.2023 whereby a batch of writ petitions were aliowed andimpugned notices under Section 148A and Section 148 of the Actnot being issued in a f'aceless manner, have already been dealt rvithand decided by this Courl in the case ol KANKANALARAVINDRA REDDY vs. TNCOME-TAX OFFICERT decidedon 14.09.2023 whereby a batch of writ petitions were aliowed andthe proceedings initiated under Section 148A as also under Scction148 of the Act were held to be bad with consequential reliefs or.r theground of it being in violation of the provisions of Section l5lA ofthe Act read u,ith Notification 1812022 dated29.03.2022. The saidjudgment passed by this Couft has also been subsequently followedin a large number of writ petitions which were allowed on similartelmsthe Act read u,ith Notification 1812022 dated29.03.2022. The saidjudgment passed by this Couft has also been subsequently followedin a large number of writ petitions which were allowed on similartelms '[(2023) [156 ]taxmann.com 178 (Telangana)] 'J '[(2023) [156 ]taxmann.com 178 (Telangana)] 'J 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 IIEXAWARETECHNOLOGIES LTD., vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX & OTHERSz, Gauhati High Court in the caseof RAM NARAYAN SAH vs. UNION OF INDIAT, 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 intemational taxation, Bombay High Court in the case ofABHIN ANILKUMAR SHAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,INTERNATIONAL TAXATION6 which is again on internationaltaxation 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 'Tzoz+1464 [430 (Bom)]'- l(2024) 156 taxmann.com 478 (Gauhari)l" [(2024) 165 taxmann.com 115 (Punjab & Haryana)]' [2024) [167 ]taxmann.com 4l 1 (Telangana)]" [2024) [166 ]taxmann.com 679 (Bombay)]' 12024) 165 taxmann.com 1 13 (Himachal Pradesh)l DAHYABHAI RADADIYA vs. INCOME TAX OFFTCER,WARD 3(3Xr8, Jharkand High Court in the case of SHYAMSTINDAR SAW vs. UNION OF INDIAe, Rajasthan High Court inthe case of SHARDA DEVI CHHAJER vS. TNCOME TAXOFFICER & ANOTHER and batch of writ petitionsro whichstood decided on 19.03.2024. Similar views have also been takenby the Dir.ision 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 largenumber of High Courts, we are still confronted with large filing ofidentical matters on daily basis ranging between 5 to l0 w,ritpetitions. That upon the instructions being sought from theDepartment, they have been taking a solitary ground that thedecision o1' the Bombay High Courl in the case of HexawtreTechnologies Ltd., (2 supra) as also the one which has beendecided by this Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy szozq SCC online Guj 4012'2025 SCC Online Jhar287to y2023, RJ -.ID:4984-DBl'2025 SCC Online Jhar287to y2023, RJ -.ID:4984-DBl (1 supra) has been subjected to challenge in a Special LeavePetition i.e., SLp No.3574 of 2024 before the Hon,ble Supremecourt and the Hon'bre Supreme court is seized of the matter.In addition, there are about 1200 SLps also filed arising out of thesame issue being decided by various High Courrs.7. To a query being put to the learned counsel fbr 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. Meanwl.rile, 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 lncome Tax Department to take appropriate steps tocither hold back issuance of notice under Section l4gA and underSection 148 of the Act by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer,rather the authorities concemed in the teeth of series of decisions ',-,. ;. -di> ri- , ',-,. ;. -di> ri- , by all the major High Courts in India are continuousiy stillinitiating proceedings under Section 148,4. of the Act and alsoinitiating proceedings under Section 148 of the Act ininitiating proceedings under Section 148,4. of the Act and alsoinitiating proceedings under Section 148 of the Act incontravention to the amendments brought into the Income Tax Actpursuant to the Finance Acr,2020 as also the Finance Act 2021.9. Upon a query being put as to why can't this writ petition bepursuant to the Finance Acr,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 thc decision rendered by this Court inthe case of Kanukala Ravindra Reddy (l supra), leamed StandingCounsel for the Income Tax Department contends that those wouldCounsel 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 furlher burdening thewould be required to file equal number of SLps before theHon'ble Supreme Court and it would be furlher burdening theexchequer of the Union of India. It was also the contention of thelearned Standing Counsel that no prejudice would be caused to theinterest ofthe 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 eariier queryof this Couft as to why the Income Tax Department have not comeinterest ofthe 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 eariier queryof this Couft as to why the Income Tax Department have not comeout with a rnechanism to issue appropriate instructions or to take ,t appropriate steps in ensuring that proceedings under Section l4gAof the Act as also the assessment orders under Section 14g of theAct are kept in a hold in the light ofthe decisions dedcided by thevarious High Courts, it was submitted by the leamed StandingCounsel that the said steps can only be taken at the ievel ofCBDTas any such steps would have to be taken pan India and cannot beIimited to any of these jurisdictional High Courts. 10. As a result of which, what we are facing is steep increase oflitigation day in and day 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 151.A of the Act and as a result by now, more than 600to 700 petitions have been already got piled up belore this HighCouft on an issue which otherwise stands squarely covered by thejudgment of this Court in the case of .Kanakala Ravindra Reddy(1 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 the interest of the petitioners insofar as the Iiberty which was granted to the Revenue forinitiating fresh proceedings strictly in accordance with the amendedprovisions of the Act, as amended by the Finance Act, 2020 andthe Finance Act, 2021. The petitioner assessee would be entitled toinitiating fresh proceedings strictly in accordance with the amendedprovisions of the Act, as amended by the Finance Act, 2020 andthe Finance Act, 2021. The petitioner assessee would be entitled tochallenge or raise the other legal objections if the Revenue initiatesfresh proceedings. The Department has made no endeavour ir-ravailing the said liberly that was reserued for.the Revenue. On theavailing the said liberly that was reserued 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.High Court as well as many other High Courts already held to bebad. 11. It appears that because ofthe aforesaid tiberty that this HighCourt had granted permitting the Revenuc for initiating fr.eshproceedings 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 finally at a later stage if the Hon,ble Supreme Couft confirmsthe decision taken by this High Court as also by the other HighCourts in which the SLPs are still pending, the Income Tax Department would get the advantage of the liberty that is otherwiseprotected 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 freshproceedings. 12. The alarming trend of docket explosion in this Court, despitethe clear precedent set in Kanakakr Rovindra Reddy (1 supra), is amatter of grave concern. 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. TheDepaftment's strategy of awaiting the Supreme Court's decision onpending SLPs while continuing to initiate fresh proceedingsappears to be a [. ]calculated move to buy time and circumventlimitation periods, rather than adhering to the established legal position. Such conduct raises serious questions about theadministrative efhciency and the respect for judicialpronouncements, parlicularly when this Court has already providcda balanced approach by preserving both the Revenue,s rights andassesses interests. 13. Another aspect which needs to be considered is that in fact itshould have been realized by the lncome Tax Depaftn.rent itself andshould have found out via media in ensuring that proceedingsunder Sections 148-4 and 148 should not have been issued in afaceless manner, at least till the Hon,ble Supreme Courl decide thetwelve hundred (1200) odd SLps which it is already seized ofor, atleast the Income Tax Deparlment should have found out sorreremedial steps to ensure that wherever the authorities intend toinitiate proceedings under Sections l4g-A and 14g, other than in afaceless manner, the proceedings should have been deferredwithout precipitating the matter further intimating the assessee thatthey shall initiate appropriate proceedings only after the SLp,s aredecided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the very same issue.This again, the Income Tax Department, has not been able to give aconvincing reply, except for the fact that such a decision if at all has to be taken, has to be taken for the whoie of India, and whichotherwise has to be by way of a policy decision and that too at theIevel of Central Board of Direct Taxes. Though the leamedStanding Counsel for the Income Tax Department contended thatthe Dethi High Court dismissed a writ petition of similar nature, onthe one hand when the High Courl is struggling to reduce itspendency, such notices which are under challenge in this writpetition are forcing the assessee to knock the doors of this HighCourl resulting in filing of hundreds 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 thc Hon'ble Supreme Court having been taken onmany occasions, the Hon'ble Suprerne Court which is seized of thematter has been reluctant in granting any interim protection to theIncome Tax Department. Yet, the authorities concemed at theState level are not ready to accept the verdict passed by a majorityof High Courts of different States on the same issue; and to makethings further worse, the Income Tax Department is showingaudacity by issuing notices continuously under Sections 148-4 and 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. ASSISTANTCOMMISSIONER, INCOME TAXII, on an issue whether it wasjustifiable on the part of the Income Tax Department in notfotlowing an order passed by the adjudicating authority only on theground that the appeals are pending, the I)ivision Bench of theHigh Court 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 Sarafl2 as also the recent decision of the co_ordinate Bench of this Court in Samp Furniture (p) Ltd. v. lTO13of which one of us (Justice G.S. Kulkarni) was a member, whereinthe Court 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.1!, 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. I i i [[ttzOzs ]] [70 ][raxmann.com 422 (Bombay) ]| I i i [[ttzOzs ]]'' [19781 I l3 ITR 589 (Bombay.1'' [19781 I l3 ITR 589 (Bombay.1 '.'.7202+1165 taxmann.com 581/300 Taxman 452 (Bombay) 'a Ttg}2ltaxmann.com 16155 ELT433 (SC) I i i [[ttzOzs ]] [70 ][raxmann.com 422 (Bombay) ]| I i i [[ttzOzs ]]'' [19781 I l3 ITR 589 (Bombay.1'' [19781 I l3 ITR 589 (Bombay.1 '.'.7202+1165 taxmann.com 581/300 Taxman 452 (Bombay) 'a Ttg}2ltaxmann.com 16155 ELT433 (SC) "6. Sri Reddy is perhaps right in saying that theofficers 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 correctness orotherwise of their conclusion or of any factualmalafides but with the fact that the officers, in reachingwould suffer. But what Sri Reddy overlooks is that weare not concerned here with the correctness orotherwise of their conclusion or of any factualmalafides but with 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, righ ythem, one of the Collector (Appeals) and the other ofthe Tribunal. The High Court has, in our view, righ ycritrcized this conduct of the Assistant Collectors andthe harassment lo the assessee caused by the failureof these officers to give effect to the orders ofauthorities higher to them in the appellate hierarchy. Itthe harassment lo the assessee caused by the failureof these officers to give effect to the orders ofauthorities higher to them in the appellate hierarchy. Itcannot be too vehemenfly emphasized that it is ofutmost importance that, in disposing of thequasi.iudicial issues before them, revenue officers arebound by the decisions of the appellate authorities.The order of the Appellte Collector is binding on theAssistant Collectors working within his jurisdiction andthe order of the Tribunal is binding upon the AssistantThe 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 functionunder the [jurisdiction ]of the Tribunal. The principles ofjudicial discipline require that the.orders of the higherappellate authorities should be followed unreservedlyunder the [jurisdiction ]of the Tribunal. The principles ofjudicial discipline require that the.orders of the higherappellate authorities 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 nothe 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 %Aie=ft -:'::-t'. rule is not followed, the result will only be undueharassment to assesses and chaos in administrationof tax laws. 12. We have dealt with this aspect at some length,because it has been suggested by the learnedAdditional Solicitor General that the observationsmade by the High Court, have been harsh on theofficers. 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 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 a judicating authorities and theappellate authorities to the requirements of judicialdiscipline and the need for giving effect to the ordersof the higher appellate authorities which are binding i.re:.:&-r*:;y-.t;:H-€ii-i1.r1l.r:rt,,:[.]*tr:i,11y1*a1,:c.]itffi w._i*itrr6,: i.re:.:&-r*:;y-.t;:H-€ii-i1.r1l.r:rt,,:[.]*tr:i,11y1*a1,:c.]itffi w._i*itrr6,: I 5 ' what is wolTying this Bench more is the fact that anendeavour is being made whole heartedly to ensure not to generatefurlher 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 endeavour is being made whole heartedly to ensure not to generatefurlher 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 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) shatl however be subject tothe outcome of the SLPs which were filed by the Income TaxDepartment and which is pending consideration before the Hon,bleSupreme Court. 16. In the given facts and circumstances, this Bench is of theconsidered opinion that unless and until we do not timely disposeof matters which are squarely covered by the decision of this Courtand which stands fortihed 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. 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 and 38 of the order which, for ready reference, is reproduced hereunder: ,"..:#I;EE4*F:}?8..i{,.:. C; For-all-the.aforesaid rsasons; the: impugned: notices:r . ... "=_;3..6:-" issued and the proceedings drawn by the respondent_Department is neither tenabje, nor sustainable.The notices so issued and the procedure adopted beingThe notices so issued and the procedure adopted beingper se illegal, deserves to be and are accordingly setaside/quashed. As a consequence, all the impugnedorders getting quashed, the consequential orders passedorders getting quashed, the consequential orders passedby the respondent-Department pursuant to the noticesissued under Section 147 and 149 would also getissued under Section 147 and 149 would also getquashed and it is ordered accordingly. The reason weare quashing the consequential order is on the principlesare quashing the consequential order is on the principlesthat when the initiation of the proceedings itself wasprocedurally wrong, the subsequent orders also getsnullified automatically.nullified automatically. 37. The preliminary objection raised by the petitioner issustained and all these writ petitions stands allowed onthis very .lurisdictional issue. Since the impugned noticesand orders are gefting quashed on the point ofjurisdiction, we are not inclined to proceed further anddecide the other issues raised by the pelitioner 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 Court allowingthe petitions only on the procedural flaw, the right ':iizi:._-. <'_tintr.i ,l conferred on the 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. 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 Court allowingthe petitions only on the procedural flaw, the right ':iizi:._-. <'_tintr.i ,l conferred on the 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. 18. We would only further like to make observations that sincewe are inclined to dispose of the instant writ petiiion, conscious ofthe fact that the earlier order of this High Court in the case ofKanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra) is subjected to challengebelore the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLp No.3574 of 2024,preferred by the Income Tax 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 Kanakula Ravintlra Reddy (l supra).This, in other words, would mean that either of the paties, 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 allowed infavour of the assessee so far as the issue of jurisdiction isconcemed. As . a consequence, the impugned notice underchallenge under Sections 148-.4 and 148 stands set aside/quashed. , t The consequential orders, if any, also stand set aside/quashed in similal terms as have been passed by this High Courl in the case of Konkanala Ravindro Reddy (l supra). There shall be no order asto costs Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed SD/-B.G. VYJAYANTHIASSISTANT REGISTRARsecrr#trrrcenASSISTANT REGISTRARsecrr#trrrcen //TRUE COPY// To, 1 . Veerabhadra The lncome Nagar, New Tax Officer, Bus _ Ward Stand, 1 , Sangareddy Veeiabhadra lncome ttagar, SangaredAy,Tax Office,Telangana.Telangana.2 The Principal_Chief Commissioner of lncome Tax - Telangana and A.p.,Hyderabad, lT Towers, AC Guards, Masab Tank, HVaeiaOaO_-S-OO(jZA,Telangana.Hyderabad, lT Towers, AC Guards, Masab Tank, HVaeiaOaO_-S-OO(jZA,Telangana. 3. The Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes, Department of Revenue,Ylllr^tty [of ][Finance, ][Government ][of ][lndia, ][Secretariat 'Buildings, ][ttew ][Oetfri-_]110001.Ylllr^tty [of ][Finance, ][Government ][of ][lndia, ][Secretariat 'Buildings, ][ttew ][Oetfri-_]110001.4. The National Faceless Assessment Center, lncome Tax Department, NewDelhi.Delhi. 5. The Union oJ_lndra, Represented by its Secretary to the Government,^ [[Depadment of Revenue, Ministry ][of ][Finbnce, New ][Delhi ]][[of ][Finbnce, New ][Delhi ]][[Finbnce, New ][Delhi ]][[Delhi ]][[- ][110 ][OO1.]][[110 ][OO1.]][[OO1.]]6 One CC to to ^ [[Depadment of Revenue, Ministry ][of ][Finbnce, New ][Delhi ]][[of ][Finbnce, New ][Delhi ]][[Finbnce, New ][Delhi ]][[Delhi ]][[- ][110 ][OO1.]][[110 ][OO1.]][[OO1.]]6 One CC to to ^ [[Depadment of Revenue, Ministry ][of ][Finbnce, New ][Delhi ]][[of ][Finbnce, New ][Delhi ]][[Finbnce, New ][Delhi ]][[Delhi ]][[- ][110 ][OO1.]][[110 ][OO1.]][[OO1.]]6 One CC to to SRl. THANNERU CHA|TANYA KUMAR, Advocate tOpUCl6 One CC to to SRl. THANNERU CHA|TANYA KUMAR, Advocate tOpUClT One CC to rvs J SUNtTftA (JUN|OR SC FOR INCOME fnXl iOpUCiiOpUCi8- One CC to SRI, GADI PRAVEEN KUIMAR, DY SoLICITo( beruerinr orrNDtA IOPUC]rNDtA IOPUC]9 Two CD Copies BMBS I HIGH COURT DATED:01 10512025 ORDER WP.No.31428 oI 2024 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITIONWITHOUT COSTS \\ .,, [E]Sl^€I$2 [20u5 ][:)].i ,,i.\,-./' :'':. +^ ..r.'.i."'. ;,.'