Under Section 148,{ Of The Act As Also Under Section 148 Of [The]Act Ought To Have Also Been Issued And Proceeded In A Facelessmanner v. The Income Tax Officer

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF APRILTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYAND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING WRlT PETITION NO: 13062 OF [2025] Between: Sri Bramaramba Mallikharjuna Swamy [Temple, ][Rep. by ][Executive Officer ][Uppala]Shashidhar, Beeramguda Village, Ameenpur, [Medak, Telangana.] .....PETITIONER AND 1. The lncome Tax Officer, Ward [1, ][Sangareddy, ][lncome ][Tax ][Office,]Veerabhadra Nagar, New Bus Stand, [Sangareddy, Telangana-502001.]Veerabhadra Nagar, New Bus Stand, [Sangareddy, Telangana-502001.] 2. The Principal Chief Commissioner [of lncome Tax, AP and TS, ][1Oth ][Floor, ] Block, l.T. Towers, 10-2-3, A.C. [Guards, Hyderabad-500004.]Block, l.T. Towers, 10-2-3, A.C. [Guards, Hyderabad-500004.] 3. The Assessment Unit, lncome [Tax Department, National ][Faceless]Assessment Centre, Delhi, Ministry [of ][Finance, ][Room ][No. 401,2nd ][Floor, ] Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, [Delhi-1 '10003.]Assessment Centre, Delhi, Ministry [of ][Finance, ][Room ][No. 401,2nd ][Floor, ] Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, [Delhi-1 '10003.] .....RESPONDENTS Petition Under Article 226 of [the ][Constitution ][of ][lndia ][praying ][that ][in ][the]circumstances stated in the affidavit [filed ][therewith, ][the ][High Court ][may ][be]pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, more [particularly one ][in ][the ][nature of]Wdt of Mandamus, declaring the [Assessment Order dt. ][02.01 ][.2024 ][passed by ][the]3rd respondent uts 147 r.w.s [14411448 ][of ][the ][lncome{ax ][Act for ][A.Y. ][2016-17]vide DIN No. ITBA/ASTlsl14712023-2411059286736(1), [consequent ][to ][the ][order]passed u/s 148A(d)'dt. 29.O3.2O23 vide DIN No. [lTBtuASTlFl14BN2Oz2-]2311051619242(1) and the [notice ]u/s [148 ][dt.25.O3.2023 ][vide ] [No]ITBA/AST/S/148 112022-2311051619296(1 ), [issued ][bv ][the ][JAO(lst ][respondent)]instead of FA0(3rd respondent) [and consequential penalty orders passed ][vide] order u/s 271F of the Act dt. 24.06.2024, order [u/s ][271(1)(b) ][of ][the ][Act ][dt.]20.06.2024, and order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act [dt. ][25.06.2024 ][as ][void, ][illegal, ][and]contrary to the provisions of lncome-tax Act and contrary [to ][the ][Principles ][of]Natural Justice. I.A.NO:1 OF 2025 Petition Under Section 151 CPC [praying ]that [in ][the ][circumstances stated ][in]the affidavit filed in support of the [petition, ]the [High Court ][may ][be ][pleased ][to ][stay]all further proceedings [pursuant ]to the Assessment Order [dt. 02.01.2024 ][passed]by the 3rd respondent uls 147 t.w.s 1441144F of the [lncome-tax ][Act ][for ][A.Y.]2016-17 vide DIN No. ITBA/AST/51147 12023-2411059286736(1 ). Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI DUNDU MANMOHAN Counsel for the Respondents : Ms J.SUNITHA (JUNIOR SC FOR INCOME [TAX)]The Court made the following ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE [P.SAM ] ANI)THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NANDIKONDA WRTT PETITION No.13062 of 2025 9BD.EB, [(per ][Hon'ble ][Sri ][Justice ][P.Sam Koshy)] Heard Mr. Manmohan Dundu, [Ieamed ][counsel ][for ][the]petitioner and Ms. J.Sunitha, leamed Junior [Standing ][Counsel ][for]the lncome Tax Department for [the ][respondents" ][Perused ][the]record. 2. This is a writ petition [where ]the [proceedings ][are ][either]challenged to the notices [which ][rvere ][issued ][under ][Section ][l48A]and 148 of the Income Tax Act, [1961 ][(for ][short'the ][Act') ][or ][the]assessment orders those have been [passed ][under Section ][147 ][of]the Act which have been assailed THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE [P.SAM ] ANI)THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NANDIKONDA WRTT PETITION No.13062 of 2025 9BD.EB, [(per ][Hon'ble ][Sri ][Justice ][P.Sam Koshy)] Heard Mr. Manmohan Dundu, [Ieamed ][counsel ][for ][the]petitioner and Ms. J.Sunitha, leamed Junior [Standing ][Counsel ][for]the lncome Tax Department for [the ][respondents" ][Perused ][the]record. 2. This is a writ petition [where ]the [proceedings ][are ][either]challenged to the notices [which ][rvere ][issued ][under ][Section ][l48A]and 148 of the Income Tax Act, [1961 ][(for ][short'the ][Act') ][or ][the]assessment orders those have been [passed ][under Section ][147 ][of]the Act which have been assailed 3. 'lhis writ petition is being taken up today only on one of thegrounds, that the notices issued under Section [l48A ][of ][the ][Act]and the subsequent initiation of [proceedings ][under Section ][148 ][of]the Act by the [jurisdictional ]Assessing [Ofhcer, ][whereas ][in ][terms]of the amendment that was biought to [the ][lncome-Jpx ][Act ][by ][way]of Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f.,01.04.2021 [onwards, ][proceedings] under Section 148,{ of the Act as also under Section 148 of [the]Act ought to have also been issued and proceeded in a facelessmanner. 4. The contention of the petitioner is thal the issue ofproceedings being in violation of the Finance AcL, 2021 i.e., theimpugned notices under Section l48A and Section 148 of thc Actnot being issued in a faceless manner, have already been dealt u,ithand decided by this Court in the case of KANKANALARAVINDRA REDDY vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICERI decidedon | 4.09.2023 whereby a batch of writ petitions wcre allorved andthe proceedings initiated under Section 148A as also under Section148 of the Act were held to be bad with consequenlial reliefs on theground of it being in violation of the provisions of Section I 5 I A ofthe Act read with Notification 1812022 dated29.03.2022. The saidjudgment passed by this Court has also been subsequently lollowedin a large nurnber of writ petitions which were allowed on similartenns. '[(2023) [156 ][taxmann.com ][178 ][(Telangana)]] 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 Courl in the case of HEXAWARETECHNOLOGIES LTD., vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSTONEROF INCOME TAX & OTHERS2, Gauhati High Court in the caseof RAM NARAYAN SAH vs. UNION OF INDIAs, 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 intemationaltaxation and central circle, High Court of Himachal Pradesh in thecase of GOVIND SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERT,Court in the case of MANSUKHBHAIGujarat High 'lzoz+1464 [(Bom)]' l(2024) [156 ][taxmann.com ][478 (Gauhati)l]' l(2024) [156 ][taxmann.com ][478 (Gauhati)l] ' [(2024) [165 ]taxmann.com [1 ] [5 ][(Punjab ][& ][Haryana)]] '12024) [167 ]taxmann.com [411 (Telangana)l] " [2024) [166 ]taxmarur.com 679 [(Bombay)]] '12024) [165 ][taxmann.com ][113 ][(Himachal ][Pradesh)l] \ ,._ 'lzoz+1464 [(Bom)]' l(2024) [156 ][taxmann.com ][478 (Gauhati)l]' l(2024) [156 ][taxmann.com ][478 (Gauhati)l] ' [(2024) [165 ]taxmann.com [1 ] [5 ][(Punjab ][& ][Haryana)]] '12024) [167 ]taxmann.com [411 (Telangana)l] " [2024) [166 ]taxmarur.com 679 [(Bombay)]] '12024) [165 ][taxmann.com ][113 ][(Himachal ][Pradesh)l] \ ,._ DAHYABIIAI RADADIYA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 3(3Xr8, Jharkand High Court in the case of SHYAMSUNDAR SAW vs. UNION OF INDtAe, Rajasthan High Court inthe case of SHARDA DEVI CHHAJER vs. INCOME TAXOFFICER & ANOTHER and batch of writ petitionsro whichstood decided on 19.03.2024. Similar views have also been takenby the Division Bench of Calcutta'High Court in the case ofGIRDHAR GOPAL DALMIA vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS(M.A.T I69t) of 2023), decided on25.09.2024.6. Even though the same issue having been decidcd by a largenumber of Fligh Courts, we are still confronted with large filing ofidentical matters on daily basis ranging between 5 to i 0 u,ritpetitions. That upon the instructiops being sought from theDepartment, they have been taking a solitary ground that thedecision of the Bombay High Court in the case of HexawareTechnologies Lld., (2 supra) as also the one which has bcendecided by this Court in the case of Kanakalo Ravindro Reddy 8202+ SCC online Guj a\D"2025 SCC Online lhar 287' o 12023, [RI-.n ][) ][:49 ][84-DB ]l"2025 SCC Online lhar 287' o 12023, [RI-.n ][) ][:49 ][84-DB ]l a'1 (1 supra) has been subjected to challenge in a Special [Leave]Petition i.e., SLP No.3574 of 2024 before the [Hon'ble ][Supreme]Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court is seized of [the ][matter]In addition, there are about 1200 SLPs also filed [arising out ][ofthe]same issue being decided by various High Courts. 7. To a query being put to the learned counsel [for the ][Revenue,]they have categorically accepted the fact that [there ][is ][no ][interirn]order granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in [any ][of ][these]matters pending before it. [, ]Meanwhile, fresh writ [petitions ][of]identical nature are being piled up before [this ][Bench ][on ][daily ][basis]and the pendency is getting increased on matter [which ][otherwise]has already been dealt and decided by this very High [Court itself']8. On the one hand, even though the order [of this ][Court ][that]was passed as early as on 14.09.2023 and [more ][16 ][months ][have]lapsed, till date, we do not find any remedial steps [having ][been]taken by the Income Tax Department 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 concemed in the teeth of series of [decisions] I by all the major High Courts in India are continuously stillinitiating proceedings under Section 148,{ 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 Act, 2020 as also the Finance Act 20219. Upon a query being put as to why can't this writ petition bedisposed of in the teeth of the decision rendered by this Court inthe case of Kanakda Ravindra Reddy (l supra), leamed StandingCounsel for the Income Tax Department contends that those wouldunnecessarily burden the Incorne Tax Department where theywould be required to file equal number of SLPs before theHon'ble Supreme Court and it would be further burdening theexchequer of the Union of India. It was also the contention of theleamed Standing Counsel that no prejudice would be caused to theinterest of the petitioners in case if this writ petition is kept pendingtili 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 Courl as to why the Income Tax Department have not comeout with a mechanism to issue appropriate instructions or to take appropriate steps in ensuring that proceedings under Section l48Aof the Act as also the assessment orders under Section 148 of theAct are kept in a hold in the light of the decisions decided by thevarious High Courls, 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 betimited to any of these jurisdictional High Courrs. 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 concerned are still even now in2025 also initiating proceedings in contravention to the provisionsof Section 151A of the Act and as a result by now, more than 600to 700 petitions have been already got piled up before this HighCourl on an issue which otherwise stands squarely covered by thejudgment of this Court in the case of Kanskala Ravindra Reddy(1 supra). What is also surprising is the fact that though whileallowing the writ petitions in the case of Kanukula RavindraReddy (1 supra), the Division Bench while reserving the right ofthe Revenue, has also protected the interest of the petitioners insofar as the liberry which was granted to the Revenue lorinitiating 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 inavailing the said liberly that was reserved for the Revenue. On thccontrary, tl'rey have been still sticking on to the stand. which thisHigh Court as well as many other High Courts already held to bebad. 11. It appears that because ofthe aforesaid liberty that this HighCourt had granted permitting the Revenue for initiatir.rg freshproceedings as a one-time measure in a faceless manner, theIncome Tax Department wants to take advantage of tl-re sarne 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 Court confirmsthe decision taken by this High Court as also by the other HighCourts in u,hich the SLPs are stitl pending, the Income Tax -l Dcpartment would get the advantage [of ][the ][liberty ][that is otherwise]protected in favour of the Revenue for initiation [of ][fresh]proceedings from the disposal of these matters [at ][a ][much later ][stage]which would be advantageous and [beneficial ]to [the Revenue ][and]would be equally disadvantageous and detrimental [so ][far ][as ][interest]of the assesses are concemed. As [a consequence, the ][lncome ][Tax]I)epaftment gets an extended [period ]of [time ][for ][initiation of ][fresh]proceedings. 12. The alarming trend of docket [explosion in this Court, ][despite]the clear precedent set in Kanakala [Ravindra ][Reddy ][(1 ][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]Department's strategy of awaiting the Supreme [Court's decision ][on]pending SLPs while continuing to initiate [fresh ][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 theadministrative efficiency and the respect firr judicialpronouncements, particularly when this Court has already provideda balanced approach by preserving both the Revenue's rights andassesses ln tcrests. 13. Another aspect which needs to be considered is that in fact itshould have been realized by the Income Tax Department itself andshould have found out via media in ensuring tl.rat proceedingsunder Sections 148-4 and 148 should not have bcen issued in afaceless manner, at least till the Hon,bte Supreme Court dccide thetwelve hundled (1200) odd SLps which it is already seized of or, atleast the Income Tax Department should have lound out someremedial steps to ensure that wherever the authorities intend toinitiate proceedings under Secrions l4g-A and 14g, othcr than in afaceless manner, the proceedings should havc been deferredwithout precipitating the matter further intimating thc assessee thatthey shall initiate appropriate proceedings only after rhe SLp,s aredecided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the very same issue.This again, the Inbome Tax Department, has not been able to give aconvincing leply, except for the fact that such a decision if at all r( r-) has to be taken, has to be taken for the [whole ][of ][India, ][and ][which]otherwise has to be by way of a policy decision and [that ][too ][at ][the]Ievel of Central Board of Direct Taxes. Though the [leamed]Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department [contended ][that]the Dethi High Court dismissed a writ petition of similar nature, [on]the one hand when the High Court is struggling to [reduce ][its]pendency, such notices which are under challenge in [this ][writ]petition are forcing the assessee to knock the doors of [this ][High]Court resulting in hling of hundreds of [new ][writ ][petitions ][which in]the long mn not only affects the disposal [of ][the ][writ ][petitions ][but]also consumes substantial time of the Bench in [hearing ][these]matters again and again on daily basis. Admittedly, [in ][spite ][of ][the]matter before the Hon'ble Supreme Courl [having ][been taken on]many occasions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court [which ][is seized ][of ][the]matter has been reluctant in [granting ]any [interim protection ][to ][the]Income Tax Department. Yet, the authorities [concemed ][at ][the]State level are not ready to accept the verdict [passed ][by ][a ][maj ][ority]of High Courts of different States on the same issue; [and to ][make]things further worse, the Income Tax Department is [showing]audacity 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.to have been only in the faceless manner. 14. In the case of BANK OF INDIA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, INCOME TAXrr, on an issue whether it wasjustifiable on the part of the Income Tax Depaftment in notfollowing an order passed by the adjudicating authority only on theground that the appeals are pending, the Division Bench of theHigh Court of Bombay held at paragraph No.25 as under, viz., : "25. Mr. Paridwalla has righ y 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.11, 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. t,'"|<zOzs) 170 l.axmann.com 422 (Bombay)l " [978] I l3 ITR 589 (Bombay) t,'"|<zOzs) 170 l.axmann.com 422 (Bombay)l " [978] I l3 ITR 589 (Bombay) 1.3 120241165 taxmann.com 5gl/300 Taxman 452 (Bombay)120241165 taxmann.com 5gl/300 Taxman 452 (Bombay) 'o ]lO9z1taKnann.com 16155 ELT433 (SC) r "6. Sri Reddy is perhaps right in 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 correotness 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, 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 disposing of thewould suffer. But what Sri Reddy overlooks is that weare not concerned here with the correotness 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, 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 disposing of thequasijudicral 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 AssistantCollectors and the Appellate Collectors who functionunder the [jurisdiction ]of the Tribunal. The principles ofbound 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 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 unreservedlyby the subordinate auihorities. The mere fact that theorder of the appellate authority is not ["acceptable" ]tothe department - in itsetf an objectionable phrase -and is the subject matter of an appeal can furnish noappellate authorities should be followed unreservedlyby the subordinate auihorities. The mere fact that theorder of the appellate authority is not ["acceptable" ]tothe department - in itsetf 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]been suspended by a competent court. lf this [healthy] rule is not followed, the result will only be undueharassment to assesses and chaos in administrationof tax laws. 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 theoffrcers. 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 adjudicating authorities and theappellate authorities to the requirements of judicialdiscipline and the need for giving effect to the ordersof the higher appellate authoriiies which are bindingon them." 15. What is wolrying this Bench more is the fact that anendeavour is being made whole heartedly to ensure not to generatefurther litigation on issues which have been laid to rest by a largenumber of High courts all of whom have taken a consistent standthat the action of the Income Tax Department being violative of the t Finance Act, 2020 and Finance Act,202l . Now, in order to [protect]the interest of the Revenue as also that of the assessee, it [would ]betrite at this [juncture, ]if we dispose of the writ [petition ]with [an]observation/direction that the disposal of the [instant ][writ ][petition in]terms of the [judgment ]rendered by this [High ][Court ][in the ][case ][of]Kankanala Ravindra Reddy (l supra) shall [however ][be subject ][to]the outcome of the SLPs which [were ][filed ][by ][the ][Income Tax]Department and which is pending consideration [before ][the ][Hon'ble]Supreme Cour1. 16. In the given facts and circumstances, [this ][Bench ][is of ][the]considered opinion that unless and until we [do not ][timely ][dispose]of matters which are squarely covered by the decision [of ][this ][Court]and which stands fortified by the decisions of the [various ][other]High Courts on the very same issue, the [pendency ]of [this ][High]Court would further be burdened which otherwise [can ][be ][decided]and disposed of as a covered matter. 17. So far as the interest of the Revenue is concerned, [we ][are ][of]the considered opinion that the interest of the [Revenue has already]been considered and [protected, ][as ][has been ][observed ][in ][paragraphs] 36,37 and 38 ofthe order which, for ready reference, is reproducedhereunder: 36. For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned noticesissued and the proceedings drawn by the respondent_Department is neither tenable, nor sustainable.The 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 passedby the respondent-Department pursuant to the noticesissued under Section 147 and 148 would also getquashed and it is ordered accordingly. The reason weare quashing the consequential order is on the principlesthat when the initiation of the proceedings itself wasprocedurally wrong, the subsequent orders also getsnullified automatically. 37. The preliminary objection raised by the petitioner issustained and all these writ petitions stands allowed onthis very jurisdictional issue_ Since the impugned noticesand orders are getting quashed on the poinl 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. 37. The preliminary objection raised by the petitioner issustained and all these writ petitions stands allowed onthis very jurisdictional issue_ Since the impugned noticesand orders are getting quashed on the poinl 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-time 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 rght -J./ I Gonferred on the Rdvenue 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 Iike 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 ofKanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra) is subjected to challengebefore the Hon'ble Supreme Courl in SLP No.3574 of 2024,prefer-red 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 ofthisHigh Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra).This, in other words, would mean that either of the parties, if theyso want, may move an appropriate petition seeking revival ofl 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 jurisdictionISconcerned. As. a consequence, the impugned notice underchallenge r.rnder Sectioirs 148-4 and 148 stands set aside/quashed II The consequential orders, if any, also stand set aside/quashed insimilar terms as have been passed by this High Court in the case ol Ktnkonala Ravindra Reddy (l supra)There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shatl stand closed. sD(-K.BHAVANI SWAMY*to't'RAR//rRUE coPY/' f,:s{*t. lusecrtoruorrrCER To lusecrtoruorrr1. The lncome Tax Officer, W_ard [.l ], Sangareddy, lnln/ne Tax Office,^ [Veerabhadra ][Nagar,.New ][Bus Stand,Sangai6OOy, fetangana_50)OOt.]2. The Principar chief commissioner oitnco'ie iii, np anci'rs, idtn-Froor,1. The lncome Tax Officer, W_ard [.l ], Sangareddy, lnln/ne Tax Office,^ [Veerabhadra ][Nagar,.New ][Bus Stand,Sangai6OOy, fetangana_50)OOt.]2. The Principar chief commissioner oitnco'ie iii, np anci'rs, idtn-Froor,^ [9lo.[, ][t.T. ][Towers, ][1O_2_3, ][A.C. Guards, ][ftvOeriOrO_SOOOO+.]3. The Assessment Unil lncome Tax Oepirt,i,eni, National FiielessAssessment.Centre, Dethi, Ministry_of Fin;;;,'noo,.n ruo. +oi, Z-na ffoor,E.Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, O"tf,i_iiOOOS3. The Assessment Unil lncome Tax Oepirt,i,eni, National FiielessAssessment.Centre, Dethi, Ministry_of Fin;;;,'noo,.n ruo. +oi, Z-na ffoor,E.Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, O"tf,i_iiOOOS! 5. [One ]One CC to [to SRt ]Ms. J.SUN,THA (JUN,OR [DUNpg.vlryMonAN, ]SCIO[iNb-Or,rre Aovocat. topuclrnXl AdvocateloPUClloPUClaOU. [,*o ] [Copies] aOU. GJPIA [}]v-*,att\ HIGH COURT DATED:2910412025 ORDER WP.No.13062 of 2025 ALLOWING THE W.PWITHOUT COSTS. (hCts I ,,1':TIJEC l't/. r!.i,r{Ito(_):I:10 JUr 20ffi7a)hi\*l)r rr.-'l eD