Under Section 148,{ Ofthe Act Asso Under Section 148 Of Theact Ought To Have Also Been Rssueand Proceeded In A Facelessmanner v. 'L(2023) [156 ][Taxmann.com ][178 ][(Tel]L

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATOF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD(Special OriginalJurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTYIGHTH DAY OF APRILTWO THOUSAND AD TWENry FIVE PREST THE HONOURABLE SRI JSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICEARSING RAO NANDIKONDAWRIT PETITION NO 26304 0F 2024 Between: RAKSHTP AHRMACEUT c[A]LSLM TEDep by its Director PALEM SRINIVAS,S U KoTESWARA RAoPALEMAgedabo48 years, Occupation. Business, R/o.4 5lIJrtRakhHoUSeSINas[a][r]SNasarHyderabad 500038, Telangana, lndiaPAN AADCR I1o6LA SSeSSmenteat20119 ...PETITIONER AND 1The n ome tax officerard[)]( 1Hyd rabad Signature Towers, Sy.No.6(P) ofKondapUSv J7(P)UfKoh saUdap. Botanical Gardens, SeilingampallyM)RR D SctHD ERABAD Te anna, 500084KondapUSv J7(P)UfKoh saUdap. Botanical Gardens, SeilingampallyM)RR D SctHD ERABAD Te anna, 5000842. The Principal Chief Commissionerlncome Tax, Telangana and A.PHyderabad lT Towers AC Guard MasaTank HyderabadHyderabad lT Towers AC Guard MasaTank Hyderabad 3. The National Faceless Assessmententer, lncomeTax Department NewDelhi...RESPONDENTSPetrtion under Arlicle 226 of the Costitution of lndia praying that in thecrrcumstances stated in the affidavit filed therith, the High Court may be pleased to., rssue an appropriate writ, order or directton moparticularly one in the nature of Writ of[/andamus, declaring the impugned notice datd. 30.08.2024 for A.Y. 2018-19 passedu/s 148A(d) of the Act vide DtN No. |TBA,/ASF I 1 48A12024-25/1 0681 95945(1 )and theconsequential notice u/s 148 dated 3O-08-2O2DIN and Notice No. ITBA/AST/S/1 481t2024-251'1068199963(1), issued by the JA(lst respondent) instead of FAO(3rdrespondent),as void, illegal, and contrary tohe provisions of lncome-tax Act andcontrary to the Principles of Natural Justice. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI THANNERCHAITANYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: Ms.B.SAPNREDDY, Jr.SC for lT DEPT The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAONANDIKONDAWRIT PETITTON No.26304 OF 2024 ORDER, (per Hon'ble Sri Jrtstice Narsing Rao Nantlikondq) Heard Mr.Thanneru Chaitanya Kumar, leamed counsel for the petitioner, Ms. B.Sapna Reddy, learned Junior StandingCounsel for the Income Tax Department for the respondents.Perused the record 2. This is a writ petition where the proceedings are eitherchallenged to the notices which were issued under Section l4gAand 148 of the Income Tax Act, 196l (for short [,the ]Act,) or theassessment orders those have been passed under Section 147 ofthe 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 1484. of the Actand the subsequent initiation of proceedings under Section 14g ofthe Act by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, whereas in termsof the amendment that was brought to the Income Tax Act by wayof Finance *t{, ZOZ\ w.e.f., 01.04.2021 onwards, proceedings under Section 148,{ ofthe Act asso under Section 148 of theAct ought to have also been rssueand proceeded in a facelessmanner. 4. The contention of the petioner is that the issue ofproceedings being in violation of te Finance Act, 2021 i.e., theimpugned notices under Section 14A and Section 148 of the Actnot being issued in a faceless, [have already been dealt ][with]and decided by this Court ine case of KANKANALARAVINDRA REDDY vs. INCO-TAx OFFICERT decidedon 14.09.2023 whereby a batch oft petitions were allowed andthe proceedings initiated under Sectin l48A as also under Sectron148 of the Act were held to be bad wth consequential reliefs on theground of it being in violation of theprovisions ofSection 151A ofthe Act read with Notification 18/20dated 29.03.2022. The saidjudgment passed by this Court has alo been subsequently followedin a large number of writ petitionshich were allowed on similarterms. 'l(2023) [156 ][taxmann.com ][178 ][(Tel]l ^ 'l(2023) [156 ][taxmann.com ][178 ][(Tel]l ^ 5. Down the iine, we find that the same issue has also beenwe find that the same issue has also beenthat the same issue has also beensame issue has also beenissue has also beenalso beenbeendecided against the Revenue by various High Courts i.e.,by the Bombay High Court in the case ot. HEXAWARETECHNOLOGIES LTD., vs. ASSTSTANT COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX & OTHERS2, Gauhari High Courr 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 OE'INCOME TAX5 where the issue was inrespect of intemational taxation, Bombay High Court in the case ofABHIN ANTLKUMAR SHAH vs. INCoME TAx OFFICER,INTERNATIONAL TAXATION6 which is again on intemarionaltaxation and central circle, High Court of Himachal pradesh in thecase of GOVIND SINGH vs. INCOMB TAX OFFICERT,Gujarat High Court in the case of MANSUKHBHAI Down the iine, we find that the same issue has also beenwe find that the same issue has also beenthat the same issue has also beensame issue has also beenissue has also beenalso beenbeen ' Tzoz+1464ITR 430 [(Bom)] 'l(2024) 156 taxmanacom 47g (Gauhati)l '[(2024) 165 taxmann.com 1 l5 (punjab & Haryana)] s [2024) 167 taxmann.com 4l l (Telangana)] " 12024) 166 taxr*dcom 679 (Bombay)l ' 12024) I 65 taxmann.com t t: iHimachai pradesh)l iltAtrSY{!}FLdI; -': .qDIYI, ['s]iNCOI'IE [-lA,:- ](iFFICrIi.WARD 3(3X5)8, Jharkand Highourt in the case of SHYAMSUNDAR SAW vs. UNION OF IDIAe, Rajasthan High Court inWARD 3(3X5)8, Jharkand Highourt in the case of SHYAMSUNDAR SAW vs. UNION OF IDIAe, Rajasthan High Court inthe case of SHARDA DEVI CR vs. INCOME TAXOFFICER & ANOTHER andtch of writ petitionsro whichOFFICER & ANOTHER andtch of writ petitionsro whichstood decided on 19.03.2024. Similviews have also been takenby the Division Bench of CalcuHigh Court in the case ofGTR.DHAR GOPAL DALMIA vsUNION OF INDIA & ORS(M.A.T 1690 of 2023), decided on 2.09.2024.by the Division Bench of CalcuHigh Court in the case ofGTR.DHAR GOPAL DALMIA vsUNION OF INDIA & ORS(M.A.T 1690 of 2023), decided on 2.09.2024. 6. Even though the same issueving been decided by a largenumber of High Courts, we are stillonfronted with large filing ofidentical matters on daily basis rnging between 5 to l0 writpetitions. That upon the instructns being sought fiom theDepartment, they have been takina solitary ground that thedecision of the Bombay High Coin the case of HexawareTechnologies Ltd., (2 supra) as aso the one which has beendecided by this Court in the casef Kanakula Ravindra Reddy 8202q sCC online Guj 4012'2025 SCC Online [lhar ][287]'2025 SCC Online [lhar ][287]I o 12023 [: RJ-JD ][:4984-DB ]l i --7 // (i supfa) las.been.qubjecred to challenge in a;Special ,LsavgPetition i.e., SLP No.3574 of 2024 before rhe Hon,ble SupremeCourt and the Hon'ble Supreme Court is seized of the matter.In addition, there are about 1200 SLps also filed ansing out ofthesame issue being decided by various High Courts.1. To a query being put to the 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 Depar.tment to take appropriate steps toeither hold back issuance of notice under Section l4gA and underSection 148 of the Act by the jurisdiuional Assessing Officer,rather the authorities concemed in the teeth of series of decisions 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 Depar.tment to take appropriate steps toeither hold back issuance of notice under Section l4gA and underSection 148 of the Act by the jurisdiuional Assessing Officer,rather the authorities concemed in the teeth of series of decisions by all the major High CourtsIndia are continuously stillinitiating proceedings under Sectin 148A of the Act and alsoinitiating proceedings under Stion 148 of the Act incontravention to the amendments bught into the Income Tax Actpursuant to the Finance Act, 2020 aalso the Finance Lct202l. 9. Upon a query being put as towhy can't this writ petition bedisposed of in the teeth of the deciion rendered by this Court inthe case of Kanakala Ravindra R(l supra), leamed StandingCounsel for the Income Tax Depent contends that those wouldunnecessarily burden the Incomeax Department where theywould be required to file equalumber of SLPs before theHon'ble Supreme Court and it wld be further burdening theexchequer of the Union of India. Itwas also the contention of theleamed Standing Counsel that no prudice would be caused to theinterest of the petitioners in case ifs writ petition is kept pendingtill the finalization of the SLPsending before the Hon'bleSupreme Court and the fact that thepetitioner is already enjoyingthe benefit of interim protection. Nnetheless, on the earlier queryof this Court as to why the IncomeDepartment have not comeout with a mechanism to issue apppriate instructions or to take l .t - appropriate steps in ensuring that proceedings under Section 14gAof 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 level of CBDTas any such steps would have to be taken pan India and cannot belimited to any of these jurisdictional High Courts. 10. As a result of which, what we are facing is steep increase of litigation day in and day out even though various orders have beenpassed by this High Court allowing writ petitions on thc very sameissue. The Income Tax authorities concemed are still even now in2025 also initiating proceedings in contravention to the provisionsof Section 151,4 of the Act and as a result by now, more than 600to 700 petitions 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(1 supra). What is also surprising is the fact that though whileallowing the writ petitions in the case of Kanakala RavindraReddy (l supra), the Division Bench while reserving the right ofthe Revenue, has also protected the interest of the petitioners ,/ ,// 8 insofar as the liberty which wasgranted to the Revenue forinitiating fresh proceedings strictly iaccordance with the amendedprovisions of the Act, as amendedy the Finance Act,2020 andthe Finance Act,202l. The petitionassessee would be entitled tochallenge or raise the other legal objtions if the Revenue initiatesfresh proceedings. The Departmehas made no endeavour inavailing the said liberty that was resed for the Revenue. On thecontrary, they have been still stickion to the stand, which thisHigh Court as well as many othergh Courts already held to bebad. ,/ ,// 8 insofar as the liberty which wasgranted to the Revenue forinitiating fresh proceedings strictly iaccordance with the amendedprovisions of the Act, as amendedy the Finance Act,2020 andthe Finance Act,202l. The petitionassessee would be entitled tochallenge or raise the other legal objtions if the Revenue initiatesfresh proceedings. The Departmehas made no endeavour inavailing the said liberty that was resed for the Revenue. On thecontrary, they have been still stickion to the stand, which thisHigh Court as well as many othergh Courts already held to bebad. 11. It appears that because oftheoresald liberty that this HighCourt had granted permitting theevenue for initiating freshproceedings as a one-time measuin a faceless manner, theIncome Tax Department wants to te advantage of the same byprotracting these proceedings whichould enable them to meet thelimitation that would otherwise comein the way. Likewise, if thewrit petition is kept pending for a coiderable long period of timeand flnally at a laterr stage if the Honble Supreme Court confirmsthe decision taken by this High Couas also by the other HighCourts in which the SLPs are stilpending, the Income Tax1 i - Department would get the advantage of the liberty th.at isr Ottrerwiseprotected in favour of the Revenue for initiation of freshprotected in favour of the Revenue for initiation of freshproceedings from the disposal of these 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 Taxwhich 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.proceedings. 12. The alarming trend of docket explosion in this Court, despitethe clear precedent set in Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (l 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 principte ofjudicialprecedent 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 buy time and circumventlimitation periods, rather than adhering to the established legal position. Such condu,:t raiseserious questions about theadministrative efficiency andthe respect for [judicial]pronouncements, particularly whenhis Court has already provideda balanced approach by preservingboth the Revenue's rights andassesses interests. 13. Another aspect which needs needs t 13. Another aspect which needs needs tbe considered is that in fact itshould have been realized by the Inme Tax Department itself andshould have found out via mediain ensuring that proceedingsunder Sections 148-4 and 148 shold not have been issued in afaceless manner, at least till the Hoble Supreme Court decide thetwelve hundred (1200) odd SLPs whch it is already seized of or, atleast the Income Tax Departmenthould have found out somcremedial steps to ensure that whver the authorities intend toinitiate proceedings under Sections48-A and 148, other than rn afaceless manner, the proceedingsshould have been defenedwithout precipitating the matter fur intimating the assessee thatthey shall initiate appropriate proceings only after the SLP's aredecided by the Hon'ble Supremeourt on the very same issue.This again, the Income Tax Dept, has not been able to give aconvincing reply, except for the facthat such a decision 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 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 fbrcing the assessee to knock the doors of this Highcourt 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 the Hon'ble Supreme Court having been taken onmany occasions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court which is seized of thematter has been reluctant in granting any interim protection to thelncome 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 furlher worse, the Income Tax Department is showingaudacity by issuing notices continuously under Sections r4g-A and 148 through the [jurisdictiondl ][Asses]ing Offrcer whereas it oughtto have been only [in ][the ][faceless ][man] 14. In the case of BANK [O]INDIA VS. ASSISTANTCOMMISSIONE& INCOME [T]", [on ][an issue ][whether ][it ][was]justifiable on the part of the Incme Tax Department in [not]following an order passed by the [adj]dicating authority only on [the]ground that the appeals are [pen], [the ][Division ][Bench ][of ][the]High Court of Bombay [held ][at ]Paragph No.25 as under, viz., [:] "25. Mr. Paridwalla has [rightly]drawn out attention to [the]decision of this Court [in ]Gommissier of lncome Tax vs. Smt.Godavaridevi Saraf'2 as also [the]recent decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this [Court in Sam]Furniture (P) Ltd. v. [lTO13]of which one of us [(Justice G.S. ][Kul]rni) was a member, [wherein]the Court categorically observed [t]t the Revenue having [not]"accepted" the [judgment ]of the Highourt would not mean that [till]the same is set aside [in ]a [manner ][k]n to law, it would [loose ][its]binding force. Referring to the [deci]ion of the Supreme Court [in]Union of lndia vs. Kamlakshi [Fi]ce Corporation Ltd.14, [the]Court observed that the [approach]the officials of Revenue oftreating decisions being ["not ][acce]ble' was criticized by [the]Supreme Court. ln such [decision]following are the relevantobservations [made ][bY ][the ][SuPreme]urt " 11zozs; [170 ][taxmann.com422(Bo]t2 y)l t2 1t9281 113 ITR 589 (Bombay)1t9281 113 ITR 589 (Bombay) " 1202+1165 [taxmann.com 581i300 ][T]452 (BombaY) . to ltggzl taxmann.com 16155 ELT 431 SC) " 11zozs; [170 ][taxmann.com422(Bo]t2 y)l t2 1t9281 113 ITR 589 (Bombay)1t9281 113 ITR 589 (Bombay) " 1202+1165 [taxmann.com 581i300 ][T]452 (BombaY) . to ltggzl taxmann.com 16155 ELT 431 SC) "6. Sri Redciy 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 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, righflycriticized this conduct of the Assistant Collectors andthe harassmenl lo 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 Appellle Collector is binding on theAssistant Collectors working within his jurisdiction andthe order of the Tribunal is binding upon the AssislantCollectors 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 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 competenl court. lf this healthy ruig i$ !-ot i::i:.,,,'-'d tlre reuit will oniy be unduehaiass,Tei-it to assesses andchaos in administrationo[ tax laws.o[ tax laws. 12. We have dealt with thisaspect at some length,because it has been suggsted by the learnedAdditional Solicitor Generalthat the observationsmade by the High Court, hbeen harsh on theofficers. [t is clear that the oservations of the HighCourt, seemingly vehemnt, and apparentlyunpalatable to the Revenue, aonly intended to curba tendency in revenue mawhich, if allowed tobecome widespreqd, couldsult in considerableharassment to the assesses-pblic without any benefitto the Revenue. We woullike to say that thedepartment should take the observations in theproper spirit. The observatins of the High Courtshould be kept in mind in futuand the utmost regardshould be paid by the ad.iuditing authorities and theappellate authorities to theuirements of [judicial]discipline and the need for ging effect to the ordersof the higher appellate authoties which are bindingon them." 15. What is worrying this Bh more is the fact that anendeavour is being made whole hdly to ensure not to generatefurther litigation on issues which hae been laid to rest by a largenumber of High Courts all of whomhave taken a consistent standthat the action of the Income Tax Dent being violative of the 15. What is worrying this Bh more is the fact that anendeavour is being made whole hdly to ensure not to generatefurther litigation on issues which hae been laid to rest by a largenumber of High Courts all of whomhave taken a consistent standthat the action of the Income Tax Dent being violative of the Finance Act,2020 and Finance Act,ZO2L Now, inorderto 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 trite 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 Income TaxDepartment and which is pending consideration before the Hon,bleterms 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 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 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. 17. So far as the interest of the Revenue is concemed, 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 ofthe [order ][which, ][for] y reference, is reproduced hereunder: 36. For all the aforesaid [reas]ns, the impugned noticesissued and the [proceedings]wn by the respondent-Department is neither [te]able, nor sustainable.The notices so issued and theprocedure adopted beingper se illegal, deserves to beand are accordingly [set]aside/quashed. As a conseqence, all the imPugnedorders [getting quashed, the co]sequential orders [passed]by the respondent-DePartmenpursuant to the noticesissued under Section [147]d 148 would also [get]quashed and it is ordered aordingly. The reason [we]are [quashing ]the consequentiaorder is on the [principles]that when the initiation of [th]proceedings itself wasprocedurally wrong, the subsuent orders also [gets]nullified automatically. 37. The [preliminary objection]raised by the [petitioner ][is]sustained and all these [writ]titions stands allowed [on]this very [jurisdictional ][issue. ][Si]ce the impugned [notices]and orders are [getting ][qu]hed on the [point ]ofjurisdiction, we are not inclinto proceed further [and]decide the other issues [raise]by the petitioner [which]stands reserved to be [raise]and contended in [an]appropriate [proceedings-] 38. Since the [Hon'ble ][SuPr]e Court had, in the caseof Ashish Agarual, [supra']s a one{ime measureexercising the Powers [un]er Article 142 of theConstitution of lndia, Permthe Revenue to proceedunder the substituted Provisios, and this Court allowingthe [petitions ]onlY [on the ]Pcedural flaw, the right I\ t t 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 ][SuPr]e Court had, in the caseof Ashish Agarual, [supra']s a one{ime measureexercising the Powers [un]er Article 142 of theConstitution of lndia, Permthe Revenue to proceedunder the substituted Provisios, and this Court allowingthe [petitions ]onlY [on the ]Pcedural flaw, the right I\ t t 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 petition, conscious ofthe fact that the earlier order of this High Court in the case ofKanakala Ravindra Reddy (1 supra) is subjected to challengebefore 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 ofthisHigh Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindru Reddy (l tryra).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 allowed infavour of the assessee so far as the issue of jurisdiction1Sconcemed. As a consequence, the impugned notice underchallenge under Sections 148-4 and 148 stands set aside/quashed. ( ( '[ ho coitsequeniiai cr'Jers, if any, [a][ so stand ][set ][aside/quashed in] this High [Court ][in ][the ][case ][of] similar [terms ][as ][have been ][Passed ][b] Kankanala [Ravindra ][ReddY ][(l ][sttP][ ). ][There ][shall be no order ][as] to costs etitions [pending, ][ifanY, ][shall] ConsequentlY, [miscellaneous]stand closed. A!iE'?i,TttAld'"dEPY,,,/TRUESECT[to] To,IThnCo[m][e][ a][x][ o][ffice](a d(3(1Ho. Botanicaerabad [Sig]ture rdens, Towers, [SerlingamPallY] [No 6(P) ][of]Ko n[d][a][p][U]tSvJ7(P)of Ko[ h][a][g][ U][da][ o]'gana, 500084(M)R R[D][ S]flct[H]DERA [D][ Te][ a]Ko n[d][a][p][U]tSvJ7(P)of Ko[ h][a][g][ U][da][ o]'gana, 500084(M)R R[D][ S]flct[H]DERA [D][ Te][ a]2ThePr nc[pa]Che Cf[o][mm]C[ S]G Uaone[rd][ M][r][ o][a]lncome ab Tank [Tax, Telangana and A ][HYderaoao][P]Hyderaba[d][ T][ T][ow]enter, [lncomeTax Department New]Hyderaba[d][ T][ T][ow]enter, [lncomeTax Department New]JThe National [Faceless Assessment]Delhi.NYA [KUMAR, ][Advocate ][lOPUCl]Delhi.NYA [KUMAR, ][Advocate ][lOPUCl]4One [to ] [ ] 4 for lncome [Tax Department ][ ] 5One [to Ms ] [SAPNA REDDY'] 6. [Two ][CD CoPies] BSKBS 19- I HlGH COURT DATED:2810412025 ORDER WP.No.26304 of 2024 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITIONWITHOUT COSTS I[t] ./,'',.,-.,/ 6i,j(Ir?li913 rlJE ztE?_tCs::-.-^,,fJ t