> Under Section 1484. Of The Act As Also Under Section 148 Of The Act Ought To Have Also Been Issued And Proceeded In A Faceless Manner. 4. The Contention Of Th v. Income-Tax Officert Decided On 14.09.2023 Whereby A Batch Of Writ Petitions Were Allowed And The Proceedings Initiated Under Section 148A As Also Under Section

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY NINTH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE [P.SAM ] ANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING WRIT PETITION NO: 13218 OF [2025] Between: tv1/s. Adarsha Thrift Mutually Aided Cooperative [Society Limited,.rep. ][by ][its]Secretary, Mr. Tenugu Hinumandlu, [4-77, Kallur, ][Kotagir, ][Nizamabad-]503207. ..PETITIONER AND '1 . Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, National e-Assessment Center,Room No.40'1, 2nd Floor, E-Ramp, Jawaharlal [Nehru Stadium, New ][Delhi-1 10]003.Room No.40'1, 2nd Floor, E-Ramp, Jawaharlal [Nehru Stadium, New ][Delhi-1 10]003. 2. lncome Tax Officer, Ward [- ][1, ]# [6-2-15613, ][Aayakar Bhavan, Subhash ][Nagar,]Nizamabad-503 002.Nizamabad-503 002. Nizamabad-503 002.3. Principal Chief Commissioner of [Income ][Tax, ]-Andhra [Prqdesh ]. [and]Telangana, Hyderabad # 10-2-3, [Room ][No.922, ][9th ][Floor, ]['B' ][Block' ][lT]Towers, AC Guards, Hyderabad-5O0 [004.]Telangana, Hyderabad # 10-2-3, [Room ][No.922, ][9th ][Floor, ]['B' ][Block' ][lT]Towers, AC Guards, Hyderabad-5O0 [004.] 4. Union of lndia. rep. bv its Secretary, [Ministry ][of ][Finance' Government ][of lndia,]3'd Floor, Jeevan De6p Building, Sansad [Marg, ][New ][Delhi-1 10 ][001]3'd Floor, Jeevan De6p Building, Sansad [Marg, ][New ][Delhi-1 10 ][001] ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the [Constitution ][of ][India ][praying ][that ][in ][the]circumstances stated in the affidavit [filed ][therewith, ][the ][High ][Court ][may ][be]pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate [writ, ][order or]direction [(a) ]declaring the order [passed ][by ][2nd ][Respondent ][under ][Section]148A(d) daled 7.4.2022 and notice under [Section ]['148 ][of ][the ][lncome Tax ][Act,]1961 , dated 7 .4.2022, for the assessment [year ][2015-16 ][as ][being ][without]jurisdiction and contrary to faceless assessment [procedure ]laid down [in ][Section]1448 of the lncome Tax Act 1961 [and ][consequently ][(b) ][to ][set-aside ][(i) ][the]consequential notice issued by [the ][1"t ][Respondent, under Section ][142(1)of ][the]lncome Tax Act, 1961, dated 13.07.2023 [and ][(ii) ][the ][consequential ][order ][issued]by the 1"t Respondent, under [Section ][147 ][read ][with ][Sections ][144 ][and ][Section] 1448 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 27.12.2023 for the assessment year2015-16 as being without Jurisdiction, arbitrary, illegal, bad in law, void-ab-initio,apart from being violative of Articles 14, 1g(1Xg) and 265 of the constitution oflndia and contrary to faceless assessment procedure laid down in section 144Bof the lncome Tax Act 196'l and consequenfly set-aside the same in the interestsof [justice] lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section ['1 ]5'l CpC praying that in the circumstances statedin the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High court may be pleasedto grant stay of all further proceedings, including any recovery, pursuant to theimpugned order dared 27.12.2023 issued by the 1't Respondent, under section'147 read with Sections 144 and 1448 ot the lncome Tax Act, 196i for theassessment year 2015-16, pending disposal of the writ petition as othenrrise thePetitioner will be put to severe loss and hardship. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. S. VIJAY ADITHYA Counsel for ttie Respondents: Ms. J. SUNITHA (JUNIOR SC FOR INCOME TAX)The Court made thcl foltowing: ORDERThe Court made thcl foltowing: ORDER THE HONOURABLE.SRI .IUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOIIRABLE SRIJUSTICE NARSING RAONANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION No.13218 of 2025 OI{DER, [(per ]Hon'bk Sri .fustice P.Sam Kosh1,) Heard Mr. S.Vijay Adithya, leamed counsel for thepetitioner and Ms. J.Sunitha, learned Junior Standing Counsel forthe lncome Tax Deparlrnent for the respondents. Perused therecord. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. S. VIJAY ADITHYA Counsel for ttie Respondents: Ms. J. SUNITHA (JUNIOR SC FOR INCOME TAX)The Court made thcl foltowing: ORDERThe Court made thcl foltowing: ORDER THE HONOURABLE.SRI .IUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOIIRABLE SRIJUSTICE NARSING RAONANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION No.13218 of 2025 OI{DER, [(per ]Hon'bk Sri .fustice P.Sam Kosh1,) Heard Mr. S.Vijay Adithya, leamed counsel for thepetitioner and Ms. J.Sunitha, learned Junior Standing Counsel forthe lncome Tax Deparlrnent for the respondents. Perused therecord. 2. This is a writ petition where the proceedings are eitherchallenged to the notices which were issued under Section l48Aand 148 of the lncome Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') or theassessment orders those have been passed under Section 147 ofthe Act u,hich 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 thc Actand the subsequent initiation ofproceedings under Section 148 ofthe Act by the [jurisdictional ]Assessing Officer, rvhereas in termsof 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 1484. of the Act as also under Section 148 of theAct ought to have also been issued and proceeded in a facelessmanner.4. The contention of the petitioner is that the issue ofAct ought to have also been issued and proceeded in a facelessmanner.4. The contention of the petitioner is that the issue ofproceedings being in violation of the Finance Act, 2021 i.e., theimpugned rotices under Section i48A and Section 148 of the Actnot being issued in a faceless manner, have already been dealt withand decided by this Courl in the casc of KANKANALARAVINDRA REDDY vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICERT decidedon 14.09.2023 whereby a batch of writ petitions were allowed andthe proceedings initiated under Section 148A as also under Sectionimpugned rotices under Section i48A and Section 148 of the Actnot being issued in a faceless manner, have already been dealt withand decided by this Courl in the casc of KANKANALARAVINDRA REDDY vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICERT decidedon 14.09.2023 whereby a batch of writ petitions were allowed andthe proceedings initiated under Section 148A as also under Section148 of the Act were held to be bad with consequential reliefs on theground of it being in violation of the provisions of Sectjon 151A ofthe Act reac with Notification 1812022 dated 29.03.2022. The saidjudgment passed by this Courl has also been subseqtrentll, followedin a large nrmber of writ petitions which were allowed on similartelmsthe Act reac with Notification 1812022 dated 29.03.2022. The saidjudgment passed by this Courl has also been subseqtrentll, followedin a large nrmber of writ petitions which were allowed on similartelms 5. Down the line, we find that the same issue has also beendecided against the Revenue byvanous Iligh Coults i.c.,by the Bombay High Courl in the case of HEXAWARETECHNOLOGIES LTD., vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX & OTHERS2, Gauhati High Court in the caseof RAM NARAYAN SAH vs. UNION OF INDIA3, Punjab andHaryana High Courl in the case of JATINDER SINGH BANGUvs. UNIC)N OF INDIAT, 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 Courl in the case ofABHIN ANILKUMAR SHAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,INTE,RNATIONAL TAXATION6 which is again on internationaltaxation and central circle, High Courl 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 ]taxrnann.com [478 (Gauhati)l]'l(2024) [[65 ][taxmann.com ][115 ][(Punjab ][& ][Haryana)]]'12024) [167 ]taxmann.com [41 ] [(Telangana)l]"12024) [166 ]taxmann.com [679 ][(Bombay)l]'L2024) [165 ]taxmann.com [113 ][(Himachal ][Pradesh)l] 'Tzoz+1464 [430 (Bom)]'l(2024) [156 ]taxrnann.com [478 (Gauhati)l]'l(2024) [[65 ][taxmann.com ][115 ][(Punjab ][& ][Haryana)]]'12024) [167 ]taxmann.com [41 ] [(Telangana)l]"12024) [166 ]taxmann.com [679 ][(Bombay)l]'L2024) [165 ]taxmann.com [113 ][(Himachal ][Pradesh)l] DAHYABTIAI RADADIYA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 3(3X5)8, Jharkand l{igh Court in the case ol SHYAMSUNDAR SAW vs. UNION OF INDIAe, Rajasthan l-ligh Court inthe case o1'SHARDA DEVI CHHAJER vs. INCOME TAXOFFICEIT & ANOTHER and batch of writ petitionsr0 whichstood decidcd on 19.03.2024. Similar views havc also bcen takenby the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in the case ofGIRDHAR [(;OPAL ]DALMIA vs. UNION OF & ORSI\l)lA (M.A.T 1690 o1-2023), decided on25.09.20246. Even though the same issue having been decided by a largenumber of lligh Courts, we are still confronted with large filing ofidentical urltters on daily basis ranging betwe en 5 to l0 writpetitions. I hat upon the instructions being soughl fi.om tlteDepartment. they have been taking a solitary ground that thedecision of the Bombay High Court in the case ot' HerawareTeclrnologie,s Ltd., (2 supra) as also the one wirich l.ras beendecided by this Court in the case of Kanakala Ruvindro Reddy8202+ SCC Onl.ine Guj 4012'g2025 [Orrl.ine ])har 287o ' 12023 [: ][RJ-.r ][I) ][: ][4 9 ][84-DBl] (l 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'ble 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 Courts.7. 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 beforer t.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 itsetf.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 Depadment to take appropriate steps toeither hold back issuance of notice under Section 148A and underSection 148 of the Act by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer,rather the authorities concemed in the teeth of series of decisions by all thc major High Courts in India are continuously stillinitiating p-oceedings under Section l48A of the Act and alsoinitiating proceedings under Section 148 of the Act incontravention to the amendments brought into the Income Tax Actpursuant to thc Finance {ct,,2020 as also the Finance Act 2021 .9. Upon a rluery being put as to why can't this writ petition bedisposed of in the teeth of the decision rendered by this Court inthe case o1- Kanakalo Ravindra Reddy (I supra), leartrcd StandingCounsel lbr the Income Tax Department contends that thosc wouldunnecessarily burden the lncome Tax Deparlrncnt u,hcrc theywould be recluired to file equal number of SLPs before theHon'ble Supreme Court and it would be further burdenins theexchequer ol'the Union of India. It was also the contcntion of theleamed Standing Counsel that no prejudice would be caused to theinterest of the petitioners in case if this writ petition is kept pendingtill the finalization of the SLPs pending beforc the Hon'bleSupreme Court and the fact that the petitioner is already enjoyingthe benefit of [jnterim ]protection. Nonetheless, on the earlier queryof this Cour. 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 Courts, it rvas 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 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 by now, n.rore 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 Kunakala Rovindra 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 insolarAS the liberty which was granted to the Revenue forinitiating fiesh proceedings strictly in accordance with the arnendedprovisions of the Act, as amended by the Finance Act, 2020 andthe Finance AcL, 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 liberty that was reserved for the Revenue. On thccontrary, they have been still stickin[ on to the stand. which thisHigh Court as well as many other High Courts alreadv hetd to bebad. 11. It appears that because ofthe aforesaid liberty that this HighCourt had granted permitting the Revenue lor initiating fieshproceedings as a one-time measure in a faceless manner, theIncorne Tax Depafiment wants to take advantage of the sanre byprotracting these proceedings which would enable them to rneet thelirnitation that [.,vould ]otherwise come in the way. Likeu,ise, if thewrit petition is kept pending for a considerable long period of tirreand 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 r.vhich the SLPs are still pending, the Income Tax 11. It appears that because ofthe aforesaid liberty that this HighCourt had granted permitting the Revenue lor initiating fieshproceedings as a one-time measure in a faceless manner, theIncorne Tax Depafiment wants to take advantage of the sanre byprotracting these proceedings which would enable them to rneet thelirnitation that [.,vould ]otherwise come in the way. Likeu,ise, if thewrit petition is kept pending for a considerable long period of tirreand 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 r.vhich the SLPs are still pending, the Income Tax Department would get the advantage of the libefty that is otherwiseprotected in favour of the Revenue for initiation of lreshprotected in favour of the Revenue for initiation of lreshproceedings from the disposal of these matters at a much later stagewhich would be advantageous and beneficial to the Revenue andwould be equally disadvantageous and detrimentai so far as interestof the assesses are concerned. 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 Konokala Rovindro Reddy (l supra), is amatter of grave concern. The Income Tax Department's persistentinitiation of fresh proceedings, disregarding the established [j ]udicialpronouncements, has led to an unprecedented surge in litigationwith over 600-700 petitions piling up on the same issue. Tl.risdeliberate approach not only undennines the principle of judicialwhich would be advantageous and beneficial to the Revenue andwould be equally disadvantageous and detrimentai so far as interestof the assesses are concerned. 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 Konokala Rovindro Reddy (l supra), is amatter of grave concern. The Income Tax Department's persistentinitiation of fresh proceedings, disregarding the established [j ]udicialpronouncements, has led to an unprecedented surge in litigationwith over 600-700 petitions piling up on the same issue. Tl.risdeliberate approach not only undennines the principle of judicialprecedent but also strains the judicial resources unnecessarily. TheDeparlment's strategy of awaiting the Supreme Courl's decision onpending SLPs while continuing to initiate fresh proceedingsappears to be a calculated move to buy time and circumventIimitation periods, rather than adhering to the established legalIimitation periods, rather than adhering to the established legal ft position. Such conduct raises serious questior-rs attout theadrninistrativc efficiency and the respect ft>r judicialpronouncenrents, particularly when this Court has already provideda balanced approach by preserving both the Revenur:'s rights andASSCSSCS I IItcTCSIS 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 that proceedingsunder Sections 148-4 and 148 should not have been issued in afaceless rlanner, at least till the Hon'ble Supreme Court decide thetwelve hunclred (12C0) odd SLPs which it is already seized of or, atleast the Incorne Tax Department should have found out someremedial steps to ensure that wherever the authorities intend toinitiate proceedings under Sections 148-A and 148, other than in afaceless manner, the proceedings should have been deferredwithout precipitating the matter furthdr 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 leply, except for the fact that such a decision if at all// 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 thelevel of Central Board of Direct Taxes. Though the leamedStanding Counsel for the Income Tax Departrnent contended thatthe Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition of similar nature, onthe one l.rand 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 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 thcmatter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court having been taken onmany occasions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court which is seized of thernatter has been reluctant in granting any interim protection to thelncome 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 DepartmentIS showingaudacity by issuing notices cpntinuously under Sections 148-A and I 48 througlr the [j ]urisdictional Assessing Officer whereas it oughtto have beeir only in the faceless manner. 14. In tlre case of BANK OF INDIA vs. ASSISTANTCOMMISSIONER, INCOME TAXI', on an issue whether it was.justifiable [on ][thc ][part ][of ][the ][Income ][Tax ][Deparlrnent ][in ][not]following an ortler passed by the adjudicating authorit),only on theground that tlrc appeals are pending, the Division Bench of theIligh Court o1'I3ombay held at paragraph No.25 as under, viz., : "25. lVr. Paridwalla has rightly drawn out attention to thedecisior of this Court in Commissioner of Income 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 lorce Referring to the decision of the Supreme Court inUnion of India vs. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd.14, 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. 'l ttZOZsl [l7t) ][1111,l,unn..om ][422 ]tBombay)l'' [978] I l3 I IR 589 (Bombay)t3 12OZ+1165 raxrnann.corn 581/300 Taxman 452 (Bombay) to llggZl taxmann.com l6155 ELT433 (SC) I 'l ttZOZsl [l7t) ][1111,l,unn..om ][422 ]tBombay)l'' [978] I l3 I IR 589 (Bombay)t3 12OZ+1165 raxrnann.corn 581/300 Taxman 452 (Bombay) to llggZl taxmann.com l6155 ELT433 (SC) I "6. Sri Reddy is perhaps right in saying that theofficers were not actuated by any mala fides [in]passing the impugned orders. They [perhaps]genuinely 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 [we]are not concerned here with the correetness orotheruise of their conclusion or of any factualmalafides but with the fact that the officers, in reachingin their conclusion, by-passed two appellate orders [in]regard to the same issue which were [placed ]beforethem, one of the Collector [(Appeals) ]and the [other ]ofthe Tribunal. The High Court has, in our view, [rightly]criticized this conduct of the Assistant Collectors [and]the harassment lo the assessee caused by the [failure]of 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 thequasijudicial 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 ]ofofficers were not actuated by any mala fides [in]passing the impugned orders. They [perhaps]genuinely 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 [we]are not concerned here with the correetness orotheruise of their conclusion or of any factualmalafides but with the fact that the officers, in reachingin their conclusion, by-passed two appellate orders [in]regard to the same issue which were [placed ]beforethem, one of the Collector [(Appeals) ]and the [other ]ofthe Tribunal. The High Court has, in our view, [rightly]criticized this conduct of the Assistant Collectors [and]the harassment lo the assessee caused by the [failure]of 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 thequasijudicial 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 ]ofjudicial discipline require that the orders of the higherappellate authorities should be followed unreservedlyby the subordinate authorities. The mere fact that theorder of the appeltate authority is not ["acceptable" ]tothe department - in itself an objectionable [phrase ]-and is the subject matter of an [appeal ][can furnish ][no]ground for not following it unless its operation [has]been suspended by a competent [court ][lf ][this ][healthy]appellate authorities should be followed unreservedlyby the subordinate authorities. The mere fact that theorder of the appeltate authority is not ["acceptable" ]tothe department - in itself an objectionable [phrase ]-and is the subject matter of an [appeal ][can furnish ][no]ground for not following it unless its operation [has]been suspended by a competent [court ][lf ][this ][healthy] ruie is not followed, the result will only be undueharassment to assesses and chaos in administrationof tax laws. ruie 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,becaJse it has been suggested by the learnedAdditional Solicitor General that the observationsmade by the High Court, hav€ been harsh on theofficers. lt is clear that the observations of the HighCourt, seemingly vehement, and apparentlyunpalatable to the Revenue, are only intended to curba tendency in revenue matters which, if allowed tobecome widespread, could result in considerableharassment lo the assesses-public without any benefitto the Revenue. We would like to say that thedepadment 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 [judicial]discipline and the need for giving effect to the ordersof the higher appellate authorities which are bindingon thern." 15. What is r.r,orrying this Bench more is the fact tllat anendeavour is being made whole heartedly to ensure not to generatefurther titigation on issues which have been laid to rest by a largenumber of I-tigh Courls all of whom have taken a consistent standthat tlie actjon of the Income Tax Department being violative of the Finance Act, 2020 and Finance Act.,202l . Now, in order to [pl'otect]the interest ol the Revenue as also that of the assessee, it [would ][be]trite at this [juncture, ]if we dispose of the writ petition with anobservation/direction that the disposal of the instant writ petition [in]tcrms of the [judgment ]rendered by this High Courl in the case ofKunkanala Ravindra Reddy (1 supra) shall however be subject tothe outcorne of the SLPs which were filed by the Incorne TaxDepaftment and which is pending consideration before the Hon'bleSuprerne Court. 16. In the given facts and circumstances, this Bench is of theconsidered opinion that unless and until we do not timely disposeol- rratters which are squarely covered by the decision of this Courtand which stands fortified by the decisions of the various otherIligh Courts on the very same issue, the pendency of this High('ourt u,ould I'urlher be burdened which otherwise can be decidedand disposed of as a covered matter. 11. So lar as the interest of the Revenue is concemed, we aLe ol'the considered opinion that the interest of the Revenue has alreadybcen considered and protected, as has been observed in paragraphs 36,37 and 38 of tl.re 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 ouashing 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 ]rssue. Since the impugned noticesand orders are getting quashed on the point ofjunsdiction, we are not inclined to proceed further anddecide the other issues raised by the petitioner whichstands reserved to be raised and contended in anaporopriate 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, permifted the Revenue to proceedunder the substituted provisions, and this Court allowingthe petitions only on the procedural flaw. the right t 37. The preliminary objection raised by the petitioner issustained and all these writ petitions stands allowed onthis very [jurisdictional ]rssue. Since the impugned noticesand orders are getting quashed on the point ofjunsdiction, we are not inclined to proceed further anddecide the other issues raised by the petitioner whichstands reserved to be raised and contended in anaporopriate 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, permifted the Revenue to proceedunder the substituted provisions, and this Court allowingthe petitions only on the procedural flaw. the right t conferred on the Revenue [would ][remain ][reserved to]proceed further if they so want from the stage of theorder of the Supreme [Court ][in ][the ][case ][ofAshish]Agarwal, supra. 18. We would only [further ][like ][to ][make ][observations ][that ][since]we are inclined to dispose of the instant [writ ][petition, ][conscious ][of]the fact that the earlier order of [this ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]Kanukulu Ruvindro Rectdy (l supra) is [subjected ][to ][challenge]belbre the F{on'blc Supreme Court [in ][SLP No.3574 ][of ][2024,]preferred by the Income Tax Departrnent, [we ][make ][it ][clear ][that]allowing of the instant writ [petition ][is ][subject ][to ][outcome ][of ][the]aforesaid SLP preferred by the [Revenue ][against ][the decision of ][this]High Courl in the case of Kanukala [Ravindra ][Reddy ][(1 ][supra).]This, in other words, would mean [that ][either ][of ][the parties, ][if ][they]so want, may move an appropriate [petition ][seeking ][revival of ][this]writ petition in the light of the decision of [the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme]Court in the pending SLP on the [very ][same ][issue.] 19. Accordingly, the instant writ [petition ][stands ][allowed ][in]lavour of the assessee so lar [as ][the ][issue ][of ][jurisdiction]ISconcerned. As a consequence, the [impugned ][notice ][under]challenge under Sections 148-,4' and 148 stands [set ][aside/quashed.] The consequential orders, if any, also stand set asidc/quashed insimilar tenns as have been passed by this High Court in the case ofKankanalo Rttt,indro Reddy (l supra). [-lhere ]shall be no order asto costs.similar tenns as have been passed by this High Court in the case ofKankanalo Rttt,indro Reddy (l supra). [-lhere ]shall be no order asto costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed SD,.L,VIJAYA LAKSHMIASSIS'TANT REGISTRAR'sECTlottOFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, 1Assessment Unit, lncome Tax Department, National e-Assessment Center,Room No.401, 2nd Floor, E-Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, New Delhi-1 10003.Room No.401, 2nd Floor, E-Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, New Delhi-1 10003.2lncome Tax Officer, Ward - 1, # 6-2-15613, Aayakar Bhavan, Subhash Nagar,Nizamabad-503 002.Nizamabad-503 002.3The Principal Chief Commissioner Principal Chief Commissioner Chief Commissioner Commissioner of lncome Tax, Andhra pradesh andlncome Tax, Andhra pradesh andTax, Andhra pradesh andandTelangana, Hyderabad # 10-2-3, Room No.922, 9th Floor, 'B' Block, lT10-2-3, Room No.922, 9th Floor, 'B' Block, lTRoom No.922, 9th Floor, 'B' Block, lTNo.922, 9th Floor, 'B' Block, lT9th Floor, 'B' Block, lTFloor, 'B' Block, lT'B' Block, lTBlock, lTlTTowers, AC [[(iuards, ]]Hyderabad-500 004.Telangana, Hyderabad # 10-2-3, Room No.922, 9th Floor, 'B' Block, lT10-2-3, Room No.922, 9th Floor, 'B' Block, lTRoom No.922, 9th Floor, 'B' Block, lTNo.922, 9th Floor, 'B' Block, lT9th Floor, 'B' Block, lTFloor, 'B' Block, lT'B' Block, lTBlock, lTlTTowers, AC [[(iuards, ]]Hyderabad-500 004.4Uniorr of lndia, rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Government of lndia,lndia, rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Government of lndia,rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Government of lndia,its Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Government of lndia,Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Government of lndia,lndia, The Principal Chief Commissioner Principal Chief Commissioner Chief Commissioner Commissioner of lncome Tax, Andhra pradesh andlncome Tax, Andhra pradesh andTax, Andhra pradesh andandTelangana, Hyderabad # 10-2-3, Room No.922, 9th Floor, 'B' Block, lT10-2-3, Room No.922, 9th Floor, 'B' Block, lTRoom No.922, 9th Floor, 'B' Block, lTNo.922, 9th Floor, 'B' Block, lT9th Floor, 'B' Block, lTFloor, 'B' Block, lT'B' Block, lTBlock, lTlTTowers, AC [[(iuards, ]]Hyderabad-500 004.Telangana, Hyderabad # 10-2-3, Room No.922, 9th Floor, 'B' Block, lT10-2-3, Room No.922, 9th Floor, 'B' Block, lTRoom No.922, 9th Floor, 'B' Block, lTNo.922, 9th Floor, 'B' Block, lT9th Floor, 'B' Block, lTFloor, 'B' Block, lT'B' Block, lTBlock, lTlTTowers, AC [[(iuards, ]]Hyderabad-500 004. 4Uniorr of lndia, rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Government of lndia,lndia, rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Government of lndia,rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Government of lndia,its Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Government of lndia,Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Government of lndia,lndia,3_ " Flogr, Jee.van Deep Building, Sansad Marg, New Dethi-1 10 0013_ " Flogr, Jee.van Deep Building, Sansad Marg, New Dethi-1 10 0015One CC to SRl. S. VIJAY ADITHYA, Advocate IOPUCIt)One CC to tV1s. J. SUNITHA (JUNIOR SC FOR TNCON/'E TAX) tOpUClTwo CD Copiest)One CC to tV1s. J. SUNITHA (JUNIOR SC FOR TNCON/'E TAX) tOpUClTwo CD Copies ry) B M /BSK I I HIGH COURTDATED:2910412025 .-- S l.t ;./.JJ,!)?6JuN2mc)Y,,*Io€SPATCH E_OORDERWP.No.13218 ol 2025 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS Jw\t6[t]