Under Section 1484 Of The Act As Also Under Section 148 Of Theact Ought To Have Also Been Issued And Proceeded In A Facelessmanner v. The Contention Contention Of The Petitioner The Petitioner Petitioner Is That The Issue That The Issue The Issue Issue Of

HIGH COURT FOR THE S ATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDEBAD(Special Originalurisdiction) TUESDAY,THE TWENTYINTH DAY OF APRILTWO THOUSAND ANTWENTY FIVE PRESET THE HONOURABLE SRI JSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICEARSING RAO NANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION NO: 28712 0F 2024 Between: lt4r. It/otte Veeresh, S/o. Mr. IVall sappa Motte, aged 44 years, OccBusrness, RYo.8-61/1 , Gattu Leeja, Jo ulamba, Gadwal - 5Og 129, Telangana ...PETITIONER AND 1The lncome Tax Officeri Ward 1, Mahhbubnagar, lncome Tax Office, DEOOffice Road, Mahabubnagar - 509 001Telangana.Office Road, Mahabubnagar - 509 001Telangana. 2. The Principal Commissioner of lncomTax 4 Hyderabad, I T Towers 10 2 3AC Guards HyderabadAC Guards Hyderabad ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Coof the Cothe CoCo Petition under Article 226 of the Coof the Cothe CoCostitution of lndia praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filetherewith, the High Court may bepleased to issue a Writ or any other appropiate Writ, Order or Direction, declaringthat a. the order passed under Sec. 14(d) of the lncome Tax1961, dated18.04.2024, bearing DIN and Noice No. ITBA/AST/F/148A/2024-2511064201627(1), by the 1st Respondent,or the Assessment Year 2020 - 21 bthe notice issued under Sec.'l 48 of the lnme Tax Act, 196'1 . dated 18.04.2024,bearing DIN and Notice No. ITBA/AST/S/141 2024-2511064201749(1), by the 1stRespondent, for the Assessment Year 202- 21 as arbitrary, illegal, bad in law,void-ab-initio, violative of the principles of nural [justice, ]apart from being violativeof Articles ta, 19(1)(g) and 265 of the Contitution of lndia and Sec 14BA of thelncome Tax Act. 1961 . and to consequentlyset aside the same in the interests ofjustice lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC prayg that in the circumstances stated inthe affidavit filed in support of the petition, te High Court may be pleased to stayall further proceedings, including any recovry, pursuant the notice issued underSec. 148 of the lncome Tax Act, 1961. date18.O4.2024, bearing DIN and Notice No.. ITBA/ASTlsl148 112024-2511064201749(1), by the 1st Respondent, for theAssessment Year 2O2O - 2'1 , pending disposal of the above Writ petition.Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. A V A SIVA KARTIKEYA Counsel for the Respondents: Ms. J SUNITHA (JUNIOR SC FOR INCOME TAX)The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRITICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUTICE NARSING RAONANDIKODA WRTT PBTTTTON N .287L2 of 2024 ORDER, [(per ]Ilon'ble Sri Justice P.Sam Kos hy) Heard Mr. A.V.A.Siva Kartiya,' leamed counsel for thepetitioner and Ms. J.Sunitha, leamed Junior Standing Counsel forthe Income Tax Department for threspondents. Perused the record 2. This is a writ petition whethe proceedings are eitherchallenged to the notices which werissued under Section 148Aand 148 oltl.re Income Tax Act, 196 1 (for short 'the Act') or theassessment orders those have beenassed under Section 147 ofthe Act which have been assailed 3. This writ petition is being takeup today only on one of thegrounds, that the notices issued unr Section l48A of the Actand the subsequent initiation of procdings under Section 148 ofthe Act by the [jurisdictional ]Assessi g Officer, whereas in termsof the amendment that was broughtthe Income'Iax Act by wayof Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f., 01.042021 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 record 2. This is a writ petition whethe proceedings are eitherchallenged to the notices which werissued under Section 148Aand 148 oltl.re Income Tax Act, 196 1 (for short 'the Act') or theassessment orders those have beenassed under Section 147 ofthe Act which have been assailed 3. This writ petition is being takeup today only on one of thegrounds, that the notices issued unr Section l48A of the Actand the subsequent initiation of procdings under Section 148 ofthe Act by the [jurisdictional ]Assessi g Officer, whereas in termsof the amendment that was broughtthe Income'Iax Act by wayof Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f., 01.042021 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 contention of the petitioner the petitioner petitioner is that the issue that the issue the issue issue ofproceedings being in violation of the Finance Act, 2021 i.e., theimpugned notices under Section l48A and Section 148 of the Actnot being issued in a faceless manner, have already been dealt withand decided by this Qourt in the case of KANKANALARAVINDRA REDDY vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICERT decidedon 14.09.2023 whereby a batch of writ petitions were allowed ar.rdthe proceedings initiated under Section l48A as also under Section148 of the Act were held to be bad with consequentiai reliefs on theground of it being in violation of the provisions ofsecrion 151A ofthe Act read with Notification 18/2022 dated29.03.2022. The said,judgment passed by this Court has also been subsequently follor.r,edin a large number of writ petitions which were allowed on similarterms. The contention contention of the petitioner the petitioner petitioner is that the issue that the issue the issue issue of '[(2023) I 56 taxmann.com 178 (Telangana)] ---'- .i / 5. Down the line, we find thate same issue has also beendecided against the Revenue bvanousHigh Courts i.e.,by the Bombay High Court inthe case of HEXAWARE?TECHNOLOGIES LTD., vs. ASSSTANT COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX & OTHERS2,au[ati High Courl in the caseof RAM NARAYAN SAH vs. UNON OF INDIA3, Punjab andHaryana High Court in the case ofTINDER SINGH BANGUvs. UNION OF INDIAI, and Telanana High Court in the case ofSRI VENKATARAMANA REDDPATLOOLA vs. DEPUTYCOMMISSIONER OF INCOMEAX5 where the issue was inrespect of intemational taxation, Bobay High Court in the case ofABHIN ANILKUMAR SHAH vs.INCOME TAX OFFICER,INTERNATIONAL TAXATION6hich is again on intemationaltaxation and central circle, High Coof Himachal Pradesh in thecase of GOVIND SINGH vs. ICOME TAX OFFICERT,Gujarat High Court in the ce of MANSUKHBHAI' lzoz+1464 lzoz+1464 [ [430 ]][[430 ]][[(Bom)]]s'l(2024) [[156 ]]taxmann.com 478 (Gauhat478 (Gauhat1 ' lzoz+1464 lzoz+1464 [ [430 ]][[430 ]][[(Bom)]]'l(2024) [[156 ]]taxmann.com 478 (Gauhat478 (Gauhat1" l(2024) 165 taxmann.corn I l5 (PunjabHaryana)l' 12024) [167 ][taxrnann.com ][4 ]I I (Telanga)l" 12024) [166 ][taxmann.corn ]679 [(Bombay] '12024) [i65 ][taxmann.corn ] l3 [(llimach]I Pradesh)l -l ' lzoz+1464 lzoz+1464 [ [430 ]][[430 ]][[(Bom)]]'l(2024) [[156 ]]taxmann.com 478 (Gauhat478 (Gauhat1" l(2024) 165 taxmann.corn I l5 (PunjabHaryana)l' 12024) [167 ][taxrnann.com ][4 ]I I (Telanga)l" 12024) [166 ][taxmann.corn ]679 [(Bombay] '12024) [i65 ][taxmann.corn ] l3 [(llimach]I Pradesh)l -l DAHYABHAI RADADIYA [VS. ] [OFFICER']WARD 3(3)(08, [Jharkand ][High Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ] SUNDAR [vs. ] [tNDIAe, ][Rajasthan ][l{igh ][Court ][in]the case of SHARDA [vs' ] OFFICER & [and ][batch ][of ][writ ][petitionsro which]stood decided on [19.03.2024. ][Similar views ][have also ][been ][taken]the Division [Bench ][of ][Calcutta ][High ][Cour.t ][irr ][the ][case ][of]by GIRDHAR [vs. ] [& ] (M.A.T 1690 of 2023), decided [on25-09.2024]6. Even though the [same ][issue ][having ][been ][decided ][by ][a ][largc]number of High [Courts, we ][are ][still ][confronted ][with ][large ][hling ][of]identical matters on [daily ][basis ][ranging ][between ][5 ][to ][10 ][writ]petitions. That upon the [ir.rstructions ][being ][sought ][fiom ][the]Department, they [have ][been ][taking ][a ][solitary ][ground ][that ][the]decision of the [Bombay ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ][Hestuwore]Technologies Ltd., [(2 ][supra) ][as ][also ][the ][one ][which ][has ][been]decided by this [Court ][in ][the ][case ][ol ][Kanakala Ravindra ][Reddy] '2024 [Online ][Guj ][4012]'2025 [Online ][Jhar287]'o 12023, [:4984-DBl]'2025 [Online ][Jhar287]'o 12023, [:4984-DBl] \ (1 supra) has been subjected to cllenge in a Special LeavePetition i.e., SLP No.3574 of 2024efore the Hon'ble SupremeCourt and the Hon'ble Supreme Curt is seized of the matter.In addition, there are about 1200 SLalso filed arising out of thesame issue being decided by variousigh.Courts. 7. To a query being put to the leed counsel for the Revenue,they have categorically accepted thefact that there is no interimorder granted by the Hon'ble Suprme Court in any of thesematters pending before it. Meanwile, fresh writ petitions ofidentical nature are being piled up bere this Bench on daily basisand the pendency is getting increaseon matter which otherwisehas already been dealt and decided byis very High Court itself 8. On the one hand, even thoughthe order of this Court thatwas passed as early as on 14.09.202and more 16 months havelapsed, till date, we do not find anyremedial steps having beentaken by the lncome Tax Departmentto take appropriate steps toeither hold back issuance of noticeer Section l48A and underSection 148 of the Act by the jurisictional Assessing Officer,rather the authorities concemed in thteeth of.".i". ectslons$ \ 8. On the one hand, even thoughthe order of this Court thatwas passed as early as on 14.09.202and more 16 months havelapsed, till date, we do not find anyremedial steps having beentaken by the lncome Tax Departmentto take appropriate steps toeither hold back issuance of noticeer Section l48A and underSection 148 of the Act by the jurisictional Assessing Officer,rather the authorities concemed in thteeth of.".i". ectslons$ \ by all the rnajor High Courts in India are continuously stillinitiating proceedings under Section 148,{ of the Act and alsoinitiating proceedings under Section 148 o1. the Acr incontravention to tl-re amendments brought into the Income Tax Actpursuant to the Finance Act.2020 as also the Finance Act 2021.9. Upon a query being puf as to why can't this writ petition beinitiating proceedings under Section 148,{ of the Act and alsoinitiating proceedings under Section 148 o1. the Acr incontravention to tl-re amendments brought into the Income Tax Actpursuant to the Finance Act.2020 as also the Finance Act 2021.9. Upon a query being puf as to why can't this writ petition bedisposed of in the teeth of the decision rendered bv this Court inthe case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra), leamed StandingCounsel for the Income Tax Department contends that those wouldthe case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra), leamed StandingCounsel for the Income Tax Department contends that those wouldunnecessarily burden the Income Tax Department where the ywould be required to file equal number of SLps befor.e theHon'ble Supreme Courl and it would be further burdening theHon'ble Supreme Courl and it would be further burdening theexchequer of the Union of India. It was also the contention of thelearned Standing Counsel that no prejudice would be caused to theinterest ofthe petitioners in case if this writ petition is kept pendingtill the hnalization of the SLPs pending before the Hon,bleSupreme Court and the fact that the petitioner is already enjoyingthe benefit of interim protection. Nonetheless, on the earlier queryof this Court as to why the Income Tax Department have not correout with a mechanism to issue appropriate instructions or to taketill the hnalization of the SLPs pending before the Hon,bleSupreme Court and the fact that the petitioner is already enjoyingthe benefit of interim protection. Nonetheless, on the earlier queryof this Court as to why the Income Tax Department have not correout with a mechanism to issue appropriate instructions or to take appropriate steps in ensuring that prceedings under Section l48Aof the Act as also the assessment ounder Section 148 oftheAct are kept in a hold in the tight othe decisions decided by theof the Act as also the assessment ounder Section 148 oftheAct are kept in a hold in the tight othe decisions decided by thevarious High Courts, it was submied by the leamed StandingCounsel that the said steps can onlye ta]<en at the level of CBDTas any such steps would have to been Pan India and cannot belimited to any of these jurisdictionaligh Courts.Counsel that the said steps can onlye ta]<en at the level of CBDTas any such steps would have to been Pan India and cannot belimited to any of these jurisdictionaligh Courts. 10. As a result of which, what wee facing is steep increase oftitigation day in and day out even thgh various orders have beenpassed by this High Court allowingit petitions on the very samelssue The Income Tax authorities cocerned are still even now in2025 also initiating proceedings in cntravention to the provisionsof Section 15lA of the Act and as asult by now, ntore than 600to 700 petitions have been alreadyt piled up before this HighCourl on an issue which otherwise sds squarely covered by thejudgment of this Court in the case oKunakula Ravindra Reddy( I supra). What is also surprising ithe fact that though whileallowing the writ petitions in these of Kanakala RavindraReddy (l supra), the Division Benchwhile reserving the right ofthe Revenue, has also protected thinterest of the petitioners 10. As a result of which, what wee facing is steep increase oftitigation day in and day out even thgh various orders have beenpassed by this High Court allowingit petitions on the very samelssue The Income Tax authorities cocerned are still even now in2025 also initiating proceedings in cntravention to the provisionsof Section 15lA of the Act and as asult by now, ntore than 600to 700 petitions have been alreadyt piled up before this HighCourl on an issue which otherwise sds squarely covered by thejudgment of this Court in the case oKunakula Ravindra Reddy( I supra). What is also surprising ithe fact that though whileallowing the writ petitions in these of Kanakala RavindraReddy (l supra), the Division Benchwhile reserving the right ofthe Revenue, has also protected thinterest of the petitioners insofar as the liberty which was [granted ]to the [Revenue ][for]initiating fresh proceedings strictly in accordance [witl.r ][the ][amended]provisions ol the Act, as amended by the Finance [Act, ][2020 ][and]the Finance Act,202l. The petitioner assessee [would ][be ][entitled ][to]challenge or raise the other legal objections [if ][the Revenue ][initiates]fresh proceedings. The DepaJtment has made [no ][endeavour ][in]avaiting the said liberty that was reserved for the Revenue. [On ][the]contrary, they have been still sticking on to [the ][stand, ][which ][this]High Couft as well as many other High Courts already held to [be]bad 11. It appears that because of the aforesaid liberty [that this High]Court had granted permitting the Revenue for initiating [fresh]proceedings as a one-time measure in a faceless manner, [the]Income Tax Department wants to take advantage of the same [by]protracting 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 [Courl ][confirms]the decision taken by this High Court as also by the other HighCourts in u,hich the SLPs are still [pending, ]the Income Tax I L I l l I Department would get the advantagef the liberty that is otherwiseprotected1n favour of the Reveue for initiation of freshproceedings from the disposal of thesmatters at a much later stagewhich would be advantageous andneficial to the Revenue andwould be equally disadvantageous andetrimental so far as interestol the assesses are concemed. As a cnsequence, the Income TaxDeparlment gets an extended periodf time for initiation of lreshproceedings 12. The alarming trend of docket exlosion in this Court, despitethe clear precedent set in Kanakala Rvindra Reddy (1 supra), is amatter of grave concem. The IncomeTax Department's persistentinitiation of fresh proceedings, disregding the estabtished [j ]udicialpronouncements, has led to an unpedented surge in titigationwith over 600-700 petitions pilingp on the same issue. Thisdeliberate approach not only undermies the principle of judicialprecedent but also strains the judicialsources unnecessarily. TheDepaftment's strategy of awaiting theupreme Court's decision onpending SLPs while continllingto initiate fresh proceedingsappears to be a calculated move tobuy time and circumventlimitation periods, rather than adherig to the established legal position. Such conduct raises serious questions about theadministrative efficiency and the respect for judicialpronouncements, particularly when this Court has already provideda balar.rced approach by preserving both the Revenue's rights andassesses tnterests position. Such conduct raises serious questions about theadministrative efficiency and the respect for judicialpronouncements, particularly when this Court has already provideda balar.rced approach by preserving both the Revenue's rights andassesses tnterests 13. Another aspect which ndeds to be considered is that in fact itshould have been realized b1. the Income Tax Deparlment itself andshould have lound out via media in ensuring that proceedingsunder Sections 148-,{ and 148 should not have been issued in afaceless marlner, at least till the Hon'ble Supreme Court decide thetwelve hundred (1200) odd SLPs which it is already seized ofor, atleast the Income 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 defenedwithout precipitating the matter further intimating the assessee thatthey shall initiate appropriate proceedings only after the SLP's aredecided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the very same issueThis again, the Income Tax Department, has not been able to give aconvincing reply, except for the fact that such a decision if at all 't ll l w ./ has to be taken, has to be taken for t e whole of [India, ][and ][which]otherwise has to be by way of [a ][poli y ][decision ][and ][that too at ][the]level ol Central Board of Directaxes.Though the leamedStanding Counsel for the Income TDepartment contended thatthe Delhi High Court dismissed a wri petition of similar nature, onthe one hand when the High Cois . stmggling to reduce itspendency, such notices which areder challenge in this writpetition are forcing the assessee toock the doors of this HighCourt resulting in hling of hundredsf new writ petitions which inthe long run not only affec,R the dissal of the writ petitions butalso consumes substantial time of the Bench in hearing [these]matters again and again on daily basiAdmittedly, in spite of thernatter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court having been taken onmany occasions, the Hon'ble SupremCourt which is seized of thematter has been reluctant in grantingu.ry int.ri-tftection to theIncome Tax Department. Yet, the authorities [concemed ][at ][the]Statc level are not ready to accept thverdict passed by a majorityof Fligh Courts of different States othe same issue; and to makethings lurther worse, the Incomeax Department1S showingar-rdacity by issuing notices continuoly under Sections 148-A and 148 through the jur.isdictional Assessing Officer whereas it oughtto have been only in the faceless manner. 14. In the case of BANK OF INDIA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, INCOME TAXrr, on an issue rvhether it r.vasjustifiable on the part o[ the Income Tax Departrnent 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. tVlr. Parrdwalla hgs righfly drawn out attention to thedecision of this Court in Commissioner of lncome Tax vs. Smt.Godavaridevi Sarafl2 as also the recent decision of the co_ordinate Bench of thrs 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.i4, theCourt observed that the approach of the officials of Revenue oftreating decisions being "not acceptable', was criticized by theSupreme Court. In such decision, following are the relevantobservations made by the Supreme Court. jlttZOZSl 170 raxrrann.com 422 (Bomhay)l" ll978J I l3 Il'R 58e (tsombay) " 1202+1165 [taxmann.com ]5gl/300 Taxran 452 (Bombal ) 14 Ug2?ltaxmann.com t6/55 EL| 433 (SC) jlttZOZSl 170 raxrrann.com 422 (Bomhay)l" ll978J I l3 Il'R 58e (tsombay) " 1202+1165 [taxmann.com ]5gl/300 Taxran 452 (Bombal ) 14 Ug2?ltaxmann.com t6/55 EL| 433 (SC) "6. Sri Reddy is perhaps rigt in saying that theofficers were not actuatedany mala frdes inpassing the impugned ordrsThey [perhaps]genuinely felt that the clarm ofthe assessee was nottenable and that, if it was apted, the Revenueofficers were not actuatedany mala frdes inpassing the impugned ordrsThey [perhaps]genuinely felt that the clarm ofthe assessee was nottenable and that, if it was apted, the Revenuewould suffer. But what Sri Redy overlooks is that weare not concerned here witthe correctness orare not concerned here witthe correctness orotherwise of their conclusioor. of factualany any malafides but with the fact thate officers, in reachingin their conclusion, by-passedappellate orders inin their conclusion, by-passedappellate orders inregard to the same issue whiwere placed beforethem, one of the Collector (Apeals) and the other ofthe Tribunal. The High Court hs, in our view, rightlythem, one of the Collector (Apeals) and the other ofthe Tribunal. The High Court hs, in our view, rightlycritrcized this conduct of the Aistant Collectors andthe harassment to the assessecaused by the failurethe harassment to the assessecaused by the failureof these officers to giveto the orders ofauthorities higher to them in theppellate hierarchy. ltauthorities higher to them in theppellate hierarchy. ltcannot be too vehemently emhasized that it is ofutmost importance that, indisposing of theutmost importance that, indisposing of thequasijudicial issues before the, [revenue ]officers [are]bound by the decisions of theappellate authorities.The order of the Appellte Colleor is binding on theAssistant Collectors workrng witin his [jurisdiction ]andthe order of the Tribunal is bindg upon the AssistantCollectors and the Appellate Cllectors who functionunder the jurisdiction of the Trinal. The principles ofjudicial discipline require that thorders of the higherappellate authorities should beollowed unreservedlyby the subordinate authorities.he mere fact that theorder of the appellate authorityis not 'acceptable" tothe department - in itself an oectionable [phrase]and is the subject matter of anppeal can furnish"pAssistant Collectors workrng witin his [jurisdiction ]andthe order of the Tribunal is bindg upon the AssistantCollectors and the Appellate Cllectors who functionunder the jurisdiction of the Trinal. The principles ofjudicial discipline require that thorders of the higherappellate authorities should beollowed unreservedlyby the subordinate authorities.he mere fact that theorder of the appellate authorityis not 'acceptable" tothe department - in itself an oectionable [phrase]and is the subject matter of anppeal can furnish"pground for not following it unlss its operation hasbeen suspended by a cbmpetecourt. lf this healthy -\r rule is not followed, the result will [only ][be ][undue]harassment to assesses and chaos [in ][administration]of tax laws. 12. We have dealt with this aspect [at ][some ][length,]because it has been suggested. [by the ][learned]Additional Solicitor General that the [observations]made by the High Court, have been [harsh ][on ][the]officers. lt is ctear that lhe observations of [the ][High]Court, seemingly vehement. and [apparently]unpalatable to the Revenue, [are ]only [intended ][to ][curb]a tendency in revenue matters which, [if ]allowed [to]become widespread, could result in [considerable]harassment to the assesses-public [without any benefit]to the RevenJe. We would like to [say that ][the]department should take these observations [in ][the]proper spirit. The observations of the High Courtshould be kept in mind in [future and ]the [utmost regard]should be [paid ]by the adiudicating [authorities and the]appellate authorities to the requirements [of ][judicial]discipline and the need for [giving ]effect to the [orders]of the higher appellate authorities which are [binding]on them." I 5. What is worrying this Bench more is the [fact that ][an]endeavour is being made whole heartedly [to ][ensure ][not ][to ][generate]further litigation on issues which have been [laid ][to ][lest ][by a ][large]number of High Courts all of whom have taken [a consistent ][stand]that the action of the Income Tax Department being violative of [tl.re] Finance Act,2O20 and Finance Act,021 . Now, in order to protectthe interest of the Revenue as also tt of the assessee, it would betrite at this juncture, if we disposof the writ petition with anobservation/direction that the dispoof the instant writ petition interms of the [judgment ]rendered byis High Court in the case ofKonkanala Ravindra Reddy (l sup) [shall however ][be ][subject ][to]thc outcome of the SLPs which wre filed by the Income TaxDepartrnent and which is pending cosideration before the Hon'bleSupreme Court. 16. In the given the given given facts and circcirc 16. In the given the given given facts and circcircstances, this Bench is of theconsidered opinion that unless andtil we do not timely disposeof matters which are squarely coveby the decision ofthis Courtand which stands forlified by the disions of the various otherHigh Courls on the very same issu, [the ][pendency ][of ][this ][High]Court would further be burdened wch otherwise can be decidedand disposed of as a covered matter. 11. So far as the interest far as the interest as the interest the interest interest of the Rethe ReRe 11. So far as the interest far as the interest as the interest the interest interest of the Rethe ReReenue is concemed, we are ofthe considered opinion that the interet of the Revenue has alreadybeen considered and protected, as habeen observed in paragraphs 36,37 and38 [ofthe ][order ][which, for ][ready reference' is reproduced]hereunder: 36. For all the [aforesaid reasons, ][the ][impugned notices]issued and the [proceedings ][drawn by ][the ][respondent-]Department is [neither tenable, ][nor ][sustainable]The notices so [issued ][and ][the ][procedure ][adopted ][being]per se illegal, deserves to [be ][and are ][accordingly ][set]aside/quashed. As a [consequence, ][all the ][tmpugned]orders [getting quashed, the consequential orders passed]by the respondent-Department [pursuant ][to ][the ][notices]issued under Section ['147 ][and ][148 ][would ][also ][get]quashed and it is'brdered accordingly. [The ][reason ][we]are [quashing ]the [consequential order is on ][the ][principles]that when the [initiation ][of ][the ][proceedings ][itself ][was]procedurally wrong, the subsequent [orders also ][gets]nullified automaticallY. 37. The [preliminary objection raised by ][the ][petitioner ][is]sustained and all [these ][writ ][petitions stands allowed ][on]this very [jurisdictional ][issue. Since ][the ][impugned notices]and orders are [getting ][quashed ][on ][the ][point ][of]jurisdiction, we are not inclined to [proceed ][further ][and]decide the other [issues ][raised. ][by the ][petitioner ][which]stands reserved to [be ][raised ][and ][contended ][in ][an]appropriate [proceedings.] 38. Since the [Hon'ble Supreme Court had, ][in ][the ][case]of Ashish Agarwal, [supra, ][as ][a ][one{ime ][measure]the [powers ][under ][Article ][142 ][of ][the]exercising Constitution of lndia. [permitted ][the ][Revenue ][to ][proceed]under the substituted [provisions, and ][this ][Court allowing]the petitions only [on ][the ][procedural ][flaw, ][the ][right] \tT conferred on the Revenue [wo]ld remain reserved toproceed further if they so wanfrom the stage of theorder of the Supreme [Court]in the case of AshishAgarwal, supra. 38. Since the [Hon'ble Supreme Court had, ][in ][the ][case]of Ashish Agarwal, [supra, ][as ][a ][one{ime ][measure]the [powers ][under ][Article ][142 ][of ][the]exercising Constitution of lndia. [permitted ][the ][Revenue ][to ][proceed]under the substituted [provisions, and ][this ][Court allowing]the petitions only [on ][the ][procedural ][flaw, ][the ][right] \tT conferred on the Revenue [wo]ld remain reserved toproceed further if they so wanfrom the stage of theorder of the Supreme [Court]in the case of AshishAgarwal, supra. 18. We would only further like toake observations that sincewe are inclined to dispose of the inst writ petition, conscious ofthe fact that the earlier order of thisHigh Court in the case ofKanskala Ravindra Reddy (I supraIS subjected to challengebefore the Hon'ble Supreme Coutlin SLP No.3574 of 2024,preferred by the Income Ta4 Deparlent, we make it clear thatallowing of the instant writ petition isubject to outcome of theaforesaid SLP preferred by the Revene against the decision of thisHigh Courl in the case of KanakalaRavindrs Reddy (l supra)-lhis, in other words, would mean thaeither of the parties, if theyso want, may move an appropnate peition seeking revival of thiswrit petition in the light of the decisn of the Hon'ble SupremeCourt in the pending SLP on the verye lssue 19. Accordingly, the instant writpetition stands allowed rnfavour of the assessee so far ase lssue of [jurisdiction]ISconcemed. As a consequence, teimpugned notice underchallenge under Sections 148-A and I48 stands set aside/quashed. I The consequential orders, if any, also stand [set ][asidc/quashed ][in]similar terms as have been [passed ]by [this ][High Court ][iu the ][case ][of] Kankanala Rovindra Reddy [(1 ]supra). There [shall ][be ][no order ][as]to costs Consequently, miscellaneous petitions [pending, ]if [any, shall] stand closed. SD/. P. PADMANABHA EFUTYREGISTRART.//TRUE COPY//ISECTION OFFICERV To 1. The lncome Tax Officer,.Ward [1. Mahahbubnagar. lncome Tax ][Office' ] Office Road, [l\,4ahabubnbgar ][- ][509 ][001 ], [Telangana.]Office Road, [l\,4ahabubnbgar ][- ][509 ][001 ], [Telangana.] 2. The Principal Commissioner [of ][lncome Tax ][4 ][Hyderabad, ] [T Towers ][10 ][2 ][3]AC Guards HyderabadAC Guards Hyderabad 3. One CC to SRl. [A SIVA KARTIKEYA Advocate ] 4. One CC to [/s J SUNITHA [(JUNIOR SC FOR ] [TAX) ][ ] Two CD CopiesKKSGJP?r HIGH COURT DATED:2910412025 ORDER WP.No.28712 ot 2024 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITIONWITHOUT COSTSlrh ?lrs 11,- '5 i.-r>-'(c)o;!'.:-(.i '-:11 AUE zIE(/./,k-\.' s,.'1TC'rr'