> Under Section 148.4 Ofthe Act As Also Under Section 148 Ofthe Act Ought To Have Also Been Issued And Proceeded In A Faceless Manner v. Income Tax Officer Ward 1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD(Special Original y'urisdiction) FRIDAY ,THE TWENry FIFTH DAY OF APRILTWO THOUSAND ANP TWENTY FIVE PRESEtTT THE HONOURABLE SRI JTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICEARSING RAO NANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION NO: 27424 0F 2024 Between: BikshapathiNiggula, S/o Gattaiah,Fged about 52 years,Agriculturist, 30-5-14,Vinayaka Nag, [l\i'ladikonda, Kazipel,]1',506142 Occupation.-Warangal ...PETITIONER AND '1 . lncome Tax Officer Ward 1, Warangial, [D.No. ][1-8-6'10, ][3'd ][Floor, ][t\/ayuri]Complex, Opp. TSNPDCL Bhawan,f [akkalaOutta, Hanamkonda,Warangal-]Complex, Opp. TSNPDCL Bhawan,f [akkalaOutta, Hanamkonda,Warangal-]50600'1 .2. The Principal Chief Commissioner of Ifrcome [Tax, ] [and ][TS, ][1Oth ][Floor, ] Block, l.T. Towers, 10-2-3, A.C. Guard:[, [Hyderabad-500004.]Block, l.T. Towers, 10-2-3, A.C. Guard:[, [Hyderabad-500004.] [, 3. The Assessment Unit, lncome Tlax [Department, ][National ][Faceless]Assessment Centre, Delhi, Ministry oI [rinanie, ][Room ][No. 401, ][2nd ][Floor,]E-Ramp, Jawahadal Nehru Stadium, Dblhi-110003.i ...RESPoNDENTSAssessment Centre, Delhi, Ministry oI [rinanie, ][Room ][No. 401, ][2nd ][Floor,]E-Ramp, Jawahadal Nehru Stadium, Dblhi-110003.i ...RESPoNDENTS i Petition under Article 226 of the Coitstitution of lndia [praying ]that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filedl theiewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction,lnore oarticularlv one in the nature ofiWrit of lvlandamus, declaring the Assessment [Order ][dl.24lo1t2O24 ][passed by ][the]I3rdrespondent uls 147 r.w.s 14411448 of[he [lncome-tax ][Act ][for ][A.Y. ][2015-16]vide DIN No. ITBA/ASTlsl147 12023-241106pOzOOeSltl, consequent to the orderiWrit of lvlandamus, declaring the Assessment [Order ][dl.24lo1t2O24 ][passed by ][the]I3rdrespondent uls 147 r.w.s 14411448 of[he [lncome-tax ][Act ][for ][A.Y. ][2015-16]vide DIN No. ITBA/ASTlsl147 12023-241106pOzOOeSltl, consequent to the orderpassed u/s 148A(d) dt.29lO4l2O22 vidDIN No. ITBA/AST/F/148A.12022-2311042907015(1) and the notice us 148 dt.29lo4l2122 vide DINNo. ITBtuAST/S / 1 48 1 12022-231 1 0429 1334(1 ), , issued by the JAO(1"t2311042907015(1) and the notice us 148 dt.29lo4l2122 vide DINNo. ITBtuAST/S / 1 48 1 12022-231 1 0429 1334(1 ), , issued by the JAO(1"trespondent) instead of FA0(3rd responde), [and ][consequential penalty ][orders]passed vide order u/s 271(1)(b) of the Actt. 0410712024 and order uls 271(1)(c) of the Act dl. 2610712024, as void, illegal, and contrary to the provisions oflncome-tax Act and contrary to the Principles of Natural JusticelA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 15'1 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated inthe affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to stayall further proceedings pursuant to the Assessment order dr.24lo1t 2024passedby the 3'd respondent uts 147 r.w.s 14411448 of the lncome-tax Act for A.y.2O1S-16 vide DIN No. ITBA/AST/S/'14712023-2411060070098(1), pending disposat ofthe above writ petition, and may pass such other order(s) as the Honourablecourt deems fit and proper in the interests of substantial justice, as otherwise thePetitioner would be put to irreparable loss and severe injury. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. DUNDU MANMOHAN Counsel for the Respondents: Ms. BOKARO SAPNA REDDY(Jr. SC FOR INCOME TAX)(Jr. SC FOR INCOME TAX) The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUTTCE P.SAM KOSHY$ANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JU TICE NARSING RAONANDIKOA WRIT PETITION No 27424 of2024 ORDER: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.Sam $oshv) Heard Mr. Manmohan DundIleamed counsel for thet,petitioner and Ms. B.Sapna Reddy, learned Junior StandingCounsel for the Income Tax Depent for the respondentsPerused the record. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. DUNDU MANMOHAN Counsel for the Respondents: Ms. BOKARO SAPNA REDDY(Jr. SC FOR INCOME TAX)(Jr. SC FOR INCOME TAX) The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUTTCE P.SAM KOSHY$ANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JU TICE NARSING RAONANDIKOA WRIT PETITION No 27424 of2024 ORDER: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.Sam $oshv) Heard Mr. Manmohan DundIleamed counsel for thet,petitioner and Ms. B.Sapna Reddy, learned Junior StandingCounsel for the Income Tax Depent for the respondentsPerused the record. 2. This is a writ petition where the proceedings are eitherchallenged to the notices which were issued under Section 148Aand t48 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') or theassessment orders those have been ,IpAssed under Section 147 ofthe Act which have been assailed. 3. This writ petition is being taken up today only on one of the grounds, that the notices issued unde[ Section 148,4. of the ActIand the subsequent initiation of proce(dings under Section 148 ofIand the subsequent initiation of proce(dings under Section 148 ofthe Act by the jurisdictional AssessinOfficer, whereas in terms$of the amendment that was brought to fhe Income Tax Act by wayof lrinance Act, 2021 w.e.f., 01.041[4]021 onwards, proceedings$of the amendment that was brought to fhe Income Tax Act by wayof lrinance Act, 2021 w.e.f., 01.041[4]021 onwards, proceedings under Section 148.4 ofthe Act as also under Section 148 oftheAct ought to have also been issued and proceeded in a facelessmanner.Act ought to have also been issued and proceeded in a facelessmanner. 4. The contention of the petitioner contention of the petitioner of the petitioner the petitioner petitioner is that the issue ofthat the issue ofthe issue ofissue ofofproceedings being in violation of the Financ e Acl, 2021 i.e., theimpugned notices under Section 148.4 and Section 148 ofthe Actnot being issued in a faceless manner, have already been dealt withand decided by this Court in the case of KANKANALARAVINDRA REDDY vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICERT decidedon 14.09.2023 whereby a batch of writ petitions were allowed andthe proceedings initiated under Section 148A as also under Section148 of the Act were held to be bad with consequential reliefs on theground of it being in violation of the provisions of Section 1 5 1A ofthe Act read with Notification 18/2022 dated29.03.2022. The saidjudgment passed by this Court has also been subsequently followedin a large number of writ petitions which were allorved on similarterms. The contention of the petitioner contention of the petitioner of the petitioner the petitioner petitioner is that the issue ofthat the issue ofthe issue ofissue ofof '[(2023) [156 ][taxmann.com ][178 ][(Telangana)]] I ( \-i\1\ i 5. Down the line, we find that the same issue has also beendecided against the Revenue byvanousHigh Courts i.e.,by the Bombay High Court in the case of HEXAWARETECHNOLOGIES LTD., vs. AS ISTANT COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX & OTHERS2, Gauhati High Court in the caseof RAM NARAYAN SAH vs. UNION OF INDIA3, Punjab andI Iaryana High Court in the case of JATINDER SINGH BANGUvs. UNION OF lNDlA4, and Telan$ana High Court in the case of SRI VENKATARAMANA REDDPATLOOLA vs. DEPUTYCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME iIAXs where the issue was inrespect of intemational taxation, eoq[bay High Court in the case ofABHIN ANILKUMAR SHAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,INTERNATIONAL TAXATION6 {"ni"n i, again on intemationaltaxation and central circle, High CoJrt of Himachal Pradesh in thecase of GOVIND SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERT,Gujarat High Court in the (ur" of MANSUKHBHAI ' 7zoz11464 [430 ][(Bom) ] I '[(2024) [156 ][taxmann.com ][478 ][(Gauhati)]] ^ l(2024) [165 ][taxmann.com ] [5 ][(Punjab]& Haryana)l'12024) [[67 ][taxmann.com ]4ll [(Telangai]na)l" 12024) 166 taxmann.com 679 tBombay])l' 120241 [165 ][taxmann.com I ][l3 ][(l ][Iimach4]rl Pradesh)l SRI VENKATARAMANA REDDPATLOOLA vs. DEPUTYCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME iIAXs where the issue was inrespect of intemational taxation, eoq[bay High Court in the case ofABHIN ANILKUMAR SHAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,INTERNATIONAL TAXATION6 {"ni"n i, again on intemationaltaxation and central circle, High CoJrt of Himachal Pradesh in thecase of GOVIND SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERT,Gujarat High Court in the (ur" of MANSUKHBHAI ' 7zoz11464 [430 ][(Bom) ] I '[(2024) [156 ][taxmann.com ][478 ][(Gauhati)]] ^ l(2024) [165 ][taxmann.com ] [5 ][(Punjab]& Haryana)l'12024) [[67 ][taxmann.com ]4ll [(Telangai]na)l" 12024) 166 taxmann.com 679 tBombay])l' 120241 [165 ][taxmann.com I ][l3 ][(l ][Iimach4]rl Pradesh)l DAHYABHAI RADADIYA VS. INCOME TAX [OFFICE,R']WARD 3(3)(5)8, Jharkand I{igh Court in [the ][case ][of ] SUNDAR SAW vs. UNION OF [INDIAe, ][Rajasthan ][High Courl ][in]the case of SHARDA DEVI CHHAJER [vs. INCOME ] OFFICER & ANOTHER and [batch ][ol ][writ ][petitionsr0 which]stood decided on 19.03.2024. Similar [views ][have also ][been taken]by the Division Bench of Calcutta High [Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]GIRDHAR GOPAL DALMIA [vs. ]UNION OF [& ] (M.A.T 1690 of 2023), decided on25.09.2024 6. Even though the same issue having [been ][decided ][by ][a ][large]number of High Courts, we are still confronted [with ][large ][filing ][of]identical matters on daily basis ranging [between ]-5 [to ] [0 ][writ]petitions. That upon the instructions being [sougl.rt ][from ][the]Department, they have been taking a Solitary [ground ][that ][the]decision of the Bombay High Court in [the ][case ][of ][Hexawore]Technologies Lld., (2 supra) as also [the one ][which ][has ][been]decided by this Court in the case of [Kanakala Ravindra ][Reddy] 82024 SCC Online Guj 4012'2025 [Online ][lhar ][28'7]o ' 12023, RJ -JD : 49 84-DB l ( (1 supra) has been subjected to4hallenge in a Special LeavePetition i.e., SLP No.3574 of 2024before the Hon'ble SupremeCourt and the Hon'ble Supreme Clourt is seized of the matter.ln addition, there are about 1200 SLrps also filed arising out of thesame issue being decided by various Courts.fligh 7. To a query being put to the leaa query being put to the leaquery being put to the leathe lealea 7. To a query being put to the leaa query being put to the leaquery being put to the leathe lealea[ned [counsel ][for ][the Revenue,]they have categorically accepted thefact that there is no interimorder granted by the Hon'ble SupiemeCourl in any of theseLmatters pending before It.Mean\ihefresh writ petitions ofidentical nature are being pited up beflore this Bench on daily basisiand the pendency is getting increase]d on matter which otherwisehas already been dealt and decided by] this very High Court itself. I 8. On the one hand, even thougl the order of this Court thatwas passed as early as on 14.09.20213 and more 16 months havelapsed, till date, we do not. trnd anyremedial steps having beentaken by the Income TaxDeoartmenIto take appropriate steps to'leither hold back issuance of noticeder Section 148A and underSection 148 of the Act by the juri dictional Assessing Officer,rather the authorities concemed in thteeth of series of decisionsF I 8. On the one hand, even thougl the order of this Court thatwas passed as early as on 14.09.20213 and more 16 months havelapsed, till date, we do not. trnd anyremedial steps having beentaken by the Income TaxDeoartmenIto take appropriate steps to'leither hold back issuance of noticeder Section 148A and underSection 148 of the Act by the juri dictional Assessing Officer,rather the authorities concemed in thteeth of series of decisionsF by all the major High Courts in India are continuously [still]initiating proceedings under Section l48A of the Act and [also]initiating proceedings under Section 148 of the Act [in]contravention to the amendments brought into the Income Tax [Act]pursuant to the Finance Acr,2020 as also the Finance Act 20219. Upon a query being put as to why can't this writ [petition ]bedisposed of in the teeth of the decision rendered by this Court inthe case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (1 supra), leamed StandingCounsel for the Income Tax Department contends that those [would]unnecessarily burden the Income Tax Department where theywould be required to hle equal number of SLPs before theHon'ble Supreme Court and it rvould be further burdening theexchequer of the Union of India. It was also the contention of [the]leamed Standing Counsel that no prejudice would be caused to theinterest of the petitioners in case if this writ petition is kept [pending]till the finalization of the SLPs pending before the Hon'bleSupreme Court and the fact that the petitioner is already enjoyingthe benefit of interim protection. Nonetheless, on the earlier [query]of this Court as to why the Income Tax Department have [not ]comeout with a mechanism to issue appropriate instructiot-ts or to take - appropriate steps in ensuring that prQceedings under Section 148Aof the Act as also the assessment oriders under Section 148 of theIAct are kept in a hold in the light o the decisions decided by theIof the Act as also the assessment oriders under Section 148 of theIAct are kept in a hold in the light o the decisions decided by theIvarious High Courts, it was submi ed by the leamed StandingCounsel that the said steps can onlye taken 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 taken 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 wefacing is steep increase oflitigation day in and day out even thc ugh various orders have beenpassed by this High Court allowing vl,rit petitions on the very sameissue. The Income Tax authorities c ncemed are still even now inq2025 also initiating proceedings in c ntravention to the provisionsof Section 151A of the Act and as a esult by now, more than 600to 700 petitions have been alreadyot piled up before this HighCourt on an issue which otherwise sds squarely covered by thejudgment of this Court in the casef Kanukala Ravindra Reddy( 1 supra). What is also surprisings the fact that though whileallowing the writ petitions in thease of Kunakala RavindraReddy (1 supra), the Division Bencwhile reserwing the right ofthe Revenue, has also protected thp interest of the petitioners insofar [as ][the ][liberty which ][was ][granted ][to ][the ][Revenue ][for]initiating [fresh proceedings ][strictly ][in ][accordance ][with ][the ][amended]of [the ][Act, ][as ][amended ][by ][the ][Finance ][Act' ][2020 ][and]provisions the Finance [Act,2021. ][The ][petitioner.assessee ][would ][be ][entitled ][to]challenge [or ][raise ][the ][other ][legal objections ][if ][the ][Revenue ][initiates]fresh [proceedings. The ][Department ][has ][made ][no ][endeavour in]availing [the ][said ][libefty ][that was resenred ][for the ][Revenue' ][On ][the]contrary, [they ][have ][been ][still ][sticking on ][to ][the ][stand' ][which ][this]Coutt [as ][well ][as ][many other ][High ][Courts alrcady held ][to ][be]High bad.i 1. lt appears [that ][because ][ofthe ][aforesaid ][liberty ][that ][this ][High]Coun 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 ][the]limitation [that would ][otherwise ][come ][in ][the ][way' ][I-ikewise' ][if ][the]writ petition [is kept pending ][for ][a ][considerable ][long period ][of ][time]and finally at [a ][later ][stage ][if ][the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Court ][confirms]the decision [taken ][by ][this ][High ][Court ][as ][also ][by ][the ][other High]CourtsinwhichtheSLPsarestillpending,thelncomeTax Department would get the advantag! of the riberty that is otherwiseprotected in favour of theRevenuefor initiation of freshprotected in favour of theRevenuefor initiation of freshproceedings from the disposal of the$ematters at a much later stageIwhich would be advantageous and IDCneficial to the Revenue andwould be equally disadvantageous an]d detrimental so far as interestof the assesses are concemed. As a ponsequence, the Income TaxDepartment gets an extended period of time for initiation of freshproceedings.Iwhich would be advantageous and IDCneficial to the Revenue andwould be equally disadvantageous an]d detrimental so far as interestof the assesses are concemed. As a ponsequence, the Income TaxDepartment gets an extended period of time for initiation of freshproceedings. 12. The alarming trend of docket elrplosion in this Court, despite the clear precedent set in Kanakula Aavindra Reddy (1 supra), is amatter of grave concem. The Incomd Tax Department's persistentinitiation of fresh proceedings, disregi rding the established judicialpronouncements, has led to an unpr!Dcedented surge in litigationwith over 600-700 peritions piling qpp on the same issue. Thisdeliberate approach not only ,nd".*lnes the principle of judicialprecedent but also slrains rhe judicial resources unnecessarily. The]Deparlment's strategy of, awaiting f he ISupreme Court's decision onpending SLPs while continuing toinitiate fresh proceedingsappears to be a calculated move tobuy time and circumventlimitation periods, rather than adhering 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 balanced approach by preserving both the Revenue's rights andassesses lnterests. position. Such conduct raises serious questions about theadministrative efficiency and the respect for judicialpronouncements, particularly when this Court has already provideda balanced approach by preserving both the Revenue's rights andassesses lnterests. 13. Another aspect which needs to be considered is that in fact itshould have been realized by the Income Tax Deparlrnent itself andshould have found out via media in ensuring that proceedingsunder Sections 148-4 and 148 should not have been issued in afaceless manner, at least till the Hon'ble Supreme 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 manrer, 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 has to be taken, has to be taken for tfre whole of India, and whichotherwise has to be by way of a poli(V decision and that too at thelevel of Central Board of Direct Taxes. Though the leamedStanding Counsel for the Income Taf Department contended thatthe Delhi High Court dismissed a writipetition of similar nature, onthe one hand when the High Court is struggling to reduce itspendency, such notices which are r]nder chailenge in this writIpetition are forcing the assessee to klrock the doors of this HighCourt resulting in filing of hundreds o new fwrit petitions which inthe Iong mn not only affects the disp(sal of the writ petitions butalso consumes substantial time of tilre Bench in hearing thesematters again and again on daily basisAdmittedly, in spite of thematter before the Hon'ble Supreme Qourt having been taken onmany occasions, the Hon,ble Supreme fourt which is seized of thematter has been reluctant in granting ahy interim protection to theIncome Tax Department. yet, the a{thorities concemed at theState level are not ready to accept the virdict passed by a majorityof High Courts of different States on tle same issue; and to makethings further worse, the Income faf OeRa.tment is showingaudacity by issuing notices continuouslf under Sections l4g-A and I 148 through the [jurisdictional ]Assessing Officer whereas it oughtto have been only in the faceless manner. 14. In the case of BANK OF INDIA vs. ASSISTANTCOMMISSIONER, INCOME TAXIT, on an issue whether it wasjustifiable on the part of the Income Tax Depaftment ln notfollowing an order passed by the adjudicating authority only on theground that the appeais are pending, the Division Bench of theHigh Court of Bombay held at paragraph No.25 as under, viz., : "25. Mr. Paridwalla has rightly drawn out attention to thedecision of this Court in Commissioner of lncome Tax vs. Smt.Godavaridevi Sarafl2 as also the recent decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Samp Furniture (p) Ltd. v. lTO13of which one of us [(Justice ]G.S. Kulkarni) was a member, whereinthe Court categorically observed that the Revenue having not"accepted" the judgment of the High Court would not mean that tillthe same is set aside in a manner known to law, it would loose itsbinding force. Referring to the decision of the Supreme Court inUnion of lndia vs. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd.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. tt 71ZOZS1 [170 ][taxmann.com 422 ][(Bombay)l]" 1tslsl [113 ] [589 ][(Bombay)] " 1Z0Z+1 [165 ][taxmann.com ][581i300 ][l-axman ][452 ][(Bombay)] 'o leOZltaxmann.com [16/55 ] [(SC)] r r' tt 71ZOZS1 [170 ][taxmann.com 422 ][(Bombay)l]" 1tslsl [113 ] [589 ][(Bombay)] " 1Z0Z+1 [165 ][taxmann.com ][581i300 ][l-axman ][452 ][(Bombay)] 'o leOZltaxmann.com [16/55 ] [(SC)] r r' "6. Sri Reddy is perhaps riEfht [in ][saying ][that ][the]officers passing were the not impugned actuatedord[y Lbr. [any ]They [mala ][fides ]perhaps[in]genuinely felt that the claim o the assessee was nottenable and that, if it waspted, the Revenuewould suffer. But what Sri Redy overlooks is that weare not concerned here wthe correctness orotherwise of their conclusior of any factualmalafides but with the fact thathe officers, in reachingin their conclusion, by-passedo appellate orders inregard to the same issue whiwere placed beforethem, one of the Collector (Apeals) and the other ofthe Tribunal. The High Court I[as, [in ][our ][view, ][rightly]criticized this conduct of the Alsistant [Cotlectors ]andthe harassment to the assesset [caused by ]the [failure]of these officers to give effpct to the orders ofauthorities higher to them in theI [appetlate ][hierarchy. ][lt]cannot be too vehemently enIfnhasized [that ][it is ][of]utmost importance that, irI disposing of thequasijudicial issues before theni,, [,."r"nr" ][officers ][are]bound by the decisions of theI [appellate ]authorities.The order of the Appellte Collefctor [is ][binding ][on ][the]Assistant Collectors working withis iurisdiction andfrin the order of the Tribunal is bindfng [upon the Assistant]Collectors and the Appellate Cf,ttector. who functionunder the jurisdiction of the TriblInal. The principles off judicial discipline require that thle [orders ][of ][the ][higher]appellate authorities should bejtotlo*"0 unreservedtyby the subordinate authorities.llhe mere fact that theorder of the appellate authorityiis [not ]["acceptabte" ][to]the department - in itself an opiectionable [phrase ]-and is the subject matter of anpppeal can furnish noground for not following it unk[ss [its ][operation ][has]been suspended by a competenlt [court. ][lf ][this ][healthy] rule is not followed, the result will only be [undue]harassment to assesses and chaos in administrationof tax laws. 12. We have dealt with this aspect at some length,because it has been suggested by the learnedAdditional Solicitor General that the observationsmade by the High Court, have been harsh on theofficers. lt is clear that the observations of the HighCourt, seemingly vehement, and apparentlyunpalatable to the Revenue, are only intended to curba tendency in revenue matters which, if allowed tobecome widespread, could result in considerableharassment to the assesses-public without any benefitto the Revenue. We would like to say that thedepartment should take these observations in theproper spirit. The observations of the High Courtshould be kept in mind in future and the utmost regardshould be paid by the adjudicating authorities and theappellate authorities to the requirements of [judicial]discipline and the need for giving effect to the ordersof the higher appellate authorities which are bindingon them." 15. What is worrying this Bench more is the fact that anendeavour is being made whole heartedly to ensure not to generatefurther litigation on issues which have been laid to rest by a largenumber of High Courts all of whom have taken a consistent standthat the action of the Income Tax Department being violative of the l \] .I I't 15. What is worrying this Bench more is the fact that anendeavour is being made whole heartedly to ensure not to generatefurther litigation on issues which have been laid to rest by a largenumber of High Courts all of whom have taken a consistent standthat the action of the Income Tax Department being violative of the l \] .I I't Finance Act,2020 and Finance Act,021. Now, in order to protectthe interest of the Revenue as also th t of the assessee, it would betrite at this juncture, if we disposeof the writ petition with anobservation/direction that the disposa]I of the instant writ petition inobservation/direction that the disposa]I of the instant writ petition interms of the judgment ,.na.r"a Uy tf[is [High ]Court in the case ofKanAanala Ruvindra Reddy (t .rpr!to) [shall however be ][subject ]the outcome of the SLPs *ni.f, *Jne filed by the Income TaxDepartment and which is pending con]pideration before the Hon'bleKanAanala Ruvindra Reddy (t .rpr!to) [shall however be ][subject ]the outcome of the SLPs *ni.f, *Jne filed by the Income TaxDepartment and which is pending con]pideration before the Hon'bleSupreme Court 16. [n the given facts and circums]Itances, this Bench is of theconsidered opinion that unless and urlfiil we do not timely disposeof matters which are squarely covered by the decision of this Court -and which stands fortified by the dePisions of the various otherHigh Courts on the very same issue, the pendency of this HighCourt would furlher be burdened whiiph otherwise can be decidedand disposed ofas a covered matter. 17. So far as the interest of the Rev nue is concemed, we are of the considered opinion that the intereof the Revenue has alreadybeen considered and protected, as haseen observed in paragraphsRevenue has alreadybeen considered and protected, as haseen observed in paragraphs 36,37 and 38 ofthe order which, for ready [reference, is reproduced]hereunder: 36. For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned notrcesissued and the proceedings drawn by the respondent-Department rs 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 consequenttal orders [passed]by the respondent-Department [pursuant ]to the noticesissued under Section 147 and 148 would also [get]quashed and it is ordered accordingly. The reason.weare [quashing ]the consequential order is on the [principles]that when the initiation of the proceedings itself wasprocedurally wrong, the subsequent orders also getsnullified automatically. 37. The preliminary objection raised by the [petitioner ]issustained and all these writ petitions stands allowed onthis very [jurisdictional ]issue. Since the impugned noticesand orders are getting quashed on the [point ]ofjurisdiction, we are not inclined to proceed further anddecide the other issues raised by the [petitioner ]whichstands reserved to be raised and contended in anappropriate [proceedings.] 38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the caseof Ashish Agarwal, supra, as a one-time measureexercising the powers under Article 142 of theConstitution of India, [permifted ]the Revenue to [proceed]under the substituted [provisions, ]and this Court allowingthe petitions only on the procedural flaw, the right r a \ conferred on the RevenuevYould remain reserved toproceed further if they so*4nt from the stage of theorder of the Supreme Couin the case of Ashishl,Agarwal, supra. 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 India, [permifted ]the Revenue to [proceed]under the substituted [provisions, ]and this Court allowingthe petitions only on the procedural flaw, the right r a \ conferred on the RevenuevYould remain reserved toproceed further if they so*4nt from the stage of theorder of the Supreme Couin the case of Ashishl,Agarwal, supra. 18. We would only further like to make observations that sincewe are inclined to dispose of the ins{ant writ petition, conscious ofthe fact that the earlier order ol this High Court in the case ofKanakalu Ravindra Reddy (l supis subjected to challenge ) before the Hon'ble Suprelne Couin SLP No.3574 of 2024,prefened by the Income Tax Deparfment, we make it clear thatallowing of the instant writ petition is subject to outcome of theaforesaid SLP preferred by the Reve ue against the decision of thisHigh Court in the case of Kanak,rrRavindra Reddy (l supra).This, in other words, would meanthfreither of the parties, if theyso want, may move an appropriate pptition seeking revival o( thiswrit petition in the light of the decipion of the Hon'ble SupremeCourt in the pending SLP on the very same issue. 19. Accordingly, the instantwritpetltlonstands allowed infavour of the assessee so farASLthe issue of jurisdiction1Sconcerned. As a consequence, {he impugned notice underchallenge under Sections 148-A and 148 stands set aside/quashed ( ( The consequential orders, if any, also stand set aside/quashed in similar terms as have been passed by this High Court in the case of Ktnkanala Ravindru Reddy (l supra). There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/. T. VIJAY DEPUTY REGISTRAR2--usEcrbt'o.r,"=* //TRUE COPY/I To,1. The lncome [Tax ][Officer ][Ward ][1, ][Warangal, ][D No- ][1-8-610' 3rd Floor' ][Mayuri]' d;;i;;;' opp'rCr.rFbcr eh"*an, Nikkalasutta, Hanamkonda'waransal-506001 [.]1. The lncome [Tax ][Officer ][Ward ][1, ][Warangal, ][D No- ][1-8-610' 3rd Floor' ][Mayuri]' d;;i;;;' opp'rCr.rFbcr eh"*an, Nikkalasutta, Hanamkonda'waransal-506001 [.]z. - ii;-irincipal eicck, i.f.Towers, [Chief ]10-2-3, [Commissioner ]A.C. GuarCs, [of ][lncome Tax, ]Hy{erabad-500004'- [AP and ][TS' ][1oth ][Floor' ] S. ii,;- ['A..esi.eni ][Unit,' ][iniome ][Tax ]Department. National, FacelessAssessment Centre, [Delhi, ][ii;i;it ][of ][Finan"ej, ][noom ][No ][4o1 ][' ][2nd Floor' ] Ramo. Jawaharlal Nehru [Stadium, ][Delhi-'l ][10003']S. ii,;- ['A..esi.eni ][Unit,' ][iniome ][Tax ]Department. National, FacelessAssessment Centre, [Delhi, ][ii;i;it ][of ][Finan"ej, ][noom ][No ][4o1 ][' ][2nd Floor' ] Ramo. Jawaharlal Nehru [Stadium, ][Delhi-'l ][10003']4 ci;; [-idi" ]Snt. [ouruou ][MANI/oHAN, ][Advocate ][[oPUCl]5. one cc [tot\/s. ][BoKARb-"sXpttiA ][i'eobv ][(Jr''SC FoR ][lNCoruE ][TAX)]loPUCl5. one cc [tot\/s. ][BoKARb-"sXpttiA ][i'eobv ][(Jr''SC FoR ][lNCoruE ][TAX)]loPUCl6. Two CD CoPiesB IVIB IVIocLp HIGH COURT { DATED:2510412025 ORDERWP.No.27424 ot 2024 rr.iHE5T4 l^\.o(f22 /'UE Mci).'l+*l-.::-- ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS {