Under Section 148,,4. Ofthe Act As Also Under Section 148 Oftheact Ought To Have Also Been Issued And Proceeded In A Facelessmanner v. Income-Tax Officeri Decidedon 14.09.2023 Whereby A Batch Of Writ Petitions Were Allowed Andthe Proc

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY ,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF APRILTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSTNG RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 35768 OF 2024 Betlveen: Aged about 51Maheswaram..,PETITIONER JANGA REDDY SADHU, S/O LAIC SADHU years, Occupation. Business, Rl/o. 4-25 Tukkuguda,Rangareddy 501359 Telangana, lndia. AND 1The lncome tax officer ward 9(1), [Hyderabad ] [TOWER, ] [Guards, Masab]Tank, HYDERABAD-500004, Telangana.Tank, HYDERABAD-500004, Telangana.2The Hyderabad, Principal Chief lT Towers, Commissioner AC Guards, of [Masab ][lncome ][Tank, ][Tax ][- ][Hyderabad ][Telangana alq ][- ][500028']- &?,Telangana.Telangana.3The Cbntral Board of Direct Taxes, [Represented by its Chairman, Department]of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, [Government ][of ][lndia, ][Secretariat Buildings']New Delhi - 110 001 [[.]]of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, [Government ][of ][lndia, ][Secretariat Buildings']New Delhi - 110 001 [[.]] 4. The National Faceless Assessment [[.]]Center, [lncome ][Tax ][Department, ][New]Delhi.Delhi. Delhi.5. The Union of lndia, Represented by its [Secretary ][to ][the ][Government,]Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance,'New [Delhi ][- ] [001 ][.]Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance,'New [Delhi ][- ] [001 ][.] ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 [ot ][lhe ][Constitution ][of ][lndia praying ][that ][in ][the]circumstances stated in the [affidavit ][filed ][therewith, ][the ][High ][Court ][may ][be]pleased to issue a Writ Order, or Direction more [particularly ]one [in ]the [nature of]Mandamus, declaring the order [passed by ][the ][lncome ][Tax Authorities ][(National]Faceless E-Assessment Centre completed [the ][assessment ] [147 ][r.w.s ][144]read with section 1448 of the lncome [Tax ][Act, ][1961 ][vide DIN and ][Notice ][No.]dated 20-05-2023|TBA/AST/5114712023-2411053023141(1) [for ][the ][assessment]year 2018-19 determining the total income of Rs 2,0'1 ,14,0001 as [arbitrary, ][illegal,]bad in law, without [jurisdiction, ]void-ab-initio, [violative ][of the ][principles ][of ][natural]justice apart from being violative of Articles 1 a, 19(1 )(g) and 265 of [the] Constitution of lndia & Sec. 148A of the lncome Tax Act, 196'1 , and consequentlyset aside the same. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated inthe affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased tosuspend the order Under section 147 r.w.s 144 read with section 144B of thelncome Tax Act, 1961 vide DIN & Notice No. dated 20-05-2023ITBA/AST tst 1 47 12023-24110530231 41 (t ; foi tne assessment year 201 8-1 9determining the total income of Rs 2,0J,14,000/- and Demand notice u/s 156 ofthe lncome Tax act 1961, vide DIN and Notice No. ITBA/AST/S/1 5612023-2411053023187(1) Dt. 2010512023 for the assessment year 2018-19 pendingdisposal of the above Writ Petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. THANNERU CHAITANYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent ilos. 1to2: Ms. BOKARO SAPNA REDDY(Jr. SC FOR INCOME TAx)(Jr. SC FOR INCOME TAx) Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 3to5: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR,The court made the fottowing: oRDERDY' [soLlclroR ] [oF ] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOT]RABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAONANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION No.35768OF 2024 ORDER, (per Hon'ble Sri Justice Narsing Rao Nandikonda) Heard Mr. Thanneru Chaitanya Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. B.Sapna Reddy, learned Junior StandingCounsel for the Income Tax Department for the respondents.Perused the record. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. THANNERU CHAITANYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent ilos. 1to2: Ms. BOKARO SAPNA REDDY(Jr. SC FOR INCOME TAx)(Jr. SC FOR INCOME TAx) Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 3to5: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR,The court made the fottowing: oRDERDY' [soLlclroR ] [oF ] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOT]RABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAONANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION No.35768OF 2024 ORDER, (per Hon'ble Sri Justice Narsing Rao Nandikonda) Heard Mr. Thanneru Chaitanya Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. B.Sapna Reddy, learned Junior StandingCounsel for the Income Tax Department for the respondents.Perused the record. 2. This is a writ petition where the proceedings are eitherchallenged to the notices which were issued under Section 148,4.and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') or theassessment orders those have been passed under Section 147 ofthe Act which have been assailed. 3. This writ petition is being taken up today only on one of thegrounds, that the notices issued under Section 148,{ of the Actand tlle subsequent initiation of proceedings under Section 148 ofthe Act by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, whereas 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 148,,4. ofthe Act as also under Section 148 oftheAct 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,202l 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 Court in the case of KANKANALARAVINDRA REDDY vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICERI 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 Notif,rcation 1812022 dated29.03.2022. The saidjudgment passed by this Court has also been subsequently followedin a large number of writ petitions which were allowed on similartermsI The contention contention of the petitioner the petitioner petitioner is that the issue that the issue the issue issue of 'l(2023) [156 ][taxmann.com ][178 ][(Telangana)l] - 5. Down the line, [we find ][that ][the ][same ][issue has ][also ][been]decided against [the ][Revenue ][by ][various ][High ][Courts ][i'e',]by the Bombay High [Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ] TECHNOLOGIES [LTD., ][VS. ] OF INCOME TAX & [OTHERS2, ][GauhatiHigh ][Court ][in ][the ][case]of RAM NARAYAN [vs. ][UNION OF INDIA3, ][Punjab ][and]Court [in ][the ][case ][of ] Haryana High vs. UNION OF INDIA4, [and ][Telangana ][High ][Court ][in the ][case ][of]SRI VENKATARAMANA [VS. ] COMMTSSIONER [where ][the ][issue ][was ][in]respect of international [taxation, Bombay ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]ABHIN ANTLKUMAR [VS. ] [OFFICER,]INTERNATIONAL [which ][is ][again on ][international]taxation and central [circle, High ][Court ][of ][Himachal ][Pradesh ][in ][the]case of GOVIND [vs. INCOME ] [OFFICERT']Gujarat High [Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ] I I 2 pozql464 ITR 430 (Bom)'1Q024) [156 ][taxmann.com 478 ][(Gauhati)l]^l(2024) [165 ][taxmann.com ][115 ][(Punjab ][& ][Haryana)l]' 12024) [1 ][67 taxsrmn. com ][4 ][1 ] [(Telangana)l]"12024) [166 ][taxmann.com ][679 ][(Bombay)l]' 12024) [165 ][taxmann.com ][1 ][13 ][(Himachal ][Pradesh)l]'1Q024) [156 ][taxmann.com 478 ][(Gauhati)l]^l(2024) [165 ][taxmann.com ][115 ][(Punjab ][& ][Haryana)l]' 12024) [1 ][67 taxsrmn. com ][4 ][1 ] [(Telangana)l]"12024) [166 ][taxmann.com ][679 ][(Bombay)l]' 12024) [165 ][taxmann.com ][1 ][13 ][(Himachal ][Pradesh)l] DAHYABHAI RADADIYA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 3(3X5)8, Jharkand High Court in the case of SHYAMSUNDAR SAW vs. UNION OF INDIAe, Rajasthan High Court inthe case of SHARDA DEVI CHHAJER vs. INCOME TAXOFFICER & ANOTHER and batch:of writ petitionsr0 whichstood decided on 19.03.2024. Similar views have also been takenby the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in the case ofGIRDHAR GOPAL DALMIA vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS(M.A.T 1690 of 2023), decided on25.09.2024. 6. Even though the same issue having been decided by a largenumber of High Courts, we are still confronted with large filing ofidentical matters on daily basis ranging between 5 to l0 writpetitions. That upon the instructions being sought from theDepartment, they have been taking a solitary ground that thedecision of the Bombay High Court in the case of HexawareTechnologies Ltd., (2 supra) as also the one which has beendecidedlby this Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy rzo2qscc online Guj 4012'2025 SCC Online Jhar 287to 12023 [: ] [:4984-DBl] -r (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 matterIn addition, there are about 1200 SLPs also filed arising out ofthesame issue being decided by various High.Courts. 7. To a query being put to the leamed counsel for the Revenue,they have categorically accepted the fact that there is no interimorder granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in any of thesematters pending before it. Meanwhile, fresh writ petitions ofidentical nature are being piled up before this Bench on daily basisand the pendency is getting increased on matter which otherwisehas already been dealt and decided by this very High Court itself. 8. On the one hand, even though the order of this Court thatwas passed as early as on 14.09.2023 and more 16 months havelapsed, titl date, we do not find any remedial steps having beentaken by the Income Tax Department to take appropriate steps toeither hold back issuance ofnotice under Section l48A and underSection 148 of the Act by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer,rather the authorities concerned in the teeth of series of decisions by all the major High Courts in India are [continuously still]initiating proceedings under [Section ][148,4. ]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 Act,2020 as also the Finance Act202l. 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, titl date, we do not find any remedial steps having beentaken by the Income Tax Department to take appropriate steps toeither hold back issuance ofnotice under Section l48A and underSection 148 of the Act by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer,rather the authorities concerned in the teeth of series of decisions by all the major High Courts in India are [continuously still]initiating proceedings under [Section ][148,4. ]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 Act,2020 as also the Finance Act202l. 9. Upon a query being put as to why can't [this rvrit petition ][be]disposed of in the teeth of the decision [rendered ][by this ][Court ][in]the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra), [learned ][Standing]Counsel for the lncome Tax Department contends [that those ][would]unnecessarily burden the Income Tax Department [where ][they]would be required to file equal number of [SLPs before ][the]Hon'ble Supreme Court and it would be further burdening [the]exchequer of the Union of India. It was also the [contention ][of ][the]leamed Standing Counsel that no prejudice would be caused [to ][the]interest of the petitioners in case if this writ [petition ][is kept pending]till the finalization of the SLPs [pending ]before the [Hon'ble]Supreme 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 [instructions ][or to ][take] ..i ..l appropnate steps in ensuring that proceedings under.Sedlion l4gAofthe Act as also the assessment orders under Section l4g oftheAct are kept in a hold in the light of the decisions dedcided by thevarious High Courts, it was submitted by the learned StandingCounsel that the said steps can only be taken at the level of CBDTas any such steps would have to be taken pan India and cannot belimited to any of these jurisdictional High Courts. As a result of which, what we are facing is steep a result of which, what we are facing is steep result of which, what we are facing is steep of which, what we are facing is steep which, what we are facing is steep what we are facing is steep are facing is steep facing is steep is steep steep increase of 10.As a result of which, what we are facing is steep a result of which, what we are facing is steep result of which, what we are facing is steep of which, what we are facing is steep which, what we are facing is steep what we are facing is steep are facing is steep facing is steep is steep steep increase oflitigation day in and day out even though various orders have beenpassed by this High Court allowing writ petitions on the very sameissue. The Income Tax authorities 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, more than 600to 700 petitions have been already got piled up before this HighCourt on an issue which otherwise stands squarely covered by thejudgment of this Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy(1 supra). What is also surprising is the fact that though whileallowing the writ petitions in the case of Kanakala RavindraReddy (l supra), the Division Bench while reserving the right ofthe Revenue, has also protected the interest of the petitioners insofar as the liberty which was granted to the Revenue [fcr]initiating fresh proceedings strictly in accordance with the amendedprovisions of the Act, as amended by the Finance Act,2020 andthe Finance Act,202l. 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 thecontrary, they have been still sticking on to the stand, which thisHigh Court as well as man'y other High Courts already held to bebad 11. It appears that because ofthe aforesaid liberty that this HighCourt had granted permitting the Revenue for initiating freshproceedings as a one-time measure in a faceless manner, theIncome Tax Department wants to take advantage of the same byprotracting these proceedings which would enable them to meet thelimitation that would otherwise come in the way. Likewise, if thewrit petition is kept pending for a considerable long period of timeand finally at a later stage if the Hon'ble Supreme Court confirmsthe decision taken by this High Court as also by the other HighCourts in which the SLPs are still pending, the Income Tax Department would get the advantage of the liberty that is otherwiseprotectedln favour of the Revenue for initiation of freshproceedings from the disposal ofthese matters at a much later stagewhich woutd be advantageous and beneficial to the Revenue andwould be equalty disadvantageous and detfimental so far as interestof the assesses are concemed. As a consequence, the Income TaxDepartment gets an extended period of time for initiation of fieshproceedings. 12. The alarming trend of docket explosion in this Court, despitethe clear precedent setin Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra), is amatter of grave concem. The Income Tax Department's persistentinitiation of fresh proceedings, disregarding the established judicialpronouncements, has led to an unprecedented surge in litigationwith over 600-700 petitions piling up on the same issue. Thisdeliberate approach not only undermines the principle ofjudicialprecedent but also strains the judicial resources unnecessarily. TheDepartment's strategy of awaiting the Supreme Court's decision onpending SLPs while continuing to initiate fresh proceedingsappears to be a calculated move to buy time and circumventlimitation periods, rather than adhering to the established legal position. Such 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 interests. 13. Another aspect which nerds 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 manner, at least till the Hon'ble Supreme [(lourt ]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 deferredwithout precipitating the matter further intimating thc 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 aLall -/ -/ has to be takerr. has to be taken for the whole of India, and whichotherwise has to be by way ofa policy decision and that too at thelevel of Central Board of Direct Taxes. Though the leamedotherwise has to be by way ofa policy decision and that too at thelevel of Central Board of Direct Taxes. Though the leamedStanding Counsel for the lncome Tax Department contended thatthe Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition of similar nature, onthe one hand when the High Court is struggling to reduce itspendency, such notices which are under challenge in this writpetition are forcing the assessee to knock the doors of this HighCourt resulting in filing of huhdreds of new writ petitions which inthe long run not only afftcts the disposal of the writ petitions butthe Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition of similar nature, onthe one hand when the High Court is struggling to reduce itspendency, such notices which are under challenge in this writpetition are forcing the assessee to knock the doors of this HighCourt resulting in filing of huhdreds of new writ petitions which inthe long run not only afftcts the disposal of the writ petitions butalso consumes substantial time of the Bench in hearing thesematters again and again on daily basis. Admittedly, in spite of thematter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court having been taken onmany occasions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court which is seized of thematter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court having been taken onmany occasions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court which is seized of thematter has been reluctant in granting any interim protection to theIncome Tax Department. Yet, the authorities concemed at theState level are not ready to accept the verdict passed by a majorityof U\Ch Courts of different States on the same issue; and to makeState level are not ready to accept the verdict passed by a majorityof U\Ch Courts of different States on the same issue; and to makethings\ further worse, the lncome Tax Department is showingaudacity by issuing notices continuously under Sections 148-A andaudacity by issuing notices continuously under Sections 148-A and i4& [rnrougir. ]['rhe-:r:seictionai ]A.sessing Officer ;,, r,jre ts i: o,-,:.lito have been only in the faceless manner. 14. In the case of BANK OF INDIA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONE& TNCOME TAXr', on an issue whether it wasjustifiable on the part of the Incomel Tax Deparlment in notfollowing an order passed by the adjudicating authority only on theground that the appeals are pending, the Division Bench of theHigh Court of Bombay held at paragraph No.25 as under, viz., : "25. Mr. Paridwalla has righfly drawn out attention to thedecision of this Couri 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 categorica y observed that the Revenue having not"accepted" the judgment of the High Court would not mean that tiltthe 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. " 11202s; [170 ][taxmann.com ]422 [(Bombay)l]t'! t'! lt978l I l3 ITR 589 (Bombay)1 ' IZOZ+1 [1 ]65 [taxmann. ]com 5 [g ]I /3 00 T axman 4 52 (Bombay)'o ll99Z1raxmanrl.com [,.G/55 ]ELT 433 (SC) " 11202s; [170 ][taxmann.com ]422 [(Bombay)l]t'! t'! lt978l I l3 ITR 589 (Bombay)1 ' IZOZ+1 [1 ]65 [taxmann. ]com 5 [g ]I /3 00 T axman 4 52 (Bombay)'o ll99Z1raxmanrl.com [,.G/55 ]ELT 433 (SC) ,:6;Sil, Feddy [is ][perhap-q ]4g[1t;,io,sayrng [that, ][the]officers were not actuated by any [mala fides ][in]passing the impugned orders. They [perhaps]genuinely felt that the claim of the assessee was [not]tenable and that, if it was accepted, the [Revenue]would suffer. But what Sri Reddy overlooks [is ][that we]are not concerned here with the [correctness ][or]otherwise of their conclusion or of [any ][factual]malafides but with the fact that the [officers, in reaching]in their conclusion, by+assed two [appellate ][orders ][in]regard to the same issue which [were ][placed ][before]them, one of the Collector [(Appeals) ][and the other ][of]the Tribunal. The [High ]Court [has, in ][our view, rightly]criticized lhis con(uct of the [Assistant ][Collectors and]the harassment to the [assessee caused by the failure]of these officers to [give ]effect to [the ][orders ][of]authorities higher to them [in the appellate ][hierarchy. ][lt]cannot be too vehemently [emphasized ][that ][it is ][of]utmost importance that, in [disposing ][of ][the]quasUudicial issues before them, revenue officers [are]bound by the decisions of the [appellate ][authorities.]The order of the Appellte Collector [is ][binding ][on ][the]Assistant Collectors [working within ][his ]lurisdiction [and]the order of the Tribunal is [binding upon the Assistant]Collectors and the Appellate [Collectors ][who ][function]under the [jurisdiction ]of [the ]Tribunal. [The principles ][of]judicial discipline require that the orders of the [higher]appellate authorities should [be ][followed ][unreservedly]by the subordinate authorities. [The ][mere fact that the]order of the appellate authority [is ][not ]["acceptable" ][to]the 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] rule is not followed, the result will only be undueharassment to assesses and chaos in administrationof tax laws. 12. We have dealt with this aspect at some length,because it has been suggested by the learnedAdditional Solicitor General that. the observationsmade by the High Court, have been harsh on theofficers. lt is clear that.the observations of the HighCourt, seemingly vehement, and apparenflyunpalatable to the Revenue, are only intended to curba tendency in revenue mafters which, if allowed tobecome widespreEd, could result in considerableharassment to the assesses-public without any benefitto the Revenue. We would like to say that thedepartment should take these observations in theproper spirit. The observations of the High Courtshould be kept in mind in future and the utmost regardshould be paid by the adjudicating authorities and theappellate authorities to the requirements of judicialdiscipline and the need for giving effect to the ordersof the higher appellate authorities which are bindingon them." 15. What is worqring 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 Finance Act, 2020 and Finance Act,202l . Now, in order to protectthe interest of the Revenue as also that of the assessee, it would betrite at this juncture, if we dispose of the writ petition with anobservation/direction that the disposal of the instant writ petition interms of the judgment rendered by this High Court in the case ofKankanala Ravindra Reddy (l supra) shall however be subject tothe outcome of the SLps which were filed by the Income TaxDepartment and which is pending consideration before the Hon,bleSupreme Court. Finance Act, 2020 and Finance Act,202l . Now, in order to protectthe interest of the Revenue as also that of the assessee, it would betrite at this juncture, if we dispose of the writ petition with anobservation/direction that the disposal of the instant writ petition interms of the judgment rendered by this High Court in the case ofKankanala Ravindra Reddy (l supra) shall however be subject tothe outcome of the SLps which were filed by the Income TaxDepartment and which is pending consideration before the Hon,bleSupreme Court. 16. In the given faCts and circumstances, this Bench is of theconsidered opinion that unless and until we do not timely disposeof matters which are squarery covered by the decision of this courtand which stands fortif,red by the decisions of the various otherHigh Courts on the very same issue, the pendency of this Highcourt would'further be burdened which otherwise can be decidedand disposed ofas a covered matter. 17. So far as the interest of the Revenue is concemed, we are of the considered opinion that the interest of the Revenue has alreadybeen considered and protected, as has been observed in paragraphsbeen considered and protected, as has been observed in paragraphs 36,37 and 38 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 setaside/quashed. As a consequence, all the [impugned]orders getting [quashed, ]the consequential [orders passed]by the respondent-Deparlment [pursuant ]to the [notices]issued under Section 147 and 148 would also [get]quashed and it is qrdered accordingly. The reason weare quashing the consequential order is on the [principles]that when the, initiation of the [proceedings ]itself [was]procedurally wrong, the subsequent orders also [gets]nullif ied 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 anddecide the other issues raised by the [petitioner ][which]stands reserved lo be raised and contended in anappropriate proceedings. 38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the caseof Ashish Aganral, supra, as a one-time measureexercising the powers under Article 142 of theConstitution of lndia, permitted the Revenue to proceedunder the substituted provisions, and this Court allowinglhe petitions only on the procedural flaw, the right confened 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 [of ][Ashish]Agarwal, supra. 18. We would only further like to make observations that sincewe 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]Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (1 supra) is [subjected ][to ][challenge]before the Hon'ble Supreme Court [in ] [No.3574 ][of ][2024,]preferred by the Income ['fax ]Department, [we ][make ][it ][clear ][that]allowing of the instan, writ [petition ][is ][subject ][to ][outcome ][of ][the]aforesaid SLP preferred by the [Revenue against ][the ][decision ][ofthis]High Court in the case of Kanakala [Ravindra ][Reddy ][(l ][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.] I 9. Accordingly, the instant writ [petition ][stands ][allowed ][in]favour of the assessee so far as the [issue ][of ][jurisdiction]lsconcemed. As a consequence, the [impugned ][notice ][under]challenge under Sections 148-4 and [148 ][stands set aside/quashed.] II \ 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] Kankanala Ruvindra [Reddy ][(l ][supra)- ][There shalt ][be ][no order ][as] to costs miscellaneous [petitions pending, ][if ][any, shall]Consequcntly, stand closed. SD/.A. SRINIVASA REDDYASSISTANT REGISTRAR\.'i \ \)\-- Y-', [',]SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, 1.The lncome tax officer ward 9(1), Hyderabad I T TOWER, AC Guards, MasabTank, HYDERABAD-500004, Telangana.Tank, HYDERABAD-500004, Telangana.2.The Principal Chief Commissioner of lncome Tax - Telangana and A.P,Hyderabad, lT Towers, AC Guards, [Vlasab Tank, Hyderabad [- ]500028,Telangana.Hyderabad, lT Towers, AC Guards, [Vlasab Tank, Hyderabad [- ]500028,Telangana.3.The Central Board of Direct Taxes, Represented by its Chairman, Departmentof Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of lndia, Secretariat Buildings,New Delhi - 1 10 001.of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of lndia, Secretariat Buildings,New Delhi - 1 10 001.4.The National Faceless Assessment Center, lncome Tax Department, NewDelhi.Delhi.5.The Union of lndia, Represented by its Secretary to the Government,Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi - 1 10 001 [.]Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi - 1 10 001 [.]6.One CC to SRl. THANNERU CHAITANYA KUMAR, Advocate 7.One CC to Ms. BOKARO SAPNA REDDY (Jr. SC FOR INCOME TAX)IoPUCI7.One CC to Ms. BOKARO SAPNA REDDY (Jr. SC FOR INCOME TAX)IoPUCIB.One CC to SRl. GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DY.SOLICITOR GENERAL OFrNDrA rNDrA 9.Two CD Copies BM Q$- LS HIGH COURT DATED:2810412025 ORDER O?.s14t()L-\T16[j]UL?TEo.c)*\-[. ][.!.']-._-:..-.). WP.No.35768 of 2024 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS (A-o\d o- )\