Under Section 148A Of The Act As Also Under Section 148 Of Theact Ought To Have Also Been Issued And Proceede D In A Facelessmanner.act Ought To Have Also Been v. ' L(2023) [I ]56 Taxmann.corn 178 (Telangana)L

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF APRILTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION NO: 344 OF 2025 Between: MT.KOTHA KANTHAIAH, S/o. BHEEMAIAH Aged 61 years, OccBusiness ofCarpenter by profession., Rlo. 7-3-234, Jangam Ward BJanagaon,Ramgundam, Karimnagar, Telangana-505208. ...PETITIONER AND 1Office of the Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax, lncome Tax Department,Circle 1, Karimnagar, Telangana.Circle 1, Karimnagar, Telangana.2The Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, AP and Telangana,Hyderabad, lT Towers Masab Tank, Hydelabad, Telangana-500004Hyderabad, lT Towers Masab Tank, Hydelabad, Telangana-5000043The National Faceless Assessment Centie, lncome Tax Department, Ministryof Finance, Govt of lndia, Delhi.of Finance, Govt of lndia, Delhi.4Union of lndia, Ministry of Finance, Represented by its Secretary 166-8, NorthBlock, New Delhi-1 10001Block, New Delhi-1 10001 ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of lhre Constrtution of lndia praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may bepleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order, or direction more particularly one inthe nature of Writ of l\,4andamus or any other appropriate writ, or order or directiondeclaring, (a) That the impugned assessment Order u/s.148A(d), dated0s10412022, bearing DIN Notice No. ITBA/ASTlFll 48A12022-2311042528930(1)and the impugned Notice u/s.148, dated 06/04/2022, bearing DIN and Notice no.ITBA/AST/S/148_112022-2Y1A42583102(1) issued by the Respondent No.1,under the lncome Tax. Act, 1961 are illegal, arbitrary, bad in law, void ab initio,violative of the principles of natural [justice ]as the order and notice were issued bythe local [jurisdictional ]officer as against the initiation of proceedings by theauthorities are mandatorily to be in a faceless manner as is envisaged under section 144B as also under sectron 151A of the Act, with effect from 2910312022,hence, are to be set-aside. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated inthe affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Oourt may be [pleased ]tostay all further proceedings based on impugned assessment Order datedO5lO4l2O22 u/s 148A(d) bearing DIN Notice No. TBA/AST/F/1.18Ai2O22-2311042528930(1) issued by the 1't, Respondent also rot to take any coercivemeasures against the petitioner in respect of the impugnerl [proceedings] Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. NAGENDRA REDDY .T Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2: Ms. J. SUNITHA ,SC FOR IT DEPARTMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI GADI PRAVEEN l(UMAR, DY. SOLICITOR GE:RNAL OF INDIA The Court made the following: ORDER TIIE HONOTTRABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING NANDIKONDA W.P.No.344 OF 2025 QBDEB, [(per ][Hon'ble ][Sri ][Justice ][P.Sam ][Koshy)] Heard Mr. T.Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for thepetitioner and Ms. J.Sunitha, learned Junior Standing Counselfor the Income Tax Department lor respondent Nos. Iand 2. Perused the record 2. This is a writ petition where the proceedings are eitherchallenged to the notices which were issued under Section [148A]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 the subsequent initiation of proceedings under Section I48 ofthe Act by the [jurisdictional ]Assessing Officer, whereas [in ]termsof the amendment that was brought [to ][the Income Tax ]Act by [way]of Finance Act,202l w.e.f., 01.04.2021 [onwards, ][proceedings] 2. This is a writ petition where the proceedings are eitherchallenged to the notices which were issued under Section [148A]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 the subsequent initiation of proceedings under Section I48 ofthe Act by the [jurisdictional ]Assessing Officer, whereas [in ]termsof the amendment that was brought [to ][the Income Tax ]Act by [way]of Finance Act,202l w.e.f., 01.04.2021 [onwards, ][proceedings] under Section 148A of the Act as also under Section 148 of theAct ought to have also been issued and proceede d in a facelessmanner.Act ought to have also been issued and proceede d in a facelessmanner. 4. The contention of the petitioner is that the issue ofproceedings being in violation of the Finance Act, 2021 i.e., theimpugned notices under Section 148A and Section 148 of the Actnot being issued in a faceless manner, have already been dealt rvithand decided by this Court in the case of I(ANKANALARAVINDRA REDDY vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICERT decidedon 14.09.2023 whereby a batch of writ petitions w(.rc allowed andthe proceedings initiated under Section 148,4. as also under Section148 of the Act were hetd to be bad with consequential leliefs on theground of it being in violation of the provisions of Section 151A ofthe Act read with Notification 1812022 dated29.03.t:.022. The saidjudgment passed by this Court has also been subsequently followedin a large number of writ petitions which were allorved on similarterms ' l(2023) 56 taxmann.corn 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. ]ASSISTANT COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX & OTHERS2, Gauhati [High ][Court in ][the ][case]of RAM NARAYAN SAH [vs. ] [INDIA3, ][Punjab and]Haryana High Court in the case of JATINDER vs. UNION OF INDIA4, and Telangana [High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]SRI VENKATARAMANA REDDY [VS. ] COMMISSIONER OF INCOME [where the ][issue ][was ][in]respect of intemational taxation, [Bombay ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]ABHIN ANILKUMAR SHAH [VS. ]INCOME [OFFICER,]INTERNATIONAL TAXATION6 [which ][is again on ][international]taxation and central circle, [High ][Court ][of ][Himachal ][Pradesh ][in ][the]case of GOVIND SINGH [vs. ] [OFFICERT,]Gujarat High Court in the [case ]of ' lzoz+1464 [430 ][(Bom)]' [(2024) [156 ][taxmann.com ][478 (Gauhati)]]" l(2024) 165 taxmann.com [115 ][(Punjab ][& ][Haryana)l]'12024) [167 ][taxmairn.com 411 ][(Telangana)l] " 12024) [166 ][taxmann.com 679 ][(Bombay)l] '12024) [165 ]taxmann.com [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. [jINCOME ]TAXOFFICER & ANOTHER and batch of writ whichJ,s1i1l6n5r0 stood decided or 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 der:ided by a largenumber of lJigh Courts, we are still confronted with large filing ofidentical mattcrs on daily basis ranging betweeu 5 to 10 writpetitions. That upon the instructions being so:glrt 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 lras beendecided by this Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy '202+ [scc ][online ][cuj ][4012]'2025 SCC Online Jhar 287' o y2{)23 : RJ-JD : 49 84-DB l 6. Even though the same issue having been der:ided by a largenumber of lJigh Courts, we are still confronted with large filing ofidentical mattcrs on daily basis ranging betweeu 5 to 10 writpetitions. That upon the instructions being so:glrt 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 lras beendecided by this Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy '202+ [scc ][online ][cuj ][4012]'2025 SCC Online Jhar 287' o y2{)23 : RJ-JD : 49 84-DB l (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 learned counsel for the Revenue,they have categorically accepted the fact that there is no interimorder granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in any of thesematters pending before it. Meanwhile, fresh writ petitions ofidentical nature are being piled up before this Bench on daily basisand the pendency is getting increased dtl 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 havetapsed, till date, we do not find any remedial steps having beentaken by the Income Tax Department to take appropriate steps toeither hold back issuance of notice under Section l48A and underSection 148 of the Act by the [jurisdictional ]Assessing Offrcer,rather the authorities concemed in the teeth of series of decisions by all the major High Courts in India are continuously stillinitiating proceedings under Section 148A of the Act and alsoinitiating proceedings under Section 148 c f the Act incontravention to the amendments brought into the Income Tax Actpursuant to the Finance Act,2020 as also the Financc Act202l .9. 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 (l supra), leamed StandingCounsel fol the Incorne Tax Department contends that those wouldunnecessarily burden the Income Tax Departmrtnt r.r,here theywould be required to file equal nurnber of Sl-Ps before theHon'ble Supreme Court and it would be further burdening theexchequer ofthe Union of India. It was also the contention of thelearned Standing Counsel that no prejudice would tre caused to theinterest of the petitioners in case if this writ petition is kept pendingtilt the finalization of the SLPs pending beforc the Hon'bleSupreme Court and the fact that the petitioner is already enjoyingthe benefit of interim protection. Nonetheless, on tlre earlier queryof this Court as to why the Income Tax Department have not comeout with a mechanism to issue appropriate instructions or to take appropriate steps in ensuring [that ][proceedings ][under Section ][l48A]of the Act as also the assessment [orders ][under Section ][148 ][of ][the]Act are kept in a hold [in ][the ][tight ][ofthe ][decisions dedcided ][by ][the]various High Courts, it [was ][submitted ][by ][the ][leamed ][Standing]Counsel that the said steps [can ][onlybe ][taken at ][the level ][of ] as any such steps [would ][have ][to ][be ][taken Pan ][India ][and cannot ][be]limited to any of these [jurisdictional High ][Courts.] appropriate steps in ensuring [that ][proceedings ][under Section ][l48A]of the Act as also the assessment [orders ][under Section ][148 ][of ][the]Act are kept in a hold [in ][the ][tight ][ofthe ][decisions dedcided ][by ][the]various High Courts, it [was ][submitted ][by ][the ][leamed ][Standing]Counsel that the said steps [can ][onlybe ][taken at ][the level ][of ] as any such steps [would ][have ][to ][be ][taken Pan ][India ][and cannot ][be]limited to any of these [jurisdictional High ][Courts.] 10. As a result of which, [what ][we ][are lacing ][is ][steep ][increase ][of]litigation day in and day out [even ][though various ][orders ][have been]passed by this High Court allowing [writ ][petitions ][on the ][very ][same]issue. The Income Tax [authorities ][con""-ed ][are ][still ][even ][now in]2025 also initiating [proceedings ][in ][contravention to the provisions]of Section 151A of the [Act ][and ][as ][a result ][by now, ][more ][than 600]to 700 petitions have [been ][already ][got ][piled ][up ][before ][this High]Court on an issue which [otherwise ][stands ][squarely ][covered ][by ][the]judgment of this Court in the case of Kanakula Ravindra [Reddy](1 supra). What is also surprising is [the ][fact ][that though ][while]allowing the writ [petitions ][in ][the ][case ][of ][Kanakala ][Ravindra]Reddy (l supra), the [Division ][Bench ][while ][reserving ][the ][right ][of]the Revenue, has also [protected ][the ][interest ][of ][the ][petitioners] insofar as the liberty which was granted to he Revenue forinitiating fresh proceedings strictly in accordance,vith the amendedprovisions of the Act, as amended by the Finance .\ct,2020 andinitiating fresh proceedings strictly in accordance,vith the amendedprovisions of the Act, as amended by the Finance .\ct,2020 andthe Finance Act,202l. The petitioner assessee wo.lld be entitled tochallenge or raise the other legal objections if the I{evenue initiatesfresh proceedings. The Department has made rro endeavour inavailing the said liberty that was reserved for the F cvenue. On thecontrary, they have been still sticking on to the s.and, which thisHigh Court as well as many other High Courts already held to bebad.fresh proceedings. The Department has made rro endeavour inavailing the said liberty that was reserved for the F cvenue. On thecontrary, they have been still sticking on to the s.and, which thisHigh Court as well as many 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 faceles s 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. L ikewise, if thewrit petition is kept pending for a considerable long period of timeand finally at a later stage if the Hon,ble Supreme (.ourt confirmsthe decision taken by this High Court as also by tJre other HighCourts in which the S[,ps are still pending, the Income Tax {i." Department would get the advantage of the liberty that is otherwiseprotected in favour of the Revenue for initiation of freshproceedings Ilom the disposal of these matters at a much later stagewhich would be advantageous and beneficial to the Revenue andwould be equalty disadvantageous and detrimental so far as interestof the assesses are concemed. As a consequence, the Income TaxDepartment gets an extended period of time for initiation of fieshproceedings. {i." Department would get the advantage of the liberty that is otherwiseprotected in favour of the Revenue for initiation of freshproceedings Ilom the disposal of these matters at a much later stagewhich would be advantageous and beneficial to the Revenue andwould be equalty disadvantageous and detrimental so far as interestof the assesses are concemed. As a consequence, the Income TaxDepartment gets an extended period of time for initiation of fieshproceedings. 12. The alarming trend of docket explosion in this Court, despitethe clear precedent setin Kanakala Ravindru Reddy (l supra), is amatter of grave concem. The Income Tax Department's persistentinitiation ol fresh proceedings, disregarding the established [judicial]pronouncements, 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 of [judicial]precedent 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 questrons about theadministrativc efficiency and the respect for [judicial]pronouncements, particularly when this Court has rlready provideda balanced approach by preserving both the Revt:nue's rights andassesses lnterests. 13. Another aspect which needs to be considererl is that in fact itshould have been realized by the Income Tax Depaftment itself andshould have lound out via media in ensuring t tat proceedingsunder Sections 148-4 and 148 should not have tcen issued in afaceless manner, at least till the Hon'ble Supreme [( ]lourt decide thetwelve hundred (1200) odd SLPs whichit is alreadl seized ofor, atleast the Income Tax Department should have f.rund out someremedial steps to ensure that wherever the autho rities 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 the assessee thatthey shall initiate appropriate proceedings only after the SLP's aredecided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the very same issue.This again, the Income Tax Department, has not beer ablc to give aconvincing reply, except for the fact that such a dt:cision if at alt has to be taken, has to be taken for the [whole ][of ][India, ][and ][which]otherwise has to be by way of a [policy ]decision and [that ][too ][at ][the]level of Central Board of Direct Taxes. Though the leamedStanding Counsel for the Income Tax Department contended [that]the Delhi High Court dismissed a writ [petition ]of similar nature, onthe one hand when the High Court is struggling to [reduce its]pendency, such notices which are under challenge in this writpetition are forcing the assessee to knock the doors of this HighCourt resulting in hling of hundreds of uew writ [petitions which in]the long run not only affects the disposal of the writ [petitions but]also consumes substantial time of the Bench in [hearing ][these]matters again and again on daily basis. Admittedly, [in ]spite [of ][the]matter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court having been [taken ][on]many occasions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court which is seized of [the]matter has been reluctant in [granting ]any interim [protection ][to ][the]Income Tax Department. Yet, the authorities concerned at theState level are not ready to accept the verdict [passed ][by a ][majority]of High Courts of different States [on ][the ][same ][issue; and ][to ][make]things further worse, the Income Tax [Department ][is ][showing]audacity by issuing notices continuously under [Sections 148-A ][and] 148 through the jurisdictional Assessing Officer rvhereas it oughtto have been only in the faceless mannerto have been only in the faceless manner 148 through the jurisdictional Assessing Officer rvhereas it oughtto have been only in the faceless mannerto have been only in the faceless manner 14. In the case of BANK OF INDIA v;. ASSISTANTCOMMISSIONER, INCOME TAXrr, on an isstLe whether it wasjustifiableon the part of the Income Tax De tartment in notfollowing an order passed by the adjudicating authcrity only on theground that the appeals are pending, the Divisic n Bench of theHigh Court of Bombay held at paragraph No.25 as under, viz., : "25. f r. Paridwalla has rightly drawn out attention to thedecision of this Court in Commissioner of lncome l-ax vs. Smt.Godavaridevi Sarafl2 as also the recent decisior of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Samp Frirniture (P) t-td. 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 rnean 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 criticzed by theSupreme Court. ln such decision, following are t.te relevantobservations made by the Supreme Court. '] Itzozst [t70 ][taxmann.com 422 ][(Bombay)l]'" [978] I l3 ITR 589 (Bombay)'" [978] I l3 ITR 589 (Bombay) '3 7Z0Z+1165 [taxmann.com ]581/300 [Taxman452 ][(Bornbay)]to 1t9921taxmann.com l6155 ELT 433 (SC)to 1t9921taxmann.com l6155 ELT 433 (SC) '] Itzozst [t70 ][taxmann.com 422 ][(Bombay)l]'" [978] I l3 ITR 589 (Bombay)'" [978] I l3 ITR 589 (Bombay) '3 7Z0Z+1165 [taxmann.com ]581/300 [Taxman452 ][(Bornbay)]to 1t9921taxmann.com l6155 ELT 433 (SC)to 1t9921taxmann.com l6155 ELT 433 (SC) "6. Sri Reddy is perhaps right in saying that theofficers were not actuated [by ][any ][mala ][fides ][in]passing the impugned orders. [They ][perhaps]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-passed [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 this conduct of the [Assistant ][Collectors ][and]the harassment lo the [assessee caused by ][the ][failure]of these officers to [give ][effect ][to ][the ][orders ][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]quasijudicial 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 ]iurisdiction [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 sub,ect [mafter ][of ][an ][appeal ][can furnish ][no]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-passed [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 this conduct of the [Assistant ][Collectors ][and]the harassment lo the [assessee caused by ][the ][failure]of these officers to [give ][effect ][to ][the ][orders ][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]quasijudicial 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 ]iurisdiction [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 sub,ect [mafter ][of ][an ][appeal ][can furnish ][no]ground for not following it unless [its ][operation ][has]been suspended [by a competent ][court. ][lf ][this ][healthy]I/been suspended [by a competent ][court. ][lf ][this ][healthy]I/ rule is not followed, the result will only b€ undueharassment to assesses and chaos in admin strationof tax laws. 12. We have dealt with this aspect at some length,because it has been suggested by the earnedAdditional 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 'o curba tendency in revenue matters which, if allorved tobecome widespread, could result in consic erableharassment to the assesses-public without any tenefitto the Revenue. We would like to say that thedepaftment should take these observations n theproper spirit. The observations.of the High Courlshould be kept in mind in future and the utmost egardshould be paid by the adjudicating authorities a rd theappellate authorities to the requirements of jrrdicialdiscipline and the need for giving effect to the ordersof the higher appellate authorities which are b ndingon them." 15. What is worry.ing this Bench more is thr: 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 c()nsistent standthat the action of the Income Tax Department being violative of the Finance Act, 2020 and Finance Act, 2021. Now, in order to protectthe interest ofthe Revenue as also that ofthe assessee, it would betrite at this [juncture, ]if we dispose of the writ petition with anobservatior/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 squarely covered by the decision of this Courtand which stands fortified by the decisions of the various otherHigh Courts on the very same issue, the pendency of this HighCourt would further be burdened which otherwise can be decidedand disposed of as a covered matter. 17 . So far as the interest of the Revenue is concemed, we are ofthe considered opinion that the interest of the Revenue has alreadybeen considered and [protected, ]as [has ][been ]observed in paragraphs 36,37 and 38 ofthe order which, for ready referen:e, is reproducedhereunder: 36. For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugn-.d noticesissued and the proceedings drawn by the respondent-Department is neither tenable, nor st stainable.The notices so issued and the procedure adotrted beingper se illegal, deserves to be and are accorJingly setaside/quashed. As a consequence, all the mpugnedorders getting quashed, the consequential orders passedby the respondent-Department pursuant to the noticesissued under Section 147 and 1 48 would ,rlso getquashed and it is ordered accordingly. The reason weare quashing the consequential order is on the rrinciplesthat when the initiation of the proceedings ilself wasprocedurally wrong, the subsequent orders irlso getsnullified automatically. 37. The preliminary objection raised by the petitioner issustained and all lhese writ petitions stands al owed onthis very [jurisdictional ]issue. Since the impugnel ncticesand orders are getting quashed on lhe point ofjurisdiction, we are not inclined to proceed further anddecide the other issues raised by the petition -.r 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 rTreasureexercising the powers under Article 142 of theConstitution of lndia, permifted the Revenue to [proceed]under the substituted provisions, and this Court allowingthe petitions only on the procedural flaw, tlte right \ 37. The preliminary objection raised by the petitioner issustained and all lhese writ petitions stands al owed onthis very [jurisdictional ]issue. Since the impugnel ncticesand orders are getting quashed on lhe point ofjurisdiction, we are not inclined to proceed further anddecide the other issues raised by the petition -.r 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 rTreasureexercising the powers under Article 142 of theConstitution of lndia, permifted the Revenue to [proceed]under the substituted provisions, and this Court allowingthe petitions only on the procedural flaw, tlte right \ conferred on the Revenue would remain reserved toproceed further if they so want from the stage of theorder of the Supreme Court in the case ofAshishAgarwal, supra. 18. We would only further like to make observations that sincewe are inclined to dispose of the instant writ petition, conscious ofthe fact that the earlier order of this High Court in the case ofKanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra) is subjected to challengebefore the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No.3574 of 2024, preferred by the Income Tax Depa(ment, we make it clear thatallowing of the instant writ petition is subject to outcome of theaforesaid SLP preferred by the Revenue against the decision of thisHigh Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra).This, in other words, would mean that either of the parties, if theyso want, may move an appropriate petition seeking revival of thiswrit petition in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble SupremeCourt in the pending SLP on the very same issue. 19. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands allowed1nfavour of the assessee so far as the issue of [jurisdiction ]isconcemed. As a consequence, the impugned notice underchallenge under Sections 148-4 and 148 stands set aside/quashed. t The consequential orders, if any, also stand set rside/quashed insimilar terms as have been passed by this High Cor( in the case of Kankqnala Ravindra Reddy (1 supra). There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, rniscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/. L. VIJAYA LAXMIASSISTANT REGISTRARsecffiirrrcen [/] //TRUE COPY// To,1. The Office of the Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax, lncome TaxDepartment, Circle 1, Karimnagar, Telangana.1. The Office of the Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax, lncome TaxDepartment, Circle 1, Karimnagar, Telangana.2. The Principal Chief Commissioner of lncome Tax, AP and Telangana,Hyderabad, lT Towers Towers Masab Tank, Hyderabad, Telangana-500004Hyderabad, lT Towers Towers Masab Tank, Hyderabad, Telangana-500004 Hyderabad, lT Towers Towers Masab Tank, Hyderabad, Telangana-500004. The National Faceless Assessment Centre, lncorne Tax Department, Ministryof Finance, Govt of lndia, Delhi.of Finance, Govt of lndia, Delhi.4. The Secretary, Union of lndia, A/inistry of Finance, ['166-8, ]North Block, NewDelhi-110001Delhi-1100015. One CC to SRl. NAGENDRA REDDY . T, Advocate [()PUC]6. One CC to ttils J. SUNITHA ,S C FOR INCOME TAX DEPARTMENTloPUCl6. One CC to ttils J. SUNITHA ,S C FOR INCOME TAX DEPARTMENTloPUCl7. One CC to SRl. GADI PRAVEEN KUIMAR, DY. SOLIOITOR GENERAL OFrNDrAloPUClrNDrAloPUCl8. Two CD Copies.<B IVI"GJP.<B IVI"GJP HIGH COURT DATED:2410412025 ,,-_':_. [-.'_'rr]1-;ii..','. -tI/;.\€\:10 SEP ru6 ORDERWP.No.344 ot 2025 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS u'!