Under Section [148A ][Of The Act ][As Also ][Under ][Section ][148 ][Of ][The]Actoughttohavealsobeenissuedandproceededinalacelessmanner v. '[(2023) [156 ][Taxmann.corn ][I ][78 (Telangana

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF IVAYTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDAWRIT PETITION NO: 28896 OF 2024 Between: X9HP^.1!9o[uL [HUDA. ][S/o. ][MoHD ][NAyEErvl, Ased]about 55 years,:j9erlp.atro.nr [qusiness, ][R/o. ][1B_7-198lAl1214lA ]IVURADMAHAL, TALAB(ATTA HYDERABAD 500053,Tetangini, inOi".'pnr.r. BFRPK2189DAssessment Y ear. 2017 -1 g AND ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Articre 226 of the constitution of rndia praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High'c;r; ;;y ['t"]pleased t-o.i:...y. an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularry one in thenature of writ of Mahdamus declaring the order passed by the rncome TaxAuthorities (Nationar Faceress E-Assesiment centre) compreted tne asseismentuls 147 r.w.s 144 read with section 1448 of the rncome Tax Act, 1961 vide DrNand Notice No. dated 17ro3r2o22 rrBA/AST/s/i47t2o2i-22t1o4og6o+eottjlo.. tt"assessment year 2017-18 determining the totar income of Rs. 3,36,47,23g /-asarbitrary, iltegal, bad in law, without jurisdiction, void-ab-initio, violative of the principles of natural [justice ][apart from being^violative of ][Articles 14, ][19(1)(g) ][and]265 of the Constitution [of ][l;!; ][and ][Sec ][t+en ][ot ][the ][lncome Tax ][Act' ][196'l ][' ][and].on.Lqrentfy [set ][aside ][the ][same ][in ][the ][interests of ][justice and ][pass] Counsel for the [Petitioner: ][SRl. THANNERU ] Counsel for [the ][Respondent Nos'1 ][to 4: ][Ms' BOKARO SAPNA ] [(Jr' ] FOR lNcoME [TAX)] Counsel for [the ][Respondent ][NO.5: ] SOLICITOR The Court made [the ][following: ] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAONANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION No.28896 of2024 ORDER: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice p.Sam Koshy) Heard Mr. T.Chaitanya Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.B.Sapna Reddy, learned Junior StandingCounsel for the Income Tax Deparlment for the respondents.Perused the record.Perused the record. 2. This is a writ petition where the pr.oceedings is a writ petition where the pr.oceedings a writ petition where the pr.oceedings petition where the pr.oceedings the pr.oceedings pr.oceedings are eithereitherchallenged to the notices which were issued under Section r4gAand 148 of the Income Tax Act, 196l (for short,rhe Act,) or theassessment orders those have been passed under Section 147 ofthe Act which have been assailed. This is a writ petition where the pr.oceedings is a writ petition where the pr.oceedings a writ petition where the pr.oceedings petition where the pr.oceedings the pr.oceedings pr.oceedings are eithereither 3. This writ petition is being taken up today only on one of thegrounds, that the notices issued under Section l4gA of the Actand the subsequent initiation of proceedings under Section l4g ofthe Act by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, whereas in tennsof the amendment that was brought to the Income Tax Act by way of Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f., 01.04.2021 onwards, proceedings under Section [148A ][of the Act ][as also ][under ][Section ][148 ][of ][the]Actoughttohavealsobeenissuedandproceededinalacelessmanner. This is a writ petition where the pr.oceedings is a writ petition where the pr.oceedings a writ petition where the pr.oceedings petition where the pr.oceedings the pr.oceedings pr.oceedings are eithereither 3. This writ petition is being taken up today only on one of thegrounds, that the notices issued under Section l4gA of the Actand the subsequent initiation of proceedings under Section l4g ofthe Act by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, whereas in tennsof the amendment that was brought to the Income Tax Act by way of Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f., 01.04.2021 onwards, proceedings under Section [148A ][of the Act ][as also ][under ][Section ][148 ][of ][the]Actoughttohavealsobeenissuedandproceededinalacelessmanner. 4. The contention [of ][the ][petitioner ][is ][that ][the ][issue ][ol]proceedings [being ][in violation ][of ][the ][Finance Act' ][2021 ][i'e'' ][the]impugned notices [under Section 148A and Section ][148 ][of ][the ][Act]not being issued [in ][a ][faceless ][manner, ][have ][already ][been ][dealt ][ivith]and decidecl by [this Courl ][in ][the ][case ][of ] RAVINDRA [REDDY vs. ] [decided]on 14.09.2023 [whereby ][a batch ][of writ ][petitions were allowed ][and]the proceedings [initiated ][under ][Section ][i48A ][as ][also under Section]l43oftheActwereheldtobebadwithconsequentialrelielsontheground of it being [in ][violation ][of ][the ][provisions ][of ][Section ][1 ][51 ] [of]the Act read [with ][Notification ][1812022 ][dated ][2g ]['03 ]['2022 ][The ][said]judgment passed by this Court [has also been ][subsequently ][followed]in a large number [of ][writ ][petitions ][which ][were ][allowed ][on similar]terms. '[(2023) [156 ][taxmann.corn ] [78 (Telangana)]] ,-l 5. Down the line, we find that the same find that the same that the same the same same issue has also beenhas also beenalso beenbeendecided against the Revenue by various High Courls i.e.,by the Bombay High Court in the case of HEXAWARETECHNOLOGIES LTD., vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX & OTHERS2. Gauhati High Court in rhe caseof RAM NARAYAN SAH vs. UNION OF INDIAT, punjab andHaryana High Court in rhe case of JATINDER SINGH BANGUvs. UNION OF INDIA4, and Telangana High Court in the oase olSRI VENKATARAMANA REDDY PATLOOLA vs. DE,pUTyCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX5 where the issue was inrespect of international taxation, Bombay High Courl in the case ofABHIN ANILKUMAR SHAH vs. INCOME TAx OFFICER,INTERNATIONAL TAXATION6 which is again on internationaltaxation and central circle, High Court of Himachal pradesh in thecase of GOVIND SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERT,Gujarat High Court in the case of MANSUKHBHAI Down the line, we find that the same find that the same that the same the same same issue has also beenhas also beenalso beenbeen ' Tzoz+1464 430 (Bom)' [(2024) 156 taxmann.com 478 (Gauhati)]" 1Q024) 165 raxmann.com I l5 (punjab & Haryana)l'[2024) 167 taxmann.com 411 (Telangana)]"_l?024) 166 taxmann.com 679 (Bombay)l'12024) 165 taxmann.com l 13 (Himachai pradesh)l DAHYABHAI RADADIYA [VS. ] [OFFICER,]WARD 3(3X5)8, Jharkand [High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ] SUNDAR SAW [vs. ] [OF INDIAe, ][Rajasthan ][High ][Court ][in]the case of SHARDA [CHHAJER vs. ] OFFICER & ANOTHER [and ][batch ][of ][writ ][petitionsr0 which]stood decided on [19.03.2024. ][Similar views ][have also ][been takcn]by the Division Bench of [Calcutta ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]GIRDHAR GOPAL DALMIA [vs. ] [& ] (M.A.T 1690 o12023), decided on25.09.2024. ' Tzoz+1464 430 (Bom)' [(2024) 156 taxmann.com 478 (Gauhati)]" 1Q024) 165 raxmann.com I l5 (punjab & Haryana)l'[2024) 167 taxmann.com 411 (Telangana)]"_l?024) 166 taxmann.com 679 (Bombay)l'12024) 165 taxmann.com l 13 (Himachai pradesh)l DAHYABHAI RADADIYA [VS. ] [OFFICER,]WARD 3(3X5)8, Jharkand [High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ] SUNDAR SAW [vs. ] [OF INDIAe, ][Rajasthan ][High ][Court ][in]the case of SHARDA [CHHAJER vs. ] OFFICER & ANOTHER [and ][batch ][of ][writ ][petitionsr0 which]stood decided on [19.03.2024. ][Similar views ][have also ][been takcn]by the Division Bench of [Calcutta ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]GIRDHAR GOPAL DALMIA [vs. ] [& ] (M.A.T 1690 o12023), decided on25.09.2024. 6. Even thougl.r the same issue [having ][been ][decided ][by ][a ][large]number of High Courts, [we ][are ][still ][confronted ][with ][large ][filing ][o1']identical matters on daily [basis ][ranging ][between ][5 ][to ][10 ][writ]petitions. That upon the instructions [being ][sought ][from ][the]Deparlment, they have been [taking ][a ][solitary ][ground ][that ][the]decision of the Bombay [High Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ][Hetawtre]Technologies Ltd., (2 supra) [as ][also ][the ][one ][which ][has ][been]decided by this Court in the case of [Kanakalu Ravindra ][Reddy] t2024 SCC Online Guj 40 l2'2025 [Online ][Jhar 287]t n 12023, [: ][49 ][84-DB ][I] (1 supra) has been subjected to chalrenge in a special LeavePetition i.e., SLp No.3574 of 2024 before the Hon,ble SupremeCourl and the Hon'ble Supreme Court is seized of the matter.In addition, there are about 1200 SLps also filed arising out of thesame issue being decided by various High Courts.7. To a query being put to the learned counsel for the Revenue,they have categorically accepted the fact that there is no interimorder granted by the Hon,ble Supreme Court in any of thesematters pending 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 Courl thatwas passed as earry as on 14.0g.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 14gA and underSection 148 of the Act by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer,rather the authorities concerned in the teeth of series of decisions the [major ][High ][Courls ][in ][India are ][continuously still]by all initiating [proceedings ][under Section ][148,{ ][of ][the ][Act ][and ][also]initiating [proceedings ][under ][Section ][148 ][of ][the ][Act ][in]contravention [to the ][amendments ][brought ][into ][the ][Income Tax ][Act]to [the ][Finance Act,2020 ][as ][also the ][Finance Act 2021']pursuant 9. Upon a [query being put ][as ][to why ][can't ][this ][writ ][petition ][be]of [in ][the ][teeth ][of ][the decision ][rendered ][by ][this Courl ][in]disposed the case of [Konaktrlo Ravindra ][Retldy ][(l ][supra), Ieamed Standing]Counsel for [the Income ][Tax ][DepaLtn-rent ][contends ][that ][those ][would]unr-recessalily [burden ][the ][lncome ][Tax ][Department ][where ][they]would be required [to ][file ][equal number ][of ][SLPs before ][the]Hon'ble Supreme [Courl ][and ][it ][would ][be ][furlher ][burdening ][the]ol [the ][Union ][of ][India lt ][was also the ][contention ][of ][the]exchequer learned 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 [ol ][the ][SLPs pending ][before ][the ][Hon'ble]Court [and ][the ][fact ][that the ][petitioner ][is already enjoying]Supreme the benefit of interim [protection. ][Nonetheless, ][on ][the earlier query]of this Couft as to [why ][the Income ][Tax ][Deparlment ][have ][not ][come]out with a mechanism [to ][issue ][appropriate ][instructions ][or to ][take] appropriate steps in ensuring that proceedings under Section 14gAof the Act as also the assessment orders under Section 14g of theAct 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 wourd have to be taken pan India and cannot belimited to any of these jurisdictional High Courts. 10. As a result of which, what we are facing is steep increase oflitigation day in and day out even though various orders have beenpassed by this High Courl 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 l5l A of the Act and as a result by now, more than 600to 700 petitions have been already got piled up before this HighCouft on an issue which otherwise stands squarely covered by thejudgment of this Court in the case of Ranakala Ravindra Reddy(1 supra). What is also surprising is the fact that though whileallowing the writ petitions in the case of Kanakara RavindraReddy (l supra), the Division Bench while reserving the right ofthe Revenue, has also protected the interest of the petitioners insofar as the [tiberty ][which ][u'as granted ][to ][the ][Revenue ][for]fresh [proceedings ][strictly in ][accordance ][with ][the ][amended]initiating provisions of the [Act, ][as amended ][by ][the Finance ][Act, ][2020 ][and]the Finance Act,202l. [The ][petitioner ][assessee ][would ][be ][entitled to]or [raise ][the ][other legal ][objections ][if ][the Revenue ][initiates]challenge fresh proceedings. [The ][Department has ][made ][no ][endeavour in]availing the said [liberty ][that ][was ][reseled ][for ][the ][Revenue ][On ][the]contrary, they have [been ][still ][sticking on ][to ][the ][stand, ][which ][this]High Court as [well ][as ][many ][other ][High ][Coufts ][already ][held ][to ][be]bad. insofar as the [tiberty ][which ][u'as granted ][to ][the ][Revenue ][for]fresh [proceedings ][strictly in ][accordance ][with ][the ][amended]initiating provisions of the [Act, ][as amended ][by ][the Finance ][Act, ][2020 ][and]the Finance Act,202l. [The ][petitioner ][assessee ][would ][be ][entitled to]or [raise ][the ][other legal ][objections ][if ][the Revenue ][initiates]challenge fresh proceedings. [The ][Department has ][made ][no ][endeavour in]availing the said [liberty ][that ][was ][reseled ][for ][the ][Revenue ][On ][the]contrary, they have [been ][still ][sticking on ][to ][the ][stand, ][which ][this]High Court as [well ][as ][many ][other ][High ][Coufts ][already ][held ][to ][be]bad. 1 i. It appears [that ][because ][of ][the aforesaid ][liberly that ][this ][High]Court had [grantcd perrnitting ][the ][Revenue ][for ][initiating ][fresh]as a [one-time ][measure ][in ][a ][faceless manner, ][the]proceedings Income Tax Deparlment [wants ][to ][[ake ][advantage ][of ][the ][same ][by]protracting these [proceedings which ][would ][enable ][them to ][meet ][the]limitation that would [otherwise ][come ][in ][the ][way. ][Likewise, ][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]Courts in which the SLPs [are ]stitl [pending, ]the [Income ][Tax] /. Department would get the advantage of the liberty that is otherwiseprotected in lavour of the Revenue for initiation of freshproceedings from the disposal of these matters at a much later stagewhich would be advantageous and beneficial to the Revenue andwould be equally disadvantageous and detrirnental so f-ar as interestof the assesses are concemed. As a consequence, the Income TaxDepa(ment gcts an extended period of time for initiation of freshproceedings. 12. The alarming trend of docket explosion in this Court, despitethe clear precedent set in Kanakalo Ravindra Reddy (l supra), is amatter of grave concern. The Income Tax Deparlment'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 of judicialprecedent 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 ][the]administrative efficiency [and ][the ][respect ][for ][judicial]pronouncements, [parlicularly ][when ][this ][Court ][has ah'eady ][provided]a balanced approach [by ][preserving ][both ][the ][Revenue's ][rights ][and]assesses interests. position. Such conduct [raises serious questions ][about ][the]administrative efficiency [and ][the ][respect ][for ][judicial]pronouncements, [parlicularly ][when ][this ][Court ][has ah'eady ][provided]a balanced approach [by ][preserving ][both ][the ][Revenue's ][rights ][and]assesses interests. 13. Another [aspect ][which ][needs ][to ][be considered ][is ][that in ][fact ][it]should have been [realized ][by ][the ][Income Tax Deparlment itself ][and]should have [found ][out ][via ][media ][itl ][ensuring ][that ][proceedings]under Sections 148-4 [and ][148 ][should not have ][been ][issued ][in ][a]faceless manner, at [least ][till ][the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Court ][decide the]twelve hundred [(1200) ][odd ][SLPs ][which it ][is ][already seized ][of or, ][at]least the Income Tax [Depaftment should ][have found ][out ][some]remedial steps to [ensure ][that ][whcrever ][the ][authorities intend ][to]initiate proceedings [under ][Sections 148-A ][and ][148, ][other ][than ][in ][a]faceless manner, the [proceedings ][shoutd ][have been ][deferred]rvithout precipitating the [matter ][further intimating ][the ][assessee ][that]they shall initiate [appropriate ][proceedings ][only ][after the SLP's ][are]decided by the Hon'ble [Supreme ][Couft ][on ][the ][very ][same issue']This again, the Income [Tax ][Department, ][has ][not ][been able ][to ][give ][a]convincing reply, [except ][for ][the ][fact ][that such a ][decision ][if ][at ][all] has to be taken, has to be taken for the whole of India, and whichotherwise has to be by way of a policy decision and that too at theotherwise has to be by way of a policy decision and that too at thelevel of Central Board of Direct Taxes. Though the leamedStanding Counsel for the Income Tax Department contended thatthe Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition of similar nature, onthe one hand when the High Court is struggling to reduce itsStanding Counsel for the Income 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 hundreds of new writ petitions which inthe long run not only affects the disposal of the writ petitions butthe long run not only affects the disposal of the writ petitions butalso consumes substantial time of the Bench in hearing thesematters again and again on daily basis. Admittedly, in spite of thernatter 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 themany 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 High Courts of different States on the same issue; and to makethings further worse, the Income Tax Department is showingaudacity by issuing notices continuously under Sections 14g_A andState level are not ready to accept the verdict passed by a majorityof High Courts of different States on the same issue; and to makethings further worse, the Income Tax Department is showingaudacity by issuing notices continuously under Sections 14g_A and 148 through the [jurisdictional ]Assessing Officer [rvhereas ]it [ought]to have been only in the faceless [manner.] 14. In the case of BANK OF INDIA vs. ASSISTANTCOMMISSIONER, INCOME TAXrr, on an [isstte ][whethcr ][it ][was]justifiable on the palt of the Income Tax Department in notfollowing an order passed by the adjudicating authority only on theground that the appeals are pending, the Division Bench of theHigh Courl of Bombay held at palagraph No.25 as [Lrnder, ]viz., 148 through the [jurisdictional ]Assessing Officer [rvhereas ]it [ought]to have been only in the faceless [manner.] 14. In the case of BANK OF INDIA vs. ASSISTANTCOMMISSIONER, INCOME TAXrr, on an [isstte ][whethcr ][it ][was]justifiable on the palt of the Income Tax Department in notfollowing an order passed by the adjudicating authority only on theground that the appeals are pending, the Division Bench of theHigh Courl of Bombay held at palagraph No.25 as [Lrnder, ]viz., "25. Mr. Paridwalla has rightly drawn out attention to thedecision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Smt.Godavaridevi Saraflz 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 [its]binding force. Referring to the decision of the Supreme Court [in]Union of lndia vs. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation [Ltd.14, the]Court 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 relevantobservatrons made by the Supreme Court. " 11zozs1 [170 ][taxmann.corn 422 ][(Bombay)l] '' 1t9281 [113 ] [589 ][(Bombay)] " 120241 [165 ][taxmann.com ][581/300 ][Taxman ][452 ][(Bombay)] " llggZl [taxmann.com ][16/55 ] [433 ][(SC)] ,/ " 11zozs1 [170 ][taxmann.corn 422 ][(Bombay)l] '' 1t9281 [113 ] [589 ][(Bombay)] " 120241 [165 ][taxmann.com ][581/300 ][Taxman ][452 ][(Bombay)] " llggZl [taxmann.com ][16/55 ] [433 ][(SC)] ,/ "6. Sri Reddy is perhaps right in saying that theofficers were not actuated by any mala fides inpassing the impugned orders. They perhapsgenuinely felt that the claim of the assessee was notgenuinely felt that the claim of the assessee was nottenable and that, if it was accepted, the Revenuewould suffer. But what Sri Reddy overlooks is that weare not concerned here with the correctness orotherwise of their conclusion or of any factualmalafides but with the fact that the officers, in reachingin their conclusion, by-passed two appellate orders inwould suffer. But what Sri Reddy overlooks is that weare not concerned here with the correctness orotherwise of their conclusion or of any factualmalafides but with the fact that the officers, in reachingin their conclusion, by-passed two appellate orders inregard to the same issue which were placed beforethem, one of the Collector (Appeals) and the other ofthe Tribunal. The High Court has, in our view, righ ythe Tribunal. The High Court has, in our view, righ ycriticized this conduct of the Assistant Collectors andthe harassment lo the assessee caused by the failureof these officers to give effect to the orders ofauthorities higher to them in the appellate hierarchy. ltthe harassment lo the assessee caused by the failureof these officers to give effect to the orders ofauthorities higher to them in the appellate hierarchy. ltcannot be too vehemenfly emphasized that it is ofutmost importance that, in disposing of thequasijudicial issues before them, revenue officers areutmost importance that, in disposing of thequasijudicial issues before them, revenue officers arebound by the decisions of the appellate authorities.The order of the Appellte Collector is binding on theAssistant Collectors working within his jurisdiction andthe order of the Tribunal is binding upon the AssistantThe order of the Appellte Collector is binding on theAssistant Collectors working within his jurisdiction andthe order of the Tribunal is binding upon the AssistantCollectors and the Appellate Collectors who functionunder the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The principles ofjudicial discipline require that the orders of the higherappellate authorities should be followed unreservedlyunder the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The principles ofjudicial discipline require that the orders of the higherappellate authorities should be followed unreservedlyby the subordinate authorities. The mere fact that theorder of the appellate authority is not [,,acceptable,, ]tothe department - in itself an objectionable phrase _and is the subject matter of an appeal can furnish noground for not following it unless its operation hasbeen suspended by a competent court. lf this healthyorder of the appellate authority is not [,,acceptable,, ]tothe department - in itself an objectionable phrase _and is the subject matter of an appeal can furnish noground for not following it unless its operation hasbeen suspended by a competent court. lf this healthy rule is not followed, the result will only [be ][undue]harassment to assesses and chaos [in ][administration]of tax laws. rule is not followed, the result will only [be ][undue]harassment to assesses and chaos [in ][administration]of tax laws. 12. We have dealt with this aspect at some [length,]because it has been suggested by the [learned]Additional Solicitor General that the observationsmade by the High Court, have been harsh on [the]officers. lt is clear that the observations of the [High]Court, seemrngly vehement, and apparentlyunpalatable to the Revenue, are only [intended ]to [curb]a tendency in revenue matters which, if allowed [to]become widespread, could result in considerableharassment to the assesses-public without any benefitto the Revenue. We would like to say that [the]department should take these observations tn theproper spirit. The observations of the High Courtshould be kept in mind in future and the utmost [regard]should be [paid ]by the adjudicating authorities and theappellate authorities to the requirements of [judicial]discipline and the need for [giving ]effect to the [orders]of the higher appellate authorities which are bindingon them." I 5. 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 Finance Act, 2020 and Finance Act, 2021 . Now, in order to protectthe interest of the Revenue as also that of the assessee, it would betlite at this juncture, if we dispose of the writ petition with anobservation/direction that the disposar of the instant writ petition interms of the judgment rendered by this I{igh Court in the case ofKankanala Ravindru R edtly (1 supra) shalt however be subject tothe outcome of the SLps which were filed by the Income TaxDepaftment and which is pending consideration before the Hon,breSupreme Coun. 16 In the given facts and circurnstances, this Bench is of thecor.rsidered opinion that unless and until we do not timely disposeol matters which are squarely covered by the decision of this Courtand which stands fortified by the decisions of the various otherl{igh Coufts 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 concerned, 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 of the order which, for ready [I'eference, 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 beingper se illegal, deserves to be and are accordingly setaside/quashed. As a consequence, all the impugnedorders [getting quashed, ]the consequential orders [passed]by the respondent-Department pursuant to the noticesissued under Seclion 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 oflurisdiction, [we ][are ][not ][inclined ][to ][proceed further ][and]decide the other issues raised by the petitioner whichstands reserved to be rarsed and contended in anappropriate [proceedings.] 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 oflurisdiction, [we ][are ][not ][inclined ][to ][proceed further ][and]decide the other issues raised by the petitioner whichstands reserved to be rarsed and contended in anappropriate [proceedings.] 38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the caseof Ashrsh Agarwal, supra, as a one-time measureexercising the powers under Article 142 of theConstitution of lndia, [permitted ]the Revenue to [proceed]under the substituted [provisions, ]and this Court allowingthe petitions only on the [procedural ]flaw, the right confered on the Revenue would remain reserved toproceed further jf they so want from the stage of theorder of the SupremeCourt in the case ofAshishAgarural, supra. 18. we would only further rike to make obserwations that sincewe ale inclined to dispose of the instant wr.it petitiorr. conscious ofthe fact that the earlier order of this High Courl in the case ofKanakala Ravindra Rerttly (l supra) is subjected to challengebefore the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLp No.j574 of 2024,pref'erred by the Income Tax Department, we make it crear thatallowing of the instant writ petition is subject to outcome of theatbresaid SLP preferred by the Revenue against the decision of thisl{igh Court in the case of Ksnakala Rsvindra 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 allowed inIavour of the assessee so far as the issue of jurisdictionISconcemed. As a consequence, the impugned notice underchallenge under Sections l4g-A and148 stands set aside/quashed. The consequential [orders, ][if ][any, also ][stand ][set ][aside/quasl.red ][in]similar terms [as ][have ][been passed ][by ][this High ][courl ][in the ][case ][of] Kankanila Ravindra [Rettdy ][(l ][supra)' ][There ][shall ][be ][no ][order ][as]to costs. Consequently, [miscellarieous ][petitions pending, ][if ][any, ][shall] stand closed. SDi-A. DUTY REGISTRARi/TRUE SECTION SECTION To,I r r ow [R' ] [u ][a rd ][s']I r r ow [R' ] [u ][a rd ][s']1il:".:tr:1"-1fi [1 ][Sg'fi ][itxs:i:l1 i#I:"{?i'::' ]il:".:tr:1"-1fi [1 ][Sg'fi ][itxs:i:l1 i#I:"{?i'::' ] The Principal [Chief ][Com-mrssioner ][of lncome ]iuilli6'i'n [Tax'.Telanoana ][rt" ][Hvo ]-500 [and ][A'P']028'H [yd ]e rabad. [lr ][rowe ][rs, ]""'il"'ii't] "r5bad Telangana.H [yd ]e rabad. [lr ][rowe ][rs, ]""'il"'ii't] "r5bad Telangana. z 3TheChairman,CentralBoardofDirectTaxes,D.ep.afTentofRevenue,of [Finance, ][co,"'n'iJiti'iiioitli"i'"t"iat ][Buildinss' New ][Delhi ][-]of [Finance, ][co,"'n'iJiti'iiioitli"i'"t"iat ][Buildinss' New ][Delhi ][-]tvlinistry 110 001.110 001. The National [Faceless Assessment ][Center' ][lncome Tax Department' ][New]Delhi.Delhi. 4 The Secretary [to ][the ][Government, Department ][of ][Revenue' ][tvlinistry ][of]rinince, New [Dethi ][- ][110 ][001 ][']rinince, New [Dethi ][- ][110 ][001 ]['] 5 One CC to [SRl. ][THANNERU CHAITANYA KUMAR Advocate ] 6 7oneCCtoIVIs,BoKARoSAPNAREDDY(JT.SCFoRINCoIVIETAX)loPUClloPUCl WKKSGJPKKSGJP 8. Two [CD CoPies] HIGH COURT DATED:01 [lOSl2025] ORDERWP.No.28896 [of ][2024] ALLOWING WITHOUT 1lb " 4...l_ [1.,.-.,"],i; \\,l/ [t-']'or-.t.--,'JlJ:)zffi [jrr]t [1 ][lU\.]: [:l]!',t'.,,1/+ O5'j5J-i':)/