Under Section 14Ga Of The Act As Also Under Section 14G Of Theact Ought To Have Also Been Issued And Proceeded In A Lacelessmanner v. The Income Tax Officer

HIGH COURT AT HYDERABAD(SPecial Original [Jurisdiction)] THURSDAY, TWO THOUSAND PRESENT THE HONOURABLE [JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY]ANDTHE HONOURABLE WRIT PETI [NO:18][858][ oF ][2025] Between: 1Jaoan Chakali, [S/o. ][Manaiah ][Chakali' ][Ag-ed ][about ][45 ][vears' ][Occupation']Bu-siness. Rl/o. Q [No ][sr+n AiLr"io;'Xtnip' ]F;il [chandraPuram'-Hvd^erabad]Ho"iii57i"rr"siu,l"oi" [pirtr.Air'rfcsrt6p' ][Assessment ] [ear' ][2020-21]Bu-siness. Rl/o. Q [No ][sr+n AiLr"io;'Xtnip' ]F;il [chandraPuram'-Hvd^erabad]Ho"iii57i"rr"siu,l"oi" [pirtr.Air'rfcsrt6p' ][Assessment ] [ear' ][2020-21] ...PETITIONERS AND 1. The Principal [Commissioner of lncome ][Tax' ][l ] [Towers' ][Masab ][Tank']Hvderabad [- ]500004.Hvderabad [- ]500004.z -' rilE]il16iie iJi6ni""r., [ward ]['15(1)' ][Hvde^rabad/ ] [r ][rower' ] [Guards']Masab Tank, Hyderabad Telangana-5uuuu4Masab Tank, Hyderabad Telangana-5uuuu4 Masab Tank, Hyderabad Telangana-5uuuu43. Union [of lndia, ][nepresent'o'ytEJi"L-'y ][Mini"tty of ][Finance North Block' New]Delhi-'1 10 [00'1]...RESPONDENTSDelhi-'1 10 [00'1]...RESPONDENTS Petition under [Article ][226 ][of ][the ][Constitution ][of ][lndia ][praying that ][in ][the]crrcumstances [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]Writ of Mandamui, [declaring ][the ][impugned order ][dt ][22tO4t2O24 ][for ] [Y' ][2020-21]passed u/s 148A(d) [of ][the ][Act ][vide DIN ][No ] 25t10642467 [56(1) ][and ][the ][consequential notice ][u/s 148 dl' ][22tO412024 ][vide ] No-ITBA/AST/S1148112o24-?5t1o64246g45(1),issuedbytheJAO(2ndrespondent), [as ][void, ][illegal' ][and contrary ][to ][the ][provisions ][of ][lncome-tax]Act and [contrary ][to ][the ][Principles of Natural Justice'] lA NO: 1 oF 2025 Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated inthe affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to stayarr further proceedings pursuant to the notice u/s 14g dt.22.04.2024 vide DrN No.|rBA/AST/S/.1 48 112024-2511064246945(1) issued by the 2nd Respondent(JAo)for A.Y. 2020-21 . Counsel for the petitioner: SRI THANNERU CHA|TANYA KUMARCounset CHA|TANYA KUMARCounset for the Respondent Nos.1 a z: sCt k.Suiiaran REDD', Sr sC FoRcounset for the Respondent No.3: sR, G_Au '$fA1[?l?rro*, or.SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIAcounset for the Respondent No.3: sR, G_Au '$fA1[?l?rro*, or.SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE [P.SAM ] ANDTHE HONOURABLE NANDIKONDA WRIT PETIT [No.][ 18858 ][of2025] ORDER, [(per ][Hon'ble ][Sri ][Justice Narsing ][Rao ][Nandikonda)] Heard Mr.T.Chaitanya [Kumar, ][learned ][counsel ][for ][the]Mr.K.Sudhakar [Reddy, learned ][Senior ][Standing]petitioner and Counsel for the [Income ][Tax ][Department ][appearing ][tbr ][the]respondents. [Perused ][the record.] 2. This is a writ [petition ][where ][the ][proceedings ][are ][either]to [the notices ][which ][were ][issued ][under ][Section ][l48A]challenged and 148 of the Income [Tax ][Act, ][1961 ][(for ][short ]['the ][Act') ][or ][the]assessment orders [those have ][been passed ][under ][Section ][147 ][ol]thc Act which have [been ][assailed.] 3. This writ petition [is ][being taken ][up ][today ][only ][on one ][of ][the]grounds, that the notices [issued ][under Section ][l48A ][of ][the ][Act]and the subsequent [initiation ][ofproceedings ][under ][Section ][148 ][of]the Act by the [jurisdictional ][Assessing ][Officer, ][whereas ][in ][terms]of the amendment [that ][was ][brought ][to ][the Income ][Tax ][Act ][by way]ol' Finance Act, 2021 [w.e.f., ][01.04.2021 ][onwards, ][proceedings] 2. This is a writ [petition ][where ][the ][proceedings ][are ][either]to [the notices ][which ][were ][issued ][under ][Section ][l48A]challenged and 148 of the Income [Tax ][Act, ][1961 ][(for ][short ]['the ][Act') ][or ][the]assessment orders [those have ][been passed ][under ][Section ][147 ][ol]thc Act which have [been ][assailed.] 3. This writ petition [is ][being taken ][up ][today ][only ][on one ][of ][the]grounds, that the notices [issued ][under Section ][l48A ][of ][the ][Act]and the subsequent [initiation ][ofproceedings ][under ][Section ][148 ][of]the Act by the [jurisdictional ][Assessing ][Officer, ][whereas ][in ][terms]of the amendment [that ][was ][brought ][to ][the Income ][Tax ][Act ][by way]ol' Finance Act, 2021 [w.e.f., ][01.04.2021 ][onwards, ][proceedings] under Section 14gA of the Act as also under Section 14g of theAct ought to have also been issued and proceeded in a lacelessmanner 4. The contention contention of the petitioner is that the issue the petitioner is that the issue petitioner is that the issue is that the issue that the issue the issue issue ofproceedings being in violation of the Financ e Act, 2021 i.e., theimpugned notices under Section l4gA and Section t4g of the Actnot being issued in a faceless manner, have already been dealt withand decided by this Courr in the case of ICANKANALARAVINDRA REDDY vs. INCOME_TAX OFFICERT decidedon 14.09.2023 whereby a batch of writ petitions were allowed andthe proceedings initiated under section r4gA 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 151A ofthe Act read with Notificarion tg/2022 d,ated29.03.2022. The saidjudgment passed by this court has arso been subsequently foilowedin a large nurnber of writ petitions which were allowed on similarterms. The contention contention of the petitioner is that the issue the petitioner is that the issue petitioner is that the issue is that the issue that the issue the issue issue of ' [(2023) 156 raxmann.com l Tg (Telangana)] I 5. Down the line, we find that the same issue has also beendecided against the Revenue byvanous High Courts i.e.,by the Bombay High Court in the case of HEXAWARETECHNOLOGIES LTD., vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX & OTHERS2, Gauhati High Courl in the caseof RAM NARAYAN SAH vs. UNION OF INDIA3, Punjab andHaryana High Court in the case of JATINDER SINGH BANGUvs. UNION OF INDIA4, and Telangana High Court in the case olSRI VENKATARAMANA REDDY PATLOOLA vs. DEPUTYCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX'where the issue was inrespect of international taxation, Bombay High Court in the case olABHIN ANILKUMAR SHAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICBR,INTERNATIONAL TAXATION6 which is again on intemationaltaxation and central circle, High Court of Himachal Pradesh in thecase ol GOVIND SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERT,Gujarat High Court in the case of MANSUKIIBHAI ' lzoz+1464 [430 ][(Born)] '1Q024) 156 taxmann.com 478 (Gauhati)l" [(2024) 165 taxmann.com 115 (Punjab & Haryana)1' L2024) [167 ]taxmann.com [4l ][1 ][(Tctangana)l]" L2024) I 66 taxmann.corn 679 [(Bornbay)l]' [202.4) 165 taxmann.com I l3 (Himachal Pradesh)] \ ' lzoz+1464 [430 ][(Born)] '1Q024) 156 taxmann.com 478 (Gauhati)l" [(2024) 165 taxmann.com 115 (Punjab & Haryana)1' L2024) [167 ]taxmann.com [4l ][1 ][(Tctangana)l]" L2024) I 66 taxmann.corn 679 [(Bornbay)l]' [202.4) 165 taxmann.com I l3 (Himachal Pradesh)] \ DAHYABHAI RADADIYA vs. INCoME TAx OFFICER,WARD 3(3X5)8, Jharkand High Courl in rhe case of SHyAMSUNDAR SAW vs. UNION OF INDIAe, Rajasrhan High Court inthe case of SHARDA DEVI CHHAJER vs. INCOME TAXOFFICBR & ANOTHER and batch of writ petitionsro 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), dccided on 25.09.2024.6. 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 ol the Bombay High court in the case of HexawareTechnologies Ltd., (2 supra) as arso the one wr.rich has beendecided by this Court in the case of Kanttkala Ravindra Reddy 8:02+ SCC ont_ine Gui 40 t2"1025 -.-1.SCC OnLine Jhar2BT1 o 72023 [: RI ][-.tD ]:4984_DB l \ l has [been ][subjected ][to ][challenge ][in ][a ][Special ][Leave](1 supra) Petition i.e., [SLP No.3574 ][of ][2024 ][before ][the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme]Court and [the Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Court ][is ][seized ][of ][the ][matter']In addition, [there are ][about ][1200 ][SLPs also ][filed ][arising out ][of ][the]same issuc [being ][decided ][by ][various ][High ][Courls']7. To a query [being ][put ][to ][the learned counsel ][for ][the ][Revenue']have [categorically ][accepted ][the ][fact that there ][is ][no ][interim]they order granted [by ][the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Courl ][in ][any ][of ][these]matters [pending befbre ][it. ][Meanwhile, fresh ][writ ][petitions ][of]identical [nature ][are ][being ][piled ][up before ][this ][Bench ][on ][daily ][basis]and the pendency [is ][getting ][increased ][on ][matter ][which ][otherwise]has already [been ][dealt ][and ][decided by ][this ][very ][High ][Court ][itself']8. On the one [hand, even though ][the order ][of ][this ][Court ][that]was passed as [early ][as ][on ][14.09'2023 and ][more ][16 ][months ][have]Iapsed, till [date, ][we do ][not find ][any remedial ][steps ][having ][been]taken by the [Income ][Tax ][Department ][to take ][appropriate ][steps ][to]either hold [back ][issuance ][of ][notice under Section ][l48A ][and under]Section 148 [of ][the ][Act ][by ][the ][jurisdictional ][Assessing ][Officer']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 l48A of the Act and alsoinitiating proceedings under Section 148 of the Act incontravention to the amendments brought into the Income Tax Actpursuant to the Finance Act,2020 as also thc Finance Act 2021. 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 Kanakula Ravindra Reddy (l supra), leamed StandingCounsel for the Income Tax Department contends that those wouldunnecessarily burden the Income Tax Deparlment where theywould be required to file equal number of SLPs before theHon'ble Supreme Court and it would be further burdening theexchequer of the Union of India. It was also the contention of theleamed Standing Counsel that no prejudice would be caused to theinterest of the petitioners in case if this writ petition is kept pendingtill the finalization ol the SLPs pending before the Hon'bleSupreme Courl and the fact that the petitioner is already enjoyingthe benefit of interim protection. Nonetheless, on the earlier queryof this Court as to why the Income Tax Department [have ][not ][come]out with a rnechanism to issue appropriate [instructions ][or ][to ][take] appropriate [steps ][in ][ensuring that ][proceedings under ][Section ][148A]of the Act [as ][also the ][assessment ][orders ][under Section ][148 ][of ][the]Act are kept [in ][a ][hold in ][the ][light ][ofthe ][decisions dedcided ][by ][the]various High Courts, [i1 ][was ][submitted ][by ][the ][leamed ][Standing]Counsel that [the said ][steps can ][only ][be taken at ][the level ][of ] as any such [steps ][would ][have ][to ][be ][taken ][Pan ][India ][and cannot ][be]lirnited to any [of ][these ][jurisdictional ][High Coutls']t 0. As a result [of ][which, ][what we ][are ][facing is ][steep ][increase ][of]titigation 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 [lncome ][Tax ][authorities ][concemed are ][still ][even ][now ][in]2025 also [initiating ][proceedings ][in ][contravention ][to ][the ][provisions]ofsectionl5lAoftheActandasaresultbynow,morethan600to 700 petitions [have ][been ][already ][got piled ][up before ][this ][High]Coufionar-risrr"whichotherwisestandssquarelycoveredbythejudgment of this Court in [the ][case ][of ][Kunakals Ravindra ][Reddy]( I supra). What [is ][also surprising ][is ][the ][fact ][that though while]altowing the [writ ][petitions ][in ][the ][case ][of ][Kanakala ][Ravindra]Recldy (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 the Revenue lorinitiating fresh proceedings strictly in accordance with the amendedprovisions of the Act, as amended by the Financ e Act, 2020 anrlthe Finance Act,202r. The petitioner assessee would be entitred tochallenge or raise the other legal objections if the Revenue initiatesfresh proceedings. The Department has made no endeavour inavailing the said Iiberty that was reserved for the Revenue. On thecontrary, they have been stilt sticking on to the stand, which thisHigh Court as well as many other High Coufts already held to bebad I L It appears that because of the aforesaid liberty that this HighCourt had Court 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 Coufi confirmsthe decision taken by this High Court as also by the orher HighCoufts in which the SLps are still pending, the Income .Iaxsame 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 Coufi confirmsthe decision taken by this High Court as also by the orher HighCoufts in which the SLps are still pending, the Income .Iax 'l l Depafiment [would ][get ][thc ][advantage ][of ][the ][liberty ][that is ][otherwise]in favour of [the ][Revenue ][for ][initiation ][of ][fresh]protected lrom [the disposal ][olthese ][matters at ][a ][much ][later ][stage]proceedings which would be [advantageous ][and beneficial ][to ][the ][Revenue ][and]would be equally [disadvantageous ][and ][detrimental ][so ][far ][as ][interest]of the assesses [are ][concemed. As ][a ][consequence, ][the lncome Tax]Departmentgetsanextendedperiodoftimeforinitiationoffreshproceedings. 'l l Depafiment [would ][get ][thc ][advantage ][of ][the ][liberty ][that is ][otherwise]in favour of [the ][Revenue ][for ][initiation ][of ][fresh]protected lrom [the disposal ][olthese ][matters at ][a ][much ][later ][stage]proceedings which would be [advantageous ][and beneficial ][to ][the ][Revenue ][and]would be equally [disadvantageous ][and ][detrimental ][so ][far ][as ][interest]of the assesses [are ][concemed. As ][a ][consequence, ][the lncome Tax]Departmentgetsanextendedperiodoftimeforinitiationoffreshproceedings. 12. The alarming [trend of docket explosion ][in ][this Court, ][despite]the clear precedent [set ][in ][Ksnakala ][Rtvindra ][Reddy ][(l ][supra)' is ][a]matter of [grave concem. ][The ][Income ][Tax ][Department's persistent]initiation ol lresh [proceedings, disregarding the ][established ][judicial]pronouncements, [has ][led ][to ][an ][unprecedented ][surge ][in ][litigation]with over 600-700 [petitions ][piling up on ][the ][same ][issue' ][This]deliberate approach [not only ][undermines ][the principle ][of ][judiciat]precedent but also strains [the ][judicial ][resources unnecessarily' ][The]Department's strategy [of ][awaiting the ][Supreme ][Court's decision ][on]pending SLPs while continuing to [initiate ][fresh ][proceedings]appears to be a calculated [move ][to ][buy ]time [and ][circumvent]limitation periods, rather [than ][adhering ][to ][the ][established ][legal] \ 1\ posltion. Such conduct raises serious questions about theadministrative efficiency and therespect lor j ud ic ialpronouncements, particularly when this Court has already provideda balanced approach by preserving both the Revenue,s rights andassesses lnterests. 13. Another aspect which needs to be considered is that in fact itshould have been realized by the Income Tax Department itself andshould have found out via rnedia in ensuring that proceedingstunder Sections l4g_A and l4g should not have been issued in alaceless mamer, at least till the Hon,ble Supreme Court decide thetwelve hundred (r200) odd SLps which it is already seized ofor, arleast the Income Tax Department should have ibund out someremedial steps to ensure that wherever the authorities intend toinitiate proceedings under Sections l4g_A and l4g, other than in alaceless manner, the proceedings shourd have been deferred"vithout [precipitating ][the ][matter further ]intimating the assessee thatthey shall initiate appropriate proceedings only after the SLp,s aredecided by the Honrble Supreme Couft on the very sarne issue.'l-his again, the Income Tax Department, has not been able to give aconvincing reply, except for the fact that such a decision if at all has to be [taken, ][has ][to ][be taken ][for ][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 ][learned]Standing Counsel [fbr ][the ][Income ][Tax ][Department ][contended that]the Dethi High [Court ][dismissed ][a ][writ ][petition ][of ][similar ][nature, on]the one hand [when ][the ][High ][Courl ][is ][struggling ][to ][reduce ][its]such [notices ][which ][are ][under challenge ][in ][this ][writ]pendency, petition are forcing [the ][assessee ][to ][knock the ][doors ][of ][this ][High]Court resulting [in ][filing ][of ][hundreds ][of ][new ][writ ][petitions ][which ][in]the long run [not ][only ][aflects ][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 [Deparlment. Yet, ][the ][authorities ][concerned ][at ][the]State 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] I48 through the jurisdictional Assessing Olficer whereas it oughtto have been only in the faceless manner. 14. In the case of BANK OF INDIA vs. ASSISTANTCOMMISSIONER, INCOME TAXrr, on an issue wherher it wasjustifiabte on the part 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 Cout of Bombay held at paragraph No.25 as under, viz., : "25. Mr. Paridwalla has righfly drawn out attenlion to thedecision of this Court in Commissioner of lncome Tax vs. Smt.Godavaridevi Sarafl2 as also the recent decision of the co_ordinate Bench of this Court in Samp Furniture (p) Ltd. v. lTOi3of which one of us (Justice G.S. Kulkarni) was a member, whereinthe Courl categorically observed that the Revenue having not"accepted" the judgment of the High Court would not mean that tillthe same is set aside in a manner known to law, it would loose itsbinding force. Referring to the decision of the Supreme Court inUnion of lndia vs. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd.14, theCourt observed that the approach of the officials of Revenue oftreating decisions being "not acceptable" was criticized by theSupreme Court. ln such decision, followrng are the relevantobservations made by the Supreme Court. 'l [rZOzSr [l7u ][raxmann.com ]422 [(Bombay)l] [rZOzSr [[raxmann.com ]]'' [978] I l3 ITR 589 (Bombay) " 120247 [65 ][raxrnann.com ]58 1/300 Taxman 452 (Ilombay) ['] ' ' J [t,ro21 ][trxmann.cont ]l6155 ELT 433 (SC) 'l [rZOzSr [l7u ][raxmann.com ]422 [(Bombay)l] [rZOzSr [[raxmann.com ]]'' [978] I l3 ITR 589 (Bombay) " 120247 [65 ][raxrnann.com ]58 1/300 Taxman 452 (Ilombay) ['] ' ' J [t,ro21 ][trxmann.cont ]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]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 to the [assessee caused by ][the ][failure]of these officers to [give ]effect to the orders ofauthorities higher to them [in ][the appellate ]hierarchy. ltcannot be too vehemently emphasized that it is ofutmost importance that, in disposing of [the]quasijudicial 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 ][and]the order of the Tribunal [is ]binding upon the AssistantCollectors and the Appellate [Collectors who ][function]under 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 healthy rule is not followed, the result will only be undueharassment to assesses and chaos in administrationof tax laws. 1 2. We have dealt with this aspect at some length,because it has been suggested by the learnedAdditional Solicitor General that the observationsAdditional Solicitor General that the observationsmade by the High Court, have been harsh on theofficers. lt is clear that the observations of the Highofficers. lt is clear that the observations of the HighCourt, seemingly vehement, and apparenflyunpalatable to the Revenue, are only intended to curba tendency in revenue matters which, if allowed tounpalatable to the Revenue, are only intended to curba tendency in revenue matters which, if allowed tobecome widespread, could result in considerableharassment to the assesses-public without any benefitto the Revenue. We would like to say that theto 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 theshould 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."discipline and the need for giving effect to the ordersof the higher appellate authorities which are bindingon them." I 5. What is worr),ing this Bench moie is the fact that anendeavour is being made whole heartedly to ensure not to generatefurrher litigation on issues which have been laid to rest by a largenumber of High Courts all of whom have taken a consistent standnumber of High Courts all of whom have taken a consistent standthat the action of the Income Tax Department being violative of the I 5. What is worr),ing this Bench moie is the fact that anendeavour is being made whole heartedly to ensure not to generatefurrher litigation on issues which have been laid to rest by a largenumber of High Courts all of whom have taken a consistent standnumber of High Courts all of whom have taken a consistent standthat the action of the Income Tax Department being violative of the Finance [Lct,2020and Finance ][Act'2021' Now' ][in order ][to protect]the interest [of ][the ][Revenue ][as ][also ][that ][of ][the ][assessee' ][it ][would ][be]trite at [this juncture, ][if ][we ][dispose ][of ][the ][writ ][petition ][with ][an]observation/direction [that the disposal ][of the ][instant ][writ ][petition ][in]tcrms of [the ][judgment ][rendered ][by ][this ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]Kankunalu [Ravindra ][Reddy ][(l ][supra) ][shall however be ][subject to]the outcome [of ][the ][SLPs ][which ][were ][filed by ][the ][Income ][Tax]Department [and ][which ][is pending consideration before ][the ][Hon'ble]Supreme [Coutt.] 16. ln [the giveri ][facts and ][circumstances' ][this ][Bench ][is ][of ][the]consiclcred [opinion that ][unless and ][until ][we ][do ][not ][timely ][dispose]of tnatlers [which ][are ][squarely covered by the decision ][of ][this ][Coutt]and which [stands ][fortified ][by ][the ][decisions ][of ][the various ][other]Courts [on the very ][same ][issue' ][the ][pendency ][of ][this ][High]l{igh Coufl [rvould ][further ][be burdened ][which ][otherwise can be ][decided]and disposed [of ][as ][a ][covered matter'] 17 . So far as [the ][interest ][of ][the Revenue ][is concemed' we ][are ][of]the considered [opinion ][that the ][interest ][ol ][the ][Revenue ][has ][already]bcen considered [and protected, ][as ][has been ][observed ][in ][paragraphs] 36,37 and,38 ofthe order which, for ready reference, is reproducedhereunder: 36. For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned noticesissued and the proceedings drawn by the respondent-Department iS neither tenable, nor sustainable.The notrces 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 passedby the respondent-Department pursuant to the noticesissued under Section 147 and 148 would also getquashed and it is ordered accordingly. The reason weare [quashing ]the consequential order is on the principlesthat 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 of.jurisdiction, [we are ][not ][inclined ][to ][proceed ][further ][and]decrde the other issues raised by the petitioner whichstands reserved to be raised and contended in [an]appropriate [proceedings.] 38. Srnce the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, [in ]the caseof Ashish Agarwal. supra, as a one{ime [measure]exercising the powers under Article 142 of theConstilution of lndia, [permitted ]the Revenue to [proceed]under the substituted provisions, and this Court allowingthe petitions only on the procedural flaw, the right \ \ t conferred on [the ][Revenue ][would ][remain reserved ][to]proceed further if they [so ][want ][from the ][stage ][of ][the]order of the [Supreme ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ][Ashish]Agarwal, suPra 38. Srnce the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, [in ]the caseof Ashish Agarwal. supra, as a one{ime [measure]exercising the powers under Article 142 of theConstilution of lndia, [permitted ]the Revenue to [proceed]under the substituted provisions, and this Court allowingthe petitions only on the procedural flaw, the right \ \ t conferred on [the ][Revenue ][would ][remain reserved ][to]proceed further if they [so ][want ][from the ][stage ][of ][the]order of the [Supreme ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ][Ashish]Agarwal, suPra 18. We [would only ][further ][like to ][make observations ][that ][since]we are inclined [to ][dispose ][of ][the instant ][writ ][petition' ][conscious ][of]the t'act that [the ][earlier order ][ol ][this High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]Kunakala [Ruvin(lra Refuly ][(1 ][supra) ][is ][subjected ][to ][challenge]betbrc the [Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Court ][in ][SLP No'3574 ][of ][2024']the [Income ][Ta.x ][Department, ][we ][make ][it ][clear that]ple f'er.red by of [the ][instant ][writ ][petition ][is ][subject ][to ][outcome ][of ][the]allowing aforesaid SLP [preferred by ][the ][Revenue against ][the decision ][of ][this] FtighCourtinthecaseofKanakalaRavindraReddy(lsupra)..l.his. in other words, would mean that either of the parties, if theyso want, may [tnove an ][appropriate ][petition ][seeking ][revival ][of ][this]rvrit pctition in the [light ][of ][the ][decision ][of ][the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme]Court in the [pending SLP ][on ][the ][very ][same ][issue'] I9. Accordingly, [the ][instant ][writ ][petition ][stands ][allowed ][in]f'avour of the [assessee ][so ][far ][as ][the ][issue ][of ][jurisdiction]concerned. As a [consequence, ][the ][impugned ][notice ][under]challenge under Sections [148-A ][and ][148 stands ][set ][aside/quashed'] I I The consequential orders, if any, also stand set aside/quashed insimilar terms as have been passed by this High Courl in the case ofsimilar terms as have been passed by this High Courl in the case of Kankunala Rovindra Reddy (t supra). There shall be no order asto costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending. if any, shall stand closed. SD/. M. OSMAN ALI BAIGASNT REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY// { ECTION OFFICER To1. The lncome Tax Officer, Hyderabad-4, l.T. Towers, Masab Tank, [Hyderabad ][-]500004.1. The lncome Tax Officer, Hyderabad-4, l.T. Towers, Masab Tank, [Hyderabad ][-]500004.2The lncome Tax Officer, Ward 15(1), Hyderabad/ lT [Tower, AC ][Guards,]Masab Tank, Hyderabad Telangana-500004Masab Tank, Hyderabad Telangana-5000043The Secretary Ir/inistry of Finance North Block, Union of lndia, New Delhi-1100010014One CC to SRI THANNERU CHAITANYA KUIVAR, Advocate 5One CC to SRI K.SUDHAKAR REDDY, Sr SC FOR bOne CC to SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUIUAR, Dy. SOLICITOR GENERAL rNDrA 5One CC to SRI K.SUDHAKAR REDDY, Sr SC FOR bOne CC to SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUIUAR, Dy. SOLICITOR GENERAL rNDrA 7Two CD Copies PSK.GJP HIGH COURT DATED:03 t07t2025 ORDER il'Q;:li c-/,jtilo1ISEP [825]II-a,/+.i.'.-\l'|/--r;:2' WP.No.1BB58 of 2O2S ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITTONWITHOUT COSTS Iq\)Ao I