Under Section 14Ga Ofthe Act As Also Under Section L4G Oftheact Ought To Have Also Been Act Ought To Have Also Been Issued And Proceeded In A Facelessmanner.man v. Income_Tax Officert Decidedon 14.09.2023 Whereby A Batch Of Writ Petitions Were Ailowed Andthe Proceedings

TELANGANAHIGH couRr.?+ I+t:$ffioF (sPeciai Original [Jurisdiction)] THURSDAY ,THE " '"''"i,vo Tuousnuo AND TWENTY FlvE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE [P'SAM ] ANDTHE HONOU [.T ][USTi}.iT'TANSI ] WRIT [P] [NNO:7][957 ][0] [2025] Between: veard. A,"q1 OccuPation-:lg*l'"*1ll:s3,' [t1?-rY[rylll*["ttL'J',%ln"'$"*"tt:'i'1]L1?i,l;r0il"--A0oo+' [pnu-nrunPM2e57 ][R] ...PETITIONER ANDl Asse ss me me nt v.r i! N' tl"r?i v.r i! N' tl"r?i i! N' tl"r?i N' tl"r?i tl"r?i [[Ministry]] Asse ss me me nt v.r i! N' tl"r?i v.r i! N' tl"r?i i! N' tl"r?i N' tl"r?i tl"r?i Deoartment, [[Ministry]]1, 5 fi :s :fi :#"'i: [l ][f.T!?.o'ffi ;'l ][E1H: ][J;:]Derhi - [1 ][10 ][003']Deoartment, [[Ministry]]1, 5 fi :s :fi :#"'i: [l ][f.T!?.o'ffi ;'l ][E1H: ][J;:]Derhi - [1 ][10 ][003']y;#;i;;6i ilr;iiru S[adium' 2.ThelncomeTaxofficer,Ward-z(r),.gignatureToWerS,opp-Botanical' c;;i;;;, ("ndaPur' HYderabad - 5ooo84' ...RESPONDENTS Petition [under Article 226 ][of ][the ][Constitution ][of ][lndia ][praying ][that in ][the]circumstances [stated ][in ][*J'ttU'* ][tl"i ][therewitfr' ][the ][Hiqh ][Court ][may be pleased]in the nature [Jt ][wnt-r ][oF ][MANDAlvlus]to oass [an order ][or ][airection]esilii"iiv ]-biN'--uno """ issueo ov [2ncl ][Resoondent under section]noidins [that the ][notice ][d't";;ifi;';;;i ]Notice. lTriRlRsrlslt+a-112o23-148 of the [Act ][t*'ir'' ].No z+inassq+zsz(1)) [as ][being ][*'inl" ][iJii'o'"ti:l ]3lt^X,-xfl r[iff].,?iXl'lX-,,#i1tiom ueing [violative ][of ][provisions ][ot ][sec],i'l"iai", "pit, the Act [and ][also ][contrary ][;"iil'.;;;i;;ir.r"a ][ov ][CBDT and provisions ][of ][section]151A of [the Act, uno ][toniq'"";iil;i ]'so" [ff'" ][notice under section 148 ][dated]p'stea by- [1st ][Respondent ][for asst' ][year]28.03.2024 [and ][the ]"t'"'i'1""i'tir.jer 2o2o-21under [section ][r ][oi ][t'*'t ][i+ ][t'** ][i++r ][g ][ot ][tn" ][A"t' ][dt ][15'01 ][2025] lA NO: 1[oF ][2025] petition under section [15.1 ][cpc ][praying ][that ][in ][the ][circumstances ][stated ][in]the affidavit [fited ][in ][support'"t'tt'" ][pltl,i;.,ihJ ][Hign ][court ][mav ][be ][pleased ][to ][stay]etl oendino [penaltv ][procee:l;t;:"[ili;;'ti"v ][oi"orr"ction ][oi ][tax ][demand ][raised]Uv i st [nespinAent ][for the ][Av '2020-21] petitioner: Ms. K. pRABHABAfl REPRESENilNG FoR SRt. A v[i[,i-.T'Jffi.e SOLICITOR GENERAL Counsel for the Resoondglt!{o.1: OF INDIASRt cADl PRAVEEN KUMAR Dy.Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Ms. BOKARO SA'NA rNcoME TAX)REDDy (Jr. SC FOR The Court made the following: ORDER 1 TIIE HONOURABLE [SRI JUSTICE P'SAM ] ANDTHE NANDIKONDAW.P.N[o.7957][o] [2025] ORDER, [(per ][Hon'ble ][Sri ][Justice P'Sam ][Koshy)] Heard Ms. [K' ][Prabhabati' ][leamed ][counsel ][representing]Mr. A.V.Raghu [Ram, ][learned ][counsel ][for ][the ][petitioner ][and]Ms. B.Sapna [Reddy ][learned ][Junior ][Standing Counsel ][for ][the]Income [Tax ][Department for ][respondent ][No'2' ][Perused ][the record'] This is is [[a writ ][petition ]][[petition ]][[where ][the ][proceedings ]][[the ][proceedings ]][[proceedings ]][[are ][either]][[either]] 2. This is is [[a writ ][petition ]][[petition ]][[where ][the ][proceedings ]][[the ][proceedings ]][[proceedings ]][[are ][either]][[either]]challenged [to ][the notices ][which ][were ][issued ][under Section ][148A]and 148 [of the Income ][Tax ][Act' ][1961 ][(for ][short ]['the ][Act') ][or ][the]assessment [orders those have ][been passed ][under ][Section ][147 ][of]the Act [which ][have been assailed'] This writ [[petition ]][[is being ]][[taken ][up ][today ][only ]][[up ][today ][only ]][[today ][only ]][[only ]][[on ][one of the]][[one of the]] This is is [[a writ ][petition ]][[petition ]][[where ][the ][proceedings ]][[the ][proceedings ]][[proceedings ]][[are ][either]][[either]] 2. This is is [[a writ ][petition ]][[petition ]][[where ][the ][proceedings ]][[the ][proceedings ]][[proceedings ]][[are ][either]][[either]]challenged [to ][the notices ][which ][were ][issued ][under Section ][148A]and 148 [of the Income ][Tax ][Act' ][1961 ][(for ][short ]['the ][Act') ][or ][the]assessment [orders those have ][been passed ][under ][Section ][147 ][of]the Act [which ][have been assailed'] This writ [[petition ]][[is being ]][[taken ][up ][today ][only ]][[up ][today ][only ]][[today ][only ]][[only ]][[on ][one of the]][[one of the]] 3. This writ [[petition ]][[is being ]][[taken ][up ][today ][only ]][[up ][today ][only ]][[today ][only ]][[only ]][[on ][one of the]][[one of the]]grounds, [that ][the notices ][issued ][under ][Section 148A ][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]of Finance [Act,202l ][w'e'f'' ][0l'04'2021 ][onwards' ][proceedings] under Section 14gA ofthe Act as also under Section l4g oftheAct ought to have also been Act ought to have also been issued and proceeded in a facelessmanner.manner. 4' The contention of the petitioner contention of the petitioner of the petitioner the petitioner petitioner is that the issue that the issue issue ofproceedings being in violation of the Financ e Act, 2O2l i.e., theimpugned notices under Section l4gA and Section l4g of the Actnot being issued in a faceless manner, have already been dealt withand decided by this Court in the case of KANKANALARAVINDRA REDDY vs. INCOME_TAX OFFICERT decidedon 14.09.2023 whereby a batch of writ petitions were ailowed andthe proceedings initiated under Section 14gA 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 l5l A ofthe Act read wirh Notificarion lglZOZ2 dated 29.03.2022. The saidjudgment passed by this Court has also been subsequently followedin a large number of writ petitions which were allowed on similarterms. The contention of the petitioner contention of the petitioner of the petitioner the petitioner petitioner is that the issue that the issue issue of ' [(2023) I 56 taxmann.com 17g (Telangana)] ) t,;r-r;! '1 5. Down [the line, ][we ][find ][that ][the ][same ][issue ][has ][also ][been]decidedagainsttheRevenuebyvariousHighCourtsi.e.,the [Bombay ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ] by TECIINOLOGIES [LTD., ][VS. ] oFINCOMETAx&OTIIERS2,GauhatiHighCourtinthecaseof RAM [SAH vs' ][UNION OF INDIAT' ][Punjab ][and]Haryana [High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ] vs. UNIoN [oF ][INDIA4, ][and ][Telangana ][High ][Court in the ][case ][of]SRI VENKATARAMANA [VS. ] COMMISSIONER [where ][the ][issue ][was in]respect [of international taxation' Bombay ][High ][Court in ][the ][case ][of]ABHIN [SHAH vs' ] [OFFICER']INTERNATIONAL [which ][is ][again ][on intemational]taxation [and ][central ][circle' High ][Court ][of ][Himachal ][Pradesh ][in ][the]case of [vs' ] [OFFICERT']Gujarat [High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ] 2 r'to)41464 trR 430 (Bom)' Wil 1 56 taxmann.com [478 ][(Gauhati)l]'i6oiol165 [taxmann'com ][115 ][(Punjab ][& ][Haryana)l]'1ZOZ+1' [rcl ][taxmann'com ][411 ][(Telangana)l]"t2024) [166 ][taxmann.com 679 ][(Bombav)l]'i;o;i; [iii ][o**u*'tom ] [l3 ][(Himachal ][Pradesh)l] DAIIYABHAI RADADIYA vs. INCOME .fAX OFF.ICER, 2 r'to)41464 trR 430 (Bom)' Wil 1 56 taxmann.com [478 ][(Gauhati)l]'i6oiol165 [taxmann'com ][115 ][(Punjab ][& ][Haryana)l]'1ZOZ+1' [rcl ][taxmann'com ][411 ][(Telangana)l]"t2024) [166 ][taxmann.com 679 ][(Bombav)l]'i;o;i; [iii ][o**u*'tom ] [l3 ][(Himachal ][Pradesh)l] DAIIYABHAI RADADIYA vs. INCOME .fAX OFF.ICER, WARD 3(3X5)8, Jharkand High Court in the case of SHyAMSUNDAR SAW vs. UNION OF INDIAe, Rajasthan High Courr inthe case of SHARDA DEVI CHHAJER vs. INCOME TAXOFFICER & 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), decided on25.09.2024.6. Even though the same issue having been decided by a largenumber of High Courts, we are still confronted with large filing ofidentical matters on daily basis ranging between -5 to l0 writpetitions. That upon the insrructions being sought fiom theDepartment, they have been taking a solitary ground that thedecision of the Bombay High Court in the case of HexawareTechnologies Ltd., (2 supra) as also the one which has beendecided by this Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy '2024 Online Guj 4012'2025 SCC Online [har 287I o 12023 [: ]RI_JD :4984_DBl 'a (1 supra) has been [subjected ][to ][challenge ][in a ][Special ][Leave]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 ][ofthe]same issue [being ][decided ][by ][various High Courts'] 1. To a query [being ][put ][to ][the ][leamed counsel ][for ][the ][Revenue']they have [categorically ][accepted ][the ][fact ][that there is ][no ][interim]order [granted ][by ][the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Court ][in ][any ][of ][these]matters [pending ][before ][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]lapsed, 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 ][ofnotice ][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 continuousry stilrinitiating proceedings under Section 14gA of the Act and alsoinitiating proceedings under Section l4g of the Act incontravention to the amendments brought into the Income Tax Actpursuant to the Finance Act,2020 as also the Finance Act2021.9' upon a query being put as to why can,t this writ petition becontinuousry stilrinitiating proceedings under Section 14gA of the Act and alsoinitiating proceedings under Section l4g of the Act incontravention to the amendments brought into the Income Tax Actpursuant to the Finance Act,2020 as also the Finance Act2021.9' 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 Kqnakala Ravindra the case of Kqnakala Ravindra Redcty (l supra), leamed StandingStandingCounsel for the Income Tax Department contends that those wouldunnecessarily burden the Income Tax Department where theywould be required to file equal number of SLps before theHon'ble Supreme Court and it would be further burdening theequal 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 thelearned Standing counsel that no prejudice wourd be caused to theinterest of the petitioners in case if this writ petition is kept pendingtill the finalization of the SLps pending before the Hon,bleSupreme Court and the fact that the petitioner is already enjoyingthis writ petition is kept pendingtill the finalization of the SLps pending before the Hon,bleSupreme Court and the fact that the petitioner is already enjoyingthe benef,rt of interim protection. Nonetheless, on the earlier queryof this Court as to why the Income Tax Department have not comeout with a mechanism to issue appropriare instructions or to takeNonetheless, on the earlier queryof this Court as to why the Income Tax Department have not comeout with a mechanism to issue appropriare instructions or to take n appropriate [steps ][in ][ensuring ][that ][proceedings ][under Section ][148.4]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, ][it ][was submitted ][by ][the ][learned ][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]limited [to ][any ][of ][these ][jurisdictional ][High Courts'] l0.Asaresultofwhich,whatwearefacingissteepincreaseoflitigation [day ][in ][and day ][out ][even though ][various ][orders have ][been]passed by [this ][High ][Coufi ][allowing ][wrii ][petitions on ][the ][very ][same]issue. [The Income Tax authorities concemed ][are ][still ][even ][now ][in]2025 also [initiating ][proceedings ][in ][contravention ][to ][the ][provisions]of Section [1 ][51A of ][the ][Act ][and ][as a ][result ][by now' ][more ][than ][600]toT00petitionshavebeenalreadygotpiledupbeforethisHighCourt [on ][an ][issue ][which ][otherwise ][stands ][squarely ][covered ][by ][the]judgment of this [Court ][in ][the ][case ][of Kanakala ][Ravindra ][Reddy](1 supra). [What ][is ][also surprising ][is ][the fact that ][though ][while]allowing [the ][writ ][petitions ][in ][the ][case ][of ][Kanakala ][Ravindta]Retkly (l [supra), the ][Division ][Bench ][while ][reserving the ][right ][of]the Revenue, [has ][also protected ][the ][interest ][of ][the ][petitioners]\ vr. insofar as the riberfy which was granted to; the Revenue forinitiating fresh proceedings strictly in accordance with the amendedprovisions of the Act, as amended by the Financ e Act, 2020 and.the Finance Act,202l. The petitioner assessee would be entitled tochallenge or raise the other legal objections if the Revenue initiatesfresh proceedings. The Department has made no endeavour inavailing the said liberty that was reserved for the Revenue. On thecontrary, they have been still sticking on to the stand, which thisHigh Court as well as many other High Courts already held to bebad.11. It appears that because ofthe aforesaid Iiberty that this HighCourt had granted permitting the Revenue for initiating freshproceedings as a one_time measure in a faceless manner, theIncome Tax Department wants to take advantage of the same byprotracting these proceedings which would enable them to meet thelimitation that would otherwise come in the way. Likewise, if thewrit petition is kept pending for a considerable long period of timeand finally at a later stage if the Hon,ble Supreme Court confirmsthe decision taken by this High Court as also by the other HighCourts in which the SLps are still pending, the Income Tax Department [rvould ][get ][the ][advantage ][of ][the ][liberty ][that ][is otherwise]in favour [of ][the ][Revenue ][for ][initiation ][of ][fresh]protected from [the ][disposal ][of ][these ][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]oftheassessesareconcerned'Asaconsequence'thelncomeTaxDepartment [gets an extended ][period ][of ][time ][for initiation ][of ][fresh]proceedings. lZ. The alarming [trend ][of ][docket ][explosion in this Court' ][despite]the clear [precedent ][set ][n ][Kanakala Ravindra ][Reddy ][(l ][supra)' ][is ][a]matter of [grave ][concem. ][The ][lncome ][Tax ][Department's persistent]initiation [of ][fresh 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 ][ofjudicial]but [also ][strains ][the ][judicial ][resources ][unnecessarily' ][The]precedent Department's [strategy ][of ][awaiting the ][Supreme ][Court's ][decision on]pending SLPs [while ][continuing ][to ][initiate ][fresh ][proceedings]to be [a ][calculated ][move ][to ][buy time ][and ][circumvent]appears limitation periods, [rather than adhering ][to ][the ][established legal] position. Such conduct raises serious questions about theadministrative efficiency and the respect for judicialpronouncements, particularly when this Court has already provideda balanced approach by preserving both the Revenue,s rights andassesses interests. 13. Another aspect which needs to be considered is that in fact itshould have been realized by the Income Tax Department itself andshould have found out via media in ensudng that proceedingsunder Sections i4g_A and 14g should not have been issued in afaceless manner, at least till the Hon,ble Supreme Court decide thetwelve hundred (1200) odd SLps which it is arready seized ofor, atleast the Income Tax Department should have found out someremedial steps to ensure that wherever the authorities intend toinitiate proceedings under Sections 14g_A and l4g, 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 been able to give aconvincing.reply, except for the fact that such a decision if at all 1 1 hastobetaken,hastobetakenforthewholeoflndia,andwhichotherwise has [to ][be ][by ][way of ][a ][policy ][decision ][and that ][too ][at ][the]levelofCentralBoardofDirectTaxes.ThoughthelearnedStanding Counsel [for ][the ][Income ][Tax ][Department ][contended that]the Delhi High [Court ][dismissed ][a ][writ ][petition of similar ][nature' ][on]the one hand [when ][the High Court ][is ][struggling ][to ][reduce ][its]pendency, such [notices ][which ][are ][under challenge ][in ][this ][writ]petition are forcing [the ][assessee ][to ][knock the doors ][of ][this ][High]Coufi resulting [in ][filing ][of ][hundreds ][of ][new ][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 ][concemed ][at ][the]State level [are ][not ][ready ][to ][accept ][the verdict ][passed ][by ][a ][maj ][ority]Courts [of ][different ][States ][on the ][same issue; and ][to ][make]of High 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 whereas it oughtto have been only in the faceless manner. 14. In the case of BANK OF INDIA vs. ASSISTANTCOMMISSIONER, INCOME TAX1r, on an issue whether it wasjustifiable 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 Court of Bombay held at paragraph No.25 as under, viz., : "25. Mr. paridwalla has righfly drawn out attention to theciecision of this Court in Commissioner of lncome Tax vs. Smt.Godavaridevi Sarafl2 as also lhe recent decision of the co_ordinate Bench of this Cou( in Samp Furniture (p) Ltd. v. lTOr3of which one of us (Justice G.S. Kulkarni) was a member, whereinthe Court categorically observed that the Revenue having not"accepted" the judgment of the High Court would not mean that tillthe same is set aside in a manner known to law, it would loose itsbinding force. Referring to the decision of the Supreme Court inUnion of lndia vs. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd.14, theCou( observed that the approach of the officials of Revenue oftreating decisions being [.not ]acceptable,, was criticized by theSupreme Cou(. ln such decision, following are the relevantobservations made by the Supreme Court. ','r y1r^o3ll .r.r^o *mam.com 422 (B ombay)l" U9781 I l3 ITR 589 (Bombay)" U9781 I l3 ITR 589 (Bombay) t,t^120241t65 taxmann.com 5gl/300 Taxman 452 (Bombay)5gl/300 Taxman 452 (Bombay) 'o Tlggzltaxmann.com 16i55 ELT 433 (SC) , , ','r y1r^o3ll .r.r^o *mam.com 422 (B ombay)l" U9781 I l3 ITR 589 (Bombay)" U9781 I l3 ITR 589 (Bombay) t,t^120241t65 taxmann.com 5gl/300 Taxman 452 (Bombay)5gl/300 Taxman 452 (Bombay) 'o Tlggzltaxmann.com 16i55 ELT 433 (SC) , , "6. Sri Reddy is [perhaps ][right ][in ][saying ][that ][the]officers were not [actuated ][by ][any ][mala ][fides ][in]passing the impugned [orders ][They ][perhaps]genuinely felt that [the ][claim ][of ][the ][assessee ][was ][not]tenable and [that, ][if ][it ][was ][accepted' ][the ][Revenue]would suffer. [But ][what ][Sri Reddy overlooks ][is ][that we]are not concemed [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 ][iQsue ][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 ][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]iudicial [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.iect ][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] rule is not followed, the result will only be undueharassment to assesses and chaos in administrationof tax laws. 12. We have dealt with this aspect at some length,because it has been suggested by the learnedAdditional Solicitor General that the observationsmade by the High Court, have been harsh on theofficers. lt is clear that the observations of the HighCourt, seemingly vehement, and apparenflyunpalatable to the Revenue, are only intended to curba tendency in revenue matters which, if allowed tobecome widespread, could result in considerableharassment to the assesses-public without any benefitto the Revenue. We would like to say that thedepartment should take these observations in theproper spirit. The observations of the High Courtshould be kept in mind in future and the utmost regardshould be paid by the adjudicating authorities and theappellale authorities to the requirements of judicialdiscipline and the need for giving effect to the ordersof the higher appellate authorities which are bindingon them." i 5. What is worr5ring 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 standendeavour 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 th-e action of the Income Tax Department being violative of the C i 5. What is worr5ring 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 standendeavour 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 th-e action of the Income Tax Department being violative of the C Finance [Act,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]terms [of ][the ][judgment ][rendered ][by ][this ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]Kankunala [Ravindla ][Reddy ][(l ][supra) shall however be ][subject to]the outcome [of ][the ][SLPs ][which were ][hled ][by ][the ][Income ][Tax]Department [and ][which ][is pending consideration before the ][Hon'ble]Supreme [Court] 16. In [the ][given ][facts ][and ][circumstances' ][this ][Bench ][is ][of ][the]considered [opinion ][that unless and ][until we ][do not ][timely ][dispose]of matters [which ][are ][squarely covered by ][the ][decision ][of ][this ][Court]and which [stands ][fortihed ][by ][the ][decisions ][of ][the ][various ][other]Courts [on ][the ][very ][same ][issue' the ][pendency ][of ][this High]High Court would [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 ][of ][the ][Revenue ][has ][already]been considered [and ][protected, ][as ][has ][been observed ][in ][paragraphs] 36,37 and 38 ofthe orderwhich, forreadyreference, is reproduced hereunder: 36. For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned noticesissued 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 .o and are accordingly setaside/quashed. o. , aorr,o orders se*ins quashed, ,r" J;rl",";;: I:":l::::::by the respondent_Department pursuant to the noticesissued under Section 147quashed and it is ",.0",."0 [,"10"1ff;?[ ][,:"::" ][l"j]are quashing the consequential order is on the principlesthat when the initiation of the proceedings itself wasprocedurally wrong, the subsequent orders also getsnurified automaticary. 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 gefting quashed on the point ofjurisdiction, we are not inclined to proceed further anddecide the other issues raised by the petitioner whichstands reserved to be raised and contended in anappropriate proceedings. 38Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the caseof AshishAgarwal, supra, as a one{imemeasureexercisingthe powers under Article 142of theConstitution of India, permifted the Revenue to proceedunder the substituted provisions, and this Court allowingthe petitions only on the procedural flaw, the right 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. 38Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the caseof AshishAgarwal, supra, as a one{imemeasureexercisingthe powers under Article 142of theConstitution of India, permifted the Revenue to proceedunder the substituted provisions, and this Court allowingthe petitions only on the procedural flaw, the right 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 fact that the earlier [order ][of ][this High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]Kanakala Ravindra [Reddy ][(l ][supra) ][is ][subjected ][to ][challenge]before the Hon'ble [Supreme ][Court ][in ] [No.3574 ][of ][2024'']preferred by the Income [Tax Department, we ][make ][it ][clear that]allowing of the [instant ][writ ][petition ][is ][subject ][to ][outcome ][of ][the]aforesaid SLP [preferred ][by ][the ][Revenue ][against ][the ][decision ][ofthis]High Court in the case of [Kanakala Ravindra ][Reddy ][(7 ][supta)']This, in other words, [would ][mean ][that either ][of ][the parties, ][if ][they]so want, may move [an appropriate ][petition ][seeking ][revival of ][this]writ petition in the [light ]of [the decision ][of ][the Hon'ble ][Supreme]Court in the pending SLP [on ][the ][very ][same ][issue.] lg. Accordingly, the [instant ][writ ][petition ][stands ][allowed]1ntsfavour of the assessee [so ][far ][as the ][issue ][of ][jurisdiction]concemed. As a [consequence, ][the ][impugned ][notice ][under]under [Sections 148-A and ][148 stands ][set ][aside/quashed']challenge ( \ The consequential orders, if any, also stand set aside/quashed insimilar terms as have been passed by this High Court in the case ofKankanalu Ravindra Reddy (I supra). There shall be no order asto costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/. AHMED ABDULLAH KHANASSISTANT REGISTRAR'- tl".SECTION OFFICERASSISTANT REGISTRAR'- tl".SECTION OFFICER ,TRUE COPY' To, 1Assessment Unit. National Department, Ministrv of Finance, Faceless Roorn Assessment Centre, lncome TaxJawaharlat Nehru Siadium, Oefn'i - iiO Oo3. N;. ;bj';'z-ni"iroor, ['" ]"'"" 'E_Ramp,Assessment Unit. National Department, Ministrv of Finance, Faceless Roorn Assessment Centre, lncome TaxJawaharlat Nehru Siadium, Oefn'i - iiO Oo3. N;. ;bj';'z-ni"iroor, ['" ]"'"" 'E_Ramp, The lncome Tax cardens, Kondapur, Hyderabad Officer WaF _, Z(]),^lqgnature Towers, _ SOOO8?.-'- [- ][".'"'']Opp_ Botanicat 2 One CC to SRI. A V RAGHU RAIV Advocate tOpUCI 3 4ffi,f.? to IVs. BoKARo SAPNA REDDY (Jr. sC FoR tNCoME rAX) One CC to Sri Gadi praveen Kumar, Deputy Solicitor General of lndia [OpUCj[OpUCj ElTwo CD CoptesKK\GJGJ & HIGH COURT DATED:2410412025 (o[ti. ] S4 ?<),10 SEP 2W+ORDERWP.No.7957 of 2025 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITIONWITHOUT COSTS