Under Section I48A Of The Act As Also Under Section L4G Of Theact Ought To Have Also Been Issued And Proceeded In A Lacelessltlanneract Ought To Have Also Been v. The Income Tax Officer Ward 1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF MAYTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYAND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION NO: 28960 OF 2!24 Between PRIIVARY AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVE CREDIT [SOCIET\,]NARAYANAPURAM, Rep. By its Secretary l\/adhavarapu [Venkateswarlu, ][S/o.]Sreenivasa Rao f\rladhavarapu, Occupation. Business, Aged about [31 years, ][R/O.]Erative Credit Society Narayanapuram, At Narayanapuram [Bonakal ][[vlandal]Khammam 507204, Telangana, lndia. PAN. , Assessment [Year. ][2016-]17. .....PETITIONER AND 1. The lncome Tax Officer Ward 1, Khammam / lncome Tax [Office, ][Rajeev]Gunt, Rajiv Chowk, Near Kinnerasani Theatre, Khammam [Telangana ][State.]Gunt, Rajiv Chowk, Near Kinnerasani Theatre, Khammam [Telangana ][State.] 2. The Principal Chief Commissioner of lncome Tax, [Telangana ][and A.P,]Hyderabad, lT Towers, AC Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad [- ][500 028,]Telangana.Hyderabad, lT Towers, AC Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad [- ][500 028,]Telangana. 3. The National Faceless Assessment Center, [Income ][Tax Department, ][New]Delhi.Delhi. 4. The Central Board of Direct Taxes, Represented [by its Chairman' Department]of Revenue, Ivlinistry of Finance, Government of lndia, [Secretanat ][Buildings,]New Delhi - 110 001 [.]of Revenue, Ivlinistry of Finance, Government of lndia, [Secretanat ][Buildings,]New Delhi - 110 001 [.] 5. The Union of lndia, Represented [by ][its ][Secretary to ][the ][Government']Department of Revenue, Ministry of [Finance, ][New ][Delhi - ][110 ][001.]Department of Revenue, Ministry of [Finance, ][New ][Delhi - ][110 ][001.] .....RESPONDENTS Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution [of ][lndia ][praying ][that in ][the]circumstances stated in the affidavit [filed ][therewith, ][the ][High Court ][may ][be]pleased to issue an appropriate '"vrit, order oi'direction more [particulai-ly ][one ][in]the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the order [passed ][by the ][lncome ][Tax] r Authorities (National Faceless E-Assessment Centre) completed the assessmentUIS 147 r.w.s 144 read with section 144B of the lncome-tax Act Date of 10-10-2023, DIN ITBA/AST/S/14712023-2411056949603(1) for the Assessment Year2016-17 determining the total income of Rs.2,43,17,7771-as arbilrary, illegal, badin law, without jurisdiction, void-ab-initio, violative of the principles of naturaljustice apart from being violative of Articles 1a, 19(1)(g) and 265 of theConstitution of lndia and Sec. 148A of the lncome Tax Act, ['1 ]96'1 , andconsequently set aside the same in the interests of [justice.] Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI THANNERU CHAITANYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : Ms. BOKARO SAPNA REDDY (Jr. SCFOR TNCOME TAX) Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 to 5 : SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUTYSOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA The Court made the following ORDER THE HONOURABLB SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAONANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION No.28960 of 2024 OI{DER, Qter Hon'ble Sri.Justicc P.Scun Koshy) Heard Mr. T.Chaitnya Kumar, learned counsel for thepetitioner and Ms.B.Sapna Reddy, learned Junior StandingCounsel fol the lncome Tax Department for the respondents.Perused the record 2. This is a writ petition whele the proceedings are eitherchallenged to the notices which were issued under Section 148,{and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') or theassessment orders those havc been passed under Section 147 ofthe Act which have been assailed Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 to 5 : SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUTYSOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA The Court made the following ORDER THE HONOURABLB SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAONANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION No.28960 of 2024 OI{DER, Qter Hon'ble Sri.Justicc P.Scun Koshy) Heard Mr. T.Chaitnya Kumar, learned counsel for thepetitioner and Ms.B.Sapna Reddy, learned Junior StandingCounsel fol the lncome Tax Department for the respondents.Perused the record 2. This is a writ petition whele the proceedings are eitherchallenged to the notices which were issued under Section 148,{and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') or theassessment orders those havc been passed under Section 147 ofthe Act which have been assailed 3. This u,rit petition is being taken up today only on one of thegrounds, that the notices issucd under Section 148A of the Actand the subsequent initiation ofproceedings under Section 148 olthe Act by the [jurisdictional ]Assessing Officcr, whereas in termsolthe 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 I48A of the Act as also under Section l4g of theAct ought to have also been issued and proceeded in a lacelesslTlannerAct ought to have also been issued and proceeded in a lacelesslTlanner 4. The contention of the petitioner contention of the petitioner of the petitioner the petitioner petitioner is lhat tl.re issr-re oflhat tl.re issr-re oftl.re issr-re ofissr-re ofofproceedings being in violation of the Finance Act. 2021 i.e., thcimpugned notices under Section I 48A and Section l4g o1' tl.re Actnot being issued in a faceless rranner, havc alreadl bccr-r dcalt withand decided by this Court in thc case oi KANKANALARAVINDR{ ti.EDDY vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICIiRT dccidedon 14.09.202f whereby a batch of writ petitions were allorved andthe proceedtngs initiated under Section 148A as also under- Section148 of the Act were held to be bad with consequential reliel's on theground of it being in violation ol the provisions of' Section I 5 I A ol-the Act reac with Notificarion l8l2OZ2 datcd 29.0_1.2022. [-lhe ]saidjudgment passed by this Court has also been subscqr-rently tbllowcdin a large rumber of writ petitions which were allowed on similarteIms The contention of the petitioner contention of the petitioner of the petitioner the petitioner petitioner is lhat tl.re issr-re oflhat tl.re issr-re oftl.re issr-re ofissr-re ofof 5. Down the line, we find that the sarne issue has also beendecided against the Revenue by various High Courts i.e.,by the Bombay High Court in the case of HEXAWARETECHNOLOGIES LTD., vs. ASSISTANT COIUMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX & OTHERS2, Gauhati High Court in the caseof RAM NARAYAN SAH vs. UNION OF INDIAT, Punjab andHaryana High Court in the case of JATINDER SINGH BANGUvs. UNION OF INDIA4, and ['l'elangana ]High Courl in the case ofSRI VENKATARAMANA RI,DDY PATLOOLA vs. DEPUTYCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX5 where the issue was inrespect of international taxation, Bombay High Court in the case ofABHIN ANILKUMAR ST{AH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,INTERNATIONAL TAXATION6 which is agairl 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 ' lzoz+1464 [430 ][(Born)]'1Q024) [156 ][taxmann.oom 478 ][(Gauhati)l]^ [(2024) [165 ][taxmann.com ] [l5 ][(Punjab ][& ] [laryana)l]' [2024) [167 ][taxmarui.corn ][4 ] [(Tetangana)]]" 12024) [166 ][taxrnann.corn ]679 [(Bombay)l]' [2024) [165 ][faxmann.com ] [l3 ][(Hirnachal ][Pradesh)]] DAHYABIIAI RADADIYA vs. INCOME T.AX OFFICER, ' lzoz+1464 [430 ][(Born)]'1Q024) [156 ][taxmann.oom 478 ][(Gauhati)l]^ [(2024) [165 ][taxmann.com ] [l5 ][(Punjab ][& ] [laryana)l]' [2024) [167 ][taxmarui.corn ][4 ] [(Tetangana)]]" 12024) [166 ][taxrnann.corn ]679 [(Bombay)l]' [2024) [165 ][faxmann.com ] [l3 ][(Hirnachal ][Pradesh)]] DAHYABIIAI RADADIYA vs. INCOME T.AX OFFICER, WARD 3(3)(5)8, Jharkand High Courr in the case ol SHyAMSUNDAR SAW vs. UNION OF tNDIAe, Rajasthan High Courr inthe case ot'SHARDA DEVI CHHAJBR vs. INCOME TAXOFFICER & ANOTHER and batch of writ pcritionsro rvhichstood decided on 19.03.2024. Similar vicws rrave arso been takcnby the Dir ision Bench of Calcutta Higl.r CourL in the case ol-GIRDHAR GOPAL DALMIA vs. UNTON OF INDIA & ORS(M.A.T 1690 o12023), decided on25.09.2024.6. Even though the same issue having been decided b1,a largenumber o1'I{igh Courts, we arc still conh.onted q,ith large filing ofidentical rxatters on daily basis ranging betu,een 5 to l0 rvritpetitions. 1'hat upon the instructions being soLrght fi.orn theDepartment, they have been taking a solitary gr.ound that thedecision of the Bombay High Court in the case of llacat,areTechnologies Ltd., (2 supra) as also thc one rvhich has beendecided by this Court in the case of Konokdt Ravindrt Redd1, t202+ SCC ()nlinc Guj 4012" 2025 SCC Online Jhar 287' o 72023, [RJ-.1 ]D:4984-DBl (l supra) has been subjected to challcnge in a Special LeavePetition i.e., SLP No.3574 of 2024 before the Hon'ble SupremeCourl and the Hon'ble Supreme Courl 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 tl.re lcarned counsel for the Revenue,they have categorically accepted the fact that there is no interimordcr glanted by the Hon'ble Supleme Court in any of thesematters pending belole it. Meanwhile, fresh rvrit pctitions ofidentical nature are being piled up belore tl.ris Bench on daily basisand the pendency is getting increased on maltel which otherwisehas already been dealt and decided by this very High CouLt itself. 8. On the one hand, even though thc order of this Court thatwas passed as early as on 14.09.2023 and more I 6 months havelapsed, 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 148A and underSection 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 1484. of thc Act and alsoinitiating proceedings under Section 1 48 o I' tl.re Act incontravention to the arnendments brought into the Income Tax Actpursuant to the Finance Act, 2020 as also the Financc Act 202 I .9. Upon a query being put as to why can,t this rvrit pctition bcdisposed of in the teeth of the decision rendercd b1, this CoLrrl inthe case ol Ktnakala Rovindra Reddy (l supra), lcar.ned StandingCounsel for the lncorne Tax Deparlment contends that those u,,ouldunnecessarily burden the Incorne Tax Departrrent wltere theyw'ould be required to file equal number of SI_ps betbre theHon'ble Supreure Courl and it would be further. burdcning thcexchequer r,f the Union o1' India. It was also the contention ol- theleamed Standing Counsel that no prejudice would be causod to theinterest of the petitioners in case ifthis writ petition is kcpt pendingtill the finalization of the SLps pending befbr.e the Hon,bleSuprerne Crlurt and the fact that the petitioner is already enjoyingthe benefit r>f interim protection. Nonetheless, on the earlier queryof this Court as to why the Incorne Tax Departrnent have not comeout with a nechanisrn to issue appropriate instructions or.to take appropriate steps in ensuring that proceedings under Section l48Aof the Act as also the assessment orders under Section 148 of theAct are kept in a hold in the light of the decisions dedcided by thevarious l-Iigh Courts, it was submitted by the learned StandingCounsel that the said steps can only be taken at the level of CBDTas any such steps would have to be taken Pan India and cannot belimited to any of these [jurisdictional ]High Courts 10. As a lesult of which, what we are i'acing is steep incrcase ollitigation day in and day out even though various orders have beenpassed by this High Couft allowing writ petitions on the very sameissue. The Income Tax authorities concerned are still even now in2025 also initiating proceedings in contravention to the provisionsof Section 151A of the Act and as a result by now, more than 600to 700 petitions have been already got piled up before this I{ighCourt on an issue which otherwise stands squarely covered by thejudgment of this Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy(1 supra). What is also surprising is the fact that though whileallowing the writ petitions in the case ol Kanakula RavindraReddy (l supra), the Division Bench while reserving the right ofthe Revenue, has also protected the interest of the petitioners insolar as the liberty which was granted to tlrc Revenue forinitiating lir:sh p.oceedings strictly in accordance r.r,ith the amendedprovisions of the Act, as amended by the Finance Act, 2020 anclthe Fi,ance Act. 2021 . The petitioner asscssee u,oulcl be errtitled tochallenge o' raisc the other legar objections if the Rcver.rue i,itiatesfresh proceedings. The Deparlment has made no eudeavour. ir.ravailing the said liberly that was reserved for the Rcvenuc. On thecontrary, thcy have been still sticking on to the stand. which thisHigh Court as u,ell as rnany othcr High Courls ah.r.ady hcld to bebad.I l. It app.ears that becar.rse of the aforesaid libcr.tl that this IIighCourt had granted permitting the Revenue for initiating fi.cshproccedings as a one-time measure in a faceless manner., theIncome Tax Deltartrnent wants to take advantage of the same byprotraoting thesc proceedings which would enable thcm to rnect thelirnitation that would otherwise come in the way. l.ikewise, if thewrit petition is kept pending for a considerable long period of tiu.reand finally at a later stage if the Hon,ble Suprerne Court conflrmsthe decision taken by this High Court as also by the other FlighCourls in rvhich the SLI)s are still pending, the Income Tax Depaftment would get the advantage of the liberty that is otherwiseprol"ected in favour of the Revenue for initiation of freshproceedings from the disposal ofthese matters at a much later stagewhich would be advantageous and beneficial to the Revenue andwould be equally disadvantageous and detrimental so far as interestof the assesses are concemed. As a consequence, the Income TaxDepartment gets an extended period of time lor initiation of freshproceedingswhich would be advantageous and beneficial to the Revenue andwould be equally disadvantageous and detrimental so far as interestof the assesses are concemed. As a consequence, the Income TaxDepartment gets an extended period of time lor initiation of freshproceedings 12. ['fhe ]alarming trend of docket explosion in this Court, despitcthc cleal precedent sel in Kanakolo 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. ['l-his]deliberate approach not only undermines the principle ofjudicialprecedent but also strains the judicial resources unnecessarily. TheDeparlment's strategy of awaiting the Supreme Couft's decision onpending SLPs white continuing to initiate fresh proceedingsappears to be a calculated move to buy time and circumventlimitation periods, rather than adhering to the established tegal 12. ['fhe ]alarming trend of docket explosion in this Court, despitcthc cleal precedent sel in Kanakolo 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. ['l-his]deliberate approach not only undermines the principle ofjudicialprecedent but also strains the judicial resources unnecessarily. TheDeparlment's strategy of awaiting the Supreme Couft's decision onpending SLPs white continuing to initiate fresh proceedingsappears to be a calculated move to buy time and circumventlimitation periods, rather than adhering to the established tegal position. Such conduct raises serious questions about theadministrative efficiency and the respect for judicialpronouncent ents, parlicularly when this Court has alreacly provideda balanced rrpproach by preserving both the Revertue's rights andassesses interests. 13. Another aspect ivhich needs to be considered is that in fact itshould have beerr realized by the Income Tax Departnrent itself'anclshould havc found out via media in ensuring that proceedingsundel Scctions I,l8-A and 148 should not havc bcen issued ir.r afaceless rlal)ner, at least till the Hon'ble Supteme Court decide thetwelve hundred (1200) odd SLPs which it is alread1,. seized of or, atleast the lncomc Tax Department should have lbund out someremedial stops to ensurc that wherever the authorities intend toinitiate proceedings under Sections 148-A and 14g, other than in aI-aceless nlirnner, the proceedings shoutd have been def'crredwithout precipitating the matter further intimating the assessee thatthey shall initiate appropriate proceedings only after the SI_p,s aredecided by the Hon'ble Supreme Couft on the very same issue.This again, the Income Tax Deparlment, has not been able to give aconvincing replr,, exccpt lbr the fact that such a clecision if at a1l has to be taken, has to be taken for the whole of India, and whichotherrvise has to be by rvay of a policy decision and that too at theotherrvise has to be by rvay of a policy decision and that too at thele",el ol Central Board of Direct Taxes. Though the learnedStanding 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 reducertsthe Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition of similar nature, onthe one hand when the High Court is struggling to reducertsper.rdency, such notices which are under challenge in this writpctition arc tbrcing the assessee to knock the doors of this HighCourt lcsulting in fiting of hundreds of new writ petitions which inCourt lcsulting in fiting of hundreds of new writ petitions which inthe long run not only affects the disposal of the wlit petitions butalso consumes substantial time of the Bench in hearing thesealso consumes substantial time of the Bench in hearing thesemattcrs again and again on daily basis. Admittedly, in spite of thematter befbre the Hon'ble Supreme Court having been taken onmanv occasions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court which is seized of thernaltcr has been reluctant in granting any interim protection to thematter befbre the Hon'ble Supreme Court having been taken onmanv occasions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court which is seized of thernaltcr has been reluctant in granting any interim protection to theIncor-ne Tax Department. Yet, the authorities concemed at theStatc level are not ready to accept the verdict passed by a majorityo1- Fligh Coufts of different States on the same issue; and to makethings lurther worse, the lncome Tax DepartmentIS showingaudacity by issuing notices continuously under Sections 148-A andStatc level are not ready to accept the verdict passed by a majorityo1- Fligh Coufts of different States on the same issue; and to makethings lurther worse, the lncome Tax DepartmentIS showingaudacity by issuing notices continuously under Sections 148-A and 148 through the jurisdictional Assessing Officer. rvhereas it oughtto havc beer, only in the laceless manner. 14. ln tlre casc of BANK OF INDIA vs. ASSISTANTCOMMISSIONER, INCOME TAXrr, on an lssue whether ir wasjustihable on the palt of the Incorne Tax Depaftrnent ln notfollowing an order passed by the adjudicating authority only on theground that the appeals are pending, the Division Bench of theHigh Court ol'Bornbay hcld at paragraph No.25 as under, viz., : "25 ltilr. Paridwalla has righfly drawn out attention 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. lTO13of which one of us (Justice G.S. Kulkarni) was a member, wherejnthe Court categorically observed that the Revenue having not"accepted" the judgment of the High Court would not mean that tithe 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 In such decision, following are the relevantobservations made by the Supreme Court. '] itZOzS) [170 ][raxrnann.com ]422 (llombay)l " JDzsl [l3 ][tT ] [589 ][(tlonrbay)] " [72OZ+1 ] [65 taxmann.corn ]-sg [1/300 ]Taxman 452 (Bombay) " ltgTZl [raxrnann.corn ]l6155 DI-T 433 (SC) '] itZOzS) [170 ][raxrnann.com ]422 (llombay)l " JDzsl [l3 ][tT ] [589 ][(tlonrbay)] " [72OZ+1 ] [65 taxmann.corn ]-sg [1/300 ]Taxman 452 (Bombay) " ltgTZl [raxrnann.corn ]l6155 DI-T 433 (SC) "6. Sri Reddy is perhaps right in saying that theofficers were not actuated by any mala fides inofficers were not actuated by any mala fides inpassing the impugned orders. They perhapsgenuinely 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 ortenable 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 reachingmalafides but with the fact that the officers, in reachingrn 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 Tnbunal The Hioh Court has in our view. riohtlvcriticized this conduct of the Assistant Collectors andthe harassment to the assessee caused by the failureof these officers to give effect to the orders ofauthorities higher to them in the appellate hierarchy. ltthem, one of the Collector (Appeals) and the other ofthe Tnbunal The Hioh Court has in our view. riohtlvcriticized this conduct of the Assistant Collectors andthe harassment to 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 vehemently emphasized that it is ofutmost importance that, in disposing of theutmost importance that, in disposing of thequasijudrcial issues before them, revenue officers arebound by the decisions of the appellate authorities.The order of the Appellte Collector is binding on thebound 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 AssistantCollectors and the Appellate Collectors who functionunder the [jurisdiction ]of the Tribunal. The principles ofthe 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 authoritres should be followed unreservedlyby the subordinate authorities. The mere fact that theorder of the appellate authority is not ["acceptable" ]toby 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 noand 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 healthybeen suspended by a competent court. lf this healthy ru e is not followed, the result will only be undueharassment to assesses and chaos in administrationof tax laws. ru e 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 Solrcitor General that the observationsm:rde by the High Court, have been harsh on theofficers. lt is clear that the observations of the HighCourt, seemlngly vehement, and apparen yunpalatable 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 Hrgh Courtshculd be kept in mind in future and the utmost regardsh:uld be paid by the adjudicating authorities and theapoellate authorities to the requirements of ludicialdiscipline and the need for giving effect to the ordersof the higher appellate authorities which are bindingon theln." 15. What is wor-l-ying this Bench lnorc is the lact that anendeavour i:. being made u,hole hcartedly to cnsure tlot to generatefurther litigation on issues rvl.rich have been laid to rest b1,3 lsrgsnumber of I ligh C-ourts all of who,r have takcn a consistent standthat the actic,n of the Income Tax Department being r.iolative of the Finance AcL, 2020 and Finance Act, 2021. Now, in order to protectthe interest of the Revenue as also that ofthe assessee, it would betrite at this [junchrre, ]if we dispose of the u,rit petition with anobservation/d irection that the disposal of the instant writ petition interms of the [judgment ]rendered by this High Court in the case ofKank(nalo Ravindra Reddy (l supra) shall however be subject tothe outcorne of the SLPs which rvere fited by the Income TaxDepartrnent and rvhich is pending consideration before the Hon'bleSuprcme Cour1. 16. In the given facts and circLrmstances, this Bench is of theconsidcred opinion that unless and until we do not timely disposeof rnatters which are squarely covered by the decision of this Courtand which stands foftified by the decisions of the various otherFligh Courts on thc vely same issue, the pendency of this HighCourt rvould lurther be burdened which otherwise can be decidedand disposed of as a covered matter ll . So far as the intercst of the Revenue is concerned, we are of the,qp,!€idq,qd.9,pi{uql, Ih?L,tJ,E.iqHurt"a{ tlt".BsxEnuq,hffi , elrqq{x been considered and plotected, as lras been observed in paragraphs 36,37 and 38 of the order which, lor ready referencc.. 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 notices so issued and the procedure adopted beingpe. se illegal, deserves to be and are accordingly setaslde/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 lhe consequential order is on the principlesthat when the initration of the proceedings itself wasprocedurally wrong, the subsequent orders also getsnu llified automatrcally. 37. The prelimrnary 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 ofjurisdiction, we are not inclined to proceed further anddecide the other issues raised by the petitioner whtchstands reserved to be raised and contended in anappropriate proceedrngs. 38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, rn the caseof Ashish Agarwal, supra, as a one{ime measureexercising the powers under Article 142 of theConstitution of lndia, permitted the Revenue to proceedunder the substituted provisions, and this Cou( allowingthe petitions only on the procedural flaw. the nght 37. The prelimrnary 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 ofjurisdiction, we are not inclined to proceed further anddecide the other issues raised by the petitioner whtchstands reserved to be raised and contended in anappropriate proceedrngs. 38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, rn the caseof Ashish Agarwal, supra, as a one{ime measureexercising the powers under Article 142 of theConstitution of lndia, permitted the Revenue to proceedunder the substituted provisions, and this Cou( allowingthe petitions only on the procedural flaw. the nght conferred on the Revenue would remain reserved toproceed further if they so want from the stage of theorder of the Supreme Court in the case of AshishAgarwal, supra 18. We would only lufther like to make observations that sincerve are inclined to dispose ol the instant [writ ][petition, ][conscious ]oftl.re fact that the earlier order of this High Court in [the ][case ][of]Kanakala Rovindra Reddy (l supra) is subjected to [challenge]before the Hon'ble Suprcme Couft in [No.3574 ][of ][2024,]prefened by thc Income Tax Deparlment, [we ]rnake it [clear that]allowing of the instant writ [petition ][is ]subject [to ][outcome ][of ][the]aforesaid SLP preferred by the [Revenue against the ][decision ][of this]lligh Courl in the case ol Kanakals Ravindra [Reddy ][(1 ][supta).]This, in other rvords, would mean that either [of ][the parties, ][if ][they]so want, rnay 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 [ol-r ]the [very ][same ][issue.] 19. Accordingly, the instant [writ ][petition ][stands ][allowed ][in]favour of the assessee so far as [the ][issue ][of ][jurisdiction]1Sconcemed. As a consequence, the [impugned ][notice ][under]challenge under Sections 148-A and 148 stands [set aside/quashed.] I The consequential orders, if any, also stand set aside/quashed insimilar terrn; as have been passcd by this High (loun in the case of Kankonala Rovindro Reddy (l supra). There sl.rall be no orcler as to costs. Consr:quently, miscellaneous pet.itions pencling, il any, shall stand closed. SVANI SWAMY\REGISTRAR//TRUE COPY//\l sEcIoN oFFtcER\REGISTRAR//TRUE COPY//\l sEcIoN oFFtcER To'1 . The lncome Tax Officer Ward '1 , Khammam / ln oeTax Office, RajeevGunt, Rajiv Chowk, Near Kinnerasani Theatre, K ammam Telangana State.'1 . The lncome Tax Officer Ward '1 , Khammam / ln oeTax Office, RajeevGunt, Rajiv Chowk, Near Kinnerasani Theatre, K ammam Telangana State.2. The Principalhief Commissioner of lncome Tax. Telangana and A.P,Hyderabad, ll Towers, AC Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad - 500 028,TelanganaHyderabad, ll Towers, AC Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad - 500 028,Telangana3. The National Faceless Assessment Center, lncome Tax Department, NewDelhiDelhi4. The Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes, Department of Revenue,Mllis-try of Finance, Government of lndia, Secretariat Buildings, New Delhi -1'10001.Mllis-try of Finance, Government of lndia, Secretariat Buildings, New Delhi -1'10001.5. The Secretar)'to the Government, Union of lndia, Department of Revenue,Ivinistry of Finance, New Delhi - 1 10 001 .Ivinistry of Finance, New Delhi - 1 10 001 .6. One CC to SRI THANNERU CHAITANYA KUMAR, Advocate 7. One CC to Ms. BOKARO SAPNA REDDY (Jr. SC FOR TNCOMETAX) Advocale 7. One CC to Ms. BOKARO SAPNA REDDY (Jr. SC FOR TNCOMETAX) Advocale 8. One CC to SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEpUTy SOLTCITOR GENERALc\OF lNDlA, Advocate (OPUC)9. Two CD Copi,:s9. Two CD Copi,:s,SA(f": [lD]": [lD] HIGH COURTDATED:01 [10512025] ORDERWP.No.28960 of [2024] ALLOWING [W.P]WITHOUT COSTS. 61[,{] \i\!r1E I'rAto(J1 6 JUL2ffi)a*i:i-lir\itllr-ra ^--::::__-:=':-/