Under Section I48A Of The Act As Also Under Sect;On I4G Of Theact Ought To Have Also Been Issued And Proceedec In A Facelessmanller.act Ought To Have Also Been v. Income_

13447 | HIGH COURT FOR AT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY PRESENT THE HONOURABLE [JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY]. AND THE HONOURABLE WRlT PETITION NO: [4361 OF ][2025] Between: Padmalatha Kopalle, D/o [Muralinath Kopalle, ][R/o ][1B ][Parkleigh Lane Dublin,.lreland]Reoresented Bv sudna Kopalle [(GPA) D/o ][Muralinath ][Kopalle aged about 44 ][years,]Oct.Serivce, R7o. W 116 [Western ][Exotica. Maharishi Marg Shilpa Park, ][Kondapur,]Hyderabad, Telangana, [500084-] .....PETITIONER AND 1. lncome Tax Officer, [ward ][12(1 ]). [Hyde;'abad lncome Tax ][Towers, ][Masab Tank]500004.500004. 2. Principal Commissioner [of ][lncorne Tax 4, lncome Tax ][Towers ][Masab ][Tank]500004.500004. 3. The National Faceless [Assessment ][c:ntre. ][Inccme ][Tax Department Ministry]of Finance Govt. of [lndia, ][New ][Delht]of Finance Govt. of [lndia, ][New ][Delht] .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article [226 ][of the ][constitution ][of ][lndia ][praying ][that ][in ][the]circumstances stated in [the ][affidavit frlec ][therewrth, ][the ][High ][court ][may ][be]pleased to l. lssue a writ, order or [Drreclron ][more ][particularly, one, ][in ][the ][nature]of writ of Mandamus, [declaring ][the actrcn ][of the Rsspondent ][No. ][2 ][in passing ][an]order dated 08.03.2024uts. [14BA(d) ][and ][Nottce ][u/s ][148 dated 08.03.2024 calling]for income for A-Y. 2O2O-21 [as ][illegal. ][arbitrary. ][bad ][in ][law and ][violative ][of]Articles 14, 19 and 265 [0f ][the constitutron ][ot ][lndia. ][ll. ][Set aside the ][order ][dated]08.03.2024uls.148A(d)andNotrceissu.--dbyRespondentNo.2uls.148oflncome Tax Act. 1961 dated [08 ][03 ][2024 ][calling ][for ][the ][return ][of ][income ][of ][the] Petitioner for A.Y2020-21 and any consequent proceedrngsASlackingtnjurisdrction. |.A.NO:1 OF 2025 Petition Under Section 151 cpc pr"aying that in the c .cunrstances stateci inthe affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court nray be pleased to staythe proceedings pur-suant to the order passed by the tnc ome Tax Departmentundersection 148A(d) dated 08.03.2024for Assessment year 20zo-21 and directthe Department to not take any coercive steps for recovery 0f demand. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRt POLKAMPALLY PAVAN KUMAR RAO Counsel for the Respondents : Ms. BOKARO SAPNA REDDY (Jr. SC FORrNcoME TAX)rNcoME TAX) The Court made the following ORDER THE HONOURABLE [P.SAM ] ANDTHE IIONOURABLE NANDIKONDAW.P.No.436[r oF ][2025] ORDER' [(per ][Hon'ble ][Sri ][Justice P'Sam Koshy)] Heard Mr. [Polkampally ][Pavan ][Kumar Rao' ][learned counsel] for the [petitioner ][and ][Ms' ][B'Sapna ][Reddy' ][learned ][Junior]Standing Counsel [for ][the ][Income ][Tax ][Department ][for ][respondent]Nos.l and [2. ][Perused ][the ][record'] This is a writ is a writ a writ writ [[petition ]][[where ][the ][proceedings ]][[the ][proceedings ]][[proceedings ]][[are ][either]][[either]] 2. This is a writ is a writ a writ writ [[petition ]][[where ][the ][proceedings ]][[the ][proceedings ]][[proceedings ]][[are ][either]][[either]]challenged [to ][the ][notices w'hich rvere ][issued ][under ][Section ][148A]and 148 of [the ][Income ][lax ][Act, ][196 ] [(for ][short'the ][Act') ][or ][the]assessment [orders ][those ][have been ][passed ][under ][Section ][147 ][of]the Act [which ][have ][been assailed'] This writ writ [[petition ]][[is being taken ][up ][today ][only ][on one ][of ][the]][[up ][today ][only ][on one ][of ][the]][[today ][only ][on one ][of ][the]][[only ][on one ][of ][the]][[on one ][of ][the]][[of ][the]][[the]] This is a writ is a writ a writ writ [[petition ]][[where ][the ][proceedings ]][[the ][proceedings ]][[proceedings ]][[are ][either]][[either]] 2. This is a writ is a writ a writ writ [[petition ]][[where ][the ][proceedings ]][[the ][proceedings ]][[proceedings ]][[are ][either]][[either]]challenged [to ][the ][notices w'hich rvere ][issued ][under ][Section ][148A]and 148 of [the ][Income ][lax ][Act, ][196 ] [(for ][short'the ][Act') ][or ][the]assessment [orders ][those ][have been ][passed ][under ][Section ][147 ][of]the Act [which ][have ][been assailed'] This writ writ [[petition ]][[is being taken ][up ][today ][only ][on one ][of ][the]][[up ][today ][only ][on one ][of ][the]][[today ][only ][on one ][of ][the]][[only ][on one ][of ][the]][[on one ][of ][the]][[of ][the]][[the]] 3. This writ writ [[petition ]][[is being taken ][up ][today ][only ][on one ][of ][the]][[up ][today ][only ][on one ][of ][the]][[today ][only ][on one ][of ][the]][[only ][on one ][of ][the]][[on one ][of ][the]][[of ][the]][[the]]that [the ][notices ][issued ][under ][Section ][148A ][of ][the ][Act]grounds, and the subsequent [initiation ofproceedings ][under Section ][148 ][of]the Act [by ][the ][jurisdictional ][Assessing ][Olficer' ][whereas ][in ][terms]of the amendment [that ][was ][brought ][to the ][Income ][Tax ][Act ][by way]of Finance [Act, ][2O2l ][w'e'f', ][0t'04'2021 ][onwards' ][proceedings] under Section I48A of the Act as also under Sect;on I4g of theAct ought to have also been issued and proceedec in a facelessmanller.Act ought to have also been issued and proceedec in a facelessmanller. 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 issue ofproceedings being in violation of the Financ e Act 2021 i.e., theimpugned noticcs under Section l4gA and Section l4g of the Actnot being issued in a faceless manner, have already lrcen dealt withand decided by this Court in the case of ftANKANALARAVINDRA REDDY vs. INCOME_TAX OFFICER, decidedon 14.09.2023 whereby a batch of writ petitions welc allou,ed :rndthe proceedings initiated under Section I4gA as arso u.der Section148 of the Act were held to be bad with consequential relicts on theground of it being in violation of the provisions of St,crio. r5 r A olthe Acr read n,irh Notification .l_hc lg/2022 dated 29.03 .2022 saidjudgrnent passed by this Court has also been subsequ,:nrly tbllowedin a large number of writ petitions which were allov ecr on sirni rar 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 issue of terms. '[(202]) I56 raxmann.com l7g (Telangana)l ( 5. Down the line, we find that the same issue has also we find that the same issue has also find that the same issue has also that the same issue has also same issue has also also beendecided against the Revenue by various High Courts i.e.,by the Bombay High Court in the case of HEXAWARETECHNOLOGIES LTD., vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX & OTHERS2, Gauhati High Court 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 ofSRI VENKATARAMANA REDDY PATLOOLA vs. DEPUTYCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX5 where the issue was inrespect of international taxation, Bombay t{igh Court in the case ofABHIN ANILKUMAR SHAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,INTERNATIONAL TAXATION6 which is again on internationaltaxation and central circle, High Court of Himachal Pradesh in thecase of GOVIND SINGH vs. INCOIVIE TAX OFFICERT,Gujarat High Court in the case ol MANSUKHBHAI Down the line, we find that the same issue has also we find that the same issue has also find that the same issue has also that the same issue has also same issue has also also been 2 lzoz+1464 rrR 430 (Bom) Down the line, we find that the same issue has also we find that the same issue has also find that the same issue has also that the same issue has also same issue has also also been 2 lzoz+1464 rrR 430 (Bom) ' [(2024) [156 ]taxmann.com 478 [(Cauhati)]]"l(2024) 165 taxmann.com 115 (Punjab & Haryana)l'[2024) [167 ]taxmann.com 4I I [(Telangana)]]" [2024) [166 ]taxmann.com 679 [(Bombay)]]'[2024) 165 taxmann.com I I3 (Himachal Pradesh)] DAHI'ABHAI RADADIYA vs. INCOME TA): OFFICER,WARD 3(3X5)8, Jharkand High Court in the case of SHYAMSUNDAR SAW vs. UNION OF INDIAe, Rajasthan High Court inthe case of SHARDA DEVI CHHAJER vs. 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 i'r the case ofGIRDHAR GOPAL DALMIA vs. UNION OF II{DIA & 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 mattcrs on daily basis ranging betrveen 5 to l0 writpetitions. That upon the instructions being sought frorn theDepartment, they have been taking a solitary glound that thedecision of thc 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 tz02+ SCC Online Guj 4012"2025 SCC Online Jhar287'o 72023 [: ] [:4984-DB ]l (l supra) has been subjected to challenge in a Special LeavePetition i.e., SLP No.3574 of 2024 before the Hon'ble SupremeCourt and the Hon'ble Supreme Court is seized of the matter.In addition, there are about 1200 SLPs also hled arising out ofthesame issue being decided by various High Courts. 7. To a query being put to the leamed counsel for the Revenue,they have categorically accepted the fact that there is no interimorder granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in any of thesematters pending before it. Meanwhile, fresh writ petitions ofidentical nature are being piled up before this Bench on daily basisand the pendency is getting increased on matter which otherwisehas already been dealt and decided by this very High Court itselL8. On the one hand, even though the order of this Court thatwas passed as early as on 14.09.2023 and more [6 months havelapsed, till date, we do not find any remedial stcps having beentaken by the Income Tax Department to take appropriatc steps toeither hold back issuance ofnotice under Section l48A and underSection 148 of the Act by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer,rather the authorities concemed in the teeth of series of decisions by alt the major l{igh Courts in India are conlinuously srillinitiating proceedings under Section 148A. of the Act and alsoinitiating proceedings under Section 148 of the Act incontravention to the amendments brought into the Inoome Tax Actpursuant to the Finance Act,2020 as also the Finance Act2O2l.9. Upon a query being put as to why can't this vrit petition bedisposed of in the teeth of the decision rendered b1. this Court inthe case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra), leamed StandingCounsel for the Income Tax Department contends thrrt those wouldunnecessarily bu rden the Income Tax Departmer t where theywould be required to hle equal number of SLps before theHon'ble Supreme Court and it would be further burdening theexchequer of the Union of India. [t was also the cotrtention of theleamed Standing Counsel that no prejudice would bt: 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 lact that the petitioner is al.eady enjoyingthe benefit ol- interim protection. Nonetheless, on the earlier queryof this Court as to why the Income Tax Department have not corneout with a mechanism to issue appropriate instruct:ons or to take appropriate steps in ensuring that proceedings under Section l4gAofthe Act as also the assessment orders under Section l4g oftheAct are kept in a hold in the light of the decisions dedcided by thevarious High Courts, it was submitted by the learned StandingCounsel that the said steps can only be taken at the level of CBDTas any such steps would have to be taken pan India and cannot belimited to any of these jurisdictional High Courts. 10. As a result of which, what we are facing is steep increase oflitigation day in and day out even though various orders have beenpassed by this High Court allowing writ petitions on the very sameissue. The Income Tax authorities concemed are still even now in2025 atso initiating proceedings in contravention to the provisionsof Section l5lA of the Act and as a result by now, more than (r00to 700 peritions have been already got piled up belore this HighCourt on an issue which otherwise stands squarely covered by thejudgment of this Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy(l supra). What is also surprising is the fact that though whiteallowing the writ petitions in the case of Kanakala RuvindraReddy (l supra), the Division Bench while reserving the right ofthe Revenue, has also protected the interest of the petitioners insofar as the liberty which was [granted ]to the [Revenue ][for]initiating fresh proceedings strictly in accordance witt [the amended]provisions of the Act, as amended by the Finance 4rct,2020 andthe Finance Act, 2021. The petitioner assessee would be entitled [to]challenge or raise the other legal objections if the Re'renue [initiates]fresh proceedings. The Department has made no endeavour [in]availing the said liberty that was resewed for the Revenue. [On ][the]contrary, they have been sti[[ sticking on to the staltd, which [this]High Court as rvell as many other High Courts alreirdy held to [be]bad. I l. It appears that because of the aforesaid liberty that this HighCourt had granted permitting the Revenue for i:-ritiating [fresh]proceedings as a one-time measure in a facelest; manner, theIncome Tax Department wants to take advantage cf the same byprotracting these proceedings which would enable them to meet theIimitation that would otherwise come in the way. t.ikewise, if thewrit petition is kept pending lor a considerable long [period ]of timeand finally at a later stage if the Hon'ble Supreme [(lourt ]confirmsthe decision taken by this High Cou( as also by :he other HighCourts in which the SLPs are still pending, th: Income [Tax] Department woui<i get the advantage of the liberfy that is other,,...s.;protected in favour of the Revenue for initiation of freshproceedings from the disposal of these matters at a much later stagewhich would be advantageous and beneficial to the Revenue andwould be equally disadvantageous and detrimental so far as interestof the assesses are concerned. As a consequence, the Income TaxDepartment gets an extended period of time for initiation of fieshproceedings. 12. The alarming trend of docket explosion in this Court, despitethe clear precedent set in Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra), is amatter of grave concern. The Income Tax Department's persistentinitiation o f fresh proceedings, disregarding the established j udicialpronouncements, has led to an unprecedented surge in litigationwith over 600-700 petitions piling up on the same issue. Thisdeliberate approach nor only undermines the principle of judicialprecedent but also strains the judicial resources unnecessarily. TheDepartment's strategy of awaiting the Supreme Court's decision onpending SLPs while continuing to initiate fiesh proceedingsappears to be a calcu lated move to buy time and circumventlimitation periods, rather than adhering to the established legat 12. The alarming trend of docket explosion in this Court, despitethe clear precedent set in Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra), is amatter of grave concern. The Income Tax Department's persistentinitiation o f fresh proceedings, disregarding the established j udicialpronouncements, has led to an unprecedented surge in litigationwith over 600-700 petitions piling up on the same issue. Thisdeliberate approach nor only undermines the principle of judicialprecedent but also strains the judicial resources unnecessarily. TheDepartment's strategy of awaiting the Supreme Court's decision onpending SLPs while continuing to initiate fiesh proceedingsappears to be a calcu lated move to buy time and circumventlimitation periods, rather than adhering to the established legat positioq. Such co:ld'tct raises :erious [questionli ][about ][tiLc]administrative efficiency and the [respect ][for ][judicial]pronouncements, particularly when this Court [has ][alrt:ady ][provided]a balanced approach by [preserving both ][the ][Revenue's ][rights ][and]assesses interests.administrative efficiency and the [respect ][for ][judicial]pronouncements, particularly when this Court [has ][alrt:ady ][provided]a balanced approach by [preserving both ][the ][Revenue's ][rights ][and]assesses interests. 13. Another aspect which [needs ][to ][be ][considered ][is ][that ][in fact ][it]should have been realized by [the Income ][Tax ][Departnrent ][itselfand]should have found out via [media ][in ][ensuring thar ][proceedings]under Sections 148-4 and 148 should [not ][have ][been issued ][in ][a]faceless manner, at least till the Hon'ble [Supreme ][Court ][decide ][the]twelve hundred [(1200) ]odd SLPs [which ][it ][is already ][seized ][of ][or, ][at]least the Income Tax Department [should have ][fotLnd ][out ][some]remedial steps to ensure that [wherever ][the ][authorities intend ][to]initiate proceedings under Sections [148-A ][and ][148, ][c,ther ][than ][in ][a]faceless manner, the [proceedings ]should [have ][treen ][deferred]without precipitating the matter [further ][intimating ][th<: ][assessee ][that]they shall initiate appropriate [proceedings ][only ][after ][the ][SLP's ][are]decided by the Hon'ble Supreme [Court ][on ][the very ][same ][issue.]This again, the Income Tax Department, [has ][not ][been ][able ][to ][give a]convincing reply, except for the [fact that ][such a de,:ision ][if ][at all] has to be taken, has to be taken for the whole of India, and whichotherwise has to be by way of a policy decision and that too at theotherwise has to be by way of a policy decision and that too at thelevel o[ Central Board of Direct Taxes. Though the leamedStanding Counsel for the Income Tax Department contended thatthe Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition of similar nature, onStanding Counsel for the Income Tax Department contended thatthe Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition of similar nature, onthe one hand when the High Court is struggling to reduce itspendency, such notices which are under challenge in this writpetition are forcing the assessee to knock the doors of this HighCourt resulting in filing of hundreds of new writ petitions which inCourt resulting in filing of hundreds of new writ petitions which inthe long run not only affects the disposal of the writ petitions butalso consumes substantial tinre of the Bench in hearing thesematters again and again on daity basis. Admittedly, in spite of thematter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court having been taken onmany occasions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court which is seized of thematter has been reluctant in granting any interim protection to thealso consumes substantial tinre of the Bench in hearing thesematters again and again on daity basis. Admittedly, in spite of thematter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court having been taken onmany occasions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court which is seized of thematter has been reluctant in granting any interim protection to thelncome Tax Department. Yet, the authorities concemed at theState level are not ready to accept the verdict passed by a majorityof High Courts of different States on the same issue; and to makethings further worse, the lncome Tax Department is showingState level are not ready to accept the verdict passed by a majorityof High Courts of different States on the same issue; and to makethings further worse, the lncome Tax Department is showingaudacity by issuing notices continuously under Sections 148-A and t48 through the jurisdictional Assessing Officer wh:reas it oughtto have been only in the faceless manner. 14. In the case of BANK OF INDIA vs. ASSISTANTCOMI{ISSIONER, INCOME TAXrr, on an issue rvhether ir wasjustifiable on the part of the Income Tax Department ln notfollowing an order passed by the adjudicating authority only on theground that the appeals are pending, the Division Bcnch of theHigh Court of Bombay held at paragraph No.25 as urder, viz., : "25. Mr. Paridwalla has rightly drawn out attent on to thedecision of this Court in Commissioner of lncome Tax vs. Smt.Godavaridevi Sarafl2 as also the recent decision :f the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Samp Furniture (P) Ltd. v. lTOl3of which one of us (Justice G.S. Kulkarni) was a membi)r, whereinthe Court categorically observed that the Revenue raving not"accepted" the judgment of the High Court would not mean that tiltthe same is set aside in a manner known to law, it would loose itsbinding force. Referring to the decision of the Suprerre Court inUnion of lndia vs. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd.r4, theCourt observed that the approach of the offlcials of ftevenue oftreating decisions being "not acceptable" was critici,red by theSupreme Court. ln such decision, following are the relevantobservations made by the Supreme Court. i] [ttZozSl ][170 ][raxmann.com 422 ][lBombay)l]'" ll978l I l3 ITR 589 (Bombay)'3 1ZO2+1165 [taxmann.com 581i300 Taxman 452 ][(Bomt,av)]'o leqZltaxmann.com [l6155 ] [433 (SC)] i] [ttZozSl ][170 ][raxmann.com 422 ][lBombay)l]'" ll978l I l3 ITR 589 (Bombay)'3 1ZO2+1165 [taxmann.com 581i300 Taxman 452 ][(Bomt,av)]'o leqZltaxmann.com [l6155 ] [433 (SC)] '6. Sri Reddy is perhaps right in saying that theofficers were not actuated by any mala fides inpassing the impugned orders. They perhapspassing the impugned orders. They perhapsgenuinely felt that the claim of the assessee was nottenable and that, if it was accepted, the Revenuetenable and that, if it was accepted, the Revenuewould suffer. But what Sri Reddy overlooks is that weare not concerned here with the correctness orare not concerned here with the correctness orotherwise of their conclusion or of any factualmalafides but with the fact that the officers, in reachingin their conclusion, by-passed two appellate orders inmalafides but with the fact that the officers, in reachingin their conclusion, by-passed two appellate orders inregard to the same issue which were placed beforethem, one of the Collector (Appeals) and the other ofthe Tribunal. The High Court has, in our view, rightlythe Tribunal. The High Court has, in our view, rightlycriticized this mnduct 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. ltthe 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 thequasi,udicial issues before them, revenue officers arebound by the decisions of the appellate authorities.bound by the decisions of the appellate authorities.The order of the Appellte Collector is binding on theAssistant Collectors working within his jurisdiction andAssistant Collectors working within his jurisdiction andthe order of the Tribunal is binding upon the AssistantCollectors and lhe Appellate Collectors who functionunder the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The principles ofjudicial discipline require thal the orders of the higherjudicial discipline require thal the orders of the higherappellate authorities should be followed unreservedlyby the subordinate authorities. The mere fact that theby the subordinate authorities. The mere fact that theorder of the appellate authority is not "acceptable" tothe department - in itself an oblectionable phrase -and is the subiect matter of an appeal can furnish noand is the subiect matter of an appeal can furnish noground for not following it unless ils operation hasbeen suspended by a competent court. lf this healthy rule is not followed, [jsult ]will only be urdueharassment to assesses and chaos in administrartionof tax laws. 12. We have dealt with this aspect at some ler)gth,because it has been suggested by the lea.nedAdditional Solicitor General that the observa ionsmade by the High Court, have been harsh on theofficers. lt is clear that the observations of the HighCourt, seemingly vehement, and appar:ntlyunpalatable to the Revenue, are only intended to curba tendency in revenue matters which, if allowe d tobecome widespread, could resull in conside'ableharassment to the assesses-public without any bonefitto the Revenue. We would like to say that thedepartment should take these observations ir theproper spirit. The observations of the High (lourtshould be kept in mind in future and the utmost re,gardshould be paid by the adjudicating authorities anJ theappellate authorities to the requirements of juCicraldiscipline and the need for giving effect to the o.dersof the higher appellate authorities which are bi,rdingon them." 15. What is worrying this Bench more is thr fact thatanendeavour is being made whole heartedly to ensure not to generatefurther litigation on issues which have been taid to rest by a largenumber of High Courts all of whom have taken a consistent standthat the action of the Income Tax Department being violarive o[ the 15. What is worrying this Bench more is thr fact thatanendeavour is being made whole heartedly to ensure not to generatefurther litigation on issues which have been taid to rest by a largenumber of High Courts all of whom have taken a consistent standthat the action of the Income Tax Department being violarive o[ the Finance Act,2020 and Finance Act, 2021 . Now, in order to protectthe interest ofthe Revenue as also that ofthe assessee, it would betrite at this juncture, if we dispose of the writ petition with anobservation/direction that the disposal of the instant writ petition interrns of the judgment rendered by this High Court in the case ofKankanala Ravindra Reddy (l supra) shall however be subject tothe outcome of the SLPs which were filed by the Income TaxDepartment and which is pending consideration before the Hon,bleSupreme Court. 16. In the given facts and circumstances, this Bench is of the considered opinion that unless and untit we do not timely disposeof matters which are squarely covered by the decision of this Courtof matters which are squarely covered by the decision of this Courtand which stands fortified by the decisions of the various otherHigh Courts on the very same issue, the pendency of this HighCourt would further be burdened which otherwise can be decidedand disposed ofas a covered matter.High Courts on the very same issue, the pendency of this HighCourt would further be burdened which otherwise can be decidedand disposed ofas a covered matter. 17. So far as the interest of the Revenue is concemed, we are of the considered opinion that the interest ofthe Revenue has alreadybeen considered and protected, as has been observed in paragraphsbeen considered and protected, as has been observed in paragraphs 36, 37 and 38 ofthe order which, for ready reference, [is ][reproduced]hereunder: 36. For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned [oticesissued and the proceedings drawn by the respc,ndent-Department is neither tenable, nor susta inable.The notices so lssued and the procedure adopte(J beingper se illegal, deserves to be and are accordingly setaside/quashed. As a consequence, all the impugnedorders getting quashed, the consequential orders [passed]by the respondent-Department pursuant to the noticesissued under Section 147 and 148would also getquashed and it is ordered accordingly. The reason weare quashing the consequential order is on the prrnciplesthat when the initiation of the proceedings its-.lf wasprocedurally wrong, the subsequent orders al:ro getsnullifi ed automatically. 37. The preliminary objection raised by the petiiioner issustained and all these writ petitions stands allcwed onthis very [jurisdictional ]issue. Since the impugned noticesand orders are getting quashed on the l)oint ofjurisdiction, we are not inclined to proceed furlher anddecide the other issues raised by the petitioner whichstands reserved to be raised and contende,i in anappropriate proceedings. 38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Courl had, in the caseof Ashish Agarwal, supra, as a one{ime ['neasure]exercising the powers under Article 142 of theConstitution of lndia, permifted the Revenue to [proceed]under the substituted provisions, and this Court allowingthe petitions only on the procedural flaw, :he right conferred on the Revenue would remain reserved toproceed further if they so want from the stage of theorder of the Supreme Court in the case of Ashishwant from the stage of theorder of the Supreme Court in the case of AshishAganrrral, supra. 18. We would only further like to make observations that since 38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Courl had, in the caseof Ashish Agarwal, supra, as a one{ime ['neasure]exercising the powers under Article 142 of theConstitution of lndia, permifted the Revenue to [proceed]under the substituted provisions, and this Court allowingthe petitions only on the procedural flaw, :he right conferred on the Revenue would remain reserved toproceed further if they so want from the stage of theorder of the Supreme Court in the case of Ashishwant from the stage of theorder of the Supreme Court in the case of AshishAganrrral, supra. 18. We would only further like to make observations that since we are inclined to dispose of the instant writ petition, conscious ofpetition, conscious ofthe fact that the earlier order. of this [{igh Court in rhe case ofKanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra) is subjected to challengebefore the Hon'bre Supreme court in SLp No.l574 of 2024,Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra) is subjected to challengebefore the Hon'bre Supreme court in SLp No.l574 of 2024,preferred by the Income Tax Department. we makc it clear thatTax Department. we makc it clear thatallowing of the instant writ petition is subject ro ourcome o[-theo[-theaforesaid SLp preferred by the Revenue against the dccision ofthisHigh Court in the case of Kanakala Ravirtdro Rcdd.y (L supra).This, in other words, would mean that either ot.rhe parries. i{-rheyThis, in other words, would mean that either ot.rhe parries. i{-rheyso want, may move an appropriate pctition sccking rcvival ol thiswrit petition in the light of the decision ol rhc t{on.blc SuprcmeCourt in the pending SLp on the very same issuc.writ petition in the light of the decision ol rhc t{on.blc SuprcmeCourt in the pending SLp on the very same issuc. l.9. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands allou,ecl infavour of the assessee so far as thc issuc ol' ju risdicr ionISconcemed. As a consequence, thc irnpugned rlotice underchallenge under Sections l4g_A and I48 stands sct asiclc/r;uashed. The consequential [orders, ][if ][any, also ][stand ][set ][aside/quashcd in]similar tcrrns [as ][have been ][passed ][by ][this ][High Court in ][llre ][casc ][of]Kankanala [Ravindra ][Red'dy ][(l ][supra)' ][There ][shall be ][no ][order ][as] to costs Consequently, [miscellaneous ][petitions pending' ][if ][any' shail] stand closed. SD/.K.BHAVANI ASSISiTANT SECTI$frFFICER /TTRUE COPY// To1.The lncomc [Tax Officer, ][Ward ][12(1), ][Hyderabad ][lncome: ][Tax Towers' ][lvlasab]Tank 5000041.The lncomc [Tax Officer, ][Ward ][12(1), ][Hyderabad ][lncome: ][Tax Towers' ][lvlasab]Tank 5000042The Prrncipal [Commissioner of lncome ][Tax ][4' ][lncome Tax Towers ][lr4asab]Tank i>00004.i>00004.Tank i>00004.i>00004. Tank i>00004.i>00004.ri" r,l,,t,"t*| [[racetess ]][[Assessment ]][Centre, lncome ][Tal ][Department ][N/inistry]of [ ,;, ,;, [[,r, ][,' ][Govr. ][of lndia, ][New Delhi']][[,' ][Govr. ][of lndia, ][New Delhi']][[Govr. ][of lndia, ][New Delhi']][[of lndia, ][New Delhi']][[New Delhi']][[Advocate ]]ri" r,l,,t,"t*| [[racetess ]][[Assessment ]][Centre, lncome ][Tal ][Department ][N/inistry]of [ ,;, ,;, [[,r, ][,' ][Govr. ][of lndia, ][New Delhi']][[,' ][Govr. ][of lndia, ][New Delhi']][[Govr. ][of lndia, ][New Delhi']][[of lndia, ][New Delhi']][[New Delhi']][[Advocate ]] 3r,l,,t,"t*| [[racetess ]][[Assessment ]]of [ ,;, ,;, [[,r, ][,' ][Govr. ][of lndia, ][New Delhi']][[,' ][Govr. ][of lndia, ][New Delhi']][[Govr. ][of lndia, ][New Delhi']][[of lndia, ][New Delhi']][[New Delhi']]of [ ,;, ,;, [[,r, ][,' ][Govr. ][of lndia, ][New Delhi']][[,' ][Govr. ][of lndia, ][New Delhi']][[Govr. ][of lndia, ][New Delhi']][[of lndia, ][New Delhi']][[New Delhi']]4onr: cc ro sRl [PoLKAHapA*iLf ][FAvnN ] [RAo' ][[Advocate ]][ ]55;; C; in [r,,rt ][aornno ] [(Jr' ] [FoR ][INCoME]TAX ) ACvocat3 55;; C; in [r,,rt ][aornno ] [(Jr' ] [FoR ][INCoME]TAX ) ACvocat3 Turo CD OoPtes 6 SAGJP {-:. HIGH COURT DATED:2 410412025 ORDERWP.No.4361 of 2025 3r,l,,t,"t*| [[racetess ]][[Assessment ]]of [ ,;, ,;, [[,r, ][,' ][Govr. ][of lndia, ][New Delhi']][[,' ][Govr. ][of lndia, ][New Delhi']][[Govr. ][of lndia, ][New Delhi']][[of lndia, ][New Delhi']][[New Delhi']]of [ ,;, ,;, [[,r, ][,' ][Govr. ][of lndia, ][New Delhi']][[,' ][Govr. ][of lndia, ][New Delhi']][[Govr. ][of lndia, ][New Delhi']][[of lndia, ][New Delhi']][[New Delhi']]4onr: cc ro sRl [PoLKAHapA*iLf ][FAvnN ] [RAo' ][[Advocate ]][ ]55;; C; in [r,,rt ][aornno ] [(Jr' ] [FoR ][INCoME]TAX ) ACvocat3 55;; C; in [r,,rt ][aornno ] [(Jr' ] [FoR ][INCoME]TAX ) ACvocat3 Turo CD OoPtes 6 SAGJP {-:. HIGH COURT DATED:2 410412025 ORDERWP.No.4361 of 2025 ALLOWING THE W.PWITHOUT COSTS. ,r'/*\-;-"10 sEP 2[25\\'