Under Section L48A Of The Act As Also Under Scction 148 Ol Theact Ought To Have Also Been Issued And Proccecled In A Fbcelessmanner v. 'Iq023) 156 Taxmann.corn [178 ][(Telangana)L

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JULYTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTTCE P.SAM KOSHYAND . THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDAWRIT PETTTION NO: 18885 OF 2025 Between: JAGAN CHAKALI, S/o. iI/ANAIAH CHAKALI Aged about 45 years, Occupation.Business, Rl/o. Q No 9144 Bhel Township, Rama ChandraPuram, Hyderabad502032 Telangana, lndia, PAN.AJNPC9l46P, Assessment Year. 2021-22 ...PETITIONER AND IThe Principal Commissioner of lncome Tax, Hyderabad-4, l.T. Towers, MasabTank, Hyderabad - 500004.Tank, Hyderabad - 500004.2The lncome Tax Officer, Ward 15(1), Hyderabad/ I T Tower, AC Guards,Masab Tank, Hyderabad Telangana-500004Masab Tank, Hyderabad Telangana-5000043Union of lndia, Represent by Secretary Ministry of Finance North Block, NewDelhi-1 ['10 ]001Delhi-1 ['10 ]001 ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may bepleased to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the natureof Writ of f\rlandamus, declaring the impugned order for the A.Y. 2021-22passed notice u/s 148 dt. 31 .03.2025 vide DIN No.|TBA/AST/51148 112024-of Writ of f\rlandamus, declaring the impugned order for the A.Y. 2021-22passed notice u/s 148 dt. 31 .03.2025 vide DIN No.|TBA/AST/51148 112024-25l'1 075353801(l), issued by the JAO(2ndrespondent), as void, iilegat. andcontrary to the provisions of lncome-tax Act and contrary to the Principles ofNatural Justice.Natural Justice. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CpC praying that in the circumstancesstated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may bestated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may bepleased to stay all further proceedings pursuant to the notice uis 14g dt.31 .o3.2025 vide DIN No lrBA/AST tst148_1t2o24- 2511075353801(1) issuedby the 2nd Respondent(JAO) for A.Y. 2021-22.31 .o3.2025 vide DIN No lrBA/AST tst148_1t2o24- 2511075353801(1) issuedby the 2nd Respondent(JAO) for A.Y. 2021-22. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI THANNERU CHAITANYA KUMAR counserf ortheRespon.".",3T'r[?tp,i[ttEir^?l The Court made the following: ORDER .THE HONOURABLB SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAONANDIKONDA WRIT PETITIO N No.lE885 of2025 ORDFI,R, (par Hon'blc Sri Justice Narsing Rao Nandikonda) I lcard Mr.T.Chaitanya Kumar, learned counsel for thcpetitioner and Mr.K.Sudhakar Reddy, Iearned Senior StandingCounsel lor the Income Tax Department appearing for therespondents. Perused the record ?. T'his is a u,rit petition where the proceedings are eitherchallenged to thc notices which were issued under Section l4gAand 148 olthc Income Tax Acr, 196l (for shorl [.the ]Act,) or theassessruent orders those have been passed under Section 147 ofthe Act whicl-r have been assailed. i. 'l'his writ pet.ition is being taken up today only on one of theglounds, that the notices issued under Section l4gA of the Actand the subsequent initiation ofproceedings under Section 14g ofthe Act by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, whereas in rermsof the arnendment that was brought to the Income.fax Act by way\o1' Finance Act, 202 I w.e.f., 01.04.202 I onwards, proceedings under Section l48A of the Act as also under Scction 148 ol theAct ought to have also been issued and proccecled in a fbcelessmanner. ?. T'his is a u,rit petition where the proceedings are eitherchallenged to thc notices which were issued under Section l4gAand 148 olthc Income Tax Acr, 196l (for shorl [.the ]Act,) or theassessruent orders those have been passed under Section 147 ofthe Act whicl-r have been assailed. i. 'l'his writ pet.ition is being taken up today only on one of theglounds, that the notices issued under Section l4gA of the Actand the subsequent initiation ofproceedings under Section 14g ofthe Act by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, whereas in rermsof the arnendment that was brought to the Income.fax Act by way\o1' Finance Act, 202 I w.e.f., 01.04.202 I onwards, proceedings under Section l48A of the Act as also under Scction 148 ol theAct ought to have also been issued and proccecled in a fbcelessmanner. 4. The contention of the petitioner is that the issue ofproceedings being in violation of the Finance Act, 2021 i.e., theimpugned notices under Section l48A and Section 148 ol the Actnot being issued in a laceless manner, have already been dealt withand decided by this Court in the case ol' Kz\NKANALARAVINDRA REDDY vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICIERT decidedon 14.09.2023 whereby a batch of rvrit petitions \vere allowed andthe proceedings initiated under Section 148A as also under Section148 of the Act were held to be bad with consequential reliefs on theground of it being in violation of the provisions of Section 151A ofthe Act read with Notiflcation 18/2022 dated 29.01.2022. The saidj udgment passed by this Court has also been subsequer.rtly followedin a large number of writ petitions which were allorved on similarterms. 'IQ023) 156 taxmann.corn [178 ][(Telangana)l] 5. Down the line, we find that the same 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 COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX & OTHERS2, Gauhati High Court in rhe caseof RAM NARAYAN SAH vs. UNION OF INDIAT, punjab andHaryana Fligh Courr in rhc case of JATINDER SINGH BANGUvs. UNION OF INDIA{, and Telangana High Court in the case ofSRI VENKATARAMANA REDDY PATLOOLA vs. DEPUTYCOMMISSIONER OF'INCOME TAX5 where the issue was inrespect of international taxation, Bornbay High Court in the case ofABHIN ANILKUMAR SHAH vs. INCOME TAx OFFICER,INTERNATIONAL 1'AXATION6 which is again on internationaltaxation and central circle, High Court of Himachal pradesh in thecase of GOVIND SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERT,Gujarat High Court in the case of MANSUKHBHAI ') -[(2024) lzoz+1464 [I'rR ][430 ][(Born)]156 taxmann.com 478 (Gauhal.i)]" [(2024) 165 taxmann.com I I 5 (Punjab & Haryana)]'12024) [167 ][taxmann.corn ]4I I (1'elangana)l " [2024) 166 taxmann.com 6Tg (Bombay)l ' [2024) [165 ]taxmann.corn I I 3 (Hirnachal Pradesh)] DAHYABHAI RADADIYA vs. INCOME l'AX OFFICER.WARD 3(3X5)8, Jharkand High Court in the casc of SHYAMSUNDAR SAW vs. [INION OE INDIA'), Rajastharr l{igh Court inthe case of SHARDA DBVI CHHA.IER vs. INCOME TAXOFFICER & ANOTHER and batch ol'writ pctitionsr0 rthichstood decided on 19.03.2024. Similar vie*,s havc also been takenby the Division Bench of Calcutta Higli Coult in the case ofGIRDHAIT 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 dccicled by a largenumber of High Courts, we are still conlronted rvith large fiting ofidentical rnatters on daily basis ranging betrvcon 5 to I0 writpetitions. ['fhat ]upon the instructions being sor-rght from theDepartment, they have been taking a solitary ground that thedecision ol' the Bombay High Court in the case of HexawareTechnologies Lld., (2 supra) as also the one which has beendecided by this Court in the case of Kanokolo Ruvindra Reddy 8202+ SCC onl-ine Guj 40 l2'2025 SCC Online Jhar287n ' 12023 [: ] [:4 9 ][g ][4- ]D l l I 6. Even though the same issue having been dccicled by a largenumber of High Courts, we are still conlronted rvith large fiting ofidentical rnatters on daily basis ranging betrvcon 5 to I0 writpetitions. ['fhat ]upon the instructions being sor-rght from theDepartment, they have been taking a solitary ground that thedecision ol' the Bombay High Court in the case of HexawareTechnologies Lld., (2 supra) as also the one which has beendecided by this Court in the case of Kanokolo Ruvindra Reddy 8202+ SCC onl-ine Guj 40 l2'2025 SCC Online Jhar287n ' 12023 [: ] [:4 9 ][g ][4- ]D l l I (l supra) has been sublected to challenge in a Special LeavePetition i.e., SLP No.3574 ol 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 filed arising out of [the]same issue being decided by various High Courts. 7. To a query being put to the learned counsel for the Revenue,they have categorically acceptcd the fact that [there ][is ][no ][interim]order granted by the tlon'ble Supreme Court in [any ]of [these]matters pending before it. Meanwhile, fresh writ [petitions ][of]identical nature are being piled up befbre this Bench on daily basisand 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 frnd any remedial [steps ][having ][been]taken by the lncome Tax Department to take [appropriate ][steps to]either hold back issuance of notice under Section l48A [and under]Section 148 of the Act by the [jurisdictional ][Assessing Ofhcer,]rather the authorities concemed in [the ][teeth ]of [series ]of [decisions] by alt the nrajor High Courts in India are continuouslv stillinitiating proceedings under Section l48A of thc Act and alsoinitiating proceedings under Section 148 o1' the Act incontravention to the amendments brought into thc Incon.rc Tax Actpursuant to the Finance Act,2020 as also the Finance Act 102 I9. Upon a query being put as to why can't this urit pctition bedisposed ol'in the teeth of the decision rendcred bi this Court inthe case of Kanakalu Ravindra Reddy (l supra), Iearned StandingCounsel for the Income Tax Department contends that those wouldunnecessarily burden the Income Tax Departmcnt \4 hcre theywould be required to file equal number of Sl.l)s bclore theHon'ble Suprcme Court and it would be fufther burdening theexchequer ol the Union of India. It was also the content ion of'thelearned Standing Counsel that no prejudice would be causcd to theinterest of the petitioners in case if this writ petition is kept pendingtitl the finalization of the SLPs pending befble thc Hon'bleSupreme Coun and the fact that the petitioner is already cnjoyingthe benefit ol interim protection. Nonetheless, on thc earlicr queryof this Court as to why the Income Tax Deparlrnenl lrave no! corneout with a mechanism to issue appropriate instrucrions 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 olthe decisions dedcided by theof the Act as also the assessment orders under Section 148 of theAct are kept in a hold in the light olthe decisions dedcided by thevarious High Courts, it was submitted by the leamed 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 betimited to any of these jurisdictional High Courts.timited to any of these jurisdictional High Courts. 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 olthe decisions dedcided by theof the Act as also the assessment orders under Section 148 of theAct are kept in a hold in the light olthe decisions dedcided by thevarious High Courts, it was submitted by the leamed 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 betimited to any of these jurisdictional High Courts.timited to any of these jurisdictional High Courts. 10. As a result of which, what we arc 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 also initiating proceedings in conrravention to the provisionsof Section l51A of the Act and as a rcsult by now, more than 600to 700 petitions have been already got piled up before this HighCourt on an issue which otherwise stands squarely covered by thejudgrnent of this Court in the case ol' Kanakola Ravindra Reddy( I supra). What is also surprising is the lact that though whileallowing the writ petitions in the case of Kunokalu RavindraReddy (l supra), the Division Bench whilc reserving the right ofthe Revenue, has also protected the interest of the petitioners insofar as the liberty which was granted to the Revenue lorinitiating fresh proceedings strictly in accordance u'ith the amendedprovisions of the Act, as amended by the Financc Act, 2020 andtlre Finance Act,202l . The petitioner assessee would be entitlcd tochallenge or raise the other legal objections if the Revu'nuc initiutesfresh proceedings. The Department has made no endear"our inavailing the said liberty that was reserved lor the l{evenue. On thecontrary, they have been still sticking on to the stancl, rvhich thisHigh Courl as well as many other High Courts aheady held to bebad. 1 l. It appears that because of the aforesaid liberty that this tligtiCourt had granted permitting the Revenue for init iating fieshproceedings as a one-time measure in a faceless lnanner. theIncome Tax Department wants to take advantage of t.he sarne byprotracting these proceedings which would enable thern to meet thelimitation that would otherwise come in the way. I-ikewise, if thewrit petition is kept pending for a considcrable long pe liod of tirneand finally at a later stage if the Hon'ble Supreme Court confirrnsthe decision taken by this High Court as also by the other FlighCourts in u hich the SLPs are still pending, the Income [-l-ax]^/,,. Department would get the advantage of the liberty that is otherwiseprotectedtnfavour of the Revenuc for initiation of freshproceedings from the disposal olthese matters at a much later stagewhich would be advantageous and benet-rcial to the Revenue andwould be equally disadvantageous and dctrimental so far as interestof the assesses are concerned. As a consequcnce, the Income TaxDepartment gets an extended period of time for initiation of freshproceedings. 12. The alarming trend of docket explosion in this Cour1, despitethe clear precedent set in Kanakula Ravindra Reddy (l supra), is amatter of grave concern. The Income Tax Department's persistentinitiation of fresh proceedings, disregarding the established [j ]udicialpronouncements, has led to an unprecedented surge in litigationwith over 600-700 petitions piting up on the same issue. l'hisdeliberate approach not only underrnines the principle of judicialprecedent but also strains the judicial resources unnecessarily. TheDepartment's strategy of awaiting the Suprerne Courl's decision onpending SLPs while continuing to initiate fresh proceedingsappears to be a calculated move to buy time and circumventlimitation periods, rather than adhering to thc established legal 12. The alarming trend of docket explosion in this Cour1, despitethe clear precedent set in Kanakula Ravindra Reddy (l supra), is amatter of grave concern. The Income Tax Department's persistentinitiation of fresh proceedings, disregarding the established [j ]udicialpronouncements, has led to an unprecedented surge in litigationwith over 600-700 petitions piting up on the same issue. l'hisdeliberate approach not only underrnines the principle of judicialprecedent but also strains the judicial resources unnecessarily. TheDepartment's strategy of awaiting the Suprerne Courl's decision onpending SLPs while continuing to initiate fresh proceedingsappears to be a calculated move to buy time and circumventlimitation periods, rather than adhering to thc established legal position. Such conduct raises serious questions about thcadministrative efficiency and the respect for judicialpronounccments, particularly when this Court has already provideda balar-rced apploach by preserving both the Revenue's rights andpronounccments, particularly when this Court has already provideda balar-rced apploach by preserving both the Revenue's rights andassesses lnterests 13. Another aspect which needs to be considered is that in lact itshould have been realized by the Income Tax Depa(ment itself andshould have lound out via media in ensuring that proceedingsunder Sections 148-4 and 148 should not have been issued in al-aceless manner, at least till the Hon'ble Supreme Court decidc thetwelve hundred (1200) odd SLPs which itis already seized ofor, atleast the Income Tax Department should havc fbund outso tlleremedial steps to ensure that wherever the authorities intend toinitiate proceedings under Sections 148-A and 148, other than in alaceless manner, the proceedings should have been deferredrvithout 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 sarne issueThis again, the lncome Tax Department, has not been able to givc aconvincing reply, except for the fact that such a decision if at all has to be taken, has to be taken for the whole of India, and whichotherwise has to be by way of a policy decision and that too at theotherwise has to be by way of a policy decision and that too at thelevel of Central Board of Direct Taxes. Though the 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 reduce itsStanding Counsel for the Income Tax Department contended thatthe Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition of similar nature, onthe one hand when the High Court is struggling to reduce itspendency, such notices which are under challenge in this rvritpetition are forcing the assessee to knock the doors of this HighCourt resulting in flling of huhdreds of new writ petitions which inCourt resulting in flling of huhdreds of new writ petitions which inthe long run not only afftcts the disposal of the writ petitions butalso consumes substantial time of the Bench in hearing thesematters again and again on daily basis. Admittedty, in spite ol 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 time of the Bench in hearing thesematters again and again on daily basis. Admittedty, in spite ol 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 theIncome Tax Department. Yet, the authorities concerned at theState level are not ready to accept the verdict passed by a majorityof High Courts of different States on the same issue; and to makethings further worse, the Income Tax DepartmentISshowingaudacity by issuing notices continuously under Sections 148-A andState level are not ready to accept the verdict passed by a majorityof High Courts of different States on the same issue; and to makethings further worse, the Income Tax DepartmentISshowingaudacity by issuing notices continuously under Sections 148-A and 148 through the [jurisdictional ]Assessing Olficer whereas it oughtto have been only in the faceless manner 14. [n the case of BANK OF INDIA vs. ,{SSISTANTCOMMISSIONER, INCOME TAXrr, on an issue u'hether it wasjustifiabte on the part of the Income Tax Department in notfollowing an order passed by the adjudicating authority only on theground that the appeals are pending, the Division llench of theFligh Courr ol Bornbay he.ld at paragraph No.25 as under, viz., : "25. It/r. Paridwalla has rightly drawn out attention to thedecision of thls 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. lTOr3of which one of us (Justice G.S. Kulkarni) was a member, whereinthe Coun categorically observed that the Revenue having not"accepted" the judgment of the High Court would not mean that tillthe same is set aside in a manner known to law, it would loose itsbinding force. Referring to the decision of the Supreme Court inUnion of lndia vs. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd.14, theCourt observed that the approach of the officials of Revenue oftreating decisions being ["not ]acceptable' was criticized by theSupreme Court. ln such decision, following are the relevantobservations made by the Supreme Court. 1' 11ZOZS1 [l7() ][raxmann.com 422 ][(Bombay)l]11ZOZS1 [l7() ][raxmann.com 422 ][(Bombay)l] 11ZOZS1 '2 Jt9z81 ti [It'R ][589 ][(Bornbay)] '3 IZOZ+1 [165 ][taxmann.com ][58 ][l/300 ][Taxman ][452 (Bombay.r] 'o ltsozl [raxrnarp.corn ][l6155 ]ELT 433 [(SC)] - 1' 11ZOZS1 [l7() ][raxmann.com 422 ][(Bombay)l]11ZOZS1 [l7() ][raxmann.com 422 ][(Bombay)l] 11ZOZS1 '2 Jt9z81 ti [It'R ][589 ][(Bornbay)] '3 IZOZ+1 [165 ][taxmann.com ][58 ][l/300 ][Taxman ][452 (Bombay.r] 'o ltsozl [raxrnarp.corn ][l6155 ]ELT 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 perhapsgenurnely felt that the claim of the assessee was nottenable and that, rf 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 reachingtenable and that, rf 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 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 Tribunal. The High Court has, in our view, rightlycriticized this conduct of the Assistant Collectors andthe harassment to the assessee caused by the failureof these officers to give effect to the orders ofauthorrties higher to them in the appellate hierarchy. ltcannot be too vehemently emphasized that it is ofutmost importance that, in disposing of thequasijudicial issues before them, revenue officers arebound by the decisions of the appellate authorities.The order of the Appellte Collector is binding on theAssistant Collectors working within his [jurisdiction ]andthe order of the Tribunal is binding upon the AssistantCollectors and the Appellate Collectors who [function]under the [jurisdiction ]of the Tribunal. [The principles ]ofjudicial discipline require that the orders of the higherappellate authorities should be followed unreservedlyby the subordinate authorities. The mere fact [that the]order of the appellate authority is not ["acceptable" to]the department - in itself an objectionable [phrase ]-and is the subject matter of an appeal can furnrsh [no]ground for not following it unless its operation hasbeen suspended by a competent court. lf this healthyregard 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, rightlycriticized this conduct of the Assistant Collectors andthe harassment to the assessee caused by the failureof these officers to give effect to the orders ofauthorrties higher to them in the appellate hierarchy. ltcannot be too vehemently emphasized that it is ofutmost importance that, in disposing of thequasijudicial issues before them, revenue officers arebound by the decisions of the appellate authorities.The order of the Appellte Collector is binding on theAssistant Collectors working within his [jurisdiction ]andthe order of the Tribunal is binding upon the AssistantCollectors and the Appellate Collectors who [function]under the [jurisdiction ]of the Tribunal. [The principles ]ofjudicial discipline require that the orders of the higherappellate authorities should be followed unreservedlyby the subordinate authorities. The mere fact [that the]order of the appellate authority is not ["acceptable" to]the department - in itself an objectionable [phrase ]-and is the subject matter of an appeal can furnrsh [no]ground for not following it unless its operation hasbeen suspended by a competent court. lf this healthy rule is not followed, the result will only be undueharassment to assesses and chaos in administrattonof tax laws. rule is not followed, the result will only be undueharassment to assesses and chaos in administrattonof tax laws. 12. We have deait with this aspect at some length,because it has been suggested by the learnedAdditional Solicitor General that the observatronsmade 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 rntended 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 theappellate authorities to the requirements of ludicialdiscipline and the need for giving effect to the ordersof the higher appellate authorities which are bindingon them." 15. What is worrying this Bench more is the fact that anendeavour is being made whole heartedly to ensure not to generatefurther litigation on issues which have been laid to rest by a largenumber of lJigh Coufts all of wl-rom have taken a consistent standthat the action of the Income Tax Deparlment being violative of the liinance Acr,2020 and Finance Act,2021. Now, in order to protectthe interest of the.Revenue as also that of the assessee, it would betrite at this [juncture, ]if we dispose of the writ petition with anobservation/d irection that the disposal of the instant writ petition interms of the [judgment ]rendered by this I{igh Court in the case ofKonkonsla Rtvindra Reddy (l supra) shall however be subject tothe outcorne of the SLPs which were filed by the Income TaxDepartn.rent and rvhich is pending consideration before the Hon'bleSupreme Court 16. ln the given facts and circumstances, this Bench is of theconsidered opinion that unless and until we do not timely disposeof 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 lurther be burdened which otherwise can be decidedand disposed of as a covered matter. 17 . So far as the interest far as the interest as the interest the interest interest of the Revenue is concemed, the Revenue is concemed, is concemed, concemed, we are ofare ofofthe considered opinion that the interest of the Revenue has alreadybeen considered and protected, as has been observed in paragraphs So far as the interest far as the interest as the interest the interest interest of the Revenue is concemed, the Revenue is concemed, is concemed, concemed, we are ofare ofof 36,37 and 38 olthe order-which, for ready [reference,.is reproduced]hereunder: 36. For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned noticesrssued and the proceedings drawn by the respondent-Department is nerther tenable, nor sustarnable.The notlces so issued and the [procedure ]adopted beingper se illegal, deserves to be and are accordingly setaside/quashed. As a consequence, all the impugnedorders getting [quashed, ]the consequential orders [passed]by the respondent-Department pursuant to the noticesissued under Seqtron 147 and 148 would also [get]quashed and it is ordered accordingly. The reason weare [quashing ]the consequential order is on the [prrnciples]that when the initiation of the proceedings rtself wasprocedurally wrong, the subsequent orders also getsnullified automatically. 37. The [preliminary ]objection raised by the [petitioner ]issustained and all these writ petitions stands allowed onthis very [jurisdictional ]issue. Since the impugned noticesand orders are getting [quashed ]on the [point ]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.] 37. The [preliminary ]objection raised by the [petitioner ]issustained and all these writ petitions stands allowed onthis very [jurisdictional ]issue. Since the impugned noticesand orders are getting [quashed ]on the [point ]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.] 38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the caseof Ashish Agarwal, supra, as a one{ime measureexercising the [powers ]under Article 142 of theConstitution of lndia, [permifted ]the Revenue to [proceed]under the substituted [provisions, ]and this Court allowingthe [petrtioJrs ]only on the [procedural ]flaw, the 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 ofAshishAgarwal, supra. 18. We would only furlher like to make observations that sincewe are inclined to dispose of the instant writ petition, conscious ofthe fact that the earlier order of this High Courl in the case ofKanakala Ravindru Reddy (l supra) is subjected to challengebefore the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No.3574 of 2024,preferred by the lncome Tax Department, we make it clear thatallowing of the instant writ petition is subject to outcome of theaforesaid SLP preferred by the Revenue against the decision of thisI{igh Courl in the case of Ktnakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra).This, in other words, would mean that either of the parties, if theyso want, may move an appropriate petition seeking revival of thiswrit petition in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble SupremeCourl in the pending SLP on the very same issue. 19. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands allowed infavour of the assessee so far as the issue of [jurisdiction]1Sconcemed. As a consequence, the impugned notice underchallenge under Sections 148-4 and 148 stands set aside/quashed. I To, The consequential orders, if any, also stand set aside/quashed insimilar terms as have been passed by this High Court in the case ol Kankanalu Ravindra Reddy (l supra). There shall be no order asto costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/. M.NAGAMANIAREGISTRAR//TRUE COPY//'\?I3!',ON OFFICER'.) [sEcI] '1 . The Principal Commissioner of lncome Tax, Hyderabad-4, l.T. Towers, [\rlasabTank, Hyderabad - 500004.Tank, Hyderabad - 500004. 2. The lncome Tax Officer, Ward 15('l ), Hyderabad/ I T Tower, AC Guards,Masab Tank, Hyderabad Telangana-500004Masab Tank, Hyderabad Telangana-500004 3. Union of lndia, Represent by Secretary Ministry of Finance North Block, NewDelhi-1 10 001Delhi-1 10 001 4. One CC to SRI THANNERU CHAITANYA KUMAR, Advocate. 5. One CC to SRI K. SUDHAKAR REDDY, (Sr SC FOR INCOIVE TAX) 6. Two CD Copies. o esx KS /r HIGH COURT DATED:0310712025 ORDERWP.No.18885 of 2025 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITIONWITHOUT COSTS &qo ::-====:...1HE S r.1 ['1]o[\1]2 B A|JE 2025i9