Under Section L48A Of The Act As Also Under Sect On 14G Of Theact Ought To Have Also Bcen Issued And Proceederl In A Lacelessmanner v. The Contention Contention Of' The Petitioner Is That The Issue Ofthe Petitioner Is That The Issue Ofpetitioner Is That The Issue Ofis That The Issue Ofthat The

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF MAYTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDAWRIT PETITION NO:28959 OF 2024 Between: PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY, NACHEPALLI,Rep. By its Secretary Sappidi Veerababu, S/o.Sappidi Kannaiah, Occupation-Business, Aged about 34years, Fl/O- Main Road Nachipalli, At NachepalliNelakondapally, Khammam 5q4160, Telangana, lndia. PAN- AACAPOO39PAssessment Year- 2018-1 9 ...PETITIONER AND 1The income tax officer ward 1, Khammam/ lncome Tax Office, Rajeev Gunt,Rajiv Chowk, Near Kinnerasani Theatre, Khammam Telangana State.Rajiv Chowk, Near Kinnerasani Theatre, Khammam Telangana State. 2The Principal Chief Commissioner of lncome Tax, Telangana and A.P,Hyderabad, lT Towers, AC Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad - 500 028,TelanganaHyderabad, lT Towers, AC Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad - 500 028,Telangana 3The National Faceless Assessment Center, lncome Tax Department, NewDelhi.Delhi.4. The Central Board of Direct Taxes, Represented by its Chairman, Departmentof Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of lndia, Secretariat Buildings,New Delhi - 1 ['10 ]001 .of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of lndia, Secretariat Buildings,New Delhi - 1 ['10 ]001 . 5. The Union of lndia, Represented by its Secretary to the Government,Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi - 1 ['10 ]001.Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi - 1 ['10 ]001. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 ol lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may bepleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one inthe nature of Writ of lVandamus, declaring the order [passed ]by the lncome TaxAuthorities (National Faceless E-AssessrJent Centre) conrpleted the assessmentUIS 147 r.w.s 144 read with section ['1448 ]of the lncome-tax Act Date of 14-02- ,.,.'' [2024, ] [|rBA/ASTrsr147r2o23- ][24r1060g16s43(1)for ][the ][Assessment year] 2o18-19 determining the total income of Rs. 6,71 ,14,9271-as arbitrary, illegal, badin law, without jurrsdiction, void-ab-initio, violative of the principles of naturaljustice apart from being viorative of Articres i a, r 9(i )(g) and 265 of theconstitution of rndra and sec. 14BA of the rncome Tax Act, 1961, andconsequently set aside the same in the interests of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRITHANNERU CHAITANYA KLTMAR c o u n s e r ro r t h e R e s p o n o " ",., [?. t?H*o, i ABil,t TH i, The Court made the following: ORDER il THB HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAONANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION No.2 8959 of2024 ORDI'lR, [(1t,r ]!httt hlL'Sri Ju:ritc P.Sam K,rhy) llcard Mr'. ['l'.Chaitnya ]Kumar, ledrned counsel lor thepetitioner and Ms.B.Sapna RSdy, learned Junior StandingCounsel for the Income Tax Department for the respondents.Peruscd the rccord. 2. 'l-his is a writ petition where the proceedings are eitherchallcnged to the notices which were issued under Section l48Aand 148 of lhc lncorne Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') or theassesslrellt orders those have been passed under Section 147 ofthe Act rvhich have been assailed. 'l'his Jwrit petition is being taken up today only on one of thegrounds, that lhe notices issued under Section 1484. of the Actand the subscquent initiation ofproceedings under Section 148 ofthe Act by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, whereas in rermsof'the amendrnent that was brought to the Income Tax Act by wayo1' Finance Act, 202 I w.e.f., 01.04.2021 onwards, proceedings under Section l48A of the Act as also under Sect on 14g of theAct ought to have also bcen issued and proceederl in a lacelessmanner 2. 'l-his is a writ petition where the proceedings are eitherchallcnged to the notices which were issued under Section l48Aand 148 of lhc lncorne Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') or theassesslrellt orders those have been passed under Section 147 ofthe Act rvhich have been assailed. 'l'his Jwrit petition is being taken up today only on one of thegrounds, that lhe notices issued under Section 1484. of the Actand the subscquent initiation ofproceedings under Section 148 ofthe Act by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, whereas in rermsof'the amendrnent that was brought to the Income Tax Act by wayo1' Finance Act, 202 I w.e.f., 01.04.2021 onwards, proceedings under Section l48A of the Act as also under Sect on 14g of theAct ought to have also bcen issued and proceederl in a lacelessmanner 4. The contention contention of' the petitioner is that the issue ofthe petitioner is that the issue ofpetitioner is that the issue ofis that the issue ofthat the issue ofthe issue ofissue ofofproceedings bcing in violation ol the Finance Acr, 202 I i.e., theimpugned notices under Scctidn l48A and Section I4g of the Actnot being issued in a f'aceless manner, have already heen dealt withand decided by this Courl in rhe case of I(ANKANALARAVINDRA REDDY vs. INCOME-TAX OFF|CERT decidedon 14.09.2023 whereby a batch ol writ petitiolts w( rc ailowed andthe proceedings initiated under Section r4gA as als. under Section148 of the Act were hcld to be bad rvith consequenti rl r.eliefs on theground of it being ir.r violation of trre provisions of Section l51A ofthe Act read with Notification lB/2022 dated 29.03..1022. The saidjudgment passed by this Court has also been subsequently followedin a large number of writ petitions which were allorvcd on similarterms. The contention contention of' the petitioner is that the issue ofthe petitioner is that the issue ofpetitioner is that the issue ofis that the issue ofthat the issue ofthe issue ofissue ofof '[(2023) 156 raxrnann.corn 178 (Tclaneana)] 5. Down the line, we find that the same [issue has also ][been]decided against the Revenue [by]vanous High Courts [i.e.,]by the Bombay High Courl in [the ][case ][of ] TECHNOLOGIES LTD., [vs. ] OF INCOME TAX & [OTHERS2, ][Gauhati ][High Court in ][the ][case]of RAM NARAYAN [vs. ][UNION OF INDIA3' ][Punjab ][and]Haryana High Court [in ][the ][case ][of ] vs. UNION OF INDIAI, [and Telangana ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]SRI VENKATARAMANARBDDY [VS. ] COMMISSIONER [where ][the ][issue ][was in]respect of international [taxation, ][Bombay ][High ][Court in the ][case ][of]ABHIN ANILKUMAR [vs. ] [OFFICER']INTERNATIONAL [which ][is again on ][intemational]taxation and central circte, [High ][Court ][of ][Himachal ][Pradesh ][in ][the]case of GOVIND SINGH [vs. ] [OFFICERT,]Gujarat High Court in the [case ][of ] ' Tzoz+1464 [rtR ][430 ][(Bom)]'[(2024) [156 ][taxmann.oom 478 ][(Gauhati)]]" tQO24) [65 [taxmann.com ] [l5 ][(Punjab ][& ][Haryana)]] '12024) [167 ][taxmann.com 411 ][(Tclangana)l] " [2024) [166 ][taxmann.com ][679 ][(Bombay)]] '12024) 165 taxrnann.corn [l3 ][(Himachal ][Pradesh)l] j DAHyABHAI RADADIYA vs. INCOT{I TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3X5)8, Jharkand Fligh Court in rhe case of SHyAMSTINDAR SAW vs. UNION OF INDIAe, Rrrjasrhan High Court inthe case of SHARDA DEVI CHHAJER vs. INCOME TAXOFFICER & ANOTHIER and batch of v,rit petitionsro whichstood decided on 19.03.2024. Similar views have also been takenby the Division Bench of Calcurta High -'urt Crurtrn the case ofGTRDHAR GopAL DALnr ra ,.^-,'^'."t^ .. [vs. ] [()F ]INDIA & ORS(M.A.T 1690 of 20.23), decided on 25.09.2024. ' Tzoz+1464 [rtR ][430 ][(Bom)]'[(2024) [156 ][taxmann.oom 478 ][(Gauhati)]]" tQO24) [65 [taxmann.com ] [l5 ][(Punjab ][& ][Haryana)]] '12024) [167 ][taxmann.com 411 ][(Tclangana)l] " [2024) [166 ][taxmann.com ][679 ][(Bombay)]] '12024) 165 taxrnann.corn [l3 ][(Himachal ][Pradesh)l] j DAHyABHAI RADADIYA vs. INCOT{I TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3X5)8, Jharkand Fligh Court in rhe case of SHyAMSTINDAR SAW vs. UNION OF INDIAe, Rrrjasrhan High Court inthe case of SHARDA DEVI CHHAJER vs. INCOME TAXOFFICER & ANOTHIER and batch of v,rit petitionsro whichstood decided on 19.03.2024. Similar views have also been takenby the Division Bench of Calcurta High -'urt Crurtrn the case ofGTRDHAR GopAL DALnr ra ,.^-,'^'."t^ .. [vs. ] [()F ]INDIA & ORS(M.A.T 1690 of 20.23), decided on 25.09.2024. 6. Even though the same issue having beendecided by a largenumber of High Coufts, we are still confronted rvith large filing ofidentical mafters on daily basis ranging betwr:en 5 to I0 writpetitions. That upon the instructions being I;ought from theDepartment, they have been taking a solitaryground that thedecision of the Bombay High Court in the care of l{exawareTechnologies Lrd., (2 supra.) as also the one rvhich has beendecided by this Court in the case of Kanakalo A'avindra Redtly t2024 sCC online GuisCC online Gui online Gui4012'2025 SCC Onl-ine.rhar287' " [2023 : RJ_JD:4984_DBl'2025 SCC Onl-ine.rhar287' " [2023 : RJ_JD:4984_DBl I (I supra) has been subjected to challenge in a Special LeavePetition i.e., SLp No.3.574 of 2024 before the Hon,ble Supremecourl and the Hon'ble Supreme courl is seized of the matter.In addition, there are abou[ 1200 SLps also filed arising out of thesame issue being decided by various High Courts.7. To a query being put to the learned counsel fbr the Revenue,they have categorically accepted the fact that there is no interimorder granted by the Hon,ble Suprerne Court in any of thesematters pending before it. Meanwhile, fresh writ petitions ofidentical nature are Ueing iit"a up betbre this Bench on daily basisand the pendency is getting increased on matter which otherwisehas already been dealt and decided by this very High Court itself.8. On the one hand, even though the order of this Court thatwas passed as early as on 14.09.2023 and more 16 months havelapsed, till da1e, we do not find any remedial steps having beentaken by the Income Tax Depaftrnent to take appropriate steps toeither hold back issuance of notice under Section l4gA and underSection 148 of the Acr by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer,rather the authorities concemed in the teeth of series of decisions by atl the major High Courts in India are r'ontinuously stillinitiating proceedings under Section 1484 of rhe Act and alsoinitiating proceedings under Section 148 ,rf the Act incontravention to the amendments brought into the [ncome Tax Actpursuant to the Finance Act,2020 as also the Finance Act 20219. Upon a query being ptit as to why can'r this writ petition bedisposed of in the teeth of the decision rendered bv this Court inthe case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra), leamed StandingCounsel for the Income Tax Department contends that those wouldunnecessarily burden the Income Tax Deparlnrent rvhere theywould be required to file equal number of S,Lps betbre theHon'ble Supreme Court and it would be furthe r burdening theexchequer of the Union of India. It was also the r:ontention of thelearned Standing Counsel that no prejudice would be caused to theinterest of the petitioners in case if this writ petition is kept pendingtili the finalization of the SLPs pending befcre rhe Hon,bleSupreme Court and the fact that the petitioner is alreacly enjoyingthe benefit of interim protection. Nonetheless, on rhc earlier queryof this Court as to why the Income Tax Deparlmer: t have not comeout with a mechanism to issue appropriate instructions or to take appropriate steps in ensuring that proceedings under Section l48Aof the Act as also the assessmcnt orders under Section 148 of theAct are kept in a hold in the light ofthe dccisions dedcided by theof the Act as also the assessmcnt orders under Section 148 of theAct are kept in a hold in the light ofthe dccisions 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 CourtsCounsel 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 rve are lacing 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 concerned are still even now in2025 also initiating proceedings in contravcntion to the provisionsof Section 151A of the Act and as a result by now, rnore than 600to 700 petitions 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 ol Kanokola Ravindra Reddy(1 supra). What is also surprising is the lact that though whileallowing the writ petitions in the case ol Kunakala RavindraReddy (1 supra), the Division Bench whilc reserving the right ofthe Revenue, has also protected the interest of the petitioners insofar as the liberty whichwas granted to t re Revenue lorinitiating fresh proceedings strictly in accordance r,,ith the amendedprovisions of the Act, as amended by the Financr' ,,\ct, 2020 andthe Financc Act,202l. The petitioner assessee wo rld be entitled tochallenge or raise the other legal objections if the llcvenue iniriatesfresh proceedings. The Department has madc rro endeavour inavailing the said liberty that was reserved lor the lLs'enue. On thecontrary, they have been still sticking on to the stand, which thisHigh Courr as well as many other High Courts already held to bebad.I l. It appears that because of the aforesaid libertl, that this l.tighCourt had granted permitting the Revenue fbr initiating ticshproceedings as a one-time measure in a facelt'ss tnanncr. theIncome Tax Department wants to take.advantagc ol'the sarne byprotracting these proceedings which would enable ltcm to nteet thelimitation that would othenvise come in the way. t.ikewise, il thewrit petition is kept pending for a considerable long period of tirneand finally at a later stage if the Hon'ble Suprernc (lour1 conflnnsthe decision taken by this High Court as also b1 the other l{ighCourts in r,,,hich the SLPs are still pending, r rc [ncome [']-ax] l l Department would get the advantage of the liberty that is otherwiseprotected in favour of the Revenue for initiation of freshprotected 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 concefiled A; a consequence, the Income TaxDeparlment gets an extended period of time for initiation of freshproceedings.12. The alarming trend of docket explosion in this Court, despitethe clear precedent set in'Kanakaltr Ravindra Reddy (l supra), is amatter of grave concern. The Income Tax Departrnent,s persistentwould be equally disadvantageous and detrimental so far as interestof the assesses are concefiled A; a consequence, the Income TaxDeparlment gets an extended period of time for initiation of freshproceedings.12. The alarming trend of docket explosion in this Court, despitethe clear precedent set in'Kanakaltr Ravindra Reddy (l supra), is amatter of grave concern. The Income Tax Departrnent,s persistentinitiation of fresh proceedings, disregarding the esrablished judicialpronouncements, has led to an unprecedented surge in litigationwith over 600-700 petitions piling up on. the same issue. Thisdeliberate approach not only undermines the principle of judicialpronouncements, has led to an unprecedented surge in litigationwith over 600-700 petitions piling up on. the same issue. Thisdeliberate approach not only undermines the principle of judicialprecedent but also strains the judicial resources unnecessarily. Theresources unnecessarily. TheDepaftment's strategy of awaiting the Supreme Court,s decision onpending SLPs while continuing to initiate fresh proceedingsappears to be a calculated move to buy time and circumventlirnitation periods, rather than adhering to the established legatlirnitation periods, rather than adhering to the established legat position. Such conduct .raises serious questions about theadministrativc efficiency and the respecl for j udiciatpronouncements, particularly when this Court has ah'eady providcda balanced approach by preserwing both the Rev,:nue's rights andassesses rnterestsa balanced approach by preserwing both the Rev,:nue's rights andassesses rnterests 13. Another aspect which needs to be considere I is that in fact itshould have been realized by the Income Tax DeprL(ment itself andshould have found out .via media in ensuring .hat proceedingsunder Sections i48-A and i48 should not have :ccn issued in afaceless manner, at least till the Hon'ble Supreme Court decide thetwelve hundred (1200) odd SLPs which it is already seized ofor, arleast the lncome Tax Department should have lound out sonleremedial steps to ensure that wherever the authorities intend toinitiate proceedings under Sections 148-A and 14[i, other than in afaceless manner, the proceedings should have been del-erredwithout precipitating the matter further intimating the asscssee thatthey shall initiate appropriate proceedings only after the SLP's aredecided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the rery samelssue.This again, the Income Tax Department, has not been able to give aconvincing reply, except for the fact that such a rlecision 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 leamedStanding 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 itsthe 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 hrtndreds 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 theseCourt resulting in filing of hrtndreds 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. Admittedly, 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 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 Depadment. 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 lurther 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 lurther worse, the Income Tax DepartmentISshowingaudacity by issuing notices continuously under Sections 148-A and 148 through the jurisdictional Assessing Officer whereas it oughtto have been only in the faceless maruter. -r1 14. In the case of BANK OF INDIA rs. ASSISTANTCOMMISSIONER, INCOME TAXI [I, ]on an issue whether it rvasjustifiabte on the part of the Income Tax Dr:partment in notfoltowing an order passed by the adjudicating aurhority only on theground that the appeals are.pending, the Division Bench of theHigh Court of Bombay held at paragraph No.25 as under, viz., : .25. lVr. Paridwallq has righfly drawn out a ention to thedecision of this Court in Commissioner of lncome Tax vs. Smt.Godavaridevi Sarafl2 as also the recent decision of the co_ordinate Bench of this Court in Samp Furniture (p) Ltd. v. lTOi3of which one of us (Justice G.S. Kulkarni) was a mernber, wherejnthe Court categorically observed that the Revenle having not'accepted" the ludgment of the High Court would nol mean that tillthe same is set aside in a manner known to law, it \^,ould Ioose itsordinate Bench of this Court in Samp Furniture (p) Ltd. v. lTOi3of which one of us (Justice G.S. Kulkarni) was a mernber, wherejnthe Court categorically observed that the Revenle having not'accepted" the ludgment of the High Court would nol mean that tillthe same is set aside in a manner known to law, it \^,ould Ioose itsbinding force. Referring to the decision of the Supreme Court inUnion of lndia vs. Kamlakshi Finance Corporati,tn Ltd.14, theCourt observed that the approach of the officials of Revenue oftreating decisions being "not acceptable,, was crit cized by theSupreme Court. ln such decision, following are the relevantobservations made by the Supreme Couri.treating decisions being "not acceptable,, was crit cized by theSupreme Court. ln such decision, following are the relevantobservations made by the Supreme Couri. ljttzozsl [170 ][raxmam.com ][422 ][(Bombay)l]'' lle78l ll3 ITR 589 (Bombay)'' lle78l ll3 ITR 589 (Bombay) " TZOZ+1 [165 ][taxmann.com ]581/300 Taxman 452 (Bonrbay) 'o lgeZl [hxmann.com ]l6155 ELT 433 (SC) ljttzozsl [170 ][raxmam.com ][422 ][(Bombay)l]'' lle78l ll3 ITR 589 (Bombay)'' lle78l ll3 ITR 589 (Bombay) " TZOZ+1 [165 ][taxmann.com ]581/300 Taxman 452 (Bonrbay) 'o lgeZl [hxmann.com ]l6155 ELT 433 (SC) "6. Sri Reddy is perhaps rrght in saying that theofficers were not actuated by any mala fides inpassing the impugned orders. They perhapsgenuinely felt that the claim of the assessee was notgenuinely felt that the claim of the assessee was nottenable and that, if it was accepted, the Revenuewould suffer. But what Sfl Reddy overlooks is that weare not concerned here with the correctness orotherwtse of their conclusion or of any factualmalafides but with the fact that the officers, in reachingin their conclusion, by-passe! two appellate orders inwould suffer. But what Sfl Reddy overlooks is that weare not concerned here with the correctness orotherwtse of their conclusion or of any factualmalafides but with the fact that the officers, in reachingin their conclusion, by-passe! 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, righflythem, one of the Collector (Appeals) and the other ofthe Tribunal. The High Court has, in our view, righflycrittcized this conduct of the Assistant Collectors andthe harassment to the assessee caused by the failureof these officers fo grve effect to the orders ofauthorities higher to them in the appellate hierarchy. ltthe harassment to the assessee caused by the failureof these officers fo grve effect to the orders ofauthorities higher to them in the appellate hierarchy. ltcannot be too vehemently emphasized that it is ofulmost tmportance that, in disposing of thequasijudlcial issues before them, revenue officers arequasijudlcial 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 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 of.under the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The principles ofjudlcral discipline require that the orders of the higherappellate authoflties should be followed unreservedlyappellate authoflties should be followed unreservedlyby the subordinate authorities. The mere fact that theorder of the appellate authority is not [,,acceptable,, ]toorder of the appellate authority is not [,,acceptable,, ]tothe depa(ment - in itself an objectionable phrase _and is the subject matter of an appeal can furnish noground for not following it unless its operation hasand is the subject matter of an appeal can furnish noground for not following it unless its operation hasbeen suspended by a competent court. lf this healthy rule is not followed, the result will only be undueharassment to assesses and chaos in admin strationof tax laws. 12. We have dealt with this aspect at some length.because it has been suggested by the earnedAdditional Solicitor General that the observationsmade by the High Court, have been harsh on theofficers. lt is clear thai the observations of " e HighCourt, seemingly vehement, and apparen yunpalatable to the Revenue, are only intended to curba tendency in revenue matters which, rf allo,rued tobecome widespreEd, could result in conskjerableharassment to the assesses_public without any benefitto the Reveriue. We would like to say t at thedepartment should take these observations jn 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 lhe requirements of ludicialdiscrpline and the need for giving effect to the ordersof the higher appellate authorities which are t rndingon them." 15. What is \lrorrying this Bench more is the fact that anendeavour is bcing made whole heartedly to ensure not to generatefurther litigation on issues which have been laid to rest by a largenumber of Fligh Courts all of whom have taken a c onsistent standthat the action of the Income Tax Department being violative of thc lrinanceAct.2020andFinanceAct,202l'Now,inordertoprotectthe interest oi [thc ][Revcnue ][as ][also that ][of ][the ][assessee' ][it ][would ][be]trite at this [juncture, ][if ][we ][dispose ][of ][the ][writ ][petition ][with ][an]observation/direction [that ][the ][disposat ][of ][the ][instant ][writ ][petition ][in]terms ol'the [judgment ][rendered ][by ][this ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]Konkanultr [Rnvindra ][Redtly ][(1 ][supra) ][shall however ][be ][subject to]the outcotne of [the ][SLPs ][which ]['were ][hled ][by ][the ][Income ][Tax]Departtrent [and ][which ][is ][pending consideration before ][the ][Hon'ble]Suprernc Court. 16. In the [given ][lacts ][pnd circuntstances' ][this ][Bench ][is of ][the]considered [opinion that ][unless and ][until ][we ][do ][not ][timely ][dispose]of matters [which ][are ][squarely covered by ][the ][decision ][of this ][Court]and which [stands ][fortihed by ][the ][decisions ][of ][the ][various ][other]Courts [on the ][very ][same issue, ][the ][pendency ][of ][this ][High]lligh Court [would ][funher ][be ][burdened ][which ][otherwise ][can ][be ][decided]and disposed [of ][as a ][covered matter'] 17. So lar [as ][the ][interest ][of ][the Revenue ][is concemed' we ][are ][of]the considered [opinion ][that the ][interest ][ofthe ][Revenue has ][already]been considered [and protected, ][as ][has been ][observed ][in ][paragraphs] 36,37 and 38 of the order which. for ready reference. is reproducedhereunder 36. For all the aforesaid reasons, the rmpugned noticesissued and the proceedings drawn by the ft)sponden!Department is nerther tenable, nor sustainable.The notices so issued and the procedure adcpted beingper se rllegal, deserves to be and are accordingly setaside/quashed. As a consequence, all the impugnedorders getting quashed, the consequential ordlrs passedby the respondent-Department pursuant to the notrcesissued under Section 147 and 148 would also getquashed and it is ordered accordingly. The Teason weare quashing the consequential order is on ther principlesthat when the in'itiation of the proceedings itself wasprocedurally, wrong, the subsequent ordersalso getsnullified automalically. 37. The preliminary ob.iection raised by the f etitioner issustained and all these writ petitions stands itllowed onthis very jurisdictional issue. Since the impugred noticesand orders are getting quashed on the point ofjurisdiction, we are not inclined to proceed further anddecide the other issues raised by the petiti()ner whichstands reserved to be raised and conten(led tn anappropfl ate proceedings. 38. Since lhe Hon'ble Supreme Court had, ln the caseof Ashish Agarwal, supra, as a one{ime measuTeexercising the powers under Article 142 of theConstitution of lndia, permttted the Revenue 1o proceedunder the substituted provisions, and this Cou rt allowingthe petitions only on the procedural flaw, the right HEiSSrer-'._ r--{"1 conferred on the [Revenue ][would ][remain ][reserved ][to]proceed further if they so [want ][from the ][stage ][of ][the]order of the Supreme [Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ][Ashish]Aga:'wal, [suPra.] 38. Since lhe Hon'ble Supreme Court had, ln the caseof Ashish Agarwal, supra, as a one{ime measuTeexercising the powers under Article 142 of theConstitution of lndia, permttted the Revenue 1o proceedunder the substituted provisions, and this Cou rt allowingthe petitions only on the procedural flaw, the right HEiSSrer-'._ r--{"1 conferred on the [Revenue ][would ][remain ][reserved ][to]proceed further if they so [want ][from the ][stage ][of ][the]order of the Supreme [Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ][Ashish]Aga:'wal, [suPra.] 18. We [would ][only lurther like to ][make observations ][that ][since]u,e are inclined [to ][dispose ][ol ][the instant ][writ ][petition, ][conscious ][of]the fact that [the ][earlier order ][of ][this ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]Rsnakcrla [Ravindra ][Reddy ][(l ][supra) ][is ][subjected ][to ][challenge]before the [Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Court ][in ][SLP No'3574 ][of ][2024']preferred by [the ][tncorne ][Tax Department, we ][make ][it ][clear ][that]of [the ][instant ][writ ][petition ][is ][subject ][to ][outcome ][of ][the]allowing aforesaid [SLP preferred ][by ][the Revenue against ][the ][decision ][ofthis]High Court in [the ][case ][of ][Kanakala Ravindra ][Reddy ][(1 ][sttpra)']This, in other [words, ][would ][tnean ][that either ][of ][the parties' ][if ][they]so want, may [move an appropriate ][petition ][seeking ][revival of ][this]writ petition in [the tight ][of ][the decision ][of ][the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme]Coun in the [pending ][SLP on ][the ][very ][same issue'] 19. AccordingtY, [the ][instant ][writ petition ][stands ][allowed ][rn]favour of the [assessee ][so ][far ][as ][the ][issue ][of ][jurisdiction]1Sconcerned. [As ][a ][consequence, ][the ][impugned ][notice ][under]under [Sections 148-A ][and ][148 ][stands ][set ][aside/quashed]challenge II l The consequential ordels, if any, also stand set aside/quashed insimilar tems as have been passed by this High Court in the case of Kankanula Rovindra Reddv (l supra). Tl.rerc ;hall be no order as to costs Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed //TRUE COPYII^'L?;J{^"rTtt6,'Jr'#FtuTo,SECTIgN OFFICER 1I:;'i tij#?'fl[:Ii:,ily,.zlt-1 {har1mqr1/ [rncome ]rax orrice, Rajeev Gunt1 | "*kffi ffi I:;'i tij#?'fl[:Ii:,ily,.zlt-1 {har1mqr1/ [rncome ]rax orrice, Rajeev Gunt1 | "*kffi ffi i!,1",td,[:T Ii#; I i:ffit;; ;;i:ffit;; ;; a S j!;,wational Faceless Assessment Center, Income Tax Department, Newj!;,wational Faceless Assessment Center, Income Tax Department, New 'ffi;rl8:llsib3;,p.,f lff :iIf,",[.J€;#il?l#8,,,,iii,1",""f ,s:?#:,1,"J 5. The Secretary to theFinance, u".ioir,ii:, $s;#fr::!.,88Bin,"n, o' Revenue, Ministry orFinance, u".ioir,ii:, $s;#fr::!.,88Bin,"n, o' Revenue, Ministry or 6. One CC to SRt THANNERU CHA|TANYA KUMAR, Acvocate. tOpUCltOpUClto I\4s.BoKARo ' ,oairr"r3," sApNA REDDY, (Jr. SC FoR TNCOME TAX).TAX). 8. Two CD Copies. Two BSKBSKGJP fr fr M HIGH COURT DATED:01 10512025 ORDERWP.No.28959 of 2024 ./,,1'.!.'10 stP [2025]\\Dr- .SF,i ,\ " ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITIONWITHOUT COSTSPT>tIqw)