Under Section L48A Of The Act As Also Under Section 148 Of The v. 'L(2023) [I ][56 ][Taxmann.com ][178 ][(Telangana)L

13447 l IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction)WEDNESDAY. THE THIRTIETH DAY OF APRILTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION NO: 11941 OF 2025 Between: Mrs. Bindu Laknapurant, WoLankapuram Shiva Shankar Reddy, Aged about 32years, Occ. House Hold H.No3-55, tt/adhu rapu r, Farooq na [g ]ar -5o9202, [Telan ][ga ]na,lndia. ...PETITIONER AND 1The lncome Tax Officer, Ward [(1), ]Mahabubnagar lncome tax office. Office Road. Mehaboobnagar-509001Office Road. Mehaboobnagar-509001 2The Principal Commissioner of lncome fax [- ]4. Hyderabad, [lncome ]TaxTowers, AC Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad - 500 004, TelanganaTowers, AC Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad - 500 004, Telangana ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of [lndia ][praying ][that ][in ][the]circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the [High ][Court ][may ][be]pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order orDirection, declaring the Assessment Order [passed by ][the ][1st ][Respondent, uis]147 rlw Sec. 144 r/w Sec. 1448 of the lncome [Tax ][Act. ][1961, ][dated ][07 ][03.2025,]bearing DIN ITBA/AST lsl [1 ]47 12024-2511 07 [41 ]53952(1), [for ]the [Assessment Year]2020-21 , as arbitrary, illegal, bad in law, [void-ab-initio, ][violative of the ][principles]of natural [justice ]apart from being violative of Articles [1a, ][19(1)(g) and 265 of ][the]Constitution of lndia and Sec. 14BA of the lncome Tax Act, [1961, ][and]consequently set aside the same in the interests [of ][justice.] Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI PATURI RAMA KRISHNA c o u n s e I ro r th e R e s p o n r. " "',T : t 3 [A[l-t#,il I ii^i' ", The Court made the following: ORDER I. ii rl. ri THE IIONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHI.] HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAONANDIKONDA \\,RI'I PETITION No.11941 of 2025 ORDER: (par Hon,ble Sri Justice p.Sam Koshy) Heard Mr. paturi Rama Krishna, Ieamed counsel for thepetitioner and Ms. B.Sapna Reddy, Iearned Junior StandingCounsel for the Income Tax Department for the respondents.Perused the record. 2. This is a writ petition where the proceedings are eitherchallenged to the notices which were issued under Section l4gAand 148 of rhe Income Tax Act, 196l (for short ,the Act,) or theassessment orders those have been passed under Section 147 ofthe Act which have been assailed. 3. This writ petition is being taken up today only on one of thegrounds, that the notices issued under Section l4gA of the Actand the subsequenr initiation of proceedings under Section l4g ofthe Act by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, whereas in termsof the amendment that was brought to the Income TII 4..t by wayof Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f., 01.04.2021 onwards, proceedings under Section l48A of the Act as also under Section 148 of the Act ought to have also been issued and proceeded in a lacelessntanner.4. The contention of the petitioner is that the issue ofproceedings being in violation of the Finance Act,202l i.e., theimpugned notices under Section 148A and Section 148 ofthe Actnot being issued in a faceless manner, have already been [dealt ][with]and decided by this Court in the case of KANKANALARAVINDRA REDDY vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICERT decidedon 14.09.2023 whereby a batch of writ [petitions ][were ][allowed ][and]the proceedings initiated under Section 148A as also under [Section]148 of the Act were held to be bad with consequential reliefs on theground of it being in violation of the provisions of Section 5 A olthe Act read with Notification 18/2022 dated29.03.2022. [The ]saidjudgment passed by this Court has also been subsequently followedin a large number of writ petitions which were allowed on similarterms. 'l(2023) [56 ][taxmann.com ][178 ][(Telangana)l] 'l(2023) [56 ][taxmann.com ][178 ][(Telangana)l] 5. Dorvn 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 IIEXAWARETECHNOLOGIES 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 rhe case of JATINDER SINGH BANGUvs. UNION OF' INDIA4, and Telangana High Court in the case ofSRMNK{]'ARAMANA REDDY PATLOOLA vs. DEpUTyCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX5 where rhe issue was inrespect of inremational taxation, Bombay High Court in the case ofABHIN ANTLKUMAR SHAH vs. INCOME T.{X OFFICER,TNTERNATIONAL TAXATION6 which is again on inrernationaltaxation and cenrral circle, High Court of Himachal pradesh in thecase of GOVIND SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERT,Gujarat High Court in the case of MANSUKHBHAI'17zoz+1464 [I'tR ][430 ][(Bom)]'[(2024) [156 ]taxmann.com 478 (Gauhati)]'1Q024) 165 taxmann.com I l5 (punjab & Haryana)l' 12024) [167 ]taxmann.com 4l I (Telangana)l" 12024) 166 taxrnann.com 679 (Bombay)l1 [2024) 165 taxrnann.com I l3 (Himachal pradesh)] DAHYABHAI RADADIYA vs. INCOME TAX 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 petitionsr0 whichstood decided on 19.03.2024. Similar views have also been takenby the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in the case ofGIRDHAR GOPAL DALMIA vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS(M.A.T 1690 of 2023), decided on25.09.2024. 6. Even though the same issue having been decided by a largenumber of High Courts, we are still confronted with large filing ofidentical matters on daily basis ranging between 5 to l0 writpetitions. That upon the instructions being sought fiom theDepartment, they have been taking a solitary ground that thedecision of the Bombay High Court in the case of HexawareTechnologies Ltd., (2 supra) as also the one which has beendecided by this Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy E2O2q SCC Online Cuj 4012'2025 SCC Online Jhar 287o ' 72023 [: ] [:49 ][84-DB ][r]SCC Online Cuj 4012'2025 SCC Online Jhar 287o ' 72023 [: ] [:49 ][84-DB ][r] (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 I200 SLps also filed 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 wnt 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 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 date, we do not find any remedial steps having beentaken by the Income Tax Department to take appropriate steps toeither hold back issuance of notice under Section l4gA and underSection 148 of the Act by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer,rather the authorities concemed in the teeth of series of decisions by all the major High Courts in India are continuously stillinitiating proceedings under Section l48A of the Act and alsoinitiating proceedings under Section 148 of the Act incontravention to the amendments brought into the Income Tax Actpursuant to the Finance Act,2020 as also the Finance Act202l.9. Upon a query being put as to why can't this writ petition bedisposed of in the teeth of the decision rendered by this Court inthe case of Konukala Ravindra Reddy (1 supra), leamed StandingCounsel for the Income Tax Department contends that those wouldunnecessarily burden the Income Tax Department where theywould be required to file equal number of SLps before theHon'ble Supreme Court and it would be further burdening theexchequer of the Union of India. It was also the contention of theleamed Standing Counsel that no prejudice would be caused to theinterest of the petitioners in case if this writ petition is kept pendingtill the finalization of the SLPs pending before the Hon,bleSupreme Court and the fact that the petitioner is already enjoyingthe benefit of interim protection. Nonetheless, on the earlier queryof this Court as to why the Income Tax Department have not comeout with a mechanism to issue appropriate instructions or to take appropriate steps in ensuring that proceedings under Section l4gAof the Act as also the assessment orders under Section l4g of theAct are kept in a hold in the light ofthe decisions dedcided by theof the Act as also the assessment orders under Section l4g of theAct are kept in a hold in the light ofthe decisions dedcided by thevarious High Courts, it was submitted by the leamed Standingcounsel that the said steps can onry be taken at the rever of GBDTas any such steps would have to be taken pan India and cannot belimited to any of rhese 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 orderc have beenStandingcounsel that the said steps can onry be taken at the rever of GBDTas any such steps would have to be taken pan India and cannot belimited to any of rhese 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 orderc have beenpassed by this l{igh Court allowing writ petitions on the very sameissue. The Income Tax authorities concemed are still even now inissue. The Income Tax authorities concemed are still even now in2025 also initiating proceedings in contravention to the provisionsof Section l-5lA of the Act and as a result by now, more than 600to 700 petitions have been already got piled up betbre this Highof Section l-5lA of the Act and as a result by now, more than 600to 700 petitions have been already got piled up betbre this HighCourt on an issue which otherwise stands squarely covered by thesquarely covered by thejudgment of this Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy(l supra). Whar is also surprising is the fact that though whileallowing the u,rit petitions in the case of Kanakala RavindraReddy(l supra). Whar is also surprising is the fact that though whileallowing the u,rit petitions in the case of Kanakala RavindraReddy (1 supra), the Division Bench while reserving the right ofthe Revenue, has also protected the interest of the petitionersreserving the right ofthe Revenue, has also protected the interest of the petitioners insofar as the liberty [which ][was ][granted ][to ][the ][Revenue ][for]fresh [proceedings ][strictly in ][accordance ][with ][the ][amended]initiating provisions of the Act, [as ][amended ][by ][the ][Finance ][Act, ][2020 ][and]the Finance Act,2021. [The ][petitioner ][assessee ][would ][be ][entitled to]challenge or raise [the ][other ][legal ][objections ][if ][the ][Revenue ][initiates]fresh [proceedings. ][The ][Department has made ][no ][endeavour in]the said [liberty ][that ][was ][reserved ][for the ][Revenue' ][On ][the]availing contrary, they [have ][been ][still ][sticking on ][to ][the ][stand, ][which ][this]High Court as [well ][as ][many other ][High ][Courts ][already ][held ][to ][be]bad. 1 1. It appears [that ][because ][of ][the ][aforesaid ][liberty ][that this ][High]Court had [granted ][permitting ][the ][Revenue ][for ][initiating ][fresh]proceedings as a one-time [measure ][in a ][faceless ][manner' ][the]Income Tax Department [wants ][to ][take ][advantage ][of ][the ][same ][by]these [proceedings ][which would ][enable ][them ][to ][meet ][the]protracting limitation that [would ][otherwise ][come ][in ][the ][way' ][Likewise, ][if ][the]writ petition is kept [pending ][for ][a ][considerable ][long period ][of ][time]and finally at [a ][later ][stage ][if ][the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Court ][confirms]the decision [taken ][by this ][High ][Court ][as also ][by the ][other High]Courts in which the [SLPs ][are ][still ][pending, ][the ][Income ][Tax] Department would get the advantage of the liberty that is otherwiseprotected in favour of the Revenue for initiation of freshproceedings from the disposal ofthese matters at a much later stagewhich would be advantageous and beneficial to the Revenue andwould be equally disadvantageous and detrimental so far as interestof the assesses are concemed. As a consequence, the Income TaxDepartment gets an extended period of time for initiation of fieshproceedings.which would be advantageous and beneficial to the Revenue andwould be equally disadvantageous and detrimental so far as interestof the assesses are concemed. As a consequence, the Income TaxDepartment gets an extended period of time for initiation of fieshproceedings. 12. The alarming trend of docket explosion in this Court, despitethe clear precedent set in Kanakala Ravindro Reddy (l supra), is amatter of grave concem. The Income Tax Department's persistentinitiation of ltesh proceedings, disregarding the estabtished 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. TheDepartment'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 circumventlimitation periods, rather than adhering to the established legal position. Such conduct raises serious questions about theadministrative efficiency and the respect for [judicial]pronouncements, particularly when this Court has already provideda balanced approach by preserving both the Revenue's rights andassesses lnterests.administrative efficiency and the respect for [judicial]pronouncements, particularly when this Court has already provideda balanced approach by preserving both the Revenue's rights andassesses lnterests. position. Such conduct raises serious questions about theadministrative efficiency and the respect for [judicial]pronouncements, particularly when this Court has already provideda balanced approach by preserving both the Revenue's rights andassesses lnterests.administrative efficiency and the respect for [judicial]pronouncements, particularly when this Court has already provideda balanced approach by preserving both the Revenue's rights andassesses lnterests. 13. Another aspect which needs to be considered is that in fact itshould have been realized by the Income Tax Department itself andshould have found out via media in ensuring that [proceedings]under Sections 148-4 and 148 should not have been issued in afaceless manner, at ieast till the Hon'bte Supreme Court decide thetwelve hundred (1200) odd SLPs which it is already seized of or, atleast the Income Tax Department should have found out someremedial steps to ensure that wherever the authorities intend toinitiate proceedings under Sections 148-A and 148, other than in [a]faceless manner, the proceedings should have been defenedwithout precipitating the matter further intimating the assessee thatthey shall initiate appropriate proceedings only after the SLP's aredecided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the very same [issue.]This again, the Income Tax Department, has not been able to [give ][a]convincing reply, except for the fact that such a decision if at all - has to be taken, has to be taken for the whole of tndia, and whichotherwise 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 itspendency, such notices which are under chailenge in this writpetition are fbrcing the assessee to knock the doors of this HighCourt 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 time of the Bench in hearing thesematters again and again on daily 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 theIncome 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 Income Tax Department is showingaudacity by issuing notices continuously under Sections l4g-A and 148 through the [jurisdictional ]Assessing Officer [whereas ][it ][ought]to have been only in the faceless manner. 14. In the case ol BANK OF INDIA vs. COMMISSIONER,, INCOME TAXrr, on an [issue ][whether ][it ][was]justifiable on the part of the Income Tax Department in notfollowing an order passed by the adjudicating authority [only ][on ][the]ground that the appeals are pending, the Division Bench of theHigh Court of Bombay held at paragraph No.25 as under, viz., [:] 148 through the [jurisdictional ]Assessing Officer [whereas ][it ][ought]to have been only in the faceless manner. 14. In the case ol BANK OF INDIA vs. COMMISSIONER,, INCOME TAXrr, on an [issue ][whether ][it ][was]justifiable on the part of the Income Tax Department in notfollowing an order passed by the adjudicating authority [only ][on ][the]ground that the appeals are pending, the Division Bench of theHigh Court of Bombay held at paragraph No.25 as under, viz., [:] "25. Mr. Paridwalla has rightly drawn out attention to [the]decision of lhis Court in Commissioner of lncome Tax [vs. ]Smt.Godavaridevi Sarafr2 as also the recent decision of the [co-]ordinate Bench of this Court [in ]Samp Furniture [(P) ][Ltd. v. ][lTO13]of which one of us [(Justice ]G.S. Kulkarni) was a member, [wherein]the Court categorically observed that the Revenue having [not]"accepted" the judgment of the High Court would not mean that tillthe same is set aside in a manner known to [law, ][it ][would loose ][its]binding force. Referring to the decision of the Supreme [Court ][in]Union of lndia vs. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation [Ltd.14, ][the]Court observed that the approach of the officials of Revenue [of]treating decisions being ["not ]acceptable" was criticized by [the]Supreme Court. ln such decision, following are the [relevant]observations made by the Supreme Court. tt 11zozs1 [170 ][taxmann.com 422 ][(Bombay)l] '' 1t9281 [113 ] [589 ][(Bombay)] '3 120241165 [taxmann.com 581/300 ][Taxman ][452 ][(Bombay)] 'o 1l99z1taxmann.com [l6155 ] [433 ][(SC)] "ti Sri Reddy is perhaps right 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 nottenable and that, if it was accepted, the Revenuewould suffer. But what Sri Reddy overlooks is that weare nol 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 inregard to the same issue which were placed beforethem, one of the Collector (Appeals) and lhe other ofthe Tribunal. The High Court has, in our view, righflycriticized this conduct of the Assistant Collectors andthe harassment to the assessee caused by the failureof these officers to give effect lo the orders ofauthorities higher to them in the appellate hierarchy. ltcannot be too vehemenfly emphasized lhat 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 functionunder 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 theorder of the appellate authority is not "acceptable', tothe department - in itself an objectionable phrase _and is the subject matter of an appeal can furnish 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 administrationof tax laws. rule is not followed, the result will only be undueharassment to assesses and chaos in administrationof tax laws. 12. We have dealt with this aspect at some length,because it has been suggested by the learnedAdditional Solicitor General that the observationsmade by the High Court, have been harsh on theofficers. lt is clear that the observations of the HighCourt, seemingly vehement, and apparentlyunpalatable to the Revenue, are only intended to curba tendency in revenue matters which, if allowed tobecome widespread, could result in considerableharassment to the assesses-public without any benefitto the Revenue. We would like to say that thedepartment should take these observations in theproper spirit. The observations of the High Courtshould be kept in mind in future and the utmost regardshould be paid by the adjudicating authorities and theappellate authorities lo the requirements of [judicial]discipline 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 [generate]further litigation on issues which have been laid to [rest ]by a largenumber of High Courts all of whom have taken a consistent standthat the action of the Income Tax Department being violative of the t It,tt t 't ll 'l Finance Act,2020 and Finance Act,20Zl. 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 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 Ilench 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 ofas a covered matter. 17. So far as the interest of the Revenue is concemed, we are of the considered opinion that the interest of the Revenue has 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 noticesissued and the proceedings drawn by the respondenl-Department is neither tenable, nor sustainable.The notices so issued and lhe [procedure ]adopled 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 148 would also [get]quashed and it is ordered accordingly. The reason weare quashing the consequential order is on the [principles]that when the initiation of the proceedings itself wasprocedurally wrong, the subsequent orders also getsnullified automatically. 37. The [preliminary ]objection raised by the [petitioner ][is]sustained 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 lo be raised and contended in anappropriate [proceedings.] 37. The [preliminary ]objection raised by the [petitioner ][is]sustained 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 lo be raised and contended in anappropriate [proceedings.] 38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the [case]of Ashish Agarwal, supra, as a one-time measureexercising the powers under Article 142 of theConstitution of lndia, [permitted ]the Revenue to [proceed]under the substituted [provisions, ]and this Court allowingthe petitions only on the [procedural ]flaw, the [right] conferred on the [Revenue ][would remain ][reserved ][to]prcceed further if they so want from [the ][stage ][of ][the]order of the Supreme [Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ][Ashish]Agarwal, supra. 18. We would [only ][further ][like to ][make ][observations ][that ][since]we are inclined [to ][dispose ][of ][the ][instant ][writ ][petition, ][conscious ][of]the fact that [the ][earlier ][order ][of ][this High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]Kanakala Ravindra [Reddy ][(l ][supra) ][is ][subjected ][to ][challenge]before the Hon'bte Supreme [Court ][in ] [No.3574 ][of ][2024,]preferred by the lncome Tax [Department, we ][make ][i1 ][clear ][that]allowing ol'the instant writ [petition ][is ][subject ][to ][outcome ][of ][the]aforesaid SLP [preferred ][by the ][Revenue ][against ][the ][decision ][ofthis]High Court in the case of [Kanakala Ravindra ][Reddl' ][(l ][supra).]This, in other rvords, would [mean ][that either ][of ][the ][parties, ][if ][they]so want, may move an appropriate [petition ][seeking ][revival of ][this]writ petition in the light of the [decision ][of ][the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme]Court in the [pending ]SLP [on ][the ][very ][same issue.] 19. Accorclingly, the instant [writ ][petition ][stands ][allowed][ ln]favour of the assessee so far as [the ][issue ][of ][jurisdiction]ISconcerned. As a consequence, [the ][impugned ][notice ][under]challenge unrler Sections [148-A ][and ][148 ][stands set aside/quashed] t 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 ofKankanala Ravindra Reddy (1 supra). There shatl be no order asto costs. - Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shallstand closed. SD/-T. D EPUTY //TRUE COPY//SECTI ON r lncome [tax office, ] The lncome [Tax Officer, ][Ward ][(1|I/lahabubn]off;;'il;;, [Nlehaboobnagar-5o9oo1]off;;'il;;, [Nlehaboobnagar-5o9oo1] 1 ,+:i5IJ:tg,L::[I'ffi :"J",'f :[i?tEJil;J:HUB?l3i3i;ll;3I"""":"J",'f :[i?tEJil;J:HUB?l3i3i;ll;3I"""" 3 One [tO ] [RATV,IA ][KRISHNA' ][AdVOCAIE ] ] 4. One [CC ro ][Ms.B SAPNA REDDY' ] [for lncome Tax ][Department ][ 5. Two [CoPies] BSK (L BS I I HIGH COURT DATED:30104t2025 ORDER WP.No.11941 of 2025 ALLOWING TI-IE WRIT WITHOUT COSTSq+-n2r5w,3o5 l, ot\t tl€ S l'4)/O..)17 JUN 2Wl'C)D4 fr.1r (ieri I'l