Under Section L48A Of The Act As Also Under Section 148 Of Theact Ought To Have Also Been Issued And [Proceeded ]In A Facelcssmanner v. Income-Tax Officert Decidedon 14.09.202 [1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JUNETWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTTCE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION NO:'t 7970 0F 202s Between: suNlrHA MEKALA' 2-6511 . Sagar Road. Devarkonda. Kondamailepaily, Nargonda -508243. Dist. Nalgonda ...PETITIONER AND 1INCOME TAX OFFTCER Wgld - 7, Natgonda, tncome Tax Office, AaykarBhavan, Near Rait Undei Bridge, Nab;";; _ 50s6"01"Bhavan, Near Rait Undei Bridge, Nab;";; _ 50s6"01" 2PRINCIPAL COMMISSTONER OF.INC_OME_TAX _ 3, Signature Towers, OppBotanical Garden, Sertingampaily(M), R. R. Dis;ictlfiloeraoaa _ 500084.Botanical Garden, Sertingampaily(M), R. R. Dis;ictlfiloeraoaa _ 500084. 3U.nion of lndia, Represented. by its Secretary, Department of Revenue,Ministry of Finance, North Bb6k, t'tew Oerf,i'lrloboi ["]Ministry of Finance, North Bb6k, t'tew Oerf,i'lrloboi ["] ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Articre 226 of the constitution of rndia praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may bepleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order ordirection, declaring the Notice dated 07-03-2024 vide reference no.lrBA/AST/F/148A(scNy2023-24/1062135s80(1), ail consequentiar orders passedin pursuance of the said Notice, incruding order passed by the rncome Taxofficer, ward-1 , Nargonda, Under order 14g-A of the rncome Tax Act, 1961 Dateof order 19-03-2024 DrN No. |TBA/AST/F/148A12023-2411062934036(1) for theYear Assessment Year 2o2o-21 , as arbitrary ilegar bad in raw without jurisdictionvoid abinitio violative of principles of Natural Justice part from being violative ofArticle 4, 19 and 265 of constitution of rndia and consequentry set aside the samein the interests of justice. lA NO: ['l ]OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated inthe affidavit filed rn support of the petition, the High Court may be pleasedpleased to stay all further proceedings including any recovery, pursuant to thethe Notice dated 07 -03-2024 vide reference no.declaring ITBA/AST/F/148A(SCNy2023-2411062135580(1), all consequential orders passedin pursuance of the said Nctice, including order passed by the lncome TaxOfficer, Ward-1, Nalgonda, Under Order 148-A of the lncome Tax Act, 1961 Dateof Order 19-03-2024 DIN No. ITBA/AST/F/148A12023-2411062934036(1) for theYear Assessment Year 2020-21 pending disposal of writ petition.the affidavit filed rn support of the petition, the High Court may be pleasedpleased to stay all further proceedings including any recovery, pursuant to thethe Notice dated 07 -03-2024 vide reference no.declaring ITBA/AST/F/148A(SCNy2023-2411062135580(1), all consequential orders passedin pursuance of the said Nctice, including order passed by the lncome TaxOfficer, Ward-1, Nalgonda, Under Order 148-A of the lncome Tax Act, 1961 Dateof Order 19-03-2024 DIN No. ITBA/AST/F/148A12023-2411062934036(1) for theYear Assessment Year 2020-21 pending disposal of writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI UPADHYAY RAGHAVENDER Counsel for the Respondents No.1&2 : MS.B.SAPNA REDDY, Jr.SC for lT DEPTCounsel for the Respondent No.3 : SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DY.SO.GENThe Court made the followingl: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE [P.SAM ] ANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING NANDIKONDAWRIT PETITION No.l797O of 2025 @EB, (per Hon'ble Sri Justice Narsing Rao Nundikondu) Heard Mr.Upadhyay Raghavender, leamed counsel [tbr ][the] petitioner and Ms.B.Sapna Reddy, learned Senior StandingCounsel lor the Income Tax [Department appearing ][lor ][the]respondents. Perused the record Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI UPADHYAY RAGHAVENDER Counsel for the Respondents No.1&2 : MS.B.SAPNA REDDY, Jr.SC for lT DEPTCounsel for the Respondent No.3 : SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DY.SO.GENThe Court made the followingl: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE [P.SAM ] ANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING NANDIKONDAWRIT PETITION No.l797O of 2025 @EB, (per Hon'ble Sri Justice Narsing Rao Nundikondu) Heard Mr.Upadhyay Raghavender, leamed counsel [tbr ][the] petitioner and Ms.B.Sapna Reddy, learned Senior StandingCounsel lor the Income Tax [Department appearing ][lor ][the]respondents. Perused the record 2. This is a writ petition where the [proceedings ][are ][either]challenged to the notices which [were ]issued [under Section ][l48A]and 148 of the Income Tax Act, [1961 ][(for ][short'the ][Act') ][or ][the]assessment orders those have been [passed ][under ][Section ][147 ][ol']the Act which have been assailed. 3. This writ petition is being taken up today only [on ][one ][of ][the]grounds, that the notices issued under Section l48A of [the Act]and the subsequent initiation of [proceedings under ][Section ][148 ][ol-]the Act by the [jurisdictional ][Assessing ][Officer, ][whereas ][in ][terms]of the amendmtft.that [was brought ][to ][the lncome ][Tax ][Act ][by way]of Finance Act, 2021 [w.e.f., ][01.04.2021 ][onwards, ][proceedings] under Section l48A of the Act as also under Section 148 of theAct ought to have also been issued and [proceeded ]in a facelcssmanner 4. The contention of the petitioner is that the [issue ]ofproceedings being in violation of the Finance Acq2(121 i.e., [the]impugned notices under Sectiori 148A and Section [48 ][of ][the ][Act]not being issued in a faceless manner, have already been dealt [with]and decided by this Courl in the case of KANKANALARAVINDRA REDDY vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICERT decidedon 14.09.202 [1 ]whereby a batch of writ [petitions wcre ]allowed [and]the proceedings initiated under Section l48A as also under Section148 olthe Act were held to be bad with consequential reliels on theground of it being in violation of the provisions of Section 15lA ofthe Act read with Notification 1812022 dated 29.03.2022. [The ][said]judgment passcd by this Court has also been subsequently followedin a large nunrber of writ petitions [which ][were ]allorved [on ][similar]terms 'l(2023) [156 ][taxmann.com ][178 ][(Telangana)l] / - 5. Down the line, we find that the same issue has also beenwe find that the same issue has also beenthat the same issue has also beensame issue has also beenissue has also beenalso beenbeendecided against the Revenue by various High Courts i.e.,by the Bombay High Court in the case of HEXAWARETECHNOLOGIES LTD., vs. ASSISTAT{T COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX & OTHERS2, Gauhati High Court in rhe caseof RAM NARAYAN SAH vs. UNION OF INDIAT, punjab andllaryana High Court in the case of JATINDER SINGH BANGUvs. IINION OF INDIA4, and Telangana High Court in the case ofSRI VENKATARANIANA REDDY PATLOOLA vs. DEPUTYCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX5 where the issue was inrespect of international taxation, Bombay High Court in the case ofABHIN ANILKUMAR SHAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,INTERNATIONAL TAXATION6 which is again on intemarionaltaxation and central circle, High Court of Himachal pradesh in thecase of GOVIND SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER?,Gujarat High Court in the case of MANSUKHBHAI Down the line, we find that the same issue has also beenwe find that the same issue has also beenthat the same issue has also beensame issue has also beenissue has also beenalso beenbeen 'lzoz+1464 [430 ][(Bom)]'[(2024) [156 ]taxmann.com 478 (Gauhati)] '[(2024) 165 taxmann.com I I5 (Punjab & Ilaryana)] '[2024) [167 ][taxrqann.com ]4l I [(1-etangana)]] " [2024) [166 ][taxrnaii.com ]679 [(Bombay)]] 'L2024) 165 taxmann.com I l3 (Himachal Pradesh)l .A Down the line, we find that the same issue has also beenwe find that the same issue has also beenthat the same issue has also beensame issue has also beenissue has also beenalso beenbeen 'lzoz+1464 [430 ][(Bom)]'[(2024) [156 ]taxmann.com 478 (Gauhati)] '[(2024) 165 taxmann.com I I5 (Punjab & Ilaryana)] '[2024) [167 ][taxrqann.com ]4l I [(1-etangana)]] " [2024) [166 ][taxrnaii.com ]679 [(Bombay)]] 'L2024) 165 taxmann.com I l3 (Himachal Pradesh)l .A DAHYABHAI RADADIYA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER.WARD 3(-jX5)8, Jharkand High Court in the case of SHYAMSUNDAR SAW vs. UNION OF INDlAe, Rajasthan High Court inthe case ol 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 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 10 writpetitions. Tlrat upon the instructions being sought from theDepartment, they have been taking a solitary ground that thedecision of the Bornbay High Courl in the case of HexawareTechnologies Ltd., (2 supra) as also the one which has beendecided by this Court in the case of Kanakala Rtvindro Reddy E20z+ sCC 0nt.inc Guj 4o t2'2025 [Onl-ine ]Jhar [287]I o 12023 [: ] [: ][49 ][84-D ] l - \ -l \ 'v'- ,1 I (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 matterIn addition, there are about 1200 SLPs also filed arising out of thesame issue being decided by various High Courts.7. To a query being put to the learned counsel for the Revenue,they have categorically accepted the f-act 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 bythis 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 l48A and underSection 148 of the Act by the jurisdictional Assessing Olficer,rather the authorities concerned in the teeth of series of decisions by all the major High Courts in India are continuously stillinitiating proceedings under Section l48A ol the Act and alsoinitiating proce edings under Section 148 ol- the Act incontravention to the amendments brought into the Income Tax Actpursuant to the Finance Act, 2020 as also the Finance Act 202 | .9. Upon a query being put es to why can't this writ petition bedisposed of in the teeth of the decision rendered by this Court inthe case of Kanaksla Ravindra Reddy (l supra), learned StandingCounsel for the Income Tax Department contends that those wouldunnecessarill' burden the [ncome Tax Department where theywould be required to file equal nurnber of SLPs before theHon'ble Supreme Court and it would be further burdening theexchequer of the Union of [ndia. 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 Courl 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 rtot comeout with a mechanism to issue appropriate instructions or to take appropriate steps [in ][ensuring ][that ][proceedings ][under Section ][148A]of the Act [as ][also ][the ][assessment ][orders under ][Section ][148 ][of ][the]Act are kept in a [hotd in the tight ][of ][the ][decisions dedcided ][by ][the]various High Courts, [it ][was ][submitted ][by ][the ][leamed ][Standing]Counsel that the [said ][steps can ][only ][be ][taken ][at ][the level ][of CBDT]as any such steps [would ][have ][to ][be taken ][Pan ][lndia ][and cannot ][be]limited to any [ol ][these ][jurisdictional ][High ][Courts'] 10. As a result [oF ][which, what ][we are ][facing is ][steep increase ][of]litigation day in and [day ][out ][even ][though various ][ord'ers ][have ][been]passed by this High [Court ][allowing ][writ ][petitions ][on the ][very ][same]issue. The [Income ][Tax ][authorities ][concemed are ][still ][even ][now ][in]2025 atso initiating [proceedings ][in ][contravention ][to ][the provisions]of Section l51A [of ][the ][Act ][and ][as ][a ][result by now, more ][than ][600]to 700 petitions [have ][been ][already ][got ][piled ][up ][before ][this ][High]Court on an [issue ][which ][otherwise ][stands squarely covered ][by ][the]judgment of this Court in the case [of ][Kanakala Ravindra ][Reddy](1 supra). What is [also surprising ][is ][the fact ][that though while]writ [petitions ][in ][the ][case ][of ][Kanakala ][Ravindra]allowing the Reddy (l supra), the [Division ][Bench ][while ][reserving the ][right ][of]the Revenue, has also [protected ][the ][interest ][of ][the ][petitioners] insofar as rhe tiberry which was granted to the llevenue forinitiating frcsh proceedings strictly in accordance with thc amendedprovisions of the Act, as amended by the Finance Act, 2020 andthe Finance Act, 202 l. ['fhe ]petitioner assessee would be entitled tochallenge or raise the other legal objections if the l{evenue initiatesfresh proceedings. The Department has made no endeavour inavailing the said liberty that was reserved lor the Revenue. On thecontrary, they have been still sticking on to the stand, which thisHigh Court as well as many other High Courts alreadl'held to bebad 11. It appears that because of the aforesaid libertl' that this HighCourt had granted permitting the Revenue for initiating freshproceedings as a one-time measure in a i'aceless manner, theIncome Tax Department wants to take advantage ol the same byprotracting these proceedings which would enable them to meet thelimitation that would otherwise come in the wav. Likewise. if thewrit petition is kept pending for a considerable long period of timeand finally at a later stage if thc Hon'ble Supreme C'ourt confirmsthe decision taken by this High Court as also by the other HighCourts in which the SLPs are still pending, the lncome Tax , Department would get the advantage olthe 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 concemed. As a consequence, the Income Taxwould 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 freshproceedings.proceedings. , Department would get the advantage olthe 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 concemed. As a consequence, the Income Taxwould 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 freshproceedings.proceedings. 12. The alarming trend of docket explosion in this Court, despitethe clear precedent set in Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra), is amatter of grave concem. The lncome 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. Thisdeliberate approach not only undermines the principle ofjudicialprecedent 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 condttct raises [serious questions ][about ][the]administrative efficiency [and ][the ][respect ][for ][judicial]pronouncements; [particularly ][when ][this Court ][has ][alreadl'provided]a balanced approach by [preserving both ][the ][Revenuc's ][rights ][and]assesses interests. 13. Another aspect [which ][n""d. ][to ][be ][considered ][is ][that ][in ][fact ][it]should have been realized [by the Income ][Tax l)epartment itself ][and]should have found out [via ][media ][in ][ensuring ][that ];lroceedingsunder Sections 148-4 [and ][148 ][should ][not ][have been ][issued ][in ][a]faceless manner, at least till [the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme ][(lourt ][decide ][the]twelve hundred [(1200) ]odd SLPs [which ][it ][is alreadl" seized ][of or, ][at]least the Income Tax [Department ][should have ][fbuncl ][out ][some]remedial steps to ensure [that ][wherever ][the ][authorities intend ][to]initiate proceedings under Sections [148-A and ][148' ][other than in ][a]faceless manner, the [proceedings ][should have been ][deferred]without precipitating [the ][matter further ][intimating ][the ][assessee ][that]they shall initiate appropriate [proceedings ][only ][after the ][SLP's ][are]decided by the Hon'ble [Supreme ][Court on the very ][satne ][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 ][atl] has to be taken, has to be taken lor the whole of India, and which has to be taken, has to be taken lor the whole of India, and which otherwise 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 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 inthe long run not only aflects 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 DepartmentIS showingaudacity by issuing notices continuously under Sections 148-A and 148 through the jurisdictional Assessing Officer rvhereas it oughtto have been only in the faceless manner. 14. ln the case of BANK OF INDIA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, INCOME TAXrr, on an issue rvhethcr it wasj ustifiableon the part of the Income Tax Departmenl in tlotfollowing an order passed by the adjudicating authoriry 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 Mr. Paridwglla has rightly drawn out attention to thedecision of this Court in Commissioner of lncome Tax vs. Smt.Godavaridevi Sarafl2 as also the recent decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Samp Furniture (P) Ltd. v. lTO13of which one of us (Justice G.S. Kulkarni) was a member, whereinthe Court categorically observed that the Revenue having not"accepted" the Judgment of the High Court would not mean that tiltthe same is sel 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.1", theCourt observed that the approach of the officials of Revenue oftreating decisions berng "not acceptable" was criticized by theSupreme Court. ln such decision, following are the relevantobservations made by the Supreme Court. ilttzozsr [t70 ][raxmann.com 422 ][{Bombay)l]" l le78l I l3 I lR 5ll9 (Bomba1.)'1 12OZ+1 [165 ]taxmann.com 581/300 Taxnan [452 (Bombay ]t 't 119921 [laxmann.com ][l6155 ] [433 (SC)] --\ .-.---'1 ilttzozsr [t70 ][raxmann.com 422 ][{Bombay)l]" l le78l I l3 I lR 5ll9 (Bomba1.)'1 12OZ+1 [165 ]taxmann.com 581/300 Taxnan [452 (Bombay ]t 't 119921 [laxmann.com ][l6155 ] [433 (SC)] --\ .-.---'1 '6. Sri Reddy is perhaps right in saying that theofficers were not actuated by any mala fides inofficers were not actuated by any mala fides inpassing the impugned orders They perhapsgenuinely felt that the claim of the assessee was nottenable and that, if it was accepted, the Revenuewould suffer. But what Sri Reddy overlooks is that weare not concerned here with the correctness orothenaise of their conclusion or of any factualmalafides but with the fact that the officers, in reachingin their conclusion, by-passed two appellate orders intenable and that, if it was accepted, the Revenuewould suffer. But what Sri Reddy overlooks is that weare not concerned here with the correctness orothenaise 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 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 ofauthorities 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 authorilies.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 ]ofludicial [discipline require ][that the ][orders ][of the ][higher]appellate 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 subjecl matter of an appeal can furnish nothem, 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 ofauthorities 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 authorilies.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 ]ofludicial [discipline require ][that the ][orders ][of the ][higher]appellate 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 subjecl matter of an appeal can furnish noground for not following it unless its operation hasbeen suspended by a competent court. lf this healthybeen suspended by a competent court. lf this healthy rule is not followed, the result will only be undueharassment to assesses and chaos in administrationof tax iaws. rule is not followed, the result will only be undueharassment to assesses and chaos in administrationof tax iaws. 12 We have dealt with this aspect at some length,because it has been suggested by the learnedAddrtional Solicitor General that ihe observationsmade by the High Court, have been harsh on theofficers. lt is clear that fhe 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 Revenub. We would like to say that thedepartment should take these observations in theproper spirit. The observatrons of the High Courtshould be kept in mind in fulure and the utmost regardshould be paid by the adjudicating authorities and theappellate authorities to the requirements of [judicial]discipline and the need for grving effect to the ordersof the higher appellate authorities which are bindingon them." 15. What is worrying this Bench more is the tact that an endcavour is being made whole heartedly to ensure not to generatefurther litigation on issues which have been laid to rest by a largefurther litigation on issues which have been laid to rest by a largenumber of Hiqh Courts all of whom have taken a consistent standthat the action of the Income Tax Department being violative ol'thethat the action of the Income Tax Department being violative ol'the Finance Act, 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 [/direction ]that the disposal ol 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 llon'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 ][High]Court would further be burdened which otherwise can [be decided]and disposed of as a covered matter. l7 . 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 paragraphsthe considered opinion that the [interest ]of the Revenue has alreadybeen considered and protected, [as ][has ]been observed in paragraphs 36,37 and ltl olthe order which, for ready reference, is reproducedhereunder 36. For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned noticesrssued and the proceedings drawn by the respondent-Department is neither tenable, nor sustainable.The notices 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 passedby the respondent-Department pursuant to the noticesissued under Section 147 and 148 would also getquashed and it is ordered accordingly. The reason weare [quashing ]the consequential order is on the principlesthat when the'initiation of the proceedings itself 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 rnclined to proceed further anddecide the other issues raised by the petitioner whichstands reserved to be raised and contended in anappropraate [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 rnclined to proceed further anddecide the other issues raised by the petitioner whichstands reserved to be raised and contended in anappropraate [proceedings.] 38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the caseof Ashrsh Agarwal, supra, as a one-time measureexercising the powers under Article 142 of theConstitution of lndia, [permitted ]the Revenue lo [proceed]under the substituted provisions, and this Court allowingthe petitions only on the [procedural ]flaw, the right .l \ 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 ][Ashish]Agarwal, supra. 18. We would only fufther like to make observations that sincewe are inclined to dispose of the instant writ petition, conscious ofthe lact that the earlier order of this High Court in the case ofKanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra) is subjected to challengebelore the Hon'ble Supreme Courl in SLP No.3574 of 2024,prelerred by the lncome Tax Department, we make it clear thatallowing of the instant writ petition is subject to outcome of thealoresaid SLP preferred by the Revenue against the decision of thisHigh Court in the case of Kunakala Ravindru Reddy (I supra)This, in other words, would mean that either of the parties, if theyso want, may move an appropriate petition seeking revival ol 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 inlavour of the assessee so far as the issue of [jurisdiction]ISconcerned. As a consequence, the impugned notice underchallenge under Sections 148-A and 148 stands set asideiquashed.A I The consequential orders, if any, also stand set aside/quashed in similar tenns as havc been passed by this High Court in the case of Kankanalu Ravindra Reddy (l supra). There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, il any, shall stand closed. sD/- A.H.S.GOWRT SHANKAR 7AQlsreur //TRUE COPY//_\i [\J ]sEcTror.rbFrrcen To, '1 . The lncome Tax Officer, W ard - 7, Nalgonda. lncome Tax Office, AaykarBhavan, Near Rail Under.Bridge, Nalgonda [- ]508001.Bhavan, Near Rail Under.Bridge, Nalgonda [- ]508001. 2. The Principal Commissioner Of lncome Tax [- ]3, Signature Towers, Opp.Botanical Garden, Serlingampally(M), R. R. District, Hyderabad [- ]500084.Botanical Garden, Serlingampally(M), R. R. District, Hyderabad [- ]500084. 3. The Secretary, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Union of lndia,North Block, New Delhi [-'1 ]10001North Block, New Delhi [-'1 ]10001 4. One CC to SRI UPADHYAY RAGHAVENDER, Advocate. 5. One CC to IVs.B.SAPNA REDDY, SC for lncome Tax Department. 6. One CC to SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUIVAR, (Deputy Solicitor General of lndia),High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. IOPUC]High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. IOPUC] 7- Two CD Copies. 7Q [o356] WX.txs4 pr.t HIGH COURT DATED:2610612025 ORDER WP.No.17970 of 2025 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITTONWITHOUT COSTS ()3lkEr4 r{o,.a('2BAUEMaljrrl.t a nLa-2-::=-