Under Section L48A Of The Act As Also Under Section 148 Of Theact Ought To Have Also Been Issued And Proceeded In A Facelessmanner v. '(2021) L-I6 Taxrnann.corn 178 (Telangana)L

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY ,THE FIRST DAY OF MAYTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM ANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING wRlT PETITION NO: 31254 OF 2024 Between: Viiender Kedia, S/o Guliari Lal Kedia, Aged about [62 year, Occ- ][Business, ][R/o]940fi1413, Road No.5, Palace Colony. [Bashccr ][Bagh, ][Himayathnagar,]Hyderabad- 500029. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The lncome Tax Officer, lncome [Tax ][Department, Hyderabad] 2. Assessment Unit, lncome [Tax Department, National c-Assessrnent ][Center]New Delhi, Room No 401,2nd Floor, [E-Ramp ][Jawaharlal ][Nehru Stadium,]New Delhi 1'10 003New Delhi, Room No 401,2nd Floor, [E-Ramp ][Jawaharlal ][Nehru Stadium,]New Delhi 1'10 003 ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Nlicle 226 of the Constitutron of [lndia ][praying ][that ][in ][the]circumstances stated in the affidavrt [filed ][therewith, ][the ][High Court may ][be]pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate [Writ ][Order ][or]Direction declaring the Notice under section [148 ][of ][lncorne ][Tax Act, ][dated]3OlO3l2O24 in DIN No. ITBA/ASTtstl48 [112023-2411063703277(1) ][for ][the]Assessment Year 2O17-18 as arbitrary [illegal bad ][in ][law ][void-ab-initio ][violative of]the principles of natural [justice ]apart [from ][berng ][violative ][of Articles ][14,199 ][and]265 of the Constitution of lndia and Sec [1 ][48A ][of ][the ][lncome Tax ][Act ][1961 ][and]consequently set aside the same [in ]the [interests ][of ]iustice lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC [praying ][that ][in ][the ][circumstances ][stated ][in]the affidavit filed in support of the [petition, ][the ][High ][Court ][may be pleased please]direct the respondents to stay all [further ][proceedings, including ][any ][recovery']pursuant to the Notice issued by the 1st Respondent, [Notice under ][section ]['148 ][of]lncome Tax Act 148 Notice dated 30-03-2024 [in DIN No. ][ITBA/ASTiS/148 ][112023-]241163703277 (1), for the Assessment [Year 2017-18, ][pending disposal ][of ][the]Main Whit Petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. HIMANGINI SANGHI Counsel for the Respondents: Ms. BOKARO SAPNA REDDY (Jr. SC FORrNcoME TAX) The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTTIE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTTCE NARSING RAONANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION No.31254 of 2024 ORDER: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy) Heard Ms. Himangini Sanghi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.B.Sapna Reddy, leamed Junior StandingCounsel for the Income Tax Department lor the respondents.Perused the record.Counsel for the Income Tax Department lor the respondents.Perused the record. 2. This is a writ petition where the proceedings are eitherchallenged to the notices which were issued under Section [148,4.]and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 196 I [(for ]short ['the ]Act') or theassessment orders those have been passed under Scction 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 l'18A ol the Actand the subsequent initiation of proceedings undcr Scction 148 ofthe Act by the [jurisdictional ]Assessing Otlice r, [rr ]hereas irt termsof the amendment that was brought to the lncottrc'fax Act by wayof Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f., 01.04.201 1 onrvards. proceedings under Section l48A of the Act as also under Section 148 of theAct ought to have also been issued and proceeded in a facelessmanner. 2. This is a writ petition where the proceedings are eitherchallenged to the notices which were issued under Section [148,4.]and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 196 I [(for ]short ['the ]Act') or theassessment orders those have been passed under Scction 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 l'18A ol the Actand the subsequent initiation of proceedings undcr Scction 148 ofthe Act by the [jurisdictional ]Assessing Otlice r, [rr ]hereas irt termsof the amendment that was brought to the lncottrc'fax Act by wayof Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f., 01.04.201 1 onrvards. proceedings under Section l48A of the Act as also under Section 148 of theAct ought to have also been issued and proceeded in a facelessmanner. 4. The contention of the petitioner is that the issue ofcontention of the petitioner is that the issue ofof 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 being in violation of the Finance Act, 2021 i.e., theimpugned notices under Section l48A and Section t48 of the Actnot being issued in a faceless manner, have already been dealt withand 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 andthe proceedings initiated under Section l48A as also under Section148 of the Act were held to be bad with consequential reliels on thcground of it being in violation of the provisions of Section l5lA ol'the Act read with Notification 18/2022 dated29.03.2022. l'he saidjudgmcnt passed by this Court has also been subsequently fbllorvedin a large nunrber of writ petitions which were allowed on similarterms. The contention of the petitioner is that the issue ofcontention of the petitioner is that the issue ofof 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 '(2021) l-i6 taxrnann.corn 178 (Telangana)l 5. Down the line, we hnd 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 SAII vs. UNION OF INDIA3, Punjab andHaryana High Court in the case of JATINDER SINGH BANGUvs. UNION OF INDIA4, and Telangana High Court in the case ofSRI VENKATARAMANA REDDY PATLOOLA vs. DEPUTYCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX5 where the issue rvas inrespect of intemational taxation, Bombay High Court in the casc ofABHIN ANTLKUMAR SHAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,INTERNATIONAL TAXATIOIt' which is again orr internariorraltaxation and central circle, High Court of Himachal l)radesh in thecase of GOVIND SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFTCER?,Gujarat High Court in the case of MANSUKI{BHAI t lzoz+1 464 ITR43o (Bom)'t(2024) 156 taxmann.com 478 (Gauhati)l'112024) 165 taxmann.com 115 (Punjab & Ilaryana)l'12024) 167 taxmann.corn 411 (Telangana)l'[2024) 166 taxmann.com 679 (Bombay)]'[2021) 165 taxmann.com 113 (Himachal Pradesh)] t lzoz+1 464 ITR43o (Bom)'t(2024) 156 taxmann.com 478 (Gauhati)l'112024) 165 taxmann.com 115 (Punjab & Ilaryana)l'12024) 167 taxmann.corn 411 (Telangana)l'[2024) 166 taxmann.com 679 (Bombay)]'[2021) 165 taxmann.com 113 (Himachal Pradesh)] DAHYABHAI RADADIYA vs. TNCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 3(3X5)8, Jharkand High Court in the case of SHyAMSUNDAR SAW vs. UNION OF INDlAe, Rajasthan High Court inWARD 3(3X5)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 petitionsr0 whichstood decided on 19.03.2024. Similar views have also been rakenby the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in the case ofby the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in the case ofGIRDHAR GOPAL DALMIA vs. UMON 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 ol I{igh Courts, we are still confronted with large filing ofidentical matters on daily basis ranging between 5 to l0 wrir(M.A.T 1690 of 2023), decided on25.09.2024.6. Even though the same issue having been decided by a largenumber ol I{igh Courts, we are still confronted with large filing ofidentical matters on daily basis ranging between 5 to l0 wrirpetitions. 1'hat upon the instructions being sought lrom theDcpartment. they have been taking a solitary ground that thcdecision of' the Bombay High Court in the case of Hexawaredecision of' the Bombay High Court in the case of HexawareTcchnologics Ltd., () supra) as also the one which has beendecided bv this Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindro Reddv t2o2+ SCC Onl-ine Gu.i 4012'2025 SCC Onl-ine Jhar 287'n1202i, [R.r-JD:49{t4-DBl] (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 o[ the matter.In addition, there are about 1200 SLPs also hled 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 fact that there is no interimorder granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in any of thesernatters pending before it. Meanwhile, fresh writ petitions ofidentical nature are being piled up before this Bench on daily basisand the pendency is getting increased on matter which otherwisehas already been dealt and decided by this very High Court itselt-. 8. On the one hand, even though the order of this Court thatrvas passed as early as on 14.09.2023 and more I 6 months havclapsed, till date, we do not find any remedial steps having beentaken by the Income Tax Department to take appropriate steps roeithcr hold back issuance of notice under Section l48A and undcrSection 148 o[ the Act by the jurisdictional Assessing Olllcer,rather the authorities concerned in the teeth of series of decisions by all the major High Courts in India are continuously still 8. On the one hand, even though the order of this Court thatrvas passed as early as on 14.09.2023 and more I 6 months havclapsed, till date, we do not find any remedial steps having beentaken by the Income Tax Department to take appropriate steps roeithcr hold back issuance of notice under Section l48A and undcrSection 148 o[ the Act by the jurisdictional Assessing Olllcer,rather the authorities concerned in the teeth of series of decisions by all the major High Courts in India are continuously still initiating 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 Act2O2l.9. Upon a query being put as to why can't this writ petition bedisposed ol in the teerh of the decision rendered by this Court inthe case of Konokala Ravindro Reddy (l supra), leamed StandingCounsel lirr the Income Tax Department contends that those wouldunnecessarily burden the Income Tax Department where theywould bc requircd to file equat number of SLps before theHon'ble Supreme Court and it would be further burdening theexchequcr ol'the Union of India. [t was also the contention of thelearned Standing Counsel that no prejudice would be caused to theinterest ol'the pctirioners in case if this writ petition is kept pendingtitl the lirralization of the SLps pending before the Hon,bleSuprerne [('ourl ]and rhe lact rhar the petitioner is already enjoyingthe benellt of interim protection. Nonetheless, on the earlier queryof this CoLrrt as to why thc Inconte Tax Department have not comeout rvith a rnechanism to issue appropriate instructions or to takeI appropriate steps in ensuring that proceedings under Section 148Aof the Act as also the assessment orders under Section 148 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 only be taken at the level of CBDTas any such steps would have to be taken Pan India and cannot belimited to any of these [jurisdictional ]High Courts. 10. As a result of which, what we are facing is steep increase oflitigation day in and day out even though various orders have beenpassed by this High Court allowing writ petitions on the very sameissue.'lhe lncome Tax authorities concemed are still even now in2025 also initiating proceedings in contravention to the provisionsol- Section 151A of the Act and as a result by now, more than 600to 700 petitions have been already got piled up before this HighCout't on an issue which otherwise stands squarely covered by the.iudgnrent [ol ][this Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ][Kanakala Ravindra ][Reddy](l supra). What is also surprising is the fact that though whileallowing the rvrit petitions in the case of Kanakala RavindraReddv (l supra), tlie Division Bench while reserving the right olthe Revenue, has also protected the interest of the petitioners insofar as the tiberty which was granted to the Revenue forinitiating fresh proceedings strictly in accordance with the amendedinitiating fresh proceedings strictly in accordance with the amendedprovisions of the Act, as amended by the Finance Act, 2020 and,the Finance Act,,2021. The petitioner assessee would be entitled tochallenge or raise the other legal objections if the Revenue initiatesfresh proceedings. The Deparlment has made no endeavour inavailing the said liberty that was reserved for the Revenue. On thefresh proceedings. The Deparlment has made no endeavour inavailing the said liberty that was reserved for the Revenue. On thecontrary, they have been still sticking on to the stand, which thisHigh Court as well as many other High Courts already held to bebad.High Court as well as many other High Courts already held to bebad. I 1. It appears that because of rhe aloresaid tiberty that this HighCourt had granted pennirting rhe Revenue for initiating freshCourt had granted pennirting rhe Revenue for initiating freshproceedings as a onc-timc measure in a laceless manner, theIncome Tax Deparlmenl rvants to take advantage of the same byprotracting these proceedings rvhich would enable them to meet thelimitation that would otherwise come in the way. Likewise, if thewrit petition is kcpt pcnding lor a considerable tong period of timeand finally at a later stage il the Hon,ble Supreme Court confirmsthe decision taken by this l.ligh Court as also by the other HighCourts in which the S LPs are still pending, the Income Taxprotracting these proceedings rvhich would enable them to meet thelimitation that would otherwise come in the way. Likewise, if thewrit petition is kcpt pcnding lor a considerable tong period of timeand finally at a later stage il the Hon,ble Supreme Court confirmsthe decision taken by this l.ligh Court as also by the other HighCourts in which the S LPs are still pending, the Income Tax Department would get the advantage of the liberty that [is otherwise]protected in favour of the Revenue for initiation of [fresh]proceedings lrom the disposal ofthese matters at a much later stagewhich would be advantageous and beneficial to the Revenue [and]would be equally disadvantageous and detrimental so far as interestof the assesses are concemed. As a consequence, the [Income Tax]Departrnent gets an extended period of time for [initiation ][of ][fresh]proceedings 12. The alarming trend of docket explosion in this Court, [despite]the clear precedent set io Kan kala Ravindra Reddy (l [supra), ][is ][a]matter of grave concem. The lncome Tax Department's [persistent]initiation of fresh proceedings, disregarding the established [judicial]pronouncements, has led to an unprecedented surge in [litigation]with ovcr 600-700 petitions piting up on the same issue. [This]deliberate approach not only undermines the principle of [judicial]precedcnt but also strains the [judicial ]resources unnecessarily. TheDeparlnrent's strategy ol arvaiting the Supreme Court's decision [on]pending SLPs while continuing to initiate fresh [proceedings]appears to be a calculated move to buy time and [circumvent]lirnitation periods, rather than adhering to [the ]established [legal] position. Such conduct raises serious questions about theadministrative efficiency and the respect for judicialpronouncements, particularly when this Court has already provideda balanced approach by preserving both the Revenue's rights andassesses interests. 13. Another aspect which needs to be considered is that in fact itshould have been realized by the Income Tax Department itsetf andshould have found out via media in ensuring that proceedingsunder Sections 148-4 and 148 should not have been issued in afaceless manner, at least till the Hon'ble Supreme Couft decide thetwelve hundred (1200) odd SLPs which it is alrcady seized of or, atleast the Income Tax Deparlment shou ld have lound out someremedial steps to ensure that w,herever the authorities intend toinitiate proceedings under Secrions I48-A and 148, other than in afaceless manner, the proceedings should hare been deferredwithout precipitating the rnarter lurther intintatine thc assessee thatthey shall initiate appropriate proceedirrgs onll after the SLp's aredecided by the Hon'ble Suprerne Court on tlie vcry same issue.This again, the Income Tax Department, has nor been able to give aconvincing reply, except fbr the lact that such a decision if at a.,r 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 t}relevel 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 challenge in this writpetition are forcing the assessee to knock the doors of this HighCourt resulting in filing ol hundreds of new writ petitions which inthe long run not only aflects the disposal of the writ petitions butalso consumes substantial tirne ol the Bench in hearing thesematters again and again on daily basis. Admittedly, in spite of thematter before the Ilon'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 Departrnent. Yet, the authorities concemed at theState level are not ready to accept the verdict passed by a maj orityof High Courts of dilferent States on the same issue; and to makethings further worse, the lncome Tax Departmentls showingaudacity by issuing norices continuously under Sections 148-A and 148 through the jurisdictional Assessing Officer whereas it oughtto have been only in the faceless manner. 14. In the case of BAIIIK OF INDIA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, INCOME TAX|r, on an issue wherher it wasjustifiable on the part of the Income Tax Departrnent rn notfollowing an order passed by the adjudicating authority only on thefollowing an order passed by the adjudicating authority only on theground that the appeals are pending, the Division Bench of theHigh Court of Bombay held at paragraph No.25 as under, viz.,High Court of Bombay held at paragraph No.25 as under, viz., '25. Mr. Paridwalla has rightly drawn out attention to thedecision of this Court in Commissioner of lncome Tax vs. Smt.Godavaridevi Sarafl2 as also the recent decisron 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 woutd not mean that tillthe same is set aside in a manner known to law, it would loose itsbinding force. Referring to the decisron of the Supreme Court inUnion of lndia vs. Kamlakshi Finance Corporataon Ltd.'4, theCourt observed that the approach of the officials of Revenue oftreating decisions being "not acceptable" was critrcrzed by theSupreme Court. ln such decision, following are the relevantobservations made by the Supreme Court. 't 11ZOZS1 [70 ][taxmann.com 422 ][(Bombal ][) ]|'' 1tezs1 [t3 ITR ][589 ][(Bombay)]tt '[ 12OZ+1165 taxmann.com 581/300 axrnln 452 (Rorntray ) 'n TtgSZl [taxmann.com ][l6155 ] [43-.) ][(S(')] 't 11ZOZS1 [70 ][taxmann.com 422 ][(Bombal ][) ]|'' 1tezs1 [t3 ITR ][589 ][(Bombay)]tt '[ 12OZ+1165 taxmann.com 581/300 axrnln 452 (Rorntray ) 'n TtgSZl [taxmann.com ][l6155 ] [43-.) ][(S(')] .6. Sn Reddy is perhaps right in saying that theofficers vt/ere not actuated by any mala fides inofficers vt/ere 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 aoc€pted, 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 reachingin their conclusion, by-passed two appellate orders iniegard 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 lhe failureof these officers to give effect to the orders ofauthorities higher to them in the appellate hierarchy. ltcannot be too vehemently emphasized that it ls ofutmost importance that, in disposing of thequasijudicial issues before them, revenue officers arebound by the decrsions of the appellate authorities.The order of the Appellte Collector is binding on theAssistant Collectors working within his [jurisdiction ]andthe order of the Tnbunal is binding upon the AssistantCollectors and the Appellate Collectors who functionunder the lurisdiction of the Trrbunal The [principles ]ofiudicial [discipline require that ][the ][orders of ][the ][higher]appellate authonties should be followed unreservedlyby the subordinate authorilies. The mere fact that thetenable and that, if it was aoc€pted, 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 reachingin their conclusion, by-passed two appellate orders iniegard 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 lhe failureof these officers to give effect to the orders ofauthorities higher to them in the appellate hierarchy. ltcannot be too vehemently emphasized that it ls ofutmost importance that, in disposing of thequasijudicial issues before them, revenue officers arebound by the decrsions of the appellate authorities.The order of the Appellte Collector is binding on theAssistant Collectors working within his [jurisdiction ]andthe order of the Tnbunal is binding upon the AssistantCollectors and the Appellate Collectors who functionunder the lurisdiction of the Trrbunal The [principles ]ofiudicial [discipline require that ][the ][orders of ][the ][higher]appellate authonties should be followed unreservedlyby the subordinate authorilies. The mere fact that theorder of the appellate authority is not ["acceplable" ]tothe department - in [(self ]an objectionable phrase -and is the subject matter of an appeal can furnish noand 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(been suspended by a competent court. lf this healthy( rule is not foltowed, [the ][result ][will ][only ][be ][undue]harassment to assesses [and chaos ][in ][administration]of tax laws. rule is not foltowed, [the ][result ][will ][only ][be ][undue]harassment to assesses [and chaos ][in ][administration]of tax laws. 12. We have dealt with [this ][aspect ][at ][some ][length,]because it has been [suggested ][by the ][learned]Additional Solicitor General [that ][the ][observations]made by the High Court, [have been harsh ][on ][the]officers. lt is [clear ][that ][the ][observations ][of the ][High]Court, seemingly [vehement' ][and ][apparently]unpalatable to the [Revenue, ][are ][only intended to curb]a tendency in revenue [matters ][which, ][if ][allowed ][to]become widespread, could [result ][in ][considerable]harassment to the assesses-public [without ][any ][benefit]to the Revenue. We [would ][like ][to ][say that ][the]department should take [these ][observations ][in ][the]proper spirit. The observations [of ][the ][Hlgh ][Court]should be kept in [mind in ftrture and ][the utmost ][regard]should be [paid ]by the [adjudicating authorities and ][the]appellate authorities [to ][the ][requirements ][of ][judicial]discipline and the [need ][for ][giving effect ][to ][the ][orders]of the higher appellate [authorities ][which ][are ][bindrng]on them." I 5. What is [worrying ][this ][Bench ][more ][is ][the ][tact that ][an]endeavour is being [made ][whole ][heartedly ][to ][ensurc not to ][generate]further titigation on [issues ][which ][have ][been ][laid ][to ][rest ][by ][a ][large]number of High Courts [all ][of ][whom ][have taken a consistent ][stand]that the action of the Income [Tax Department being ][violative ][of ][the] Finance &ct,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 junchrre, if we dispose of the writ petition with anobservation/direction 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) shalI however be subject tothe outcome of the SLPs which were filed by the lncome TaxDepartment and which is pending consideration before the Hon'bleSupreme Court. 16. In the given facts and circumstances, this Bench is o[ 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 dccisions of the various otherHigh Courts on the very same issue, the pendency ol this HighCourt would further be burdened w,hich othenvise can be decidedand disposed of as a covered matter 17. So far as the interest of the Revenue is concemed, we are ofthe considered opinion that the interest of'the Revenue has alrcadybeen 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 respondent-Department is neither tenable, nor sustainable.The notices so issued and the procedure adopted betngper se illegal, deserves to be and are accordingly setaside/quashed. As a consequence, all the impugnedorders gefting 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 itsetf wasprocedurally wrong, the subsequent orders also getsnullifi ed 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 oflurisdiction, [we are ]not [inclined ]to [proceed ]furlher 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 oflurisdiction, [we are ]not [inclined ]to [proceed ]furlher 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 lhe caseof Ashish Aganval, supra, as a onelime measureexercising the powers under Article 142 of theConstitution of lndia, permifted the Revenue to proceedunder the substituted provisions, and this Courl allowingthe petitions only on the procedural flaw, the nght confend on the Revenue woulC remain reserved toproceed furlher if they so want from the stage of theorder of the Supreme Court in the case of AshishAganval, supra. 18. We would only further 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 Court in the case ofKanakala Ravindra Reddy (1 supra) is subjected to challengebefore the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No.3574 of 2024,preferred by the Income Tax Department,, we make it clear thatallowing of the instant writ petition is subject to outcome of thealoresaid SLP prefened by the Revenue against the decision of thisHigh Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra).I'his, 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 SupremeCourt in the pending SLP on the very same issue 19. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands allowed intavour of the assessee so far as the issue ol [jurisdiction]tsconcemed. As a consequence, the impugned notice underchallenge under Sections 148-A and 148 stands set aside/quashed. It The consequential orders, if any, also stand set aside/quashed in similar terms as have been passed by this High Court in the case of Kankanala Ravindra Reddy (l supra). There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shalt stand closed. SD/-K.BHAVANI SWAMY-'(sSTANT REGISTRAR//TRUE COPY//\\\\..1 secnorv oFFtcER To, The lncome Tax Officer, lncome Tax Oepartmen\.Ayderabad 1 2Assessment Unit. lneoine Tax. Departmert, National c_Assessment Centeril:W B:i I l,iB"# No 40 1, 2 nd F do,r'E--ili,i,"i X"Zi.,', [, r rv ;hil Si";;, ;'il:W B:i I l,iB"# No 40 1, 2 nd F do,r'E--ili,i,"i X"Zi.,', [, r rv ;hil Si";;, ;' ?One CC to SRt. HtMANGtNt SANGHI Advocate tOpUCIAdvocate tOpUCI 43&r."? to l\/s BoKARo SAPNA REDDY (Jr. SC FOR tNcoME rAX) 3&r."? 5Two CD CopiesKKSGJPo HIGH COURTDATED:01 10512025 ORDER WP.No.31254 of 2024 ,.-:'-cts [[l]s][ il6](,.)..) [,]1'-toe s'..,l:--:- ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITIONWITHOUT COSTS u