Under Section L48A Of The Act As Also Under Section 148 Of Theact Ought To Have Also Been Issued And Proceeded In A Facelessmanner.act Ought To Have Also Been I v. '[(2023\ [156 ]Taxmann.com 178 (Telangana

+IIGH COURT FOR STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF MAYTWO THOUSAND 4ND TWENTY F|VE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYAND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDAWRIT PETITION NO: 26616 OF 2024 Between: Ahrnedia Traders, Represented by Partner Mohammed Fasiuddin Ahned OccBusiness, 20-7$711, Himmatpura Shah ali banda, HYDERABAO 500065,Telangana. ...PETITIONER AND 1. lncome Tax Officer, Ward 9(1), Hyderabad, l.T. TOWER, AC Guads, MasabTank, Hid€iabad, Andhra Pradesh- 50OOO4Tank, Hid€iabad, Andhra Pradesh- 50OOO4 50OOO42. The Principal Chief Commissioner of Incorne Tax, AP & TS, lOe' Fbor, C-Block, l.T.Towers, 10-2-3, A.C.Guards, Hyderabad -500004Block, l.T.Towers, 10-2-3, A.C.Guards, Hyderabad -500004 3. Assessrnent Unit, Mtional Faceless Assessment Centre, lncorne TaxDepartment, Ministry of Finance Room No. 4O1 . 2'n Fbor, E-Ramp,Jawahadal Nehru Stadium, Delhi- 110003Department, Ministry of Finance Room No. 4O1 . 2'n Fbor, E-Ramp,Jawahadal Nehru Stadium, Delhi- 110003 ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of lhe Coflstitution of lndia praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the Hrgh Court may beplea-d to issue a writ, order or direction. more particularly one in the nature ofWrit of Mandamus, declaring the Assessment Order daled 1310312024 passed bythe 3rd rcspond€nt uls 147 r/w section 1448 of the lncome Tax Act for A.Y.2018-19 vide DIN No. lTBtuASTlSl147t2023-24l1062557690(1) and the noticeu/s 148 dated 21 .M.2022 vide DIN No. ITBA/AST/S/148_11m22-2311042838690(1), issued by the JAO (1'' Respondent) instead of FAO (3dRespondent) as void, illegal and contrary to the Principles of Natural JusticelA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances statedin the affidavit fibd in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings pursuant to the Assessment Order dated13.03.2024 passed by the 3'! respondent uls 147 r/w section 1448 of thelncome Tax Act for A.Y 2018-19 vide DIN No. |TBAiASTlsl147t2O23-2411062557690(1) and may pass such oth+er orde(s) as the Hon'ble Courtdeems fit and proper in the interests df substantial justice, as otherwise thePetitioner would be put to irreparable loss and serve injury. Counsel for thef+titioneri-SRl-PAlllKSH|TH+(UIUR Counsel for the Respondents: SRl. K. SUDHAKAR REDDY, K. SUDHAKAR SUDHAKAR REDDY,, SENIOR SC FOR INCOME TAX The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTIIE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAONANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION No.26616 OF 2024 ORDER (per Hon'ble Sri ltstice P.Sam Koshy) Heard Mr. Parikshith Kutur, leamed counsel for the petitioner and Mr K.Sudhakar Reddy, learned Senior StandingCounsel for the Income Tax Department for respondents. Perusedthe record. 2. This is a writ petition where the proceedings are eitherchallengetl to the notices which were issued under Section l48Aand 148 of the 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 l48A of the Actand the subsequent initiation ofproceedings under Section 148 ofthe Act by the [jurisdictional ]Assessing Officer, whereas in termsof the amendment that was brought to the Income Tax Act by wayof Finance Lct,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 facelessmanner.Act ought to have also been issued and proceeded in a facelessmanner. 3. This writ petition is being taken up today only on one of thegrounds, that the notices issued under Section l48A of the Actand the subsequent initiation ofproceedings under Section 148 ofthe Act by the [jurisdictional ]Assessing Officer, whereas in termsof the amendment that was brought to the Income Tax Act by wayof Finance Lct,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 facelessmanner.Act ought to have also been issued and proceeded in a facelessmanner. 4. The contention of the petitioner is that the issue ofproceedings being in visladon-oftbsfinanee Act, 2021 i.e., theimpugned notices under Section l48A and Section 148 ofthe Actnot being issued in a faceless manner, have already been dealt withand decided by this Court in the case of KANI(ANALARAVINDRA REDDY vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICERT decidedon 14.09.2023 whereby a batch of writ petitions were allowed andthe proceedings initiated under Section 148,4. as also under Section148 of the Act were held to be bad with consequential reliefs on theground of it being in violation of the provisioris of Section I 5 I A o tthe Act read with Notification 1812022 dated29.03.2022. The saidjudgment passed by this Court has also been subsequently foltowedin a large number of writ petitions which were allowed on similarterms '[(2023\ [156 ]taxmann.com 178 (Telangana)] 5. Down the line, we find that the same issue has also beendecided against the Revenue by various High Courts i.e.,by the Bombay High Court in the case of HEXAWARETECHNOLOGIES LTD., vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX & OTIIERS2, Gauhati High Court in the caseof RAM NARAYAN SAII vs. UN{ON OF INDIAT, Punjab andHaryana High Court in the case of JATINDER SINGH BANGUvs. IINION OF INDIA4, and Telangana High Court in the case ofSRI VENKATARAMANA REDDY PATLOOLA [VS. ]DEPUTYCOMMISSIOI\ER OF INCOME TAX5 where the issue [was ][in]respect of intemational taxation, Bombay High Court in the case ofABIIIN AIYILKUMAR SHAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,INTERNATIONAL TAXATION6 which is again on intemationaltaxation and central circle, High Court of Himachal Pradesh [in ][the]case of C,OVIND SINGII vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER?,Gujarat High Court in the case of MANSUKHBHAI'lzoz+1464 [rrR ][430 (Bom)]'l(2024) [156 ][taxmann.com ][478 ][(Gauhati)l]^[(2024) [165 ]taxmann.com ll5 [(Punjab ][& ][Haryana)]]' 12024) [67 ][taxmann.com ][4l ] [(Telangana)l]" [2024) [66 taxma:rn.c ][om ][679 ][(Bombay)]]'[2024) [165 ]taxmaqn.gom_ [111 ][(Himachal ][Pradesh)]] DAHYABHAT RADADIYA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE&WARD 3(3X5)8, Jharkand High Court in the case of SHYAMSUNDAR SAW vs. UNION OF INDIAe, Rajasthan High Court inWARD 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 & ANOTIIER and lrleh of wriqpqi.tjqnqll 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. IJMON OF INDIA & ORS(M.A.T 1690 of 2023), decided on25.09.2024.6. Even though the same issue having becn decided by a largenumber of High Courts, we are still confronted with large filing ofidentical matters on daily basis ranging between 5 to 10 writstood 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. IJMON OF INDIA & ORS(M.A.T 1690 of 2023), decided on25.09.2024.6. Even though the same issue having becn 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. 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 HuawareTechnologies Ltd., (2 supra) as also the one which has beendecided by this Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddydecided by this Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy t202+ SCC Online Guj 4012'2025 Online Jhar 287o ' 12023 [: RI-JD ][: ][49 ][84- ] [Bl] { (1 supra) has been subjected to challenge in a Special l,eavePetition 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 12@ 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 [interim]order grantd by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in any of [these]matters pending before it. Meanwhile, fresh writ [petitions ]ofidentical nature are being piled uptefore this Bench on daily [basis]and 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 ][that]was passed as early as on 14.09.2023 and more 16 months [have]lapsed, tilt date, we do not find any remedial steps [having ][been]taken by the Income Tax Department to take appropriate [steps ][to]either hold back issuance ofnotice under Section l48A [and ][under]Section 148 of the Act by the [jurisdictional ]Assessing [Officer,]rather the authorities concerned in the teeth of series of [decisions] 8. On the one hand, even though the order of [this Court ][that]was passed as early as on 14.09.2023 and more 16 months [have]lapsed, tilt date, we do not find any remedial steps [having ][been]taken by the Income Tax Department to take appropriate [steps ][to]either hold back issuance ofnotice under Section l48A [and ][under]Section 148 of the Act by the [jurisdictional ]Assessing [Officer,]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 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 Einanc e Ast 2021.9. 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 Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra), Iearned StandingCounsel for the Income Tax Deparfrnent contends that those wouldunnecessarily burden the lncome Tax Department where theywould be required to frle equal nurnber 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 thelearned 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 lncome Tax Department have not comeout with a mechanism to issue appropriate instructions or to take appropriate steps in ensuring that [proceedings under ][Section ][l48A]of the Act as also the assessment orders under [Section ][148 ][of ][the]Act are kept in a hold in the light 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 ] as any such steps would have to be taken [Pan ][India ][and ][cannot ][be]limited to any of 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 ][orders have ][been]passed by this High Court allowing writ [petitions ][on ][the very ][same]issue. The Income Tax authorities concerned [are still ][even ][now ][in]2025 atso initiating proceedings in contravention [to ][the ][provisions]of Section I 5 I A 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](l supra). What is also surprising is the fact [that though ][while]allowing the writ [petitions ]in the [case ][of ][l(anakala ][Ravindra]Reddy (l supra), the Division Bench [while ][reserving ][the ][right ][of]the Revenue, has also [protected ]the [interest ][of ][the ][petitioners] insofar as the liberty which was granted to the Revenue for initiating ffesh proceedings strictly in accordance with the amendedprovisions of the Act, as amended by the Finance Act,2020 and,the Finance Act,202l. The petitioner assesse€ would be entitled to, [challenge ][or ][raise the ]other legal objections ifthe Revenue initiatesfresh proceedings. The Department 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 insofar as the liberty which was granted to the Revenue for initiating ffesh proceedings strictly in accordance with the amendedprovisions of the Act, as amended by the Finance Act,2020 and,the Finance Act,202l. The petitioner assesse€ would be entitled to, [challenge ][or ][raise the ]other legal objections ifthe Revenue initiatesfresh proceedings. The Department 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 ll. It appears rhat because appears rhat because rhat because because ofthe aforesaid liberty that this Highaforesaid liberty that this Highliberty that this Highthat this Highthis HighCourt had granred permitting the Revenue for initiating freshproceedings as a one-time measure in a faceless manner, theIncome Tax Department wants to take advantage of the same byprotracting these proceedings which wourd enable them to meet thelimitation that would otherwise come in the way. Likewise, if thewrit petition is kept pending for a considerable long period of timeand finally at a later stage if the Hon,ble Supreme Court confirmsthe decision taken by this High Court as also by the other HighCourts in which the SLpsare still pending, the Income Tax-f\ It appears rhat because appears rhat because rhat because because ofthe aforesaid liberty that this Highaforesaid liberty that this Highliberty that this Highthat this Highthis High Department would get the advantage of the liberty [that is otherwise]protected 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 [and]would be equally disadvantageous and detrimental [so ][far ][as ][interest]of the assesses are concemed. As a consequence, [the ][Income ][Tax]Department 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 in KanakalaRa$,ndra Rtddtl [supra), ][is ][a]matter of grave concern. The Income Tax Department's [persistent]ini tiatio n o f fresh proceedings, disregarding the established [judicial]pronouncements, has led to an unprecedented surge in [litigation]with over 600-700 petitions piling up on the [same issue. This]deliberate approach not only undennines [the ][principle ][ofjudicial]precedent but also strains the [judicial ]resources unnecessarily. [The]Department's strategy of awaiting 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]limitation periods, rather than adhering to the [established legal]i "__ position. Such conduct raises serious questions about theadministrative efEciency and the respect for judicialpronouncements, particularly when this Court has already provideda balanced approach by preserving both the Revenue,s rights andassesses rnterests. 13. Aaother 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 proceedingsunder Sections 148-4 and 148 should not have been issued in afaceless manner, at least till the Hon'ble 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 Secrions 148-4. and I48, other than in afaceless 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 aconvincing reply, except for the fact that such a decision if at all{ has to be taken, has to be taken for the whole of India, and whichotherwise has to be by way of a policy decision and that too at thelevel of Central Board of Direct Taxes. Though the leamedotherwise 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 Departnrent contended thatthe Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition ofsimilar nature, onthe one hand when the High Court is stmggling to reduce itsthe Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition ofsimilar nature, onthe one hand when the High Court is stmggling 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 fiting of hundreds of new writ petitions which inthe long run not only affects the digposal 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 lncome Tax Department is showingpetition are forcing the assessee to knock the doors of this HighCourt resulting in fiting of hundreds of new writ petitions which inthe long run not only affects the digposal 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 lncome Tax Department is showingaudacity by issuing notices continuously under Sections l4E-A and 148 through the jurisdictional Assessing Ofhcer whereas it oughtto have been only in the faceless manner. 14. In the case of BANK OF INDIA vs. ASSISTANTCOMIVtrSSIONER, INCOME TAXrr, on an issue whether it wasjustifiable on the part of the Income Tax Department in notfollowing an order passed by the adjudicating authority only on theground that the appeals are pending, the Division Bench of theHigh 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 decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Samp Furniture (P) Ltd. v. lTOl3of 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 tillthe same is set aside in a manner known to law, it would loose itsbinding force. Refening to the decision of the Supreme Court inUnion of lndia vs. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd.14, theCourt observed that the approach of the officials of Revenue oftreating decisions being "not acceptable" was criticized by theSupreme Court. ln such decision, following are the relevantobservations made by the Supreme Court. '] ttzOzsl [170 ][taxmann.com ][422 ][(Bombay)l] '' U9781113 ITR 589 (Bombay) " 7ZO2+1165 [taxmann.com 581/300 Taxman 452 ][(Bombay)] 'o 1t9921taxmann.com [16155ELT ][433 ][(SC)] l.( '] ttzOzsl [170 ][taxmann.com ][422 ][(Bombay)l] '' U9781113 ITR 589 (Bombay) " 7ZO2+1165 [taxmann.com 581/300 Taxman 452 ][(Bombay)] 'o 1t9921taxmann.com [16155ELT ][433 ][(SC)] l.( "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 owrlooks is that weare not concemed here with the correctness orothenuise of their conclusion or of any factualmalafides but with the fact that the fficers, in reachingin their conclusion, by-passed two appellate orders inregard to the same issue which were placed bebrethem, 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 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 ]oftenable and that, if it was accepted, the Revenuewould suffer. But what Sri Reddy owrlooks is that weare not concemed here with the correctness orothenuise of their conclusion or of any factualmalafides but with the fact that the fficers, in reachingin their conclusion, by-passed two appellate orders inregard to the same issue which were placed bebrethem, 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 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 [the]order of the appellate authority is not ["acceptable" ]toappellate authorities should be followed unreservedlyby the subordinate authorities. The mere fact that [the]order of the appellate authority is not ["acceptable" ]tothe department - in itself an objectionable [phrase ]-and is the subject mafter of an appeal can furnish [no]and is the subject mafter of an appeal can furnish [no]ground 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 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, semingly vehement, and apparenflyunpalatable 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 to the requirements of judicialdiscipline and the need for giving effect to the ordersof the higher appellate authorities which are bindingon them." 15. What is worrying this Bench more is the fact that anendeavour is being made whole heartedly to ensure not to generatefurther litigation on issues which have been laid to rest by a largenumber of High Courts all of whom have taken a consistent standthat the action of the Income Tax Department being violative of the Finance Act,2020 and Finance Lct,202l. Now, in order to [protect]the interest ofthe Revenue as also that ofthe assessee, it would betrite at this [juncture, ]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) shall however be subject tothe outcome of the SLPs which were hled by the Income TaxDepartment and which is pending consideration before the Hon'bleSupreme Court. 16. In 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 ][Court]and which stands fortif,red by the decisions of the [various ][other]High Courts on the very same issue, the [pendency ]ol this HighCourt would further be burdened which otherwise can be decidedand disposed ofas a covered matter. 17. So far as the interest of the Revenue ls concemed, we are ofthe considered opinion that the interest of the [Revenue ][has ][already]been considered and protected, as has been observed [in ][paragraphs] 36,37 and,38 ofthe order which, for ready reference, is reproducedhereunder: 36. For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned noticesissued and the proceedings drawn by the respondent-Department is neither tenable, nor suslainable.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 gefting quashed, the mnsequential 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 getsnullified automatically. 37. The preliminary objection raised by the petitioner rssustained 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 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 the caseof Ashish Agarwal, supra, as a one-time measureexercising the powers under Article 142 of theConstitution of lndia, permitted the Revenue to proceedunder the substituted provisions, and this Court allowingthe petitions only on the procedural flaw, the right 37. The preliminary objection raised by the petitioner rssustained 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 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 the caseof Ashish Agarwal, supra, as a one-time measureexercising the powers under Article 142 of theConstitution of lndia, permitted the Revenue to proceedunder the substituted provisions, and this Court allowingthe petitions only on the procedural flaw, the right conferred ofl the Revenue [would remain ][reserved ][to]proceed furtfEr if {hey so want from the s*age [of ].theorder of the Supreme Court in [lhe ][case ][of Ashish]Agarwal, supra. 18. We would onlyfrther [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 ][zupra) ][is ][subjected ][to ][challenge]before the Hon'ble [Supreme ][Court ][in ] [No'3574 ][of ][2024,]preferred by the Income [Tax ][Deparftnent, we ][make ][it ][clear ][that]allowing of the instant unit [petition ][is ][subject ][to ][outcome ][of ][the]aforesaid SLP [preferred ][by ][the ][Revenue against the ][decision ][of ][this]High Court in tlre [case ]of [Konakala Ravindra ][Reddy ][(l ][supra)']This, in other words, [would ][mean ][that ][either ][of ][the parties, ][i[ ][they]so want, may move [an appropriate ][petition ][seeking ][revival ][of ][this]writ petition in *re ligtrt of [the decision ][o[ ][the Hon'ble ][Supreme]Court in the [pendfuA SLP on the ][very ][same ][issue'] Accordingly, tlre irstant irstant [[writ ][petition ][stands ][allowed ]][[petition ][stands ][allowed ]][[stands ][allowed ]][[allowed ]][[in]] I9.Accordingly, tlre irstant irstant [[writ ][petition ][stands ][allowed ]][[petition ][stands ][allowed ]][[stands ][allowed ]][[allowed ]][[in]]favour of tttre assessee so [far ][as the ][issue ][o[ ][jurisdiction]ISconcemed. As a consequence, [the ][impugned ][notice ][under]challenge under Sections [148-4 ][and ][148 stands set ][aside/quashed] t The consequential orders, if any, also stand set asiddquashed 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, shallstand closed.stand closed. SD/.- L. VIJAYA LAXMIASSISTANT REGISTRAR//TRUE COPY//secJs)$trncea To,1.lnmme Tax Officer, Ward 9([ HytferaFti-,TJJOWER, AC Guards, [Masab]Tank, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh- 5000041.lnmme Tax Officer, Ward 9([ HytferaFti-,TJJOWER, AC Guards, [Masab]Tank, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh- 5000042.ftre eri6cipaf Chief Commisiionerof tncome Tax, AP & TS, [10d' ][Floor, ] Block, l.T-Towers, [1 ]0-2-3, A.C.Guards, Hyderabad -500004Block, l.T-Towers, [1 ]0-2-3, A.C.Guards, Hyderabad -5000043.Assessment Unit, Nlational Faceless Assessment Cqntre, [lncorne ][Tax]Department, Ministry of Finance Room No. 401, 2"d Floor, [E-Ramp,]Jawahadal Nehru Stadium. Delhi- ['l ]10003Department, Ministry of Finance Room No. 401, 2"d Floor, [E-Ramp,]Jawahadal Nehru Stadium. Delhi- ['l ]100034One CC to SRl. PARIKSHITH KUTUR, Advocate IOPUC]5One CC to SRl. K. SUDHAKAR REDDY, SENIOR SC FOR DEPARTMENT[OPUCI5One CC to SRl. K. SUDHAKAR REDDY, SENIOR SC FOR DEPARTMENT[OPUCI6Two CD CopiesBMGJPBMGJP HIGH COURT DATED:0210512025 ORDER WP.No.26616 of 2024 r-).)LjE IIJE [2U5] ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS fo/. rta/. rta