Under Section L48A Of The Act As Also Under Section 148 Of Theact Ought To Have Also Been Issued And Proceeded In A Lacelessmanner v. Income-Tax Officert Decidedon 14.09.2021 Whereby A Batch Of Writ Petitions Were Allowed Andthe Proceedings Initiated Under Section L48A As Also Under Section148

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY,THE TWELFTH DAY OF JUNETWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDAWRIT PETITION NO:15884 oF 202s Between: Progressive Constructiois Lrmited., Rep. By. praveen pathuri, S/o LateOffice Pathuri Puma at. 7th Ftoor, Raghava chandra Rao occ. ttortn wanagi-ng_Director erodr<,-Cr..ri."g nri of the Lr"",n6tOi, e"tit,onul Fr-rr*givililijioG.P.O., Nampally, Hyderabad, fetangani, s-0000 1ivililijioG.P.O., Nampally, Hyderabad, fetangani, s-0000 1 ..PETITIONER AND 1Pejuty [C_onl[issioner ][of ][lncome.Tax, ][Circle ]5(1), Hyderabad Room No. 224.! [Blo_c(, ][2nd ][Ftoor, ][AC Guards, ][tr,lasab ][rint ]ivOtrr6rO, 500004! [Blo_c(, ][2nd ][Ftoor, ][AC Guards, ][tr,lasab ][rint ]ivOtrr6rO, 5000042.The Principat .Commissioner.of lnc-ome i;, _'tv, iy;.irio"J-znO Ftoor, ACGuards, lVlasab Tank Hyderabad, 500004Guards, lVlasab Tank Hyderabad, 5000043.The National Faceless Assessment Centre lncome Tax Depa(ment, Ivlinistryof Finance Govt. of lndia, New Delhi.of Finance Govt. of lndia, New Delhi.4.Union of lndia, Ministrv of Finance Rep. by its Secretary, i 66_8 North Block,New Delhi - 1 10 001 .New Delhi - 1 10 001 . ...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 i. Issue a writ, order or Direction more particurarry, one, in the natureof Writ of Mandamus, setting aside the order passed by the Respondent No.1of Writ of Mandamus, setting aside the order passed by the Respondent No.1under Section 148A(d) and Notice issued u/s 14g of the rncome Tax Act, .rg6.rdated 31.08.2024for Ay 2o1B-19, as being without jurisdiction iilegar, arbitrary,dated 31.08.2024for Ay 2o1B-19, as being without jurisdiction iilegar, arbitrary,bad in law, void ab initio, and being viorative of the principres of naturar justiceand Articles r 4, r g and 265 of the constitution of rndia as the same is issued bythe Jurisdictionar Assessing officer i.e. Respondent No..1 after introduction of thefaceless assessment of lncome escaping assessment scheme, and anythe Jurisdictionar Assessing officer i.e. Respondent No..1 after introduction of thefaceless assessment of lncome escaping assessment scheme, and anyconsequent proceedings as lacking in jurisdiction ii. Declare the action of theRespondent No. 1 in issuing the Notice u/s '14g of the rncome Tax Act dated 31 .O8.2024 consequent to order passed by the 1't Respondent in issuing orderu/s 14BA(d) dated 31 .08.2024 as being illegal and bad in law and set asideconsequent proceedings as being without jurisdiction Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P. SOMA SHEKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1to3: SRI K. SUDHAKAR REDDY,SENIOR SC FOR INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT CounSel for the Respondent No.4: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR,DY. SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA The Court made the following: ORDER THE'ffOIIoURABLE [P.SAM ][KOSIry]ANDTHE HONOURABLE NANDIKONDAWRIT PE [N][o.15884][ of2025] , (per Hon'ble [sri ][Jusrice ][Narsing Rao ][Nandikonda)] Q Heard Mr. [P. ][Soma Shekar ][Reddy' ][leamed counsel ][for ][the]and [Mr. ][K' ][Sudhakar ][Reddy' ][Ieamed Senior ][Standing]petitioner CounselforthelncomeTaxDepartmentfortherespondents.Perused the [record.] 2. This is a [writ ][petition ][where ][the ][proceedings ][are ][either]chattenged [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 ][of]the Act [which ][have been assailed'] The Court made the following: ORDER THE'ffOIIoURABLE [P.SAM ][KOSIry]ANDTHE HONOURABLE NANDIKONDAWRIT PE [N][o.15884][ of2025] , (per Hon'ble [sri ][Jusrice ][Narsing Rao ][Nandikonda)] Q Heard Mr. [P. ][Soma Shekar ][Reddy' ][leamed counsel ][for ][the]and [Mr. ][K' ][Sudhakar ][Reddy' ][Ieamed Senior ][Standing]petitioner CounselforthelncomeTaxDepartmentfortherespondents.Perused the [record.] 2. This is a [writ ][petition ][where ][the ][proceedings ][are ][either]chattenged [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 ][of]the Act [which ][have been assailed'] 3. This writ [petition ][is being taken ][up ][today ][only ][on ][one ][of ][the]that [the ][notices ][issued ][under Section 148A ][of ][the ][Act]grounds, and the subsequent [initiation ][of ][proceedings under ][Section ][148 ][of]the Act by [the ][jurisdictional ][Assessing ][Officer' ][whereas ][in ][terms]of the amendment [that ][was ][brought ][to ][the Income ][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 lacelessmanner. 4. The contention contention of the petitioner the petitioner petitioner is that the issue ofthat the issue ofthe issue ofissue ofofproceedings being in violation of the Finance Act,202l 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 KANKANALARAVINDRA REDDY vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICERT decidedon 14.09.2021 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 reliefs on theground of it being in violation of the provisions of Section I 5 I A ofthe Act read with Notification 1812022 dated29.03.2022. The saidjudgment passed by this Court has also been subsequently followedin a large number of writ petitions which were allowed on similarterms. The contention contention of the petitioner the petitioner petitioner is that the issue ofthat the issue ofthe issue ofissue ofof '[(2023) 156 laxmann.com 178 (Telangana)] 5. Down the line, [we find ][that ][the ][same issue ][has ][also ][been]decided against the [Revenue ][by ][various ][High ][Courts ][i'e',]by the Bombay High Court [in ][the ][case ][of ] TECHNOLOGIES LTD., [vs. ] OF INCOME TAX [& ][OTHERS2, ][Gauhati ][High ][Court in ][the ][case]of RAM NARAYAN SAII [vs. ] [INDIA3, ][Punjab ][and]Court [in ][the ][case ][of ][JATINDER SINGH BAI{GU]Haryana High vs. UNION OF [INDIA4, ][and Telangana ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]SRI VENKATARAMANA [nrOnv ] [vs' ] COMMISSIONER [where the ][issue ][was ][in]respect of intemational [taxation, Bombay ][HigJr ][Court in the ][case ][of]ABHTN ANILKIMAR [VS. ] [OFFTCER,]INTERNATIONAL TAXATIOIt' [which ][is again ][on ][international]taxation and central [circte, ][High ][Court ][of ][Himachal ][Pradesh ][in ][the]case of GOVII{D SINGII [vs. ] [OFFICERT,]Gujarat High Court in the [case ][of ] ' [lzoz+1464 ITR ][430 ][(Bom)]'l(2024) [156 ][taxmann.com 478 ][(Gauhati)l]^l(2024) [165 ][taxmann.com ][115 ][(Punjab ][& ][Haryana)l]' [2024) [167 ][taxmann.com ][t{ ][}'{Telangana)]]"f2024) [166 ][taxmann.com 679 ][(Bombay)l]' [2024) [165 ][taxmann.com ][113 ][(Himachal ][Pradesh)]] l l DAIIYABHAI RADADIYA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 3(3)(08, Jharkand High Court in the case of SHYAMSTINDAR SAW vs. UNION OF IllDIAe, Rajasthan High Court inthe case of SHARDA DEVI CHHAJER vs. INCOME TAXOFFICER & ANOTHER and batch of writ petitionsr0 whichstood decided on 19.03.2024. Similar views have also been takenby the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in the case ofGIRDHAR GOPAL DALMIA vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS(M.A.T 1690 of 2023), decided on25.09.2024 6. Even though the same issue having been decided by a largenumber of High Courts, we are still confionted with large filing ofidentical matters on daily basis ranging between 5 to 10 writpetitions. That upon the instructions being sought liom theDepartment, they have been taking a solitary ground that thedecision of the Bombay High Court in the case of HexawareTechnologies Ltd., (2 supra) as also the one which has beendecided by this Court in the case of Kanakala Rtvindra Reddy tzo2q SCC Online Guj 4012"2025 SCC Online Jhar 287to 72023 [: ] [:49 ][84-DB ]l (1 supra) has been subjected to challenge in a Special LeavePetition i.e., SLP No.3574 of 2024 before the Hon'ble SupremeCourt and the Hon'ble Supreme Court is seized of the matter.In addition, there are about 1200 SLPs also filed arising out of thesame issue being decided by various High Courts7. 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 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 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 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 [148A ][and under]Section 148 of the Act by the [jurisdictional ][Assessing ][Officer,]rather the authorities concemed in the teeth of [series ][of ][decisions] by all the major [High ][Courts ][in ][lndia ][are ][continuously ][still]initiating proceedings [under ][Section ][l48A ][of ][the ][Act ][and ][also]Section [148 ]of [the Act ][in]initiating proceedings [under ]contravention to the [amendments ][brought into the Income Tax ][Act]pursuant to the Finance [Act,2020 ][as ][also ][the ][Finance Act ][2O21 ][.] 9. Upon a query [being put ][as ][to ][why can't ][this ][writ ][petition ][be]disposed of in the [teeth ]of [the decision ][rendered ][by ][this ][Court ][in]the case of Kanakala [Ravindra ][Reddy ](l [supra), learned ]StandingCounsel for the Income [Tax ][Department contends that those ][would]unnecessarily burden the [Income ]Tax [Department ][where ]theywould be required to file equal number of SLPs before theHon'ble Supreme Court [and ]it [would ]be [fuither ][burdening ]theexchequer of the Union of India. It [was ]also the contention of theleamed Standing Counsel that no [prejudice ][would ]be caused to theinterest ofthe petitioners [in ]case if this [writ ][petition ]is kept pendingtill the finalization of the SLPs pending before the Hon'bleSupreme Court and the fact that the petitioner is already enjoyingthe benefit of interim protection. Nonetheless, on the earlier queryof this Court as to why the Income Tax Department have not comeout with a mechanism to issue appropriate instructions or to take \ ffi---*L. *L.ffi.r&4.',... mr,-' \ ffi---*L. *L.ffi.r&4.',... mr,-' appropriate steps in ensuring that proceedings under Section 1484.of the Act as also the assessment orders under Section 148 of theAct are kept in a hold in the light of the 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. The lncome Tax authorities concemed are still even now in2025 also initiating proceedings in contravention to the provisionsof Section 15lA of the Act and as a result by now, more than 600to 700 petitions have been already got piled up before this HighCourt on an issue which otherwise stands squarely covered by thejudgment of this Court in the case of Ksnakala Ravindra Reddy(l supra). What is also surprising is the fact that though whileallowing the writ petitions in the case of Kanakala RavindraReddy (l supra), the Division Bench while reserving the right ofthe Revenue, has also protected the interest of the petitioners insofar as the riberty which was granted to the Revenue forinitiating fresh proccedings strictly in accordance with the amendedprovisions of the Act, as amended by the Finance Act, 2020 andthe Finance Act, z02r. The petitioner assessee wourd be entitled tochallenge or raise the other legal objections if the Revenue initiatesfresh proceedings. The Department has made no endeavour inavailing the said liberty that was reserved for the Revenue. On theinitiating fresh proccedings strictly in accordance with the amendedprovisions of the Act, as amended by the Finance Act, 2020 andthe Finance Act, z02r. The petitioner assessee wourd be entitled tochallenge or raise the other legal objections if the 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 bebadsticking on to the stand, which thisHigh Court as well as many other High Courts already held to bebad I I. It appears that because ofthe aforesaid liberty that this HighCourt had granted permifting the Revenue for iniriating freshCourt had granted permifting the Revenue for iniriating freshproceedings as a one_time measure in a faceless manner, themanner, theIncome Tax Department wants to take advantage of. the same byprotracting these proceedings which would enable them to meet thelimitation that would otherwise come in the way. Likewise, if thewrit petition is kept pending for a considerable Iong 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 SLPs are still protracting these proceedings which would enable them to meet thelimitation that would otherwise come in the way. Likewise, if thewrit petition is kept pending for a considerable Iong 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 SLPs are still pending, the Ltcorne Tax li ii I .l i r'.):i. "ffir-r"; Departrnent would [get ]the advantage o[ [the ][liberty ][that ][is ][otherwise]protected in favour of the Revenue for [initiation ][of ][fresh]proceedings from the disposal ofthese matters [at ][a ][much later ][stage]which 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. li ii I .l i r'.):i. "ffir-r"; Departrnent would [get ]the advantage o[ [the ][liberty ][that ][is ][otherwise]protected in favour of the Revenue for [initiation ][of ][fresh]proceedings from the disposal ofthese matters [at ][a ][much later ][stage]which 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 ][Kanakala Ravindra ][Reddy ][(l ][supra), is ][a]matter of grave concern. [The ][Income ][Tax ][Department's persistent]initiation of 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 ][undermines the ][principle ][ofjudicial]precedent but also [strains the ][judicial ][resources ][unnecessarily. The]Department's strategy [of ][awaiting the ][Supreme ][Court's decision ][on]while [continuing ][to ][initiate fresh ][proceedings]pending SLPs appeius to be a calculated [move ][to ][buy time ][and ][circumvent]limitation [periods, rather ][than ][adhering ][to ][the ][established ][legal] position. Such conduct raises serious questions about the administrative efficiency and the respect lor [judicial]pronouncements, particularly when this Court has already provideda balanced approach by preserving both the Revenue's rights andassesses lnterests 13. Another aspect which needs to be considered is that in fact itshould have been realized by the Income Tax Department itself andshould have found out via media in ensuring that 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 ofor, atleast the Income Tax Department should have found out someremedial steps to ensure that wherever the authorities intend toinitiate proceedings under Sections 148-A and 148, other than in afaceless mamer, the proceedings should have been deferredwithout 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 ( /t 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 [the]level of Central Board of Direct Taxes. Though the [learned]Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department [contended that]the Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition of similar [nature, on]the one hand when the High Court is struggling to [reduce ][its]pendency, such notices which are under challenge in this [writ]petition are forcing the assessee to knock the doors of [this ][High]Court resulting in frling of hundreds of new [writ ][petitions ][which ][in]the long run not only affects the disposal of [the ][writ ][petitions ][but]also consumes substantial time of the Bench in [hearing ][these]matters again and again on daily basis. [Admittedly, ][in ][spite ][of ][the]matter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court [having ][been taken ][on]many occasions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court [which ][is ][seized ][of ][the]matter has been reluctant in [granting ]any [interim ][protection ][to ][the]Income Tax Department. Yet, the authorities [concemed ][at ][the]State level are not ready to accept the [verdict ][passed ][by ][a ][majority]of High Courts of different States on the same issue; [and ][to ][make]things further worse, the Income Tax Department is [showing]audacity by issuing notices continuously under Sections [148-A ][and] 148 through the jurisdictional Assessing Officer u,hereas it oughtto have been only in the faceless rnanner. 14. In the case of BANK OF INDIA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, INCOME TAXrt, on an issue whether it wasjustifiable on the part of the Income Tax Department rn not[ollowing an order passed by the adjudicating authority only on theground that the appeals are pending, the Division Bench of theHigh Court ol Bornbay 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 tithe same is set 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.14, theCourt observed that the approach of the offlcials of Revenue oftreating decisions berng "not acceptable" was criticized by theSupreme Court ln such decision, following are the relevantobservations made by the Supreme Court. 'l Kzozs) [170 ][raxmann.com 422 ][(Bombay)l] '2 1t9781 [t3 ] [589 ][(Bombay)] '3 72oz+1 [165 ][taxmann.com 581/300 ]Taxman 452 [(Bomtray)] In 119e21 [raxmann.com ][16155 ] [433 ][(SC)]119e21 [raxmann.com ][16155 ] [433 ][(SC)] n tt...j ..df "6. Sri Reddy is perhaps right in saying that theofficers were not ac{uated by any mala [fides ][in]passing the impugned orders. They [perhaps]genuinely felt that the claim of the assessee was nottenable and that, if it was accepted, the [Revenue]would suffer. But what Sri Reddy overlooks [is ][that we]are not concerned here with the conectness [or]otherwise of their conclusion or of any [factual]malafides but with the fact that the [officers, in reaching]in their conclusion, by-passed two [appellate ]orders [in]regard to the same issue which were [placed ][before]lhem, one of the Collector [(Appeals) and ][the ][other ][of]the Tribunal. The High Court [has, ]in [our ]view, [rightly]criticized this conduct of the Assistant [Collectors and]the harassment to the assessee [caused ][by ][the ][failure]of these officers to [give ]effect to the [orders ][of]authorities higher to them [in ]the [appellate ][hierarchy. ][lt]cannot be too vehemently emphasized that [it ][is ][of]utmost importance that, in disposing of [the]quasijudicial issues before thern, revenue officers arebound by the decisions of the [appellate ][authorities.]The order of the Appellte Collector [is ][binding on ][the]Assistant Collectors working [within ][his ][jurisdiction and]the order of the Tribunal [is binding upon the Assistant]Collectors and the Appellate Collectors who [function]under the [jurisdiction ]ofthe Tribunal. [The principles ][of]judicial discipline require that the orders of the higherappellate authorities should be [followed ][unreservedly]by the subordinate authorities. [The mere fact that ][the]order of the appellate authority [is ][not 'acceptable" ][to]-the department - in itself an objectionable [phrase ]and is the subject [mafter ]of an [appeal can ][furnish ][no]ground for not following it unless its operation [has]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 wrth 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 lhe observations of the HighCourt, seemingly vehement, and apparentlyunpalatable to the Revenue, are only inlended lo 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 [judicial]discipline and the need for giving effect to the ordersof the higher appellate authorities which are bindingon them." 15. What is worrying this Bench more is the fact that an endeavour 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 olthe lncome Tax Department being violative of 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 ofthe 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 Courtand which stands fortified by the decisions of the various otherHigh Courts on the very same issue, the pendency of this HighCourt would further be burdened which otherwise can be decidedand disposed of as a covered matter. 17 . So far as the interest as the interest the interest interest of the Revenue is concemed, the Revenue is concemed, is concemed, concemed, we are are ofthe 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 So far as the interest as the interest the interest interest of the Revenue is concemed, the Revenue is concemed, is concemed, concemed, we are are of 36,37 and.38 of the order which, for ready reference, is [reproduced]hereunder: 36. For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned [notices]issued and the proceedings drawn by the respondent-Department is neither tenable, nor sustainable.The notices so issued and the [procbdure ]adopted beingper se illegal, deserves to be and are accordingly setaside/quashed. As a consequence, all the [impugned]orders [getting quashed, ]the consequential orders [passed]by the respondent-Department pursuant to the noticesissued under Section 147 and 148 would also [get]quashed and it is ordered accordingly. The reason weare quashing the consequential order is on the [principles]that when the rnitiatron of the [proceedirEs ]itself wdsprocedurally wrong, the subsequent orders also getsnullrfied 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 inclined to proceed further 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 ]ofjurisdiction, we are not inclined to proceed further 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, [permrfted ]the Revenue to [proceed]under the substrtuted [provisions, ]and this Court allowingthe petitions only on the procedural flaw, the right ',t* .;'.i. 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 AshishAgarwal, 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 Rtvindra Reddy (l supra) is subjected to challengebefore the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No.3574 of 2024,preferred by the lncome Tax Department, we make it clear thatallowing of the instant.writ petition is subject to outcome of theaforesaid SLP preferred by the Revenue against the decision ofthisHigh Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra).This, 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 tight of the decision of the Hon'ble SupremeCourt in the pending SLP on the very same issue. 1 9. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands allowed1nfavour of the assessee so far as the issue of jurisdictionlsconcemed. As a consequence, the impugned notice underchallenge under Sections 148-4 and 148 stands set aside/quashed.favour of the assessee so far as the issue of jurisdictionlsconcemed. As a consequence, the impugned notice underchallenge under Sections 148-4 and 148 stands set aside/quashed. I The consequential orders, if any, aiso siand set aside/quashed [in] similar terms as have been [passeci ]by this High Court in the case of Kankanala Ravindra Reddy [(| ]supla)- lhere shall be no order [as] to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/. A.JAYASREEomISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY' SECTION OFFICER To, t ]f9 Qep.uty Commrssioner o{ lncome Tax, Circle 5(t ), Hyderabad Room No.'-^ [??4, ] [Block,2nd ][Ftoor, ][AC Guards, Masab Tank ][UlOeraOaO, ][SOObO4 ][- ]2 The Principal Commissroner. of lncome Tax - lV, HyOeraOiif [-ZnJHoor, ]ACGuards, Masab Tank Hyderabad. 500004^ [??4, ] [Block,2nd ][Ftoor, ][AC Guards, Masab Tank ][UlOeraOaO, ][SOObO4 ][- ]2 The Principal Commissroner. of lncome Tax - lV, HyOeraOiif [-ZnJHoor, ]ACGuards, Masab Tank Hyderabad. 500004 5000043. The National Faceless hssessment centre rncome Tax Department, Ministryof Finance Govt. of lndia. New Delhiof Finance Govt. of lndia. New Delhi4. The.Secretary,Union of lndia. Ministry of Finance, [.166-8 ]North Block, NewDelhi [[- ]]110 00'1Delhi [[- ]]110 00'1 Delhi [[- ]]00'15. One CC to SRl. P. SOTVA SHEKAR REDDY, Advocate tOpUCl6. One CC toSRI. K. SUDHAKAR REDDY, SENIoR SC FoR,INCOME TAXDEPARTMENT 6. One CC toSRI. K. SUDHAKAR REDDY, SENIoR SC FoR,INCOME TAXDEPARTMENT 7. One CC to SRI. GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DY SoLICIToR GENERAL oFrNDrA rNDrA 8. Two CD Copies SBMKSKS I \ pq HIGH COURT DATED:1210612025 Io\t 1.-t2OIUBMI(')'+ ORDER WP.No.15884 of 2025 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETTTION T COSTSWIT6}