Under Section L48A Of The Act As Also Under Section 14G Of Theact Ought To Have Also Been Issued And Proceeded In A Lacclessmanner v. Income_Tax Officert Decidedon 14.09.2023 Whereby A Batch Of Writ Petitions Were Allowed Andthe Proceedings Initiated Under Section R4Ga As Also Under Section148

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JULYTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT . . THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDAWRIT PETITION NO: 18686 OF 2O2s Between: Mr. Virendra Tiwari, S/o. Mr. Shashi Bhushan Tiwari, aged 46 years, Occ.-Business, Fl/o. H.No. 5-1-58/6, Behind LIC Office, l st Lane, Troop Bazar,Hyderabad - 500 095' Telangana' ...pETrroNER ,. AND 1. Assessment Unit, lncome Tax Department, National e-Assessment Center,New Delhi, Room No.- 401 .2nd Floor, E-Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium,New Delhi - 110 003.New Delhi, Room No.- 401 .2nd Floor, E-Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium,New Delhi - 110 003. 2. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ward 5(1), Hyderabad, l.T.Towers, 10-2-3, AC Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad - 500 044, Telangana.Towers, 10-2-3, AC Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad - 500 044, Telangana.3. The Principal Chief Commissioner of lncome Tax, Andhra Pradesh andTelangana, Hyderabad, Room No.922,9th Floor, B Block, l.T. Towers, 10-2-3, A.C. Guards, lVlasab Tank, Hyderabad - 500 004, Telangana S'ONDENTSTelangana, Hyderabad, Room No.922,9th Floor, B Block, l.T. Towers, 10-2-3, A.C. Guards, lVlasab Tank, Hyderabad - 500 004, Telangana S'ONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may bepleased to issue a Writ of [Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order orDirection, declaring that the order passed by the 1st Respondent, uls 147 rlwSec. 144 r/w Sec. 1448 ot the lncome Tax Act, 1961 , dated 20.O2.2O25, bearingDIN No.- ITBA/AST/S/14712024-2511073521753(1), for the Assessment Year2017 - 18, as arbitrary, illegal, bad in law, void-ab-initio, violative of the principlesof natural [justice, ]apart from being violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 265 of theConstitution of lndia and Sec 1484 of the lncome Tax Act, 1961, and toconsequently set aside the same in the interests of justice. IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated inthe affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stayall further proceedings. including any recovery, pursuant to the notice issued bythe 2nd Respondent, u/s 148 of lncome Tax Act, 1 961 , Vide Din and Notice andNotice No - ITBA AST/S/148 112023-2411063519343(1), dated 28.03.2024,fortheAssessrnent Year 2017 - ['18, ]pending disposal of the above Writ Petition, pendingdisposal of the above Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI A.V.ASIVA KARTIKEYACounsel for the Respondents: SRI K.SUDHAKAR REDDY, Sr SC FOR INCOMETAX The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAONANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION No.I8686 of2O25 ORDER: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice Narsing Rao Nunclikoncla) Heard Mr.A.V.A.Siva Kartikeya, leamed counsel for the petitioner and Mr.K.Sudhakar Reddy, learned Senior StandingCounsel for the Income Tax Department appearing for therespondents. Perused the record. This is a writ petition is a writ petition writ petition petition where the proceedings the proceedings proceedings are eithereither 2This is a writ petition is a writ petition writ petition petition where the proceedings the proceedings proceedings are eithereitherchallenged to the notices which were issued under Section l4gAand 148 of the Income Tax Act, i96l (for short [,the ]Act,) or theand 148 of the Income Tax Act, i96l (for short [,the ]Act,) or theassessment orders those have been passed under Section 147 ofthe Act which have been assailed.the Act which have been assailed. 3. This writ petition is being taken up today only on one of the petitioner and Mr.K.Sudhakar Reddy, learned Senior StandingCounsel for the Income Tax Department appearing for therespondents. Perused the record. This is a writ petition is a writ petition writ petition petition where the proceedings the proceedings proceedings are eithereither 2This is a writ petition is a writ petition writ petition petition where the proceedings the proceedings proceedings are eithereitherchallenged to the notices which were issued under Section l4gAand 148 of the Income Tax Act, i96l (for short [,the ]Act,) or theand 148 of the Income Tax Act, i96l (for short [,the ]Act,) or theassessment orders those have been passed under Section 147 ofthe Act which have been assailed.the Act which have been assailed. 3. This writ petition is being taken up today only on one of the grounds, that the n_otices issued.u-nder,-secrigl l1!4 o{ th9 -{9tand the subsequent initiation ofproceedings under Section l4g ofthe $.ct by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, whereas in terms\of the amendment that was brought to the Income Tax Act by wayof Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f., 0l .04.2021 onwards, proceedings\of the amendment that was brought to the Income Tax Act by wayof Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f., 0l .04.2021 onwards, proceedings under Section l48A of the Act as also under Section 14g of theAct ought to have also been issued and proceeded in a lacclessmanner. 4. The contention contention of the petitioner the petitioner petitioner is that the issue that the issue the issue issue proceedings being in violation of the Finance Act, 2021 i.e., theimpugned notices under Section 14gA and Section 14g of the Actnot being issued in a faceless manner, have already been dealt u,ithand decided by this Court in the case of KANKANAI.ARAVINDRA RBDDY vs. INCOME_TAX OFFICERT decidedon 14.09.2023 whereby a batch of writ petitions were allowed andthe proceedings initiated under section r4gA as also under Section148 oFthe Act were held to be bad with consequential reliefs on theground of it being in violation of the provisions of Section 15lA ofthe Act read with Notihcation I8l2O22 dated,29.03.2022. The said.iudgment [passed ]by this Court has also been subsequently follor.r,cdin a large number of writ petitions which were allowed on sirnilarterms. The contention contention of the petitioner the petitioner petitioner is that the issue that the issue the issue issue ol- 5. Down the line, we find that the same issue line, we find that the same issue find that the same issue that the same issue the same issue same issue issue has also beenbeendecided against the Revenue by various High Courts i.e.,by the Bombay High Court in rhe case of HEXAWARETECHNOLOGIES LTD., vs. ASSTSTANT COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX & OTHERS2, Gauhati High Courr in rhe caseof RAM NARAYAN SAH vs. UNION OF INDIA3, punjab andHaryana High Courl in the case of JATINDER SINGH BANGUvs. UNION OF INDIA4, and Telangana High Courl in the case ofSRI VENKATARAMANA RBDDY PATLOOLA vs. DEPUTYCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX5 where rhe issue was inrespect of international taxation, Bombay High Court in the case ofABHIN ANILKUMAR SHAH vs. INCOME TAx OFFICER,INTERNATIONAL TAXATION6 which is again on inrernationaltaxation and central circle, High Court of Himachal pradesh in thecase of GOVIND SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERT,Gujarat High Court in the case of MANSUKHBHAI Down the line, we find that the same issue line, we find that the same issue find that the same issue that the same issue the same issue same issue issue has also beenbeen ' lzoz+1464 [430 ][(Bom)]'[(2024) [156 ]taxmann.com 478 (Gauhati)]'l(2014) I65 taxrnann.com I l5 (Punjab & Haryana)l12024\1 [67 ][laxmann.com ][4 ]I I [(Telangana)l]" [2024) 166 taxmann.com 679 (Bombay)]' [2024) 165 taxrnann.com I l3 (Himachal pradcsh)] Down the line, we find that the same issue line, we find that the same issue find that the same issue that the same issue the same issue same issue issue has also beenbeen ' lzoz+1464 [430 ][(Bom)]'[(2024) [156 ]taxmann.com 478 (Gauhati)]'l(2014) I65 taxrnann.com I l5 (Punjab & Haryana)l12024\1 [67 ][laxmann.com ][4 ]I I [(Telangana)l]" [2024) 166 taxmann.com 679 (Bombay)]' [2024) 165 taxrnann.com I l3 (Himachal pradcsh)] DAHYABHAI RADADIYA [VS. ] [OFFICER']WARD 3(3X5)8, [Jharkand ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ] SUNDAR SAW [vs. ] [INDIAe, ][Rajasthan ][High ][Court ][in]the case of SHARDA [vs' ] OFFICER & ANOTHER [and ][batch ][of ][writ ][petitionsr0 which]stood decided on [19.03.2024. ][Similar views ][have ][also been taken]by the Division [Bench ][of ][Calcutta ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]GIRDHAR GOPAL [vs- ] [& ] (M.A.T 1690 of 2023), [decided ][on25.09.2024']6. Even though the [same ][issue ][having ][been ][decided ][by ][a ][large]number of I{igh Courts, [we ][are ][still ][confronted ][with ][large ][filing ][of]identical matters on [daily ][basis ][ranging ][between ][5 ][to ][10 writ]petitions. That upon [the ][instructions ][being ][sought ][from ][the]Department, they [have ][been ][taking ][a ][solitary ][ground ][that ][the]decision o1' the [Bombay ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ][Hexaware]Technologies Ltd., [(2 ][supra) ][as ][also ][the ][one ][which ][has ][been]decided by, [this ][Courl in ][the ][case ][of ][Kanakula Ravindra ][Reddy] '2024 [online ][Guj ][4012]" 2025 SCC Onl-inc [Jhar ][287]n ' y2023'. RJ -.t D : 49 84 - DB l (l supra) has been subjected to challenge in a Special LeavePetition i.e., SLP No.3574 of 2024 before the Hon,ble SupremeCourt and the Hon'ble Supreme Court is seized of the matterln addition, there are about 1200 SLPs also filed arising out of thesarne issue being decided by various High Courts. 7. To a query being put to the learned counsel for the Revenue,tl.rey have categorically accepted the fact that there is no interimorder granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Courltn any of thesematters pending before it. Meanwhile, fresh writ petitions ofidcntical 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 Courl itself. 8. On the one hand, even though the order of this Court thatwas passed as early as on 14.09.2023 and more 16 months havelapsed, tilt date, we do not find any remedial steps having beentaken by the Income Tax Department to take appropriate steps roeither hold back issuance of notice under Section l48A and underSection 148 of the Act by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer,rather the authorities concemed in the teeth of series of decisions 8. On the one hand, even though the order of this Court thatwas passed as early as on 14.09.2023 and more 16 months havelapsed, tilt date, we do not find any remedial steps having beentaken by the Income Tax Department to take appropriate steps roeither hold back issuance of notice under Section l48A and underSection 148 of the Act by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer,rather the authorities concemed in the teeth of series of decisions by all the major [High ][Courts ][in ][lndia ][are ][continuously still]initiating proceedings [under Section ][148,4. ][of ][the ][Act ][and ][also]initiating [proceedings ][under ][Section ][148 ][of ][the ][Act ][in]contravention [to ][the amendments ][brought into the Income ][Tax Act]pursuant to the Finance [Ac:,2020 ][as ][also ][the ][Finance Act ][2021 ][']9. Upon a query [being put ][as ][to ][why can't this ][writ ][petition ][be]disposedofintheteethofthedecisionrenderedbythisCourlinthe case of [Kunokalo Ravindra ][Reddy ][(l ][supra), ][leamed ][Standing]Counsel for [the Income Tax Deparlment ][contends that those ][would]burden [the ][Income ][Tax ][Department ][where ][they]unnecessarily would be lequired [to ][file ][equat number ][of ][SLPs ][before ][the]Hon'ble Supreme [Couft ][and ][it ][would ][be ][further ][burdening ][the]exchequer of the [Union ][ol ][India. It ][was also ][the contention ][of ][the]learned Standing [Counsel ][that ][no ][prejudice ][would ][be caused ][to ][the]interest of the [petitioners in ][case ][if ][this ][writ ][petition ][is ][kept ][pending]till the finalization [oi ][the ][SLPs pending ][before ][the ][Hon'ble]Court [and ][the ][f ][act that the ][petitioner ][is ][already enjoying]Supreme the benefit of [interim protection. ][Nonetheless, ][on ][the ][earlier ][query]of this Cour-t as [to ][why ][the ][lncome ][Tax ][Department have ][not ][come]out with a ryechanistn to issue [appropriate instructions ][or to ][take]/ appropriate steps in ensuring that proceedings under Section 14gAof the Act as also the assessment orders under Section l4g 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 Income Tax authorities concemed are still even now in2025 also initiating proceedings in contravention to the provisionsof Section 15 lA of the Act and as a result by now, more than 600to 700 petirions have been already got piled up before this HighCouft on an issue which otherwise stands squarely covered by thejudgrnent of this Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy( I supra). what is also surprising is the fact that though whileallowing the writ petitions in the case of Kanakaro RavindroReddy (l supra), the Division Bench while reserving the right ofthe Revenue, has also protected the interest of the petitioners insofar as [the ][liberty which ][was ][granted ][to ][the ][Revenue for]initiating [fresh proceedings ][strictly ][in ][accordance ][with ][the ][amended]ol [the ][Act, ][as amended ][by ][the ][Finance ][Act' ][2020 ][and]provisions the Finance [Act,202L ][The ][petitioner ][assessee ][would ][be ][entitled to]or [raise the ][other ][tegat ][objections ][if ][the Revenue ][initiates]challenge fresh [proceedings. ][The ][Department ][has made ][no ][endeavour in]availing the [said ][libedy ][that ][was ][reserved ][for ][the ][Revenue' ][On ][the]contary, [they ][have ][been ][still ][sticking ][on ][to ][the ][stand' ][which ][this]Court [as ][well ][as ][many other ][High ][Coufts already held ][to ][be]High bad insofar as [the ][liberty which ][was ][granted ][to ][the ][Revenue for]initiating [fresh proceedings ][strictly ][in ][accordance ][with ][the ][amended]ol [the ][Act, ][as amended ][by ][the ][Finance ][Act' ][2020 ][and]provisions the Finance [Act,202L ][The ][petitioner ][assessee ][would ][be ][entitled to]or [raise the ][other ][tegat ][objections ][if ][the Revenue ][initiates]challenge fresh [proceedings. ][The ][Department ][has made ][no ][endeavour in]availing the [said ][libedy ][that ][was ][reserved ][for ][the ][Revenue' ][On ][the]contary, [they ][have ][been ][still ][sticking ][on ][to ][the ][stand' ][which ][this]Court [as ][well ][as ][many other ][High ][Coufts already held ][to ][be]High bad 11. It appears [that ][because ][of ][the ][aforesaid ][liberty ][that this ][High]Court had [granted pemritting ][the ][Revenue ][for ][initiating ][fresh]as [a ][one-time ][measure ][in ][a ][laceless ][manner' ][the]proceedings Income [Tax ][Deparlment wants ][to ][take ][advantage ][of ][the ][same ][by]these [proceedings ][which ][would ][enable ][them to ][meet the]protracting timitationthatwouldotherrvisecomeintheway.Likewise,ifthewrit petition [is ][kept pending ][for ][a ][considerable ][long period ][of ][time]and finally [at ][a ][later stage ][if ][the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Court ][confirms]the decision [taken ][by ][this ][High Couft ][as ][also ][by the ][other ][High]Courts in [which ][the ][SLPs]are still [pending, ][the ][Income ][Tax]fr Department would get the advantage of the liberty that is otherwiseprotected in lavour of the Revenue for initiation of freshproceedings lrom the disposal of these matters at a much later stagewhich would be advantageous and beneficial to the Revenue andwould be equally disadvantageous and detrimental so far as interestol the assesses are concerned. As a consequence, the Income TaxDeparlment gets an extended period of time for initiation of freshploceedings 12. The alarming trend of docket explosion in this Court, despitethe clear precedent set in Kanaksla Ravindra Reddy (l supra), is amatter of grave concern. The Income Tax Department's persistentinitiation of fresh proceedings, disregarding the established judicialpronouncernents, has led to an unprecedented surge in litigationwith over 600-700 petitions piling up on the same issue. Thisdeliberate approach not only undermines the principle of judiciatprecedent but also strains the judicial resources unnecessarily. TheDepaftment's strategy of awaiting the Supreme Court's decision onpending SLPs while continuing to initiate fresh proceedingsappears to be a calculated move to buy time and circumventlimitation periods, rather than adhering to the established legal position. Such conduct raises seriousquestions about theadministrative efficiency and the respect lor [judicial]pronouncements, particularly when this Courl has already provideda.balanced approach by preserving both the Revenue's rights [and]assesses interests 13. Another aspect which needs to be considered is that in fact itshould have been realized by the Income Tax Deparlment itself [and]should have found out via media in cnsuring that [proceedings]under Sections 148-4 and 148 should not have been issued in [a]faceless manner, at least tilt the I lon'bte Supretne Court decide thetwelve hundred (1200) odd SLPs which it is already seized ofor, [at]least the Income Tax Depaftment should have found out someremedial steps to ensure that wherever thc authorities intend [to]initiate proceedings under Sections 148-A and 148, [other ][than ][in ][a]faceless manner, the proceedings should have [been ][deferred]without precipitating the matter fufther intimating the assessee thatthey shall initiate appropriate proceedings only after the SLP's [are]decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the very same [issue.]This again, the Income Tax Deparlment, has [rtot been ][able to ][give ][a]convincing reply, except for the lact 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 ola policy decision and that too at thelevel of Central Board of Direct Taxes. Though the leamedStanding Counsel lbr the Income Tax Department contended thatthe Delhi High Cout dismissed a writ petition of similar nature, onthe one hand when the l{igh Court is struggling to reduce itspendency, such notices which are under challenge in this writpetition are fbrcing the assessee to knock the doors of this HighCourl resulting in fiting of hundreds of new writ petitions which inthe long run not only affects the disposal of the writ petitions butalso consumes substantial time of the Bench in hearing thesematters again and again on daily basis. Admittedly, in spite of thematter before the []on 'ble Supreme Courl having been taken onmany occasions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court which is seized of thematter has been reluctant in glanting any interim protection to theIncome Tax Deparlment. 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 makethinBs lufther worse, the lncome 1-ax Deparlment is showingaudLcity by issuing notices continuously under Sections 148-A and I48 through the jurisdictional Assessing Officer rvhereas it oughtto have been only in the faceless manner 14. In the case of BANK OF INDIA vs. ASSISTANTCOMMISSIONER, INCOME TAxrr, on an issue rvhether ir w,asjustifiable on the part of the Income Tax Depar.tment ln notfollowing an order passed by the adjudicating authority only on theground that the appeals are pending, the Division Ber.rch of theHigh Court of Bombay held 4t paragraph No.25 as under, viz., "25. [t/r. Paridwalla has righfly drawn out attention to thedecision of this Court in Commissioner of lncome Tax vs. Smt.Godavaridevi Sarafl2 as also the recenl 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 havrng 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. Referring 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. '] Kzozs) [170 ][taxmann.com ][422 ][(Bombay)l]'' it9781 [113 ] [589 ][(Bombay)]tt 7ZO2+1 [165 ][taxmann.com ][581/300 ]Taxman [zl52 (Bomba1,)]'o ltOgZl [taxrnann.cout ][l6155 ] [433 ][(SC)]r' '] Kzozs) [170 ][taxmann.com ][422 ][(Bombay)l]'' it9781 [113 ] [589 ][(Bombay)]tt 7ZO2+1 [165 ][taxmann.com ][581/300 ]Taxman [zl52 (Bomba1,)]'o ltOgZl [taxrnann.cout ][l6155 ] [433 ][(SC)]r' "6. Sri Reddy is perhaps right in saying that theofficers were not [actuated ][by ][any ][mala fides ][in]officers were not [actuated ][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 correctness [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]them, 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]authonties 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 them, revenue officers arebound by the decisions of the appellate [authorities.]The order of the Appellte Collector is [brnding ][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 ]of [the ]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 [matter ]of an [appeal ][can furnish ][no]ground for not following it unless its operation hasbeen suspended by a competent court. [lf ]this [healthy]tenable and that, if it was accepted, the [Revenue]would suffer. But what Sri Reddy overlooks [is ][that ][we]are not concerned here with the correctness [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]them, 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]authonties 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 them, revenue officers arebound by the decisions of the appellate [authorities.]The order of the Appellte Collector is [brnding ][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 ]of [the ]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 [matter ]of an [appeal ][can furnish ][no]ground for not following it unless its operation hasbeen suspended by a competent court. [lf ]this [healthy] rule is not followed, the result will only be undueharassment to assesses and chaos in administrationof tax laws. rule is not followed, the result will only be undueharassment to assesses and chaos in administrationof tax laws. 12. We have dealt with this aspect at some length,because it has been suggested by the learnedAdditional Solicitor General that the observationsmade by the High Court, have been harsh on theofficers. lt is clear that the observations of the HighCourt, seemingly vehement, and 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." I 5. What is worrying this Bench more is the lact that anendeavour is being made whole heartedly to ensure not to generatefurther litigation on issues which have been taid to rest by a lar.genumber of High Courts all of whom have taken a consistent standfurther litigation on issues which have been taid to rest by a lar.genumber of High Courts all of whom have taken a consistent standthat the action of the Income Tax Department being violative of thc Finance Act,2020 and [Finance ][Act,202l. ][Now, ][in ][order ][to ][protect]the interest of the Revenue as [also ][that ][of ][the ][assessee, ][it ][would ][be]trite at this [juncture, ]if [we ][dispose ][of ][the ][writ ][petition ][with ][an]observation/direction that the disposal [of ][the instant ][writ ][petition ][in]terms of the [judgment ]rendered [by ][this ][High Courl ][in ][the ][case ][of]Kankanala Ravindra Reddy [(1 ]supra) [shall however be subject ][to]the outcome of the SLPs [which ][were ][filed ][by ][the ][Income ][Tax]Depaftment and which is [pending consideration before the ][Hon'ble]Supreme Court. 16. tn the given facts and circumstances, [this ][Bench ][is ][of ][the]considered opinion that unless and [until ][we ][do not ][timely ][dispose]of matters which are squarely covet'ed [by ][the decision ][of ][this ][Courl]and which stands fortified by the [decisions ]of [the various ][other]High Courts on the very same issue, [the ][pendency ][of ][this ][High]Court would further be [burdened ][which ][otherwise can be ][decided]and disposed of as a covered [mat.ter.] 17 . So far as the interest [of ][the Revenue is ][concemed, ][we ][are ][of]the considered [opinion ][that the intelest ][of ][the Revenue ][has ][already]been considered [and protected, ][as ][has been ][observed ][in ][paragraphs] 36,37 and 38 of the 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 sustainable.The notices so issued and the [procedure ]adopted beingper se illegal, deserves to be and are accordingly setaside/quashed. As a consequence, all the impugnedorders getting quashed, the consequential orders [passed]by 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 [principles]that when the initiation of the proceedings itself wasprocedurally wrong, the subsequent orders also getsnul|fied 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 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 ]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 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 Agaruval, supra, as a one{ime measureexercising the powers under Article 142 of theConstitution of India, permitted the Revenue to [proceed]under the substituted provisions, and this Court allowingthe nplitions only on the procedural flaw, the right conferred on the Revenue [would ][remain ][reserved ][to]proceed further if they so want from the stage of theorder of the Supreme Court in the [case ][of ][Ashish]Agarwal, supra. I8. We would only further like to make [observations that ][since]we are inclined to dispose of the instant [writ ][petition, ][conscious ][of]the fact that the earlier order of this High Court [in ][the ][case ][of]Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra)IS subjected to challengebeflore the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP [No.3574 ][of ][2024,]preferred by the Income Tax Department, we tnake [it ][clear ][that]allowing of the instant writ petition [is ]subject [to ][outcome ][of ][the]afbresaid SLP preferred by the Revenue [against ][the ][decision ][of ][this]High Court in the case of Kanakala [Ravindra ][Reddy ][(l ][supra)]This, in other words, would mean that either of thc [parties, ][if ][they]so want, may move an appropriate [petition ][seeking ][revival ][of ][this]writ petition in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble SupremeCourt in the pending SLP on the [very ][same ][issue.] 19. Accordingly, the instant writ [petition ][stands ][allowed ][in]lavour of the assessee so far as the issue ol [jurisdiction]ISconcemed. As a consequence, the [impugned ][notice ][under]challenge under Sections 148-4 and [148 stands ]set [aside/quashed] I The consequential orders, if any, also stand set aside/quashed in similar terms as have been passed by this High Court in the case ol Ktnkanala Rovindro Reddy (l supra). There shall be no order as to costs Conscquently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shail stand closed. SD/. K.BHAVANI SWAMYASTANT REGISTRARSECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To1Assessment Unit, lncome Tax Department, National e-Assessment Cehter,New Delhi, Room No.- 401 , ?nd Floor, E-Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium,New Delhi - 110 003.2The Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax, Ward 5('1 ), Hyderabad, l.T.Towers, 10-2-3, AC Guards, l\rlasab Tank, Hyderabaij - SOb O++, Telangana.3The Principal Chief Commissioner of lncome Tax, Andhra pradesh andTelangana, Hyderabad, Roorn No. 922,}th Floor, B Block, l.T. Towers, 10-2-3, A C. Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad - 500 004, Telangana4One CC to SRI A.V.A.SIVA KARTIKEYA, Advocate tOpUCl5One CC to SRI K.SUDHAKAR REDDY, Sr SC FOR-tNCOIUE TAX tOpUClbrTwo CD CopiesPSKBT p HIGH COURT DATED:0210712025 ORDERWP.No.18686 of 2025 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITIONWITHOUT COSTS ,i r€c,.('i()I,(io2 3 [2025]7*a-.'-l D,1l c