> Under Section L48A Of The Act As Also Under Section L4G Of The Act Ought To Have Also Been Issued And Proceeded In A Faceless Manner v. The Contention Of The Petitioner Is That The Issue Contention Of The Petitioner Is That The Issue Of The Petitioner Is That The Issue The Petitioner Is That The

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF MAYTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDAWRIT PETITION NO: 26973 OF 2024 Between: SAIMPATHKUMAR NOOKA, S/OVENKATAIAH NOOKA, Aged about 61years, Karimnagar Occupation. 505102, Telangana,Business,Ri/o. lndia. 10-197 PAN. Kamalapur , AssessmentKamalapurYear- 2015-16 ...PETITIONER AND 1The lncome Tax Officer Ward 2, Karimnagar, lncome Tax Office, AayakarBhavan, Near Natraj Theatre, Karimnagar Telangana State.Bhavan, Near Natraj Theatre, Karimnagar Telangana State. 2The Principal Chief Commissioner of lnmme Tax, Telangana and A.PHyderabad lT Towers AC Guards Masab Tank HyderabadHyderabad lT Towers AC Guards Masab Tank Hyderabad 3The Central Board of Direct Taxes, Represented by its Chairman ,Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of lndia, Sec;-etanatBuildings, New Delhi.Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of lndia, Sec;-etanatBuildings, New Delhi. 4The National Faceless Assessment Center, lncome Tax Department ,NewDelhi.Delhi. The Union of lndia, Represented by its Secretary to the GovernmentDepartment of Revenue t\/inistry of Finance New DelhiDepartment of Revenue t\/inistry of Finance New Delhi ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 ot lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may bepleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in thenature of Writ of [\,4andamus, declaring the order passed by the lncome TaxAuthorities (National Faceless E-Assessment Centre) completed the assessmentUIS 147 r.w-s 144 read with section 1448 of the lncome{ax Act Date of Ordernature of Writ of [\,4andamus, declaring the order passed by the lncome TaxAuthorities (National Faceless E-Assessment Centre) completed the assessmentUIS 147 r.w-s 144 read with section 1448 of the lncome{ax Act Date of Order1B|O3/2O24. DlN. ITBA/AST lsl14712023- 2411062801961(1) for the AssessmentYear 2015-16 determining the total income of Rs- 5.12.162/- as arbitrary, illegal,bad in {aw. without [jurisdiction, ]void-ab-initio, violative of the principles of naturalof [Articles ][14, ][19(1)(g) ]and 265 of the.justice [apart from ][being ][violative ]bad in {aw. without [jurisdiction, ]void-ab-initio, violative of the principles of naturalof [Articles ][14, ][19(1)(g) ]and 265 of the.justice [apart from ][being ][violative ] Constitution of lndia and Sec. 14BA of the lncome Tax Act, 1961, andconsequently set aside the same in the interests of justice Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. THANNERU CHAITANYA KUMAR , Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: Ms. J SUNITHA (JUNIOR SC FORTNCOME TAX)TNCOME TAX) Counsel for the Respondent NO.S: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR DEPUTYSOLICITOR GENERAL OF INIDA The Court made the following: ORDER TIIE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTTCE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSTNG RAONANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION No.26973 of 2024 ORDER:[(per ]Hon'ble Sri Justice P.Sam [Koshy)] Heard Mr. T.Chaitanya Kumar, leamed counsel for [the] petitioner and Ms.J.Sunitha, Ieamed Junior Standing Counsel [for]the Income Tax Department for the respondents. [Perused ][the]record. 2. This is a writ petition where the [proceedings ][are ][either]challenged to the notices which [r'r,ere ]issued under Section [148,4']and 148 of the lncome Tax Act. 196 I (for short'the Act') ortheassessment orders those have becn [passed ]under Section [147 ]ofthe Act which have been assailed. 3. This writ petition is bcing taken up today only on [one ][of ][the] The Court made the following: ORDER TIIE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTTCE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSTNG RAONANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION No.26973 of 2024 ORDER:[(per ]Hon'ble Sri Justice P.Sam [Koshy)] Heard Mr. T.Chaitanya Kumar, leamed counsel for [the] petitioner and Ms.J.Sunitha, Ieamed Junior Standing Counsel [for]the Income Tax Department for the respondents. [Perused ][the]record. 2. This is a writ petition where the [proceedings ][are ][either]challenged to the notices which [r'r,ere ]issued under Section [148,4']and 148 of the lncome Tax Act. 196 I (for short'the Act') ortheassessment orders those have becn [passed ]under Section [147 ]ofthe Act which have been assailed. 3. This writ petition is bcing taken up today only on [one ][of ][the] grounds, that the notices issued under Section l48A of the Actand the subsequent initiation ol proceedings under Section [148 ]ofthe Act by the [jurisdictional ]Assessing Officer, whereas in termsof the amendment that rvas brought to the lncome [Tax ][Act ][by ][way]of Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f.. 01.0.1.202 I onwards, [proceedings]and the subsequent initiation ol proceedings under Section [148 ]ofthe Act by the [jurisdictional ]Assessing Officer, whereas in termsof the amendment that rvas brought to the lncome [Tax ][Act ][by ][way]of Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f.. 01.0.1.202 I onwards, [proceedings] under Section l48A of the Act as also under Section l4g 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 contention of the petitioner is that the issue of the petitioner is that the issue the petitioner is that the issue petitioner is that the issue is that the issue that the issue the issue issue proceedings being in vioration of the Finance Act,202t i.e.. rheimpugned notices under Section l4gA and Section t4g of the Actnot being issued in a faceless manner, have already been dealt withand decided by this Court in the case of KANKANALARAVINDRA REDDY vs. INCOME_TAX OFFICERT decictedon 14.09.2023 whereby a batch of writ petitions were a[[or.r.ed andthe proceedings initiated under Section l4gA as also trnder Secrion148 of the Act were held to be bad with consequential re lief.s on rheground of it being in violation of the provisions of Seuion I 5 l.{ ofthc Act read with Notification lgl2)z2dated 29.0i.2012. The saidjudgr.ent passed by this court has also been subsequentlv ibllorredin a large number of writ petitions which rvere a[ou,ed on :;i,riiar The contention of the petitioner is that the issue contention of the petitioner is that the issue of the petitioner is that the issue the petitioner is that the issue petitioner is that the issue is that the issue that the issue the issue issue of te rn'ls 'l(l{)2;1 I-i6 raxmann.com l7g (Telangana)l 5. Down the line, we find that the same issue has also beendecided against the Revenue by various High Cours i.e.,by the Bombay High Court in the case of HEXAWARETECHNOLOGIES LTD., VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX & OTHERS2, Gauhati [High ][Court in ][the ][case]of RAM NARAYAN SAH vs. UNION OF INDIA3, [Punjab ][and]Haryana High Court in the case of JATINDER SINGH vs. UNION OF INDIA4, and Telangana Fligh Court [in ][the ][case ][of]SRI VENKATARAMANA REDDY PATLOOLA [VS. ] COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX5 [where ][the issue was ][in]respect of intemational taxation, Bombay High Court [in ][the ][case ][of]ABHIN ANILKUMAR SHAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER'INTERNATIONAL TAXATION6 [r'vhictr ]is again on [international]taxation and central circle, High Court of [ linrachal Pradesh [in ][the]case of GOVIND SINGH vs. INCOVIE TAX [OFFICERT,]Gujarat High Courl in the case ol MANSUKHBHAI' lzoz+1464 [430 ][(Bom)]'l(2024) [156 ][taxmann.com 478 ][(Gauhati)l] ^ l(2024) [165 ][taxmann.com ] [t5 ][(['unjab ][& ][Itary ][ana) ]l'[2024) [167 ][taxmann.com ][4tl ][(T'elangana)]]'[2024) [167 ][taxmann.com ][4tl ][(T'elangana)]] ^ l(2024) [165 ][taxmann.com ] [t5 ][(['unjab ][& ][Itary ][ana) ]l'[2024) [167 ][taxmann.com ][4tl ][(T'elangana)]]'[2024) [167 ][taxmann.com ][4tl ][(T'elangana)]] " 12024) [166 ][taxmann.com ][679 ][(Bombay)l] ' [2024) 165 taxmann.com [ [3 [(Hirnachal ][Pradesh)l] DAHYABHAI RADADIYA vs. INCOME t.AX OFFICER,WARD 3(3X5)8, Jharkand High Court in rhe case of SHyAMSUNDAR SAW vs. TINION OF II\DIAe, Rajasthan High Court inthe case of SHARDA DEVI CHHAJER vs. INCOME TAXWARD 3(3X5)8, Jharkand High Court in rhe case of SHyAMSUNDAR SAW vs. TINION OF II\DIAe, Rajasthan High Court inthe case of SHARDA DEVI CHHAJER vs. INCOME TAXOFFICER & ANOTHER and batch of writ petitionsro whichstood decided on 19.03.2024. Similar views have also been takenby the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in the case olGIRDHAR 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 ol t{igh Courls, we are still confronted with large filing ot.identica[ rnatters on daily basis ranging between 5 to I 0 rvritstood decided on 19.03.2024. Similar views have also been takenby the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in the case olGIRDHAR 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 ol t{igh Courls, we are still confronted with large filing ot.identica[ rnatters on daily basis ranging between 5 to I 0 rvritpetitions. That upon the instructions being sought frorr theDepartment, they have been taking a solitary ground that thedecision o[- the Bombay High Court in the case of HerttttttcTechnologies Lrd., (2 supra) as also the one which has bcerrdecided by this Courl in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddr 8202+ SCC Ont.inc Gui 4012'2025 SCC On[.inc Jhar 2g7'o 72023, [RJ-.rD:.t98 ]4-DB I (l supra) has been subjected to challenge [in ][a ][Specia[ ][Leave]Petition i.e., SLP No.3574 of 2024 [before ][the Hon'ble ][Supreme]Court and the Hon'ble Supreme [Court ][is ][seized ][of ][the ][matter.]In addition, there are about 1200 SLPs [also ][filed ][arising ][out ][ofthe]same issue being decided by various High [Courts.] 7. To a query being put to the learned [counsel ][lor ][the ][Revenue,]they have categorically accepted [the fact that there ][is no ][interim]order granted by the Hon'ble Supreme [Court ][in ][any ][o[ ][these]rnatters pending before it. [Meanwhile, fresh ][writ ][petitions ][of]identical nature are being [piled ][up before ][this ][Bench on ][daily ][basis]and the pendency is [getting ][increased ][on ][matter ][which ][otherwise]has already been dealt and decided [by ][this ][very ][High ][Courr ][itself']8 On the one hand, even though [the ][orcier ][of ][this ][Court ][that]rvas passed as early as on 14.09.2023 and [more ][16 ][rllonths ][have]lapsed, till date, we do not find [any remedial ][steps ][havirlg ][been]taken by the Income Tax Department [to ][take appropriate ][steps to]cither hotd back issuance of notice [under ][Section ][t48A ][and ][under]Section 148 of the Act by [the ][jurisdictional ][Assessing ][Ofllcer,]rather the authorities concemed in the [teeth ][ol ][selies ][of ][decisions] by alt the major High Courtsln India are continuously stil Irnrtratlng proceedings under Section l4gA of the Act and alsoinitiating proceedings under Section r 4g of the Act incontravention to the amendments brought into the Income Tax Actpursuant to the Finance Act,2020 as also the Finance Act2Oll.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), leamed StandingCounsel for the Income Tax Department contends that those wouldunnecessarily burden the Income Tax Department where theywould be required to file equal number of SLps before theHon'ble Suprerre Courl and it would be further burdening theexchequer of the tJnion ol India. It was also the contention ol 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 ol the SLps pending before the Hon,bleSuprerne Court and the fbct that the petitioner is already enjoyingthe benefit of inter-int protection. Nonetheless, on the earlier queryolthis Court as to rvhy the [ncorne Tax Department have not couleout with a rncchanisrrr to issue appropriate instructions or. lo lake appropriate steps in ensuring that [proceedings under ][Section ][l4BA]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 CBDT]as any such steps would have [to ][be taken Pan ][India ][and cannot ][be]timited to any of these [jurisdictional ][High ][Courts.] 10. As a result of which, [what we ][are ][facing is ][steep increase ][ol]titigation day in and day out even [though ][various ][orders ][have ][been]passed by this High Coun allowing [writ ][petitions ][on the ][very ][same]issue. The Income Tax authorities [concemed are ][still ][even ][now ][in]2015 also initiating proceedings in contravention [to ][the provisions]ol' Section t 5l A of the Act and [as ][a ][result by ][now, ][more than ][60t)]to 700 petitions have been already [got piled up ][belore ][this ] [ligh]Court on an issue which otherwise [stands ][squarely covered ][by ][the]judgnrent of this Court in the case of Kanakalu Rtvindra [Redd.l'](l supra). What is also surprising is the fact [that ][though while]allorvir.rg tlre writ petitions in the [case ][of ][Kanakah ][Rttvintlrn]Redtty (t supra), the Division Bench [while ][reserving ][the ][right ][ol]the Revcnue, has also protected the [interest ][ol ][the ][petitioners] insofar as the libefty which was granted to the Revenue forinitiating fresh proceedings strictly in accordance with the amendedprovisions of the Act, as amended by the Financ e Act, 2020 and,the Finance Act, 2021 . The petitioner assessee would be entitled tochallenge or raise the othe' regal 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 be bad insofar as the libefty which was granted to the Revenue forinitiating fresh proceedings strictly in accordance with the amendedprovisions of the Act, as amended by the Financ e Act, 2020 and,the Finance Act, 2021 . The petitioner assessee would be entitled tochallenge or raise the othe' regal 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 be bad I 1. It appears rhat because ol rhe aforesaid liberty that this HighCourt had granted permitting thc Revenue for initiating freshCourt had granted permitting thc Revenue for initiating freshproceedings as a one-time ,reasure in a faceless manner, theIncome Tax Deparlment wants to take advantage of the same byprotracting these proceedings rvhich u,ould enable them to meet thelimitation that would otlrcrrr isc coine in the way. Likewise, if thewrit petition is kept pending for a Income Tax Deparlment wants to take advantage of the same byprotracting these proceedings rvhich u,ould enable them to meet thelimitation that would otlrcrrr isc coine in the way. Likewise, if thewrit petition is kept pending for a considerable long period of timeand finally at a later stage if the [{on,ble Supreme Court confirmsthe decision taken by this High Couft as also by the other Highthe decision taken by this High Couft as also by the other HighCourts in rvhich the SLps are stiil pending, the Income Tax Depaftment would [get ]the [advantage ][of ][the ][liberty ][that is otherwise]in favour of the Revenue for [initiation ][of ][fresh]protected proceedings from the disposal of these [matters ][at ][a ][much ][later ][stage]ivhich 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 [Kanukala ][Ravindra ][Reddy ][(l ][supra), ][is ][a]rnatter of grave concern. The [Income ][Tax ][Department's ][persistent]initiation of tiesh [proceedings, ][disregarding the ][established ][judicial]pronoLrncernents, has led to an unprecedented [surge ][in ][titigation]with over 600-700 petitions piling up on [the ][same issue. ][This]delibcrate approach not [only ][undermines ][the ][principle ][of judiciat]precedent but also strains the [judicial ][resources ][unnecessarily. ][The]Department's strategy of [awaiting the ][Supreme ][Court's decision ][on]pending SLPs white continuing to [initiate ][fresh ][proceedings]appears to be a calculated [move ]to buy [time ][and ][circutnvent]lirnitation periods, rather [than ][adhering ][to ][the ][established ][legal] posrtion. Such conduct raises serious questions about the administrative efficiency and the respect for judicialpronouncements, particularly when this Court has already providedpronouncements, particularly when this Court has already provideda balanced approach by preserving both the Revenue,s rights andassesses interests.assesses interests. posrtion. Such conduct raises serious questions about the administrative efficiency and the respect for judicialpronouncements, particularly when this Court has already providedpronouncements, particularly when this Court has already provideda balanced approach by preserving both the Revenue,s rights andassesses interests.assesses interests. 13. Another aspect which needs to be considered is that in fact itshould have been realized by the Incorne Tax Department itself andshould have found out via media in ensuring that proceedingsunder Sections l4g-A and l4g should not have been issued in afaceless manner, at least tiil the Hon,ble Supreme Court decide thetwelve hundred (1200) odd SLps rvhich it is already seized ofor, atleast the Income Tax f)sp2r1p1ent should have found out someremedial steps to ensure that u,,herever the authorities intend toinitiate proceedings under Sections l4g_A and t4g, other than in afaceless manner, the proceedings should lrave been deferredwithout precipitating thc rnattcr fur1her intirnating the assessee thatthey shall initiate appropriate proceedings only after the SLp,s aredecided by the Hon,ble Supreme Couft on the vcry same issue.This again, the Incon-re Tax Department, lras not been able to girze aconvincing reply, except lor the thct that such a decision if at all has to be taken, has [to ][be ][taken ][for ][the ][whole ][of ][India, ][and ][which]otherwise has to be [by way ][of ][a ][policy ][decision ][and ][that too ][at the]level of Central [Board ][of ][Direct ][Taxes. ][Though ][the ][leamed]for [the Income ][Tax ][Department ][contended that]Standing Counsel the Delhi High Court [dismissed ][a ][writ ][petition ][of ][similar ][nature, ][on]the one hand [when ][the ][High ][Court ][is ][struggling ][to ][reduce ][its]such notices [which ][are under challenge ][in ][this ][writ]pendency, petition are forcing the [assessee ][to ][knock the ][doors ][of ][this ][High]Court resulting [in ][filing of ][hundreds ][of ][new ][writ ][petitions which in]the tong 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 ][daity basis. Admittedly, ][in ][spite ][of ][the]matter before the l{on'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 Deparlrnent. [Yet, ][the ][authorities ][concerned ][at ][the]State level are [not ][ready ][to ][accept ][the ][verdict ][passed ][by ][a ][majority]of High Coufis of [diflercnt ][States ][on the same issue; and ][to ][make]things lurther [worse, ][the ] [ncome ][Tax ][Department ][is ][showing]audacity by issuing [notices ][continuously ][under Sections 148-A ][and] 148 through the jurisdictional Assessing Olficer u,hereas it oughtto have been only in the faceless mannerto have been only in the faceless manner 14. In the case of BANK OF INDIA vs. BANK OF INDIA vs.OF INDIA vs.INDIA vs.vs.ASSISTANTCOMMISSIONER, INCOME TAXn, on an issue whether ir wasjustifiable on the part of the [ncome 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., : 148 through the jurisdictional Assessing Olficer u,hereas it oughtto have been only in the faceless mannerto have been only in the faceless manner 14. In the case of BANK OF INDIA vs. BANK OF INDIA vs.OF INDIA vs.INDIA vs.vs.ASSISTANTCOMMISSIONER, INCOME TAXn, on an issue whether ir wasjustifiable on the part of the [ncome 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 righfly 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. lTOr3of which one of us (Justice G.s. Kurkarni) 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. Referring to the decision of the Supreme Court inUnion of lndia vs. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd.,o, 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. ',i!?^o?tl170 raxmann.com 422 rBornhal )l ',' lr1978) I I 3 ITR 589 ( tsombar )) )" [2024] 165 taxmann.com 5g l/300 [.[.axman ]452 (Bornba_v) 'o 1t9921taxmann.com I6255 1:1 .1 ll.l (sc)(sc) ',i!?^o?tl170 raxmann.com 422 rBornhal )l ',' lr1978) I I 3 ITR 589 ( tsombar )) )" [2024] 165 taxmann.com 5g l/300 [.[.axman ]452 (Bornba_v) 'o 1t9921taxmann.com I6255 1:1 .1 ll.l (sc)(sc) "6. Sri Reddy is perhaps right in saying that theofficers were nol actuated by any mala fades inofficers were nol actuated by any mala fades inpassing the impugned orders. They perhapsgenuinely 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 orotherwise of their conclusion or of any factualmalafides but with the fact that the officers, in reachingin their conclusion, by-passed two appellate orders [in]regard to the same issue which were placed beforethem, one of the Collector (Appeals) and the other ofthe Tribunal- The High Court has, in our view, rightlycriticized this conduct of the Assistant Collectors [and]the 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 Tnbunal is binding upon the AssistantCollectors and the Appellate Coltectors who functionunder the .jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The [principles ]ofludicial [discipline require ][that the ][orders of ][the ][higher]appellate authorities should be followed unreservedlyby the subordinate authonties The mere fact that [the]order of the appellate authority is not ["acceptable" ][to]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 orotherwise of their conclusion or of any factualmalafides but with the fact that the officers, in reachingin their conclusion, by-passed two appellate orders [in]regard to the same issue which were placed beforethem, one of the Collector (Appeals) and the other ofthe Tribunal- The High Court has, in our view, rightlycriticized this conduct of the Assistant Collectors [and]the 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 Tnbunal is binding upon the AssistantCollectors and the Appellate Coltectors who functionunder the .jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The [principles ]ofludicial [discipline require ][that the ][orders of ][the ][higher]appellate authorities should be followed unreservedlyby the subordinate authonties 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]and is the subject matter of an appeal can furnish [no]ground for not following it unless rts operation hasbeen suspended by a competent court. lf this healthybeen suspended by a competent court. lf this healthy rule is not followed, the result will onty be undueharassment to assesses and chaos in administrationof tax laws.of tax laws. rule is not followed, the result will onty be undueharassment to assesses and chaos in administrationof tax laws.of tax laws. 12We have dealt with this aspect at some iength,because it has been suggested bythe learnedbecause it has been suggested bythe learnedAdditional Solicitor General that theobservationsmade by the High Court, have been harsh on themade 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 onlll 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 wouid like to say that theunpalatable to the Revenue, are onlll 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 wouid 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 lhe utmost regardshould be kept in mind in future and lhe utmost regardshould be paid by the adjudicating authorities and theappellate authorities to the requirements of Judrcialdiscipline and the need for giving effect to the ordersof the higher appellate authorities which are bindingon them."of the higher appellate authorities which are bindingon them." 15' what is worrying this Bencrr rno.e is the t-act that anendeavour is being made whole heartedty to ensure not to gcneratefurther litigation on issues which have been laid to rest b), a largenumber of High Courts all of whom have taken a consistcnt standthat the action of the Income Tax Depaftrnent being violatir,.e o{- thc Finance Hct,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]observatior/direction [that the disposal ][ol ][the instant ][writ ][petition in]terms of the [judgment ][rendered ][by ][this ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]Kankanala [Ravindra ][Reddy ][(l ][supra) ][shall however ][be subject to]the outcome [of ][the ][SLPs ][which ][were ][filed by ][the ][lncome ][Tax]Department [and ][which ][is pending consideration ][before ][the ][Hon'ble]Supreme Court. 16. In 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 covered by ][ttre ][decision ][of ][this ][Court]and which [stands ][fortified by ][the ][decisions ][of ][the ][various ][other]Courts [on the ][vely ][same issue, ][the ][pendency ][of ][this High]High Court would [further ][be burdened ][rvhich otherwise ][can be decided]and disposed [of ][as ][a ][covered tnatter'] 17. So [far ][as ][the ][interest ][of ][the ][Revenue ][is ][concemed' ][we ][are ][of] the 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 sustainable.The notices so issued and lProcedure adopted beingper se illegal, deserves .othe be and are accordingry setaside/quashed. As a cons orders getting quashed, ,n" ["o'"n""' ][all the ][impugned]by the re spo nd" n"o"o, *, lll ;T,.",:t: :";: : il :::issued under Section 147 and 14g would also getquashed and it is ordered accordingly. The reason weare quashing the consequential order is on the principlesthat when the initiation of the proceedings itself wasprocedurally wrong, the sut)sequent orders also getsnurified automaticary. 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 sustainable.The notices so issued and lProcedure adopted beingper se illegal, deserves .othe be and are accordingry setaside/quashed. As a cons orders getting quashed, ,n" ["o'"n""' ][all the ][impugned]by the re spo nd" n"o"o, *, lll ;T,.",:t: :";: : il :::issued under Section 147 and 14g would also getquashed and it is ordered accordingly. The reason weare quashing the consequential order is on the principlesthat when the initiation of the proceedings itself wasprocedurally wrong, the sut)sequent orders also getsnurified automaticary. 37. The preliminary objection raised by the petitioner issustained and all these writ petitions stands allowed onthis very jurisdictional issue. Since the impugned noticesend orders are getting quashed on the pornt ofjurisdiction, we are not inclined to proceed fr.rrther. anddecide the other issues raised by the petitioner whrchstands reserved to be raised and contended rn 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, permifted the Revenue to proceedunder the substituted provisicthe petitions onry on ,r" ,l:]llJifi#"il: 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. 18. We would only further like to make observations that since we are inclined to dispose of the instant writ petition, conscious ofthe fact that the earlier order of this High Court in [the ][case ][of]Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra)1Ssubjected to challengebefore the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP [No.3574 ][ol ][2024,]pre[erred by the Income Tax Department, we make it [clear ][that]allowing of the instant writ petition is subject to [outcome ][of ][the]afloresaid SLP preferred by the Revenue against [the decision ][of ][this]High Court in the case of Kantkala Ravindra [Relr/1' ][(l ][supra).]-l'his, in other words, would mean that eitl.rer of the parties, i[' theyso want, may move an appropriate petition seeking [revival ][of ][this]writ petition in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble [Supretne]Courl in the pending SLP on the very satne [issue.] 19. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands [allowed ][in]tavour o[' the assessee so [ar as the issue ol [jLrrisdiction]tsconcerned. As a consequence, the impugned notice [undcr]challenge under Sections 148-A and 148 stands sct asidc/quaslied The consequential orders, if any, also stand set aside/quashed insimilar terms as have been passed by this High Court in the case ofKankanala Ravindra Reddy (l supra). There shaU be no order asto costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed- SD/. B. REKHA RANIASSISTANT REGiSTRARSECSr"FFICER //TRUE COPY// To, IThe Income Tax Officei- Ward 2, Karimnagar, lncome Tax Office. AavakerrBhavan, Near Natraj Theatre, Karimnagir"ied;s;;; sili"-"'*' [' ][\q,q^q']Bhavan, Near Natraj Theatre, Karimnagir"ied;s;;; sili"-"'*' [' ][\q,q^q'])T.he Principal Chief Commissioner-of lncome Tax, Telangana and A.pHyderabad lT Towers AC Guards Masab Tank HVO"r"UaOHyderabad lT Towers AC Guards Masab Tank HVO"r"UaO 3The Chairman Central Board of Direct Taxes, Department of RevenueMinistry of Finance Government or tnoia seJie-ta-iaf'Euirdings New DerhiMinistry of Finance Government or tnoia seJie-ta-iaf'Euirdings New Derhi 4Ihe [National Faceless ][Assessment ]Center, lncome Tax Department NewDelhi.Ihe [National Faceless ][Assessment ]Center, lncome Tax Department NewDelhi. T.he s-ecretary to the Government Department of Revenue Ailinistry of FinanceNew DelhiNew Delhi One CC to SRt, THANNERU CHAITANYA KUtuAR Advocare tOpUCl 6 3The Chairman Central Board of Direct Taxes, Department of RevenueMinistry of Finance Government or tnoia seJie-ta-iaf'Euirdings New DerhiMinistry of Finance Government or tnoia seJie-ta-iaf'Euirdings New Derhi 4Ihe [National Faceless ][Assessment ]Center, lncome Tax Department NewDelhi.Ihe [National Faceless ][Assessment ]Center, lncome Tax Department NewDelhi. T.he s-ecretary to the Government Department of Revenue Ailinistry of FinanceNew DelhiNew Delhi One CC to SRt, THANNERU CHAITANYA KUtuAR Advocare tOpUCl 6 7one cc to sri Gadi Praveen Kumar, Deputy soricitor Generar of rndia topucl89^lg [C^9 ][to ][Ms ] [(JUN|OR ]SC FOR |NCO|VE TA.X) AdvocateloPUCl89^lg [C^9 ][to ][Ms ] [(JUN|OR ]SC FOR |NCO|VE TA.X) AdvocateloPUCl 9.Two CD CopiesKKSGJP('Y HIGH COURT DATED:01 10512025 ORDERWP.No.26973 of 2024 ':!\,I' [)l ]/4\^',.1O SEP [zffi] ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITIONWITHOUT COSTS \\[LLt'.'](r.)r,t.'-r-l-(' [\'-]