Under Section L48A Of The Act As Also Under Se,Rtion I 4G Of Thc Act Ought To Have Also Been Issued And Pr.oceed:d In A Faceless Manner v. Income_Tax Ofi.iceiit Decidecj On 14.09.2023 Whereby A Batch Ol Writ Petitions \Lere Allou,Ed And The Proccedings Initiated Under Section L4Ga As Alrro U,Cler S

[ [3447 ]] 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 KOSHYAND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION NO: 31364 OF 2024 Between: PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVE GOLLAPALLY, Rep. by Secretary MANNE [RAJASHEKAR, ]S/o. MANNE, Occupation. Business, Aged about [41 years, ][RlO. ][Door ][No ][4 85 ][Gollapally]Village , Kondapur Mandal, Medak 502295. Telangana, [lndia.] .....PETITIONER AND '1 . The lncome Tax Officer, ward 1, Sangareddy lncome Tax Office,Veerabhadra Nagar, New Bus Stand, Veerabhadra Nagar, Sangareddy,Telangana-502001 Telangana StateVeerabhadra Nagar, New Bus Stand, Veerabhadra Nagar, Sangareddy,Telangana-502001 Telangana State 2. The Principal Chief Commissroner of lncome Tax Telangana and A.P,,Hyderabad, lT Towers, AC Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad 500 [028,]Telangana.Hyderabad, lT Towers, AC Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad 500 [028,]Telangana. 3. The National Faceless Assessment Center, lncome Tax [Department, New]Delhi.Delhi. 4. The Central Board of Direct Taxes, Represented by its Chairman, [Department]of Revenue, IVlinistry of Finance, Government of [lndia, ]Secretariat [Buildings,]New Delhi - 110 001 [.]of Revenue, IVlinistry of Finance, Government of [lndia, ]Secretariat [Buildings,]New Delhi - 110 001 [.] 5. The Union of lndia, Represented by [its ]Secretary to the [Government,]Department of Revenue, Ministry of [Finance, ][New ][Delhi - ][1 ][10001 ][.]Department of Revenue, Ministry of [Finance, ][New ][Delhi - ][1 ][10001 ][.] .....RESPONDENTS Petition Under Article 226 of the [Constitution ][of ][lndia praying ][that ][in ][the]circumstances stated in the [affidavit ][filed ][therewith, ][the ][High Court ][may ][be]pleased to issue an appropriate [writ, order ]or direction more [particularly ][one ][in]the nature of Writ of Mandamus, [declaring ][the order ][passed ][by ][the ][lncome ][Tax] Authorities (National Faceless E-Assessment Centre) completed the assessmentU/S 147 r.w.s 144 of the lncome-tax Act Date of 05-03-2024, DINITBA/AST/S/14112023- 2411062056969(1) for the Asser;snrent year 201B-19determining the total income of Rs. 3,63,09,0841 as arbitrary, illegal, bad in law,without jurisdiction, void-ab-initio, violative of the principles of natural justice apartfrom being violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 265 of the (lonstitution of lndia 86Sec. 148A of the lncome Tax Act, 1961, and consequently set aside the same inthe interests of lustice. l.A.NO:1 OF 2024 Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated inthe affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cor- rt may be pleased tosuspend the order Under section 147 r.w.s 144 of the lncorne-tax Act Date of 05-O3-2O24, DI N lT BA/AST I S I 1 47 I 2023 -2411 062056969( 1 ) for the Assessment year2018-19 determ ning the total income of Rs. 3,63,09,08 4l- end Demand notice u/s1 56 of the lnconre Tax act 1961, vide DtN and Notice No. lIBA/AST/sl15612023-2411062057006(1 ) Dt. 05-03-2024 for the assessment year 2018-19 pendingdisposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI THANNERU CHA|TANYA t(UMAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : Ms. J.SUNITHA (JUNIOR SC FORlNcoME TAX)lNcoME TAX) Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : SRI GADI PRAVEEN KtJMAR, DEpUTySOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.4 to 5: SRI P.DEVENDEF The Court made the following ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRT JUSTTCE P.SAM KOSIIYANI)THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAONANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION No.31364 of 2024 ORDER, [(per ]Hon'ble Sri .Iusticc P.Sam Koshy) Heard Mr. T.Chaitanya Kumar, learned counsel for thepetitioner and Ms.J.Sunitha, learned Junior Standing Counsel forthe Income Tax Departrnent lor the respondents. Perused therecord. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI THANNERU CHA|TANYA t(UMAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : Ms. J.SUNITHA (JUNIOR SC FORlNcoME TAX)lNcoME TAX) Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : SRI GADI PRAVEEN KtJMAR, DEpUTySOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.4 to 5: SRI P.DEVENDEF The Court made the following ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRT JUSTTCE P.SAM KOSIIYANI)THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAONANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION No.31364 of 2024 ORDER, [(per ]Hon'ble Sri .Iusticc P.Sam Koshy) Heard Mr. T.Chaitanya Kumar, learned counsel for thepetitioner and Ms.J.Sunitha, learned Junior Standing Counsel forthe Income Tax Departrnent lor the respondents. Perused therecord. 2. This is a writ petiticn where the proceedings are eitherchallenged to the notices which were issued under Section l48Aand 148 of the Income'lax Act, 196l (for shorl'the Act') ortheassessment orders those have been passed under Section 147 ofthe Act which have been assailed. 3. This writ petition is being taken up today only on one of thegrounds, that the notices issued under Section 148,,4. ol the Actand the subsequent initiation of proceedings under Section 148 ofthe Act by the [jurisdictional ]Assessing Officer, whereas in termsolthe amendment that was brought to the Income Tax Act by wayof Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f., 01 .04.202 I onwards, [proceedings] under Section l48A of the Act as also under Se,rtion I 4g of thcAct ought to have also been issued and pr.oceed:d in a facelessmanner. 4. 'lrte contention of the petitioner is thar thc issr-re ofproceedrngs being in violation of the Finance A,:t. 202 I i.e., theimpugncd notices u.der Section I4gA and Sectio r r4g of the Actnot bei.r3 issue<l i, a faceless lranner, ha'e alreacl...bec, clcalt rvitlrand de<:ided by this Court in the case of K,\NKANALARAVINDIIA REDDY vs. INCOME_TAX OFI.ICEIIT decidecjon 14.09.2023 whereby a batch ol writ petitions \lere allou,ed andthe proccedings initiated under Section l4gA as alrro u,cler Scction148 olthe Acr were held to be bad with consecluential rclicfs on theground oI it being in violation ol thc provisions of ljcction l5lz\ olthe Act read wirh Notification lgl2o22 dared 29.03 2rJ22. .the saidjudgrncnt passed by this Court has also been subseqr-rently follou,edin a large number of writ petitions which were allou,cd on similarIerms. '[(2023) 156 taxmann.corn l7g (l.elangana)] 5. Down the line, we find that the same issue has also beendecided against the Revenue by various High Courts i.e.,by the Bombay High Courl in the case of HBXAWARETECHNOLOGIES LTD., vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX & OTHERS2, Gauhati High Court in the caseol RAM NARAYAN SAH vs. UNION OF INDIAT, Punjab andIlaryana High Court in the case of JATINDER SINCI{ BANGUvs. UNION OF INDIA4, and'l'elangana l{igh Courl in the case ofSRI VENKATARAMANA REDDY PATLOOLA vs. DEPUTYCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX5 where the issue was inrespect of intemational taxation, Bombay High Court in the case ofABHIN ANILKUMAR SHAH vS. INCOME TAX OFFICER,lN'I'BRNATIONAL TAXATION6 which is again on inl.elnationaltaxation and central circle, High Court ol Hirnachal Pradesh in thecase of GOVIND SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERT,Gujarat High Court in the case of MANSUKHBHAI 'yzoz+1464 [430 ][(Bom)]'L(2024) [156 ]taxmann.com 478 [(Gauhati)l]'l(2024) [165 ][taxmann.com ][115 ][(Punjab ]& Haryana)l' 12024) [16'7 ][taxmann.com ][4 ][1 ][1 ][(Telangana)l]" [2024) [166 ]taxmann.com 679 [(Bombay)]] '[2024) [165 ][taxmann.corn ][113 ][(Ilirnachal ][Pradesh)]] 'yzoz+1464 [430 ][(Bom)]'L(2024) [156 ]taxmann.com 478 [(Gauhati)l]'l(2024) [165 ][taxmann.com ][115 ][(Punjab ]& Haryana)l' 12024) [16'7 ][taxmann.com ][4 ][1 ][1 ][(Telangana)l]" [2024) [166 ]taxmann.com 679 [(Bombay)]] '[2024) [165 ][taxmann.corn ][113 ][(Ilirnachal ][Pradesh)]] DAIIYABHAI RADADIYA vs. INCOME T{x OFFTCER,WARD 3(3x5)lt, Jharkand High Court in rhe crsc ol SHyAMSUNDAR SAW vs. UNION OF INDIAe, Rajasth rn High Courr inthe case of SHARDA DEVI CHHAJER vs. TNCOME TAXOFFICIIR & ANOTIIER and batch of writ pctirionsr0 whichstood de,:ided on 19.03.2024. Sirnilar views have also been takenby the I)ivision Bench of Calcutta High Court in the case ofGIRDIL\R GOPAL DALMIA vs. UNION OF INDTA & OIIS(M.A. I 1690 ol'2023), decided on25.09.2024.6. Even though thc sarne issue having been decided by a largenumber of High Courts, we are still confi.onted with large, filing ofidentical lnattcrs on dai11, basis ranging betwccl 5 to l0 u,r.itpetitions. That upon the ir.rstructions being so.rght tiom tlieDeparlment, titey have been taking a solitary grouncl that thedecision of the Bombay High Court in the case of HestawareTechnolo,qies Ltd., (2 supra) as also the one u hich has bcendecided by this Couft in the case of Kanakola Rmintlra Retldv rz\2q SCC Ont-ine Guj 4012'2025 SCC' Onl.ine Jhar 2lJ7o ' 12023, IU- JD : 49 84-DB I ;";.::: ;+. (I supra) has been subjected to challenge in a Special LeavePetition i.e., SLP No.3574 of 2024 befbre the Hon'ble SupremeCourt and the Hon'ble Supreme Court is seized of the matter.In addition, there are about I200 SLPs also filed arising out ol thesame issue being decided by various High Courts : : *-.: 'l: r=EEa-Fj-_r_rY- l. To a query being put to the learned counsel for the Revenue,thcy have categorically accepted the lact that there is no interimolder granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in any of theseniattcrs pending before it. Meanrvhile, fresh writ petitions olidentical nature are being piled up belbre 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 thatwas passed as early as on 14.09.2023 and more 1 6 months havelapsed, till date, we do not find any rernedial steps having beentaken by the lncome Tax Department to take appropriate steps toeither hold back lssuance 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 India are ctnrinuously stillinitiating proceedings under. Section 148,4 of tlie Act and alsoinitiating proceedings under Section 148 c l- the Act incontravention to the antendrnents brought into the Incorne Tax Actpursuant [o thc Finance Act.2020 as also the Finance Act 20219. Upon a query being put as ro rvhy can,t this rvrit petition bedisposed of in the teeth o1'the decision rendered b1, this Court inthe case o1- Kanokala Rovindra Reddy (l supra), learnecl StandingCounsel lol the Incorne Tax Deparln-rent contends hat tl-rose wouldunnecessarily bur-den the Income Tax Depaftm:nl where theywould be required to file equal number of S t_l)s before tl.reHon'ble Suprcnte Court and it rvould be furlher. burdening thcexchequer o I thc Union of India. lt u,as also the cutlention ol- theleamed Standing Counscl that no prejudicc would bc caused to theinterest of the petitioners in case if this writ petition is kept pendingtill the ,inalization of the SLps pending before the Hon,bteSupreme Court and the lact that the petitioner is alr.eadl, enjol,ingthe benef,it of interim protection. Nonetheless, on t re earlier queryof this Court as to why the Income Tax Deparlmenl have not corneout with ;r mechanism to issue appropriate instrucrions or to take appropriate steps in ensuring that proceedings under Section l48Aof the Act as also the assesslnent 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 ol 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 ol uhich, what we are lacing is steep increase oflitigation day in and day out even though various orders have beenpassed by ttris High Court allowing writ petitions on the very sameissuc. The Income Tax authorities concerned are still even now in2025 also initiating ploceedings in contravention to the provisionsof Section 151A of the Act and as a result by now, more than 600to 700 petitions have been already got piled up before ttris HighCourt on an issue which otherwise stands squarely covered by thejudgment 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 Kanakals RavindraReddy (l supra), the Division Bench while reserving the right ofthe Revenue, has also protected the interest of the petitioners .E -r?l€i.s insofar as the liberty which wai granted to the Revenue forinitiating fresh proceedings strictry in accordance .'r'ith the amendedinitiating fresh proceedings strictry in accordance .'r'ith the amendedprovisions of thc Act, as arncnded by the Financ c Act. 2020 andthe Fi.ance Act. 202 r . The petitioner assessee woLrrd be entitrcd tothe Fi.ance Act. 202 r . The petitioner assessee woLrrd be entitrcd tochallenge or'aise the other legar objections if the l{evenue initiatesfresh proceedings. The Departurent has made rro endeavotrr inavailing the said liberty that rvas reserved for the l.le'en,e. On theavailing the said liberty that rvas reserved for the l.le'en,e. On thecontrary. the; have been sriil sticking on to thc stand, rvhich thisHigh Court as rvell as rranv other High Courts al cady held to bebadHigh Court as rvell as rranv other High Courts al cady held to bebad 1 1. It appears rhat because of the aforesaid liber y, rhat this HighCouIt had grantcd pcrmitting the Revenue ltrr initiating fr.eshCouIt had grantcd pcrmitting the Revenue ltrr initiating fr.eshproceedings as a one-time lrreasurc in a l'aceless manner, theIncome ['l'ax ]Income ['l'ax ]Department wants to take advantage of the sarne byprotracting thcse proceedings which would enable ti)err to meet thelimitation that would otherwise corne in the way. .ikewise, if thewrit petition is kept pending fbr a considerable long period ol tinreand finally at a Iater stage if the Hon,ble Supreme Courl confir.msprotracting thcse proceedings which would enable ti)err to meet thelimitation that would otherwise corne in the way. .ikewise, if thewrit petition is kept pending fbr a considerable long period ol tinreand finally at a Iater stage if the Hon,ble Supreme Courl confir.msthe decision taken by this High Court as also by rhe other HighCourts in which the SLps are still pending, tl.r,: lncome l-ax Deparlment would get the advantage of the liberty that is otherwiseprotected in favour of the Revenue for initiation of freshproceedings lrom the disposal olthese matters at a much later stagewhich would be advantageous and beneficial to the Revenue andwould be equally disadvantageous and detrimental so far as interestof the assesses are concemed. As a consequence, the Income TaxDepafiment gets an extended period of time for initiation of freshproceedings. Deparlment would get the advantage of the liberty that is otherwiseprotected in favour of the Revenue for initiation of freshproceedings lrom the disposal olthese matters at a much later stagewhich would be advantageous and beneficial to the Revenue andwould be equally disadvantageous and detrimental so far as interestof the assesses are concemed. As a consequence, the Income TaxDepafiment gets an extended period of time for initiation of freshproceedings. 12. The alarming trend of docket explosion in this Cou(, despitethe clear precedent set in Kannkala Rovindra Rerttty (l supra), is amatter of grave concern. The Income Tax Department,s persistentinitiation of fiesh proceedings, disregarding the established judiciarpronouncements, has lcd to an unprecedented surge in litigationrvith over 600-700 petitions piling up on the same issue. Thisdeliberate approach not only undermines the principle of judicialprecedent 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 serious quest ons about theadminislrative efficiency and the respect lor juclicialpronouncernents. parlicularly when this Courl has .rlrcacll, provideda balanced approach by prcserving both the Revt.nLrc's rights andassesses tntcrests. i3. Anothcr aspect which needs to be considere<l is that in fhct itshould have been realized bv the Inco,-re Tax Depa'trrrcnt it.self andshould havc found out via rnedia in ensuring thrt proceedingsunder Sections 148-,{ and 148 should not have t,ccn issued in afaceless tnannel', at least till the Hon,bte Supreme r.oLrrt decide thetwelve hrrndred (1200) odd SLps which it is alread,.scizec.l of or, atleast the Income Tax Department should have lbrrnd ollt someremedial stcps to ensure that wherever the authc,r.ities i.tend toinitiate plocecdings under Sections 148-A and l4g orher than in afaceless manner, the proccedings should lrave bcen deferredwithout precipitating the matter further intimating thc assessee thatthey shall initiate appropriate proceedings onll, after the St,p,s aredecided by thc Hon'ble Suprcme Court on the v<.n sarne issue.This again, the Income Tax Department, has not becn ablc to give aconvincing reply, except for the fact that such a d:cision if at all ,) ,) has to be taken, has to be taken for the whole of India, and whichotherwise has to be by way of a policy decision and that too at theotherwise has to be by way of a policy decision and that too at thelevel of Central Board of Direct Taxes. Though the leamedStanding Counsel for the Income Tax Deparlment contended thatStanding Counsel for the Income Tax Deparlment contended thatthe Delhi High Courl dismissed a writ petition of similar nature, onthe one hand when the High Court is struggling to reduce itsthe one hand when the High Court is struggling to reduce itspendency, such notices which are under challenge in this writpetition are lorcing the assessee to knock the doors of this HighCourl resulting in filing of hundreds of nerv 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 Hon'ble Supreme Court having been taken onpetition are lorcing the assessee to knock the doors of this HighCourl resulting in filing of hundreds of nerv 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 Hon'ble Supreme Court having been taken onmany occasions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court which is seized of thematter has been reluctant in granting any interim protection to thematter has been reluctant in granting any interim protection to theIncome Tax Department. Yet, the authorities concerned at theState level are not ready to accept the verdict passed by a majorityof High Courts of different States on the same issue; and to makethings further worse, the Income Tax Department1S showingaudacity by issuing notices continuously under Sections 148-A andState level are not ready to accept the verdict passed by a majorityof High Courts of different States on the same issue; and to makethings further worse, the Income Tax Department1S showingaudacity by issuing notices continuously under Sections 148-A and 148 thrrtugh the jurisdictional Assessing Officer whereas it oughtto have been only in the faceless maruler. 14. In the case of BANK OF INDIA vr;. ASSISTANTCOMMISSIONER, INCOME TAXrr, on an issue whether it wasjustifiable on the part of the Income Tax Department in notfollowing an order passed by the adjudicating authority only on theground that the appeals are pending, the Division Bench of theHigh Court of Bombay held at paragraph No.25 as under. viz.. : "25. l\4r. Paridwalla has righfly drawn out att€rntion to thedecrsion of this Court in Commissioner of lncome [.fax ]vs. Smt.Godavaridevi Sarafl2 as also the recent decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Samp Furniture (p) Ltd. v. lTO13of whrch one of us (Justice G.S. Kulkarni) was a mentber, wherelnthe 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 Suprr:me Court jnUnion of lndia vs. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd.14, theCourt observed that the approach of the officials of Revenue oftreat ng decisions being [,,not ]acceptable,, was critic;ized by theSupreme Court. ln such decision, following are the relevantobservations made by the Supreme Court. ',t,K2025) [170 ][raxmann.com ]422 (Bombay)l [[raxmann.com ]]'" ll978l ilJ ITR 589 (Bornbay) t3 lZOZll l 65 taxmann.com 5g 1i300 Taxman 452 (Bomtral )lZOZll l 65 taxmann.com 5g 1i300 Taxman 452 (Bomtral ) 'o TtO}Zltaxmann.com t6/55 ELT 433 (SC) t\ ',t,K2025) [170 ][raxmann.com ]422 (Bombay)l [[raxmann.com ]]'" ll978l ilJ ITR 589 (Bornbay) t3 lZOZll l 65 taxmann.com 5g 1i300 Taxman 452 (Bomtral )lZOZll l 65 taxmann.com 5g 1i300 Taxman 452 (Bomtral ) 'o TtO}Zltaxmann.com t6/55 ELT 433 (SC) t\ "6. Sri Reddy is perhaps right in saying that theofficers were not actuated by any mala fides inpassing the impugned orders. They perhapspassing the impugned orders. They perhapsgenuinely felt that the claim of the assessee was nottenable and that, if it was accepted, the Revenue*.y-1e"19.:s.g;..."8:l-y.kl9ti-B-eggy,""x..l9-9!:i9gql;ry.g*-^._."--. are not concerned here with the correclness orothenrise of their conclusion or of any factualmalafides but with the fact that the officers, in reachingin their conclusion, by-passed two appellate orders inregard 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, rightly*.y-1e"19.:s.g;..."8:l-y.kl9ti-B-eggy,""x..l9-9!:i9gql;ry.g*-^._."--. are not concerned here with the correclness orothenrise of their conclusion or of any factualmalafides but with the fact that the officers, in reachingin their conclusion, by-passed two appellate orders inregard 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 thrs conduct of the Assistant Collectors andthe harassment to the assessee caused by the failureof these officers to give effect to the orders ofauthorities higher to them in the appellate hierarchy. ltthe 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 areutmost 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 theThe order of the Appellte Collector is binding on theAssistant Collectors working within his.jurisdiction andthe order of the Tribunal is binding upon the AssistantCollectors and the Appellate Collectors who functionunder the [jurisdiction ]of the Tribunal. The princrples ofjudicial discipline require that the orders of the higherappellate authorities should be followed unreservedlyby the subordinate authorities. The mere fact that theorder of the appellate authority is not ["acceptable" ]tothe order of the Tribunal is binding upon the AssistantCollectors and the Appellate Collectors who functionunder the [jurisdiction ]of the Tribunal. The princrples ofjudicial discipline require that the orders of the higherappellate authorities should be followed unreservedlyby the subordinate authorities. The mere fact that theorder of the appellate authority is not ["acceptable" ]tothe department - in itself an objectionable phrase -and is the subject matter of an appeal can furnish noand is the subject matter of an appeal can furnish noground for not following rt unless lts operation hasbeen suspended by a competent court. lf this healthybeen suspended by a competent court. lf this healthy .4< -_."^ rule is not followed, the result will only be, undueharassment to assesses and chaos in admir istrationof tax laws. .4< -_."^ rule is not followed, the result will only be, undueharassment to assesses and chaos in admir istrationof tax laws. 12. We have dealt with this aspect at sqme 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 tlre HighCourt, seemingly vehement, and ap larenflyunpalatable to the Revenue, are only intended to curba tendency in revenue matters which, if allc,wed tobecome widespread, could result in considerableharassment to the assesses-public without any benefitto the Revenue. We would like to say t-rat thedepartment should take these observations in theproper spirit. The observations of the Higtr Courtshould be kept in mind in future and the utmosl regardshould be paid by the adjudicating authorities rnd theappellate authorities to the requirements of judicialdiscipline and the need for giving effect to lhe ordersof the higher appellate authorities which are bindingon them." I 5. What is wotrying this Bench more is the fact that anendeavour is being made whoie heartedly to ensuro not to generatefurther litigation on issues which have been laid to rest by a largenumber ,f High courts all of whom have taken a consistent standfurther litigation on issues which have been laid to rest by a largenumber ,f High courts all of whom have taken a consistent standthat the a.ction of the Income 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 of the instant writ petition interms of the judgment rendered by this High Court in the case ofKankanqla Ravindra Reddy (l supra) shalt however be subject tothe outcome of the SLPs which were filed by the Incon.re TaxDepaftment and which is pending consideration before the l{on,bleSupreme Courl. 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 of the Revenue is concerned, we are ofthe considered opinion that the interest of the Revenue has alreadybeen considered and protected, as has been observed in paragraphs 36,37 ald 38 of the order which, for ready referen(:e, is r.eproducedheleundi:r 36. For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugnod noticesissued and the proceedings drawn by the. respondent-Department is neither tenable, no[ sustainable.The notices so issued and the procedure adoFted beingper se illegal, deserves to be and are accorilingly setaside/quashed. As a consequence, all the mpugnedorders getting quashed, the consequential orde.s passedby the respondent-Department pursuant to the noticesissued under Section 147 and 148 would rlso getquashed and it is ordered accordingly. The roason weare [quashing ]the consequential order is on the principlesthat when the initiation of the proceedings itself wasprocedurally wrong, the subsequent orders tlso getsnullified automatically. 37. The preliminary objection raised by the pe titioner 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 petitior er whichstands reserved tc be raised and contendr:d in anappropriate proceedings. 37. The preliminary objection raised by the pe titioner 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 petitior er whichstands reserved tc be raised and contendr:d in anappropriate proceedings. 38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the caseof Ashish Agarwal, supra, as a one{ime measureexercising the powers under Arlicle 142 of theConstitution of lndia, permifted the Revenue to proceedunder the substituted provisions, and this Courl allowingthe petitions only on the procedural flaw, the right 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.order of the Supreme Court in the case of AshishAgarwal, supra. 18. We would only furlher 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 Courl in the case ofKanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra) is subjected to challengebefore the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLp No.3574 of 2024,prefered by the Income 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 of thisHigh Court in the case of Kanakalu Ravindra Rettdy (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 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 infavour of the assessee so far as the issue of jurisdiction isconcemed. As a consequence, the impugned notice underchallenge under Sections 148-4 and 148 stands set aside/quashed. r( The consequential orders, if any, also stand set irside/quashed insimilar terms as have been passed by this High Corrrt in the case ofKtnkanalo Ravindrt Reddy (l supra). There sha I be no order asto costs.similar terms as have been passed by this High Corrrt in the case ofKtnkanalo Ravindrt Reddy (l supra). There sha I be no order asto costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pendir.rg, if any, shall stand closed SD/. M. NAGAMANIASSISTANT REGISTRAR//TRUE COPY/i- I,SECTION OFFICER To1. The lncome Tax Officer, ward 1, Sangareddy lncome Tax Office,Veerabhadra Nagar, New Bus Stand, Veerabhadra Nilgar, Sangareddy,Telangana-50200 1 Telangana State.1. The lncome Tax Officer, ward 1, Sangareddy lncome Tax Office,Veerabhadra Nagar, New Bus Stand, Veerabhadra Nilgar, Sangareddy,Telangana-50200 1 Telangana State. 2. The Principal Chief Commissioner of lncome Tax Telzrngana and A.P,Hyderabad. lT Towers, AC Guards, [V'lasab Tank, Hyderabad 500 028,Telangana.Hyderabad. lT Towers, AC Guards, [V'lasab Tank, Hyderabad 500 028,Telangana. 3. The National Faceless Assessment Center, Income Tax Department, NewDelhi.Delhi. 4. The Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes, Depart Tent of Revenue,--t\,4inistry of Finance, Government of lndia, Secretariat Buildings, New Delhi 1 10 0011 10 0015. The Secretary to the Government, Union of lndia, Degrartment of Revenue,l\4inistry of Finance, New Delhi - 1 ['10001.]l\4inistry of Finance, New Delhi - 1 ['10001.] 1 16. One CC to SRI THANNERU CHAITANYA KUIVAR, A,lvocate 7. One CC to IVS J SUNITHA (JUNIOR SC FOR INCOI\IE TAX) AdvocateloPUCl7. One CC to IVS J SUNITHA (JUNIOR SC FOR INCOI\IE TAX) AdvocateloPUCl 8- ONE CC tO SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUTY S;OLICITOR GENERALOF lNDlA, Advocate (OPUC)OF lNDlA, Advocate (OPUC) 9. One CC to SRI P.DEVENDER, Advocate (OPUC) 10. Two CD Copies SAa.GJ HIGH COURT DATED:01 10512025 ORDER WP.No.31364 of 2024 ALLOWING THE W.PWITHOUT COSTS. zi==/,,,.\.:1i E S I.1 a€sI10 sEP [206],'*DLf