> Under Section L48A Of The Act As Also Under Slection L4G Of The Act Ought To Have Also Been Issued And Proceeded In A Faceless Manner v. Income Tax Officer

\ \ 13447 1 HIGH COURT FOR THE SIATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERAAAD(Special Original Jurisdic-tion) THURSDAY,THE TWENry FOURTH DAY OF APRILTWO THOUSAND AI.iID TWENry FIVETWO THOUSAND AI.iID TWENry FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDAWRIT PETITION N[qi7674 ]OF 2025ANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDAWRIT PETITION N[qi7674 ]OF 2025 Between M/s RVR Constructions, Rep by Managing Partner Venkateswara RaoRavipati 8-3-6781421C16, My Home Mount View, Flat No. ['108, ]NavodayaColony, Yella Reddy Guda, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh - 500073. ...PETITIONER AND 1. lncome Tax Officer, Ward 11(1), Hydgrabad, Signature Towers, Sy.No.6(P) ofKondapur, Sy.No.37(P) of Kothaguda, OPP. Botanrcal cardens,Serlingampally, Ranga Reddy, Hyder4bad, Telangana-500084.Kondapur, Sy.No.37(P) of Kothaguda, OPP. Botanrcal cardens,Serlingampally, Ranga Reddy, Hyder4bad, Telangana-500084.2. The Principal Commissioner of lnconfe Tax AP and TS, 1Oth Floor, C-Block,l.T Towers, 10-2-3, A.C. Guards, Hy(erabad-500004.l.T Towers, 10-2-3, A.C. Guards, Hy(erabad-500004. 3. The Assessment Unit, lncome Tax Department, National FacelessAssessment Centre, Delhi, Ramp. Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium Ministry Delhi-1 10003.of Finance, Room No. 401 , 2nd Floor, E-Assessment Centre, Delhi, Ramp. Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium Ministry Delhi-1 10003.of Finance, Room No. 401 , 2nd Floor, E- ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of lhe Cpnstitution of lndia praying that in thecrrcumstances stated in the affrdavit filed therewith, the High Court may bepleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in thenature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the Assessment Order dt. 13.03.2023nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the Assessment Order dt. 13.03.2023passed by the 3'd respondent u/s 147 r.w.s 144t1448 of the lncome-tax Act forA. Y 20 1 5-1 6 vide DIN No. ITBA/AST/SI 1 47 I 2022-2311 05069863 1 ( 1 ), consequentto the order passed u/s 148A(d) dt. 31 .O3.2O22 vide DIN NoA. Y 20 1 5-1 6 vide DIN No. ITBA/AST/SI 1 47 I 2022-2311 05069863 1 ( 1 ), consequentto the order passed u/s 148A(d) dt. 31 .O3.2O22 vide DIN NoITBA/AST/F/148N2O21-2211042254607\1) and the notice u/s 148 dt. 31 .03.2022vide DIN No. ITBA/AST/S|14B-'\12021-2211042350206(1 ). issued by the JAO(15trespondent) instead of FAO(3rd respondent), and consequential penally orderspassed vide order u/s 271F of the Act dt. 30.08.2023, order u/s 271(1)(b) of theAct dt. 17.O8.2O23 and order uls 271(1)(c) of the Act dt 30.08.2023 as void,Act dt. 17.O8.2O23 and order uls 271(1)(c) of the Act dt 30.08.2023 as void, illegal, and contrary to the [provtsions ]of lncome-tax /\ct [and ]contrary [to ][the]Principles of Natural Justice1A NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in th€, circumstances stated [in]the affidavit filed in support of the [petition, ]the High Court may be [pleased ]to stayall further [proceedings pursuant ]to the Assessment Order dt. 13.03.2023 [passed]by the 3'd respondent uts 147 r.w.s 14411448 of the lncorne-tax Act for A.Y. 2015-16 vide DIN No. ITBA/AST/S/14712022-231105069863'1 [('l)and ]may [pass ]suchother orde(s) as the Hon'ble Court deems fit and [proper ]in the [interests ]ofsubstantial [justice, ]as otherwise the Petitioner would be [put ]to irreparable lossand severe in,ury. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. OUNOU MANMOHAN Counsel for the Respondents: Ms. J. SUNITHA (JUNIOR SC FOR INCOME TAX)The Cou( made the following: ORDER THE HONOTJRABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOTJRABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAONANDIKONDAW.P.No.7674 OF 2025 ORDER, (per Hon'ble lri Jttstice P.Sam Koshy) Heard Mr. Dundu Manmohah, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. J.Sunitha, leamed Junior Standing Counselfor the Income Tax Departmedt for respondent Nos. Iand 2. Perused the record.for the Income Tax Departmedt for respondent Nos. Iand 2. Perused the record. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. OUNOU MANMOHAN Counsel for the Respondents: Ms. J. SUNITHA (JUNIOR SC FOR INCOME TAX)The Cou( made the following: ORDER THE HONOTJRABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOTJRABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAONANDIKONDAW.P.No.7674 OF 2025 ORDER, (per Hon'ble lri Jttstice P.Sam Koshy) Heard Mr. Dundu Manmohah, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. J.Sunitha, leamed Junior Standing Counselfor the Income Tax Departmedt for respondent Nos. Iand 2. Perused the record.for the Income Tax Departmedt for respondent Nos. Iand 2. Perused the record. 2. This is a writ petition where the proceedings are eitherchallenged to the notices which were issued under Section l48Aand 148 olthe lncome Tax Act, 196! (for short 'the Act') or rheassessment orders those have been ppssed under Section 147 ofthe Act which have been assailed. l. This writ petition is being taken up today only on one of the grounds, that the notices issued undetr Section l48A of the Actand thc subsequent initiation of proce$dings under Section 148 olthe Act by the jurisdictional Assessing Offrcer, whereas in termsolthe amendment that was brought to the Income Tax Act by wayol lrinance Act, 2021 w.e.f., 01.04.2021 onwards, proceedings.. ( -\ under Section l48A of the Act as also under Slection l4g of theAct ought to have also been issued and proceeded in a facelessmannerAct ought to have also been issued and proceeded in a facelessmanner 4. The contention of the petitioner contention of the petitioner of the petitioner the petitioner petitioner is that the issue that the issue issue ofproceedings being in violation of the Finance .\ct, ZOZI i.e., theimpugned notices under Section l4gA and Section l4g ofthe Actnot being issued in a faceless manner, have already been dealt withand decided by rhis Court in the case oI. KANKANALARAVINDRA REDDY vs. INCOME_TAX OI.FICERT decidedon 14.09.2023 whereby a batch of writ petitions were allowed andthe proceedings initiated under Section r4gA as also under Section148 of the Act were held to be bad with consequential reliefs on theground of it being in violation of the provisions o:l Section l5lA ofthe Act read with Notification lgl2022 dated29.03.2022. T\e saidjudgment passed by rhis Courr has also been subsequently followedin a large number oI writ petitions which were allowed on similarterms. The contention of the petitioner contention of the petitioner of the petitioner the petitioner petitioner is that the issue that the issue issue of '[(2023) [156 ]raxrnann.corn 178 (Telangana)] 5. Down the line, we find that the same issue has also beendecided against the Revenue by various High Courts i.e.,by the Bombay High Court in the case of TECHNOLOGIES LTD., vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIOI\EROF INCOME TAX & OTIIERSz, High Court in the caseQauhati of RAM NARAYAN SAH vs. UNION OF INDIA3, Punjab andHaryana High Court in the case of JATINDER SINGH BANGUvs. UNION OF INDIA4, and Telangana High Court in the case ofSRI VENKATARAMANA REDDYPATLOOLA 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 OFFICE&INTERNATIONAL TAXATION6 which is again on internationaltaxation and central circle, High Court of Himachal Pradesh in thecase ol GOVIND SINGH vs. IflCOME TAX OFFICERT,Gujarat tligh Court in the case of MANSUKIIBHAI '1zozq [464 ] [430 ][(Bom)] '[(2024) [156 ][taxmann.com 478 ][(Gauhati)]]' [(2024) [65 taxmann.com I 15 (Punjab & Haryana)]' [2024) [167 ][taxmann.com ][+ ][t ] [(Telangana)J] " [2024) 166 laxmann.com 679 (Bombay)] '12024) [165 ]taxmann.com [(Himachal ][Pradesh)l] '1zozq [464 ] [430 ][(Bom)] '[(2024) [156 ][taxmann.com 478 ][(Gauhati)]]' [(2024) [65 taxmann.com I 15 (Punjab & Haryana)]' [2024) [167 ][taxmann.com ][+ ][t ] [(Telangana)J] " [2024) 166 laxmann.com 679 (Bombay)] '12024) [165 ]taxmann.com [(Himachal ][Pradesh)l] DAIIYABHAI RADADIYA vs. INCOME TAx OFFICE&WARD 3(3X5)8, Jharkand High Court in the case of SHyAMSUNDAR SAW vs. UNION OF INDIAe, Ra.lasthan High Court inthe case of SHARDA DEV| CHHAJER ,i,s. INCOME TAXOITICER & ANOTIIER and batch of writ petitionsro whichstood decided on 19.03.2024. Similar views have also been takenby the Division Bench of calcutta High c.urt in the case ofGIRDHAR GOPAL DALMIA vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS(M.A.T 1690 of 2023),decided on 25.09.2024. 6. Even though the same issue having been decided by a largenumber of High Courts, we are still confronted with large filing ofidentical matters on daily basis ranging betvreen 5 to l0 writpetitions. That upon the instructions being sought from theDepartment, they have been taking a solitarl ground that thedecision of the Bombay High Court in the c:ase of HexawareTechnologies Ltd., (2 supra) as also the one: which has beendecided by this Court in rhc case of Ksnakala Ravindra Reddy E2OZ4 SCC Online Guj 40 I 2'2025 SCC Online Jhar 2g7' o 12023, RI-JD :49 84- DB l (1 supra) has been subjected to dhallenge in a Special IravePetition i.e., SLP No.3574 of 2024 before the Hon'ble SupremeCourt and the Hon'ble Supreme Court is seized of the [matter]In addition, there are about 1200 SLPs also filed arising out ofthesame issue being decided by [various ]High [Courts.] 7. To a query being put to the le4rned counsel for the [Revenue,]they have categorically accepted the [fact ][that there ][is ][no ][interim]order granted by the Hon'ble Supreme [Court ][in ][any ]of [these]matters pending beflore it. MeanrVhile, fresh writ [petitions ]ofidentical nature are being piled up bgfore 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 Court [itself.] 8. On the one hand, even thougih the order of this Court [that]was passed as early as on [4.09.2023 arrd more 16 months [have]lapsed, titt date, we do not find any remedial steps having [been]taken by the [ncome Tax Department to take appropriate steps [to]either hold back issuance ol notice under [Section ]l48A [and ][under]Section 148 of the Act by the [jurisdictional ]Assessing Officer,rather the authorities concemed in the teeth of series of decisions by att the major High Courts in India are continuously stillinitiating proceedings under Section 148,4' of the Act and alsoinitiating proceedings under Section 148 of the Act incontravention to the amendments brought into the Income Tax Actpumuant to the Finance Act,2020 as also the Finance Act 2021 . 9. Upon a query being put as to why can't this writ petition bedisposed of in the teeth of the decision rendered by this Court inthe case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra), 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 Supreme Court and it would be further burdening theexchequer of the Union of India. lt was also the: contention of theleamed Standing Counsel that no prejudice would be caused to theinterest ofthe petitioners in case if this writ petiticn is kept pendingtill the finalization of the SLPs pending belore the Hon'bleSupreme Court and the fact that the petitioner is, already enjoyingthe beneht of interim protection. Nonetheless, on thc earlier queryof this Court as to why the Income Tax Departmr:nt have not comeout with a mechanism to issue appropriate instructrons or to take appropriate steps in ensuring that proceedings under Section l48Aof the Act as also the assessment orders under Section 148 of theAct are kept in a hold in the light ofthe decisions dedcided by thevarious High Courts, it was submit[ed by the learned 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 thonrgh 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 cqntravention to the provisionsof Section l51A of the Act and as a result by now, more than 600to 700 petitions have been already got piled up before this HighCoud on an issue which otherwise stBnds squarely covered.by thejudgment of this Court in the case al Kanakala Ravindra Reddy(l supra). What is also surprising is the fact that though whileallowing the writ petitions in the case of Kanakala RavindraReddy (l supra), the Division Bencti white reserving the right ofthe Revenue, has also protected thB interest of the petitioners insofar as the liberty which was granted to the Revenue forinitiating &esh proceedings strictly in accordance with the amendedinitiating &esh 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 u,,ould be entitled tothe Finance Act,2021. The petitioner assessee u,,ould be entitled tochallenge or raise the other legal objections if thr: 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 Couns already held to bebad.availing 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 Couns already held to bebad. I l. It appears appears that because ofthe aforesaid liberty that this Highaforesaid liberty that this Highliberty that this Highthat this Highthis HighCourt had granted permitting the Revenue for initiating freshCourt had granted permitting the Revenue for initiating freshproceedings as a one-time measure in a facelt:ss manner. theIncome Tax Deparhent wants to take advantage ot-the same byprotracting these proceedings which would enable them to meet thelimitation that would otherwise come in the way. Likewise. if thewrit petition is kept pending for a considerable long pcnod of timeand finally at a later stage if the Hon,ble Supreme Court confirmsthe decision taken by this High Court as also by rhe other llighIncome Tax Deparhent wants to take advantage ot-the same byprotracting these proceedings which would enable them to meet thelimitation that would otherwise come in the way. Likewise. if thewrit petition is kept pending for a considerable long pcnod of timeand finally at a later stage if the Hon,ble Supreme Court confirmsthe decision taken by this High Court as also by rhe other llighCourts in which the SLps are still pending, rhr: Income Tax It appears appears that because ofthe aforesaid liberty that this Highaforesaid liberty that this Highliberty that this Highthat this Highthis High Department would get the advantage o[ the liberty that is otherwiseprotected in favour of the Revenue for initiation of freshproceedings from the disposal of these matters at a much later stagewhich would be advantageous and be[reficial to the Revenue andwould,be equally disadvantageous and detrimental so far as interestof the assesses are concerned. As a consequence, the Income TaxDepartment gets an extended period o[ time for initiation of freshproceedings. It appears appears that because ofthe aforesaid liberty that this Highaforesaid liberty that this Highliberty that this Highthat this Highthis High Department would get the advantage o[ the liberty that is otherwiseprotected in favour of the Revenue for initiation of freshproceedings from the disposal of these matters at a much later stagewhich would be advantageous and be[reficial to the Revenue andwould,be equally disadvantageous and detrimental so far as interestof the assesses are concerned. As a consequence, the Income TaxDepartment gets an extended period o[ time for initiation of freshproceedings. 12. The alarming trend of docket explosion in this Court, despitethe clear precedent set in Kanakala Rdvindra Reddy (l supra), is amatter of grave concem. The Income ffax Department's persistentinitiation of fresh proceedings, disregafding the established [judicial]pronouncements, has led to an unprebedented surge in litigationwith over 600-700 petitions piling up on the same issue. Thisdeliberate approach not only undermihes the principle ofjudicialprecedent but also strains the [judicial ]desources unnecessarily. TheDepartment's strategy of awaiting the $upreme Court's decision onpending SLPs while continuing to initiate fresh proceedingsappears to be a calculated move to buy time and circumventlimitation periods, rather than adherihg to the established legal\ position. Such conduct raises serious questions about theadministrative efficiency and the respect for [judicial]pronouncements, particularly when this Court has already provideda balanced approach by preserving both the Rt:venue's rights andassesses lnterests. 13. Another aspect which needs to be considered is that in fact itshould have been realized by the Income Tax Department itself andshould have found out via media in ensuring that proceedingsunder Sections 148-4. and 148 should not have been issued in afaceless manner, at least till the Hon'ble Supreme Court decide thetwelve hundred (1200) odd SLPs which it is already seized ofor, atleast the Income Tax Department should hav,o found out someremedial steps to ensure that wherever the authorities intend toinitiate proceedings under Sections 148-A and 148, other than in alaceless manner, the proceedings should have been deferredwithout precipitating the matter further intimating the assessee thatthey shall initiate appropriate proceedings only rlfter the SLP's aredecided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on thr: very same issueThis again, the Income Tax Department, has not been able to give aconvincing reply, except for the fact that such a decision it at all has to be taken, has to be taken for [he whole of India, and whic*rotherwise has to be by way of a polipy decision and that too at thelevel of Central Board of Direct Taxes. Though the learnedStanding Counsel for the Income T4x Department contended thatthe Delhi High Court dismissed a wrlt petition of similar nature, onthe one hand when the High Court is struggling to reduce itspendency, such notices which are under challenge in this writpetition are forcing the assessee to knock the doors of this HighCourt resulting in filing 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 Hon'ble Supreme Court having been taken onmany occasions, the Hon'ble Suprenie Court which is seized of thematter has been reluctant in grantin! any interim protection to thcIncome Tax Department. Yet, the authorities concemed at theState level are not ready to accept the verdict passed by a majorityof High Courts of different States on the same issue; and to makethings furttrer worse, the Income Tax Department is showingaudacity by issuing notices continuously under Sections 148-A and 148 through the [jurisdictional ]Assessing Officer whereas it oughtto have been only in the faceless manner. 148 through the [jurisdictional ]Assessing Officer whereas it oughtto have been only in the faceless manner. 14. In the case of BANK OF INDIA vs. ASSISTANTCOMMISSIONE& INCOME TAXrr, on an issue whether it wasjustifiable on the part of the Income Tax Department ln notfollowing an order passed by the adjudicating auttrority only on theground that the appeals are pending, the Division Bench of theHigh Courl of Bombay held at paragraph No.25 rls under, viz., : "25. Mr. Paridwalla has rightly drawn out attention to thedecision of this Court in Commissioner of lncome Tax vs. Smt.Godavaridevi Sarafr2 as also the recent decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Samp Furniture (P) Ltd. v. lTO13of which one of us (Justice G.S. Kulkami) was a member, whereinthe Court categorically observed that the Revenue having not"accepted" the iudgment of the High Court would rot mean that tillthe same is set aside in a manner known to law, il would loose itsbinding force. Refening to the decision of the Supreme Court inUnion of lndia vs. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd.14, theCourt observed that the approach of the officials of Revenue oftreating decisions being "not acceptable" was criticized by theSupreme Courl. ln such decision, following are the relevantobservations made by the Supreme Court. " 1120251 [170 ][taxmann.com 422 ][(Bombay)l] 1120251 '2 1t9281 [li ] [589 ][(Bombay)] " 7Z0Z+1 [65 ][raxrnann.com ][581/300 Taxman 452 ][(Bombay)] 'o 1t9921taxrnann.com [l6155 ] [433 (SC)] " 1120251 [170 ][taxmann.com 422 ][(Bombay)l] 1120251 '2 1t9281 [li ] [589 ][(Bombay)] " 7Z0Z+1 [65 ][raxrnann.com ][581/300 Taxman 452 ][(Bombay)] 'o 1t9921taxrnann.com [l6155 ] [433 (SC)] "6. Sri Reddy is perhap,s right in saying that theofficers were not actuated py any mala fides inofficers were not actuated py any mala fides inpassing the impugned ordprs. They perhapsgenuinely felt that the claim oi the assessee was nottenable and that, if it was apcepted, the Revenuewould suffer. But what Sri Re(dy overlooks is that weare not concerned here wifr the correctness orotherwise of their oonclusion or of any factualmalafides but with the fact that lhe officers, in reachingwould suffer. But what Sri Re(dy overlooks is that weare not concerned here wifr the correctness orotherwise of their oonclusion or of any factualmalafides but with the fact that lhe officers, in reachingin their conclusion, by+assed t\lo appellate orders inregard to the same issue whiDh were placed beforethem, one of the Collector (ApPeals) and the other ofthe Tribunal. The Hbh Court has, in our view, rightlyregard to the same issue whiDh were placed beforethem, one of the Collector (ApPeals) and the other ofthe Tribunal. The Hbh Court has, in our view, rightlycriticized this conduct of the AFsistant Collectors andthe harassment to the assessep caused by the failureof these officers to give efhct to the orders ofauthorities higher to them in thq appellate hierarchy. ltthe harassment to the assessep caused by the failureof these officers to give efhct to the orders ofauthorities higher to them in thq appellate hierarchy. ltcannot be too vehemently enlphasized that it is ofutmost importance that, irf disposing of thequasijudicial issues before thern, revenue officers areutmost importance that, irf disposing of thequasijudicial issues before thern, revenue officers arebound by the decisions of thq appellate authorities.The order of the Appellte Collector is binding on theAssistant Collectors working wilhin his [jurisdiction ]andthe order of the Tribunal is bin(ing upon the AssistantCollectors and the Appellate Qollectors who functionunder the [jurisdiction ]of the Triurnal. The [principles ]ofiudicial [discipline require that ][the ][orders ][of the ][higher]appellate authorities should bei foltowed unreservedlyThe order of the Appellte Collector is binding on theAssistant Collectors working wilhin his [jurisdiction ]andthe order of the Tribunal is bin(ing upon the AssistantCollectors and the Appellate Qollectors who functionunder the [jurisdiction ]of the Triurnal. The [principles ]ofiudicial [discipline require that ][the ][orders ][of the ][higher]appellate authorities should bei foltowed unreservedlyby the subordinate authorities. The mere fact that theorder of the appellate authorityt is not ?cceptable" toorder of the appellate authorityt is not ?cceptable" tothe department - in itself an obiectionable [phrase ]-and is the subFct matbr of anrappeal can furnish noand is the subFct matbr of anrappeal can furnish noground for not following it unless its operation hasbeen suspended by a oompetent court. lf this healthybeen suspended by a oompetent court. lf this healthy rule is not followed, the result will only lce undueharassment to assesses and chaos in adrrinistrationof tax laws.harassment to assesses and chaos in adrrinistrationof tax laws. rule is not followed, the result will only lce undueharassment to assesses and chaos in adrrinistrationof tax laws.harassment to assesses and chaos in adrrinistrationof tax laws. 12. We have dealt with this aspect at sonle length,because it has been suggested by tk) [-leamed]Additional Solicitor General that the observationsmade by the High Court, have been harsh on theofficers. lt is clear that the observations o{ the HighCourt, seemingly vehement, and apparentlyunpalatable 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 benefit[o the Revenue. We would like to say that thedepartment should take these observations in theproper spirit. The observations of the High Courtshould be kept in mind in future and the utmost regardshould be paid by the adjudicating authorities and theappellate authorities to the requirements of judicialdiscipline and the need for giving effect to the ordersof the higher appellate authorities which are bindingon them." 15. What is worrying this Bench more is the fact that anendeavour is being made whole heartedly to enslrre not to generatefurther litigation on issues which have been laid to rest by a largenumber of High Courts all of whom have takm a consistent standthat the action of the Income Tax Department being violative of the / Finance Act,2020 and Finance Act,?021. Now, in order to [protect]the interest of the Revenue as also lhat of the assessee, it would betrite at this [juncture, ]if we dispose, of the writ petition with anobservation/direction that the dispos4l of the instant writ [petition ]interms of the [judgment ]rendered by [(his ]High Court in the case ofKukanalo Ravindra Reddy (l suprP) shall however be subject tothe outcome ol the SLPs which wbre filed by the lncome TaxDcpartment and which is pending cofrsideration before the Hon'bleSr-rprerne Court ln the given the given given facts and circur4stances, circur4stances, this Bench is of' thcBench is of' thcis of' thcof' thcthc l()ln the given the given given facts and circur4stances, circur4stances, this Bench is of' thcBench is of' thcis of' thcof' thcthcconsidercd opinion that unless and until we do not timely disposeol nlatters which are squarely covered by the decision of this Courrand n'hich stands fortified by the decisions of the various otherllieh Courts on the very same issule, the pendency of this IliglrC ourl riould furthel be burdened yhich otherwise can be dccidcdand d isposed of as a covered matter.considercd opinion that unless and until we do not timely disposeol nlatters which are squarely covered by the decision of this Courrand n'hich stands fortified by the decisions of the various otherllieh Courts on the very same issule, the pendency of this IliglrC ourl riould furthel be burdened yhich otherwise can be dccidcdand d isposed of as a covered matter. 17. So [(ar ]as the interest of the R(venue is concemed, [we ]are ofthc considercd opinion [that the ]intergst of the Revenue has [alreadl]bcen considered [and ][protected, ][as ][h1s ]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 proceedrngs 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 crders passedby the respondent-Department pursuant to the noticesissued under Sectron 147 and 148 would also getquashed and it is ordered accordingly. The reason weare quashing the consequential order is on the principlesthat when the initration of the proceedings itself wasprocedurally wrong, the subsequent orders also getsnullifred automatically. 36,37 and 38 ofthe order which, for ready reference, is reproducedhereunder: 36 For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned noticesissued and the proceedrngs 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 crders passedby the respondent-Department pursuant to the noticesissued under Sectron 147 and 148 would also getquashed and it is ordered accordingly. The reason weare quashing the consequential order is on the principlesthat when the initration of the proceedings itself wasprocedurally wrong, the subsequent orders also getsnullifred automatically. 37. The preliminary objectron raised by thr: petitioner issustained and all these writ petitions stands allowed onthis very [jurisdrctronal ]rssue Since the impugned noticesand orders are gettrng quashed on the point ofjunsdictron, we are not inchned to proceed further anddecide the other issues raised by the petitioner whichstands reserved to be raised and contended in anappropnate proceedings 38 Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court ha<J, in the caseofAshrsh Aoarwal. supra, as a one{irne measureexercising the [p]owers under Article42 of theConstrtution of lndra. permitted the Revenue to [proceed]under the substituted [provrsions, ]and this Court allowingthe petitions only on lhe [procedural ]flaw, the rightconferred on the Revenue would remain reserved to / ,/ E- proceed further if tfrcy so want from the stage of theorder of the Supreme Coun in the cese of AshishAqanval, supra.order of the Supreme Coun in the cese of AshishAqanval, supra. 18. We would only further like t9 make observations that sincewe are inclined to dispose of the instant writ petition, conscious ofthe fact that the earlier order of this High Court in the case oflrKanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra) is subjected to challengebelore the Hon'ble Supreme CouF in SLP No.3574 of 2024,pref'erred by the Income Tax Depaftment, we make it clear thatallowing of the instant writ petition is subject to outcome of thealbresaid SLP prelerred by the Reveirue against the decision of thisI{igh Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (I supra).-fhis, in other words, would mean [\at either of the parties, if theyso want, may rnove an appropriate petition seeking revival of thiswrit petition in the light of the declsion of the Hon'ble SupremeCourt in the pcnding SLP on the very same issue. I 9. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands allowed inthvour ol lhe assessee so far as the.issue of jurisdictionISconccmed. As a conscquence, theimpugned notice underchallenge under Sections t48-A and 148 stands set aside/quashed r( The consequential orders, if any, also stand sr:t aside/quashed insimilar terms as have been passed by this High [(lourt ]in the case of Kankanala Ravindra Reddy (1, supra). There shall be no order asto costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. SO/. A.H.S. GOWRI SHANKARSTANT REGISTRAR//TRUE COPY//1\I SECTION OFFICER To,1. lncome Tax Officer, Ward 11(1), Hyderabad, Sigrflure Towers, Sy.No.6(P) ofKondapur, Sy.No.37(P) of [Kothaguda, ][OPP. ][Botanir];al Gardens,Serlingjampally, Ranga [Redd ][y, Hyderabad, ]IqlanS?na-500084.2. The Principal Commissioner [of ][lncome lax ][AP ano]TS, 1Oth Floor, C-Block,l.T. TowerS, 10-2-3, [A.C. ][Guards, ][Hyderabad-Sooo(]t4.3. The Assessment [Unit, lncome ][Tax Department' ][Nal]ional FacelessAssessment Centre, [Delhi, ][tvlinistry ][of ][Finance, ][Roo]m No. 401, 2nd Floor, E-Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadiumitpelhi-1 [10003. ]- ^ .4. One bC to sRt. [DUNDU MANMOHAN, Advocate ][i]PUCI5. One CC to Ms. J. [(JUNloR ] [INCOI\4E ][TAX) ] 6. Two CD Copieswr II HIGH COURT DATED:2410412025 I l.icC\/;:,.:*C'-)I,e3 ilB 20ffi,)lIORDER"4, \+ /\-WP.No.7674 of 2025ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTSo