Under Section L48A Of The Act As Also Under St:ction 148 Of The Act Ought To Have Also Been Issued And Proc,:Eried In A Faceless Manner v. Income-Tax Officert Decided On 14.09.2023 Whereby A Batch Of Writ Petitions \Vere Allowed A

IIIGH @I,.IRT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA(Spechl Original Jurisdic{ion) FRTDAY ,Tr,lE TWENW fiIFTH DAY OF TWO TIiOUSAND AND TWENTYFIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JIUSTICE P.SAM THE HONOI.'RAALE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONOA WRIT PETITION NOc 28084 OF 2024 Between: Aniaiah Ache, S,b l',larsimhaiah [Ache]Aged about 46 years, Occupation GovtTehcher, H.l.lo. 3-34, MuppanapallyEiurnagaram, Warangal, Telargana [-]506165. ...PETITIONER ANO 1. lncome Tax Ofrrcer Ward [1, ]Warangal, [D.No. ][1-8410,3rd ][Floor, Mayuri]Conrplex, Opp TSNPDCL Bhawan, [Nbkkalagutta, Hanamkonda, ][Warangal-]506001Conrplex, Opp TSNPDCL Bhawan, [Nbkkalagutta, Hanamkonda, ][Warangal-]506001 2. The Principal Chief Cornmissioner [of ][lncome Tax AP and ][TS, ][10th ][Eoor' ] Block, l.T.'Toivers, 1O-2-3, A.C. Guarhs. [Hyderabad-sO00O4.]Block, l.T.'Toivers, 1O-2-3, A.C. Guarhs. [Hyderabad-sO00O4.] 3. The Assessnrent Unit, krcome [Tax Department, Natlonal Faceless]Assessnrent Centre, Delhi, Ministry of [Finance, Room No. 401, 2nd ][Floor, ] Ramp, Jawahadal Nehnr Stadium, [Ddlhi-1 ][10003 ][..Respondenls]Assessnrent Centre, Delhi, Ministry of [Finance, Room No. 401, 2nd ][Floor, ] Ramp, Jawahadal Nehnr Stadium, [Ddlhi-1 ][10003 ][..Respondenls] ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the [qonstrtution ][of ][lndia ][praying ][that ][in ][the]circumstances siated in tte affidavit [fil4d ][therewith, ][the ][High Court may ][be]pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction [more particularly ][one ][in ][tte]nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring [rthe ][Assessment ][Order ][dt. ][06.03.2024]passed by the 3{d respondent u/s 147 r.yv.s 14411448 [of the ][lncome-tax ][Act ][for]A.Y. 2016-17 vide DIN l',1o. ITBA/AST/511P7t2023'24/1062108088(1), [consequent]to the order passed u/s 148A(dI dt. [25 ][-03.2023 ][vrde ][DlN ][No.]and the noticeITBA/AST/F/148.N2O22-2311O51315112(1) u/s148dt.27.03.202videDlN No. [1t2]22'23t105143O185(1)']issued by the JAO(1st respondent) [rrrstead ][of ][FAO(3rd respondent), ard]consequential [penalty ]orders [passed ][yide order ][uls ][271F ][of ][the ][Act ][dt.]1 3.O9.2024, 271 [(1 ][b) of the Act dt. [1 ]3.O9.2024 [and ][order u/s ][27 ][1 ][( ][1 ]Xc) [of ][the ][Act]dt. 19.O9.2O24, as vokl, illegal, and [cont/ary ][to the ][provrsions ][of ][lncome-tax ][Act]and contrary to the Principles of [Natural ][Justrce, ][apart ][from ][being barred ][by]limitatim as perprovisions of Sec. 149 of Actlhe lA 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 Court may be pleased to stayall further proceedings pursuant to the Assessment Order dt. 06.03.2024 passedby the 3rd respondent u/s 147 r.w.s 14411448 of the lncome-tax Act for A.Y. 2016-'1 7 vide DIN No. ITBtuAST/S/14712023-2411O62108088(1), and may pass suchother orde(s) as the Hon'ble Court deems fit and prroper in the interests ofsubstantial [justice, ]as othenrrrise the Petitioner would be put to irreparable loss andsevere injury. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. DUNDU SASHANK Counsel for the Respondents: Ms. BOKARO SAPNA REDDY (Jr. SC FORrNcoME TAX) The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOTJRABLE SRIJUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRIJTJSTICE NARSING RAONANDIKONDAWRITPETITIONo.2E084 of2L24 OR-DER: (per Hon'bb Sri Justice PKoshy) Heard Mr. Sashank D*dU, leamed counsel for [the] petitioner and Ms. B.Sapnay, learned Junior StandingCounsel for the lncome Taxartment for the respondents.Perused the record. 2. This is a writ-petition is a writ-petition a writ-petition writ-petition whle Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. DUNDU SASHANK Counsel for the Respondents: Ms. BOKARO SAPNA REDDY (Jr. SC FORrNcoME TAX) The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOTJRABLE SRIJUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRIJTJSTICE NARSING RAONANDIKONDAWRITPETITIONo.2E084 of2L24 OR-DER: (per Hon'bb Sri Justice PKoshy) Heard Mr. Sashank D*dU, leamed counsel for [the] petitioner and Ms. B.Sapnay, learned Junior StandingCounsel for the lncome Taxartment for the respondents.Perused the record. 2. This is a writ-petition is a writ-petition a writ-petition writ-petition whle 2. This is a writ-petition is a writ-petition a writ-petition writ-petition whlethe procecdings are eitherchallenged tlo the notioes which wereissued under Section t48Aand 148 of the Income Tax6l (for short 'the Act') or [the]assessment orders those ha::lpassed under Section 147 ofthe Act which have been assailed 3. 3. This writ petition is being talgcn up today only on one [of ][the]grounds, that the notices issuedder Section l48A of the [Act]and the subsequent initiation of prqceedings under Sectiorr 148 olthe Act by the jurisdictional Assing Officer, whereas in [terms]olthe amendment that was broughtr to the [ncorne Tar Act bl [rvay]of Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f., Ot.fa.Z02l onwards, procecdings under Section l48A of the Act as also under St:ction 148 of theAct ought to have also been issued and proc,:eried in a facelessmanner. 4. The contention of the petitioner is ttrat the issue ofcontention of the petitioner is ttrat the issue ofof the petitioner is ttrat the issue ofthe petitioner is ttrat the issue ofpetitioner is ttrat the issue ofis ttrat the issue ofttrat the issue ofthe issue ofissue ofofproceedings being in violation of the Finance A,ct,, 2021 i.e., theimpugned notices under Section l48A and Secti<ln 148 of the Actnot being issued in a faceless manner, have alnrady been dealt withand decided by this Court in the case of KANKANALARAVINDRA REDDY vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICERT decidedon 14.09.2023 whereby a batch of writ petitions \vere allowed andthe proceedings initiated under Section l48A as also under Section148 of the Acr were held to be bad with consequential reliefs on theground of it being in violation of the provisions of Section l5lA ofthe Act read with Notification 18/2022 dated29.01t.2022. The saidjudgment passed by this Court has also been subsequently fotlowedin a large nurnbcr of writ petitions which were allowed on sirnilarterms. The contention of the petitioner is ttrat the issue ofcontention of the petitioner is ttrat the issue ofof the petitioner is ttrat the issue ofthe petitioner is ttrat the issue ofpetitioner is ttrat the issue ofis ttrat the issue ofttrat the issue ofthe issue ofissue ofof ' [(202] ) I 56 raxmann.corn I 78 (Telangana)l -\ 5. Down the line, we nna tfr[t the same issr.re has also been The contention of the petitioner is ttrat the issue ofcontention of the petitioner is ttrat the issue ofof the petitioner is ttrat the issue ofthe petitioner is ttrat the issue ofpetitioner is ttrat the issue ofis ttrat the issue ofttrat the issue ofthe issue ofissue ofof ' [(202] ) I 56 raxmann.corn I 78 (Telangana)l -\ 5. Down the line, we nna tfr[t the same issr.re has also been decided against the Re,uerxre py various High Courts i.e.,by the Bombay High Court if, th" "ur" of HEXAWARETECIINOLOGIES LTD., vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX & OTIIE, [Gauhati ]High Court in the caseby the Bombay High Court if, th" "ur" of HEXAWARETECIINOLOGIES LTD., vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX & OTIIE, [Gauhati ]High Court in the caseof RAM NARAYAN SAII vs.ON OF INDIAs, [punjab ]andHaryana High Court in the case o JATINDER SINGH BANGUvs. UNION OF IltDIA4, and TeHigh Court in the case ofSRI VENKATARAMANA vs. UNION OF IltDIA4, and TeHigh Court in the case ofSRI VENKATARAMANA REDDY PATLOOLA vs. DEPUTYCOMMISSIONER OF INCOTAX5 where the issue was inCOMMISSIONER OF INCOTAX5 where the issue was inrespect of intemational taxation,bay High Court in rhe case ofABHIN ANILKUMAR SIIAII v+. INCOME TAx OFFICER,INTERNATIONAL TAXATIOI w+rictr is again on inrernarionaltaxation and central circle, High Court of Himachal pradesh in thecase of GOVIND SINGH vs.hcoME TAX OFFICERT,Gujarar High Court in tre[*"of MANSUKI{BHAIw+rictr is again on inrernarionaltaxation and central circle, High Court of Himachal pradesh in thecase of GOVIND SINGH vs.hcoME TAX OFFICERT,Gujarar High Court in tre[*"of MANSUKI{BHAI t 1:o:-11464 ITR 430 (Born) ' [( 2o]J ) I 56 taxmann.com 478 (Cafta+i)l'[(2021) t 65 raxmann.com t tS,(punjad & H'[(2021) t 65 raxmann.com t tS,(punjad & H aryana)l 1202.+) [167 ]raxmann.com al I flelangqna)lllO2-l ) ) [ ]66 raxrnann.cotn 679 (Bombav)lraxrnann.cotn 679 (Bombav)l(Bombav)l llO2-l ) ) [ ]66 raxrnann.cotn 679 (Bombav)lraxrnann.cotn 679 (Bombav)l(Bombav)lll02l) [lt ][j ]ra\mann.com f r: iffima*rlifr adesh)l "/< DAHYABHAI [vs' ] ['fA'X ][OFFICER']WARD 3(3XO8, [Jharkand ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ] SUNDARSAWvs.UNIoNoFINDIAg,RajaslhanHighCourtinthe case of [vs' ] OFFICER & [and ][batch ][of ][writ ][petitionsro which]stood decided [oo ][19.03.2024' ][Similar ][views have ][also been taken]by the Div [ision ][Bench ][of ][Calcutta ][High Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]GIRDHAR [DAI'MIA ][vs' UNION ] [& ] 1690 [of ][2023), ][decided ][on25'09'2024'](M.A.T 6. Even though [the ][same issue ][having ][been decided ][by ][a ][large]number of [tligh ][Courls, wc ][are ][still ][confronted with large ][fiIing ][of]identical [matters ][on ][daily ][basis ranging ][betu'eern ][5 ][to ][10 ][writ]petitions. ['l'hat ][upon ][the ][instructions ][being s'lught ][from ][the]Department. [they ][have been ][taking ][a ][solitary ground ][that ][the]decision ol [the ][Bombay ][High ][Court ][in ][the ]':ase [of ][Hexaware]Technologics [Lld., ][(2 ][supra) ][as ][also ][the ][one ][which ][has ][been]decided b1' [this Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ][Kanakala ][Ravindra ][Reddy]t202+ scc t)nl-ine Guj 4012'2025 [()nl-ine ][Jhar 287]'o12023'. [R.f ][-.1l):4984-Dl) ][|] v t' ( (l supra) has been sudecte.d to challenge in a Special Leave Petition i.e., SLP No.3574 of 2ola before the Flon'ble SupremeCourt and the Hon'ble Supreme Court is seized of the matterIn addition, there are about 1200s also filed arising out of thesame issue being decided by vario,,s High Courts. 7. To a query being put to the Iparned counsel for the Revenue, they have categorically acceptedfact that there is no interimorder granted by the Hon'ble SCourt in any of thesematters pending before it. Mwhile, fresh writ petitions ofidentical nature are being piled up before this Bench on daily basisand the pendency is getting increaped on matter which otherwisehas already been dealt and decided this veV High Court itself.ff v t' ( (l supra) has been sudecte.d to challenge in a Special Leave Petition i.e., SLP No.3574 of 2ola before the Flon'ble SupremeCourt and the Hon'ble Supreme Court is seized of the matterIn addition, there are about 1200s also filed arising out of thesame issue being decided by vario,,s High Courts. 7. To a query being put to the Iparned counsel for the Revenue, they have categorically acceptedfact that there is no interimorder granted by the Hon'ble SCourt in any of thesematters pending before it. Mwhile, fresh writ petitions ofidentical nature are being piled up before this Bench on daily basisand the pendency is getting increaped on matter which otherwisehas already been dealt and decided this veV High Court itself.ff 8. On the one hand, even thouthe order of this Court thatrvas passed as early as on 14.09.2 23 and. more 16 months havelapsed, till date, we do not find ahy remedial steps having beentaken by the [ncome Tax Departm{nt to take appropriate steps toeither hold back issuance of notice under Section l48A and underSection [48 ol tl.re Act by the juiisdictional Assessing Officer,lather the authorities concemed in Ilhe teeth of series of decisions by all the major High Courts in India [are continuously still]initiating proceedings under Section l48A [of ][the ][Act ][and ][also]initiating proceedings under Section [148 ][of ][the ][Act ][in]contravention to the amendments brought [into ][the ][Income ][Tax ][Act]pursuant to the Finance Act, 2020 as also [the ][Finance ][Act ][2O2l ][.] 9. Upon a query being put as to [why ][can't this ][writ ][petition ][be]disposed of in the teeth of the tlecision [rendered ][by ][this ][Court ][in]the case of Kanakala Ruvindra Reddy (l supra), [leamed Standing]Counsel for the Income Tax Department [conten,Js that ][those ][would]unnecessarily burden the Incorne Tax [Departnlent ][where ][they]would be required to file equal number of [IiLPs ][before ][the]Hon'ble Supreme Couft and it [would ]be [furr.ht:r ][burdening ][the]exchequer of the Union of India It [was ][also ][the ][contention ][of ][the]leamed Standing Counsel that ntt [prejudice ][would ][be caused ][to ][the]interest of the petitioners in case [if, ]this [writ ][petition ][is ][kept ][pending]till the finalization of the SLPs [pending ]b,:fore the [Hon'ble]Supreme Court and the fact that the [petitioner ][is ][already ][enjoying]the benefit of interirn protection. Nonetheless, [on ][the ][earlier ][query]of this Court as to [rvhy ]the Inconte [Tax ][Departnlent have not ][come]out with a mechanism to issue appropriate [instructions ][or ][to ][take] froceedings under appropriate steps in ensuring thatfroceedings under Section l48Aof the Act as also the assessmentorders under Section 148 of the Act are kept in a hold in ttre light ofthe decisions decidod by thevarious High Courts, it was subrpitted by ttre leamed StandingCounsel that the said steps can onlf be taken at the level of CBDTas any such steps would have to UJ ,*"n pan India and canrrct belimited to any of these jurisdictionaf High Courts. 10. As a result of which. *tut *L are facing is steep increase oflitigation day in and day out even though variols orders have beenpassed by this High Courr allowing writ petitions on the very samerssue. The Income Tax authoritiestoncemed [are ][still ][even ][now ][in]2O25 also initiating proceedings incontravention to the provisionsof Section 15 lA of the Act and asp result by now, more than 600to 700 petitions have been already got piled up before this HighCourt on an issue which otherwiseds squarely covered by thejudgment of this Court in the case,of Kanakala Ravindru Reddy( I supral. What is also surprisinq is the fact that though whileallorwing the writ petitions in the case of Kanakala RavindraReddy (l supra), rhe Division Benoh while reserving the right ofthe Revenue, has also protectede interest of the petitionersl' \i \i insofar as the libe*y [which was ][granted ][to ][the ][Revenue ][for]initiating fresh [proceedings ][strictly ][in ][accordancr: ][with ][the amended]provisions of the Act, as amended by [the ][Finance ][Act, 2020 ][and]the Tinance Act,202l. The [petitioner ][assessee ][vror:ld ][be ][entitled ][to]challenge or raise the other legal objections [if ][the ][ltevenue initiates]fresh proceedings. The Department [has madt: ][Iro ][endeavour ][in]availing the said liberty that [was ][reserved ][for ][thr: ][Revenue. ][On ][the]contrary, they have been [stitl ][sticking ][on ][to ][tho ][s'tand, ][which ][this]High Court as well as many other [High ][Courts already ][held ][to ][be]bad. I l. It appears that because of [the aforesaid ][tibertl' ][that this ][HiEh]Court had granted [permitting ]the [Revenue ][for ][initiating ][fresh]proceedings as a one-time measure in [a ][facelr:ss ][manner, ][the]Income Tax Department [wants ][to ][take ][advantagc ][of ][the same ][bY]protracting these proceedings which [would ][enab ][e ][them ][to ][meet ][the]limitation that would otherwise come [in ][the ][wa'i. ][Likewise, ][if ][the]writ petition is kept pending for [a ][considerable ][lorg ][period ][of ][time]and finally at a later stage if [the ][Hon'ble ][Suprern<' ][(loutt ][confirms]the decision taken by this High Court [as ][also ][b1 ][the other ][Eligh]Courts in which the SLPs [arc ][stilt ][pending, ][thc [ncome ][Tax] Departrnent would get the advantqge of the iiberty that is otherwiseprotected in favour of the Rgvenue for initiation of freshprotected in favour of the Rgvenue for initiation of freshproceedings from the disposal oftf"r" matters at a much Iater stagewhich would be advantageor. *f O".,"n.ial to the Revenue andwould be equally disadvantageous and detrimental so far as interestof the assesses are concemed. As a consequence, the Inconre Taxwhich would be advantageor. *f O".,"n.ial to the Revenue andwould be equally disadvantageous and detrimental so far as interestof the assesses are concemed. As a consequence, the Inconre TaxDepartment gets an extended periof time for initiation of freshproceedings.proceedings. L2. The alarming trend of docke explosion in this Courl despite the clear precedent set in Kanakulo, Ravindra Reddy (l supra), is amatter of grave concem. The [ncofire Tax Department,s persistentinitiation of fresh proceedings, disr garding the establisfied judiciatpronouncements, has led to an un recedented surge in litigationwith over 600-700 petitions pitiup on the same issue. Thisdeliberate approach not only undenrrines the principle of judicialprecedent but also srrains rhe judicill resources unnecessarily. TheDepartment's strategy of awaiting t\e Suprerne Court,s decision onpending SLPs while conrinuinglo [rnrtrale ][ftesh ][proceedings]appears to be a calculated moveto buy time and circumventlimitation periods, rather than adhgring to the established legal position. Such conduct [raises serious ][ques;tions ][about ][the]administrative efficiency [and ][the ][resPot ][for ][judicial]pronouncements, [particularly ][when ][this Court ][has ][a.lready ][provided]a balanced approach [by ][preserving both ][the ][Revenue's ][rights ][and]assesses interests. position. Such conduct [raises serious ][ques;tions ][about ][the]administrative efficiency [and ][the ][resPot ][for ][judicial]pronouncements, [particularly ][when ][this Court ][has ][a.lready ][provided]a balanced approach [by ][preserving both ][the ][Revenue's ][rights ][and]assesses interests. 13. Another [aspect ][which ][needs ][to ][be considerecl is ][that in fact ][it]should have been [realized by the [ncome ][Tax ][Department itself ][and]shouldhavefoundoutviamediainensuring,thatproceedingsunder Sections [l4E-A ][and ][148 ][should ][not ][havt: ][lreen issued ][in ][a]faceless manner, [at ][least ][till ][the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme Court decide ][the]twelve hundred [(1200) odd ][SLPs ][which ][it ][is already ][seized ][olor' ][at]least the Income [Tax ][Department ][should ][hav': ][lburrd ][out ][some]remedial steps to [ensure ][that ][wherever ][the ][authorities ][intend ][to]initiate proceedings [under ][Sections ][148-A and ][l4tl' ][other ][than ][in ][a]faceless manner, [the ][proceedings ][should ][ha"'r' hecn ][deferred]without precipitating [the ][matter ][further ][intimatiltg ][the ][assessee ][that]initiate [appropriate proceedings ][only ][aftcr the ][SLP's ][are]they shall decided by the [Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Court ][on ][1[13 ]"er1' [satne ][issue']This again, [the Income ][Tax ][Department, ][has ][not ][b':en ahle to ][give ][a]convincing rePly, [except ][lor ][the ][fact that ][such a ][clccision ][if ][eet ][all] has to be taken, has to be takenr the whole of India, and whichotherrvise has to be by way of a pticy decision and that too at theotherrvise has to be by way of a pticy decision and that too at thelevel of Central Board of Diret Taxes. Though the leamedStanding Counsel for the Incomeax Departrnent contended thatthe Delhi High Court dismissed ait petition of similar nature, onthe one hand when the High Cis struggling to reduce itspendency, such notices whichunder challenge in this writpetition are forcing tlre assesseeknock the doors of this HighStanding Counsel for the Incomeax Departrnent contended thatthe Delhi High Court dismissed ait petition of similar nature, onthe one hand when the High Cis struggling to reduce itspendency, such notices whichunder challenge in this writpetition are forcing tlre assesseeknock the doors of this HighCourt resulting in filing of hundredof new writ petitions which inthe long run not only affects the dsposal of the writ petitions butalso consumes substantial time othe Bench in hearing thesematt€rs again and again on daily bis. Admittedly, in spite of thematter before the Hon,ble SupremCourt having been taken onmany occasio{ls, the Hon'ble Sue Court which is seized of thematter has been reluctant in grantinany interirrr protection to theIncome Tax Department. yet, thauthorities concerned at thethe long run not only affects the dsposal of the writ petitions butalso consumes substantial time othe Bench in hearing thesematt€rs again and again on daily bis. Admittedly, in spite of thematter before the Hon,ble SupremCourt having been taken onmany occasio{ls, the Hon'ble Sue Court which is seized of thematter has been reluctant in grantinany interirrr protection to theIncome Tax Department. yet, thauthorities concerned at theState level are not ready to accept te verdict passed by a majorityof High Courts of diflerent States othe same issue; and to makethings further worse, the [ncomeTax Department is showingof High Courts of diflerent States othe same issue; and to makethings further worse, the [ncomeTax Department is showingaudacit5i by issuing notices continuosly under Sections 148-4 and G 148 through [the ][jurisdictional ][Assessing Offrce:r ][rvhereas ][it ][ought]to have been [only in ][the ][faceless manner] G 148 through [the ][jurisdictional ][Assessing Offrce:r ][rvhereas ][it ][ought]to have been [only in ][the ][faceless manner] 14. In the [case ][of ] vsASSISTANTCOMMISSIONER, [TAXrr, ][on ][an ][issue ][whether ][it ][was]justifiable on the part of [the ][Income ][Tax ][l)ecartment ][in ][not]fottowing an order [passed ][by the ][adjudicating atrthority ][only ][on ][the]that the [appeals ][are pending, ][the ][Division ][Bench ][of ][the]ground High Court [of ][Bombay held ][at ][paragraph ][No'25 ][as ][under' ][viz'' ][:] "25. Mr. Paridwalla [has ][rightly ][drawn ][out ][attention ][to ][the]decision of this [Court in ][Commissioner of ][lnconne ][Tax ][vs' ][smt']Godavaridevi [Sarafr2 ][as ][also ][the ][recent ][decisic'n ][of ][the ][co-]ordinate [Bench of this Court in ][Samp ][Furniture ][(P) ][Ltd' v' ][ITO'3]of which one [of us (Justice G.S. ][Kulkarni) ][was ][a ][rnember' wherein]the Court categorically [observed ][that ][the ][Reventre having not]"accepted' the judgment of the [High Gourt ][would ][not ][mean that ][till]the same is [set ][as'Hle ][in a manner ][known ][to ][law' ][it ][would ][loose ][its]binding force. [Referring ][to the ][decision ][of the ][S'upreme ][Court ][in]Union of lndia [vs. ][Kamlakshi ][Finance ][Corporation ][Ltd'l{ ][the]Court [observed ][that ][the ][approach ][of the ][o6i"1315 ][r:f Revenue ][of]treating decisions [being ]["not ][acceptable" ][was ][criticrzed ][by ][the]Court. [ln ][such ][decision, ][following aro ][the ][relevant]decision of this [Court in ][Commissioner of ][lnconne ][Tax ][vs' ][smt']Godavaridevi [Sarafr2 ][as ][also ][the ][recent ][decisic'n ][of ][the ][co-]ordinate [Bench of this Court in ][Samp ][Furniture ][(P) ][Ltd' v' ][ITO'3]of which one [of us (Justice G.S. ][Kulkarni) ][was ][a ][rnember' wherein]the Court categorically [observed ][that ][the ][Reventre having not]"accepted' the judgment of the [High Gourt ][would ][not ][mean that ][till]the same is [set ][as'Hle ][in a manner ][known ][to ][law' ][it ][would ][loose ][its]binding force. [Referring ][to the ][decision ][of the ][S'upreme ][Court ][in]Union of lndia [vs. ][Kamlakshi ][Finance ][Corporation ][Ltd'l{ ][the]Court [observed ][that ][the ][approach ][of the ][o6i"1315 ][r:f Revenue ][of]treating decisions [being ]["not ][acceptable" ][was ][criticrzed ][by ][the]Court. [ln ][such ][decision, ][following aro ][the ][relevant]Supreme observations [made ][by ][the Supreme Court]observations [made ][by ][the Supreme Court] " 11zoz51 [170 ][taxmann.com 422 ][(Bombay)l] '' 1t9281 [l t3 ITR ][589 ][(Bombay)] '3 7202+1165 [taxmann.com 581/300 Taxman ][452 ][(tlcrrbay)]tr 1tss21 taxmann.com l6155 ELT 433 (SC)tr 1tss21 taxmann.com l6155 ELT 433 (SC) " 11zoz51 [170 ][taxmann.com 422 ][(Bombay)l] '' 1t9281 [l t3 ITR ][589 ][(Bombay)] '3 7202+1165 [taxmann.com 581/300 Taxman ][452 ][(tlcrrbay)]tr 1tss21 taxmann.com l6155 ELT 433 (SC)tr 1tss21 taxmann.com l6155 ELT 433 (SC) {6. Sri Reddy isDerhaos ]right in seying that theofficeE werenotac*uate{byafly mala fides inpassirE theimpugned drdersThey perhapsofficeE werenotac*uate{byafly mala fides inpassirE theimpugned drdersThey perhapsgenuinely felt that the. claim of the assessee was nottenable and that, if it was accepted, the Revenuewould suffer. But what Sri Rpddy overlooks is that weare not concemed here Withthe correctness orBut what Sri Rpddy overlooks is that weare not concemed here Withthe correctness orotheMise of their @ncluqionor of any factualmalafides but with the fact that the offrcers, in reachingin malafides but with the fact that the offrcers, in reachingin their conclusion, by-passed two appellate orders inregard to the same issue which were placed beforethern, one of the Collector (ApOealsy and the other ofthe Tribunal. The High Cou( has, in our view, righUythe Tribunal. The High Cou( has, in our view, righUycriticized this conduct of the flssistant Collectors andthe harassment to the assessFe caused by the faitureof these officers to give effect to the orders ofauthonlies higher to them in thappellate hierarchy. ttF the harassment to the assessFe caused by the faitureof these officers to give effect to the orders ofauthonlies higher to them in thappellate hierarchy. ttF cannot be too vehemen y e(nphasized that rt is ofutmost importance that. fn d,.*.,nn of thequasijridicial issues before thefn, revenue officers arebound by the decisions of thF appellate authoritiesThe order of the Appellte Cotlpctor is binding on theutmost importance that. fn d,.*.,nn of thequasijridicial issues before thefn, revenue officers arebound by the decisions of thF appellate authoritiesThe order of the Appellte Cotlpctor is binding on theAssistant Colleclors workingwfh;n tris jurisdiction andthe order of the Tribunal is bin{rng upon the AsststantCollectors and the Appellatec;ollectors who functionthe order of the Tribunal is bin{rng upon the AsststantCollectors and the Appellatec;ollectors who functionunder ttE jurisdiction of the Trr!unal. The principles ofjudiciat judiciat disciptine require that rfre orders of the higherappellate authoritbs should befollowed unreservedlyby the subordinate authorities.The mere fact that theorder of the appellate authorityrs not "acceptable,, toby the subordinate authorities.The mere fact that theorder of the appellate authorityrs not "acceptable,, tothe department - in itself an ob,ectronable phrase -and is the subjecl matter of anappeal can furnish nog round for not fo owing it unt])ss its operation hasbeen been suspended by a competerft court. lf this healthydd rule is not [followed' ][the ][result ][will ][only ][be ][undue]harassment [to ][assesses ][and ctraos ][in ][adm ][nistration]of tax laws 12. We have [dealt with ][this ][aspec{ ][at ][sonre ][length']because it [has ][been ][suggested ][by ][the ][leamed]Additional Solicitor [General ][that ][the ][observations]made by the [High Court, have been harsh ][on ][the]officers. lt [is ][clear that the ][observations ][o' ][the ][High]Court, seemingly [vehement, ][and ][apparently]to [the ][Revenue, are only intended to curb]unpalatable a tendency in [revenue matters ][which' ][if ][allc'wed ][to]become widespread, [could result ][in ][considerable]harassment [to the assesses-public without ][zrny ][benefit]to the Revenue. [We ][would ][like ][to ][say that ][the]department [should ][take these ][observaticns ][in ][the]The [observations ][of ][the ][lligl ][Court]proper spirit. should [be kept in mind ][in ][future and the ][utrnost ][regard]should be [paid by ][the ][adjudicating authorities and ][the]appellate authorities [to the ][requirements ][of ][judicial]drscipline [and ][the ][need ][for giving ][effect ][to ][th'-l ][orders]of the higher [appellate authorities ][which are ][binding]on them." I 5. What [is ][worrying ][this ][Bench ][more ][is ][the ][f'act ][that ][an]cndeavour [is being ][made ][whole ][heartedly ][to ][ensure ][not ][to ][generate]hrrrher litigation [on ][issues ][which ][have been ][laid to ][rest ][by ][a ][large]rrunrber ol [l{igh ][Courts ][all of ][whom ][have ][taken ] [consistcnt ][stand]that the action [of ][the ][lncome Tax Department being ][violative ][of'the] Finance Acg202O and Finance2021 . Now, in order to protectthe interest of ttre Reventre as alsothat ofthe assessee, it would betrite at this juncture, if we disof the writ petition with anobservation /direction that the disof the instant writ petition interms of the judgrrent renderedthis High Court in the case ofKankanala Ravindra Reddy (l stra) shall however be subject tothe outcome of the SLPs whichfiled by the Income TaxDepartment and which is pendingsideration before the Hon'bleSupreme Court. 16. In the given facts and circIn the given facts and circthe given facts and circgiven facts and circfacts and circcirc 16. In the given facts and circIn the given facts and circthe given facts and circgiven facts and circfacts and circcirctances, this Bench is of theconsidered opinion that unless anduntil we do not timely disposeof mattem which are squarely coby the decision of this Courtand which stands fortified by thedecisions of the various otherHigh Courts on the very same issthe pendency of this HighCourt would further. be burdenedhich otherwise can be decidedand disposed ofas a covered matter. 17. So far as the interest of thevenue is concemed, rve are ofthe considered opinion that the inteof the Revenue ['ras alreadybeen considered ard protected, as hbeen observed in paragraphs 36,37 and' 3 8 ofthe order [which, for ][ready referenr:e, ][is reproduced]hereunder: 36. For all the [aforesaid reasons, the impugned notices]issued and the [proceedings ][drawn by ][the ][respondent-]Deparlment is [neither tenable, ][nor ][stlstainable]The notices so issued and the [procedure adopted ][being]per'se illegal, deserves to be and are [accordingly ][set]aside/quashed. As a [consequence, ][all ][the ][impugned]orders [getting quashed, the consequential orders ][passed]by the respondenhDepartment [pursuant ][to ][tle ][notices]issued under Section [147 ][and ][148 ][wouk, ][also ][get]quashed and it is ordered accordingly. [The ]['eason ][we]are [quashing the consequential order ][is ][on ][th€r ][principles]that when the initiation of the [proceedings ][itself ][was]procedurally wrong, the subsequent orders [atso ][gets]nulhlied automaticallY. 37. The [preliminary objection raised ][by ][the ]F'etitioner [is]sustained and all [these ][writ ][petitions ][stands ][;rllowed ][on]th s very iurisdictional [issue. Since the ][impugned ][notices]and orders are [getting ][quashed ][on ][the ][point ][of]jur-isdrction, we are not anclined to [proceed ][lurther ][and]decide the other issues [raised ][by ][the ]Petitbner [which]stands reserved to be [raised and conten'led ][in ][an]approprrate [proceedings.] 38 Since the [Hon'ble ][Supreme Court had, ][in ][the ][case]of Ashish Agarwal, supra, as a [one-tim€ ][measure]exercising the [powers ][under ][Article ][14il of ][the]Ccnstitution of lndia, [permitted ][the Reventle ][to ][proceed]under the substituted [provisions, and ][this ][Oourt allowing]the pettions only on the [procedural ][flaw the ][right] r( confened on the Reverueld remain reserved toproced further if ttEy sont from the stage of theproced further if ttEy sont from the stage of theorder of the Suprenre frcuh the case of AshishAgaruval, supra. 18. We would only further We would only further would only further only further further like 38 Since the [Hon'ble ][Supreme Court had, ][in ][the ][case]of Ashish Agarwal, supra, as a [one-tim€ ][measure]exercising the [powers ][under ][Article ][14il of ][the]Ccnstitution of lndia, [permitted ][the Reventle ][to ][proceed]under the substituted [provisions, and ][this ][Oourt allowing]the pettions only on the [procedural ][flaw the ][right] r( confened on the Reverueld remain reserved toproced further if ttEy sont from the stage of theproced further if ttEy sont from the stage of theorder of the Suprenre frcuh the case of AshishAgaruval, supra. 18. We would only further We would only further would only further only further further like 18. We would only further We would only further would only further only further further likemate observations that sincewe are inclined to dispose of thewrit petition, conscious ofthe fact that the earlier ord€r ofHigh Court in the case ofKanakala Ravindra Reddy (l xt) [is ][subjected ][to ][challenge]before the Hon'ble Supreme Coin SLP No.3574 of 2024,preferred by the Income Taxent, we make it clear thatallowing of the instant writ petitiis subject to outcome of theatbresaid SLP preferred by the Revagainst the decision of thisHigh Court in the case of KanRavindra Reddy (1 supra)This, in other words, would meant either of the parties, if theyso want, may move an appropriatetion seeking revival of thisrvrit petition in the light of the decion of the Hon'ble SuprerneCourt in the pending SLP on thesame lssue I 9. Accordingly, the instant wripetition stands allowed inlavour of the assessee so far asthe issue of [jurisdiction]ISconcerned. As a consequence,impugned notice underconcerned. As a consequence,impugned notice underchallenge under Sections 148-..4' and 148 stands set aside/quashed. The consequential orders, if any, also stand s,3t aside/quashed in similar terms as have been passed by this High [,Court ]in the case of Kankanala Ravindra Reddy (l supra). There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. sD/- Ir. PADMANABHA REDDYDTPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// l,\,- - \ ----'- Y SECTION OFFICERY SECTION OFFICER To,1 . Complex, lncome Tax Officer Opp TSNPDCL Ward [1 ]Bhawan , Warangal, D.No. Nakkalagufta, [1-8-6'10, ][l'lanamkonda, Warangal-][3rd ][Floor, Mayuri]5060011 . Complex, lncome Tax Officer Opp TSNPDCL Ward [1 ]Bhawan , Warangal, D.No. Nakkalagufta, [1-8-6'10, ][l'lanamkonda, Warangal-][3rd ][Floor, Mayuri]506001 2. The Principal Chief Commissioner of lnmme [Tax ][A,P ][and ][TS, ]['l0th ][Floor, ] Block, l.T. Towers, 10-2-3, A.C. Guards, Hyderabarl-tiOO004.Block, l.T. Towers, 10-2-3, A.C. Guards, Hyderabarl-tiOO004. 3. The Assessment Unit, lncome Tax Department, [National ][Faceless]Assessment Centre, Delhi, tvtinistry of Finance, Rotln No.4O1,2nd [Floor, ] Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, Delhi-1 10003Assessment Centre, Delhi, tvtinistry of Finance, Rotln No.4O1,2nd [Floor, ] Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, Delhi-1 10003 4. One CC to SRl. DUNDU SASHANK Advocate 5. One CC to SRI BOKARO SAPNA REDDY [(Jr. ] [FOR INCOME TAX)]loPUClloPUCl 6. Two CD Copies KKSr:r o.crPwb o"\-4-/ /\ ,/' HIGH COURT DATED:2510412025 ORDER WP.No.28084 ot 2024 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITIONWITHOUT COSTS -.-"'z ['':-:],1 . ri t [51..\]f4'a, ')t'/,/,/,jj,;i,'\r :-2 3 [A|JB ][2025]