Under Section L48A Ofthe Act As Also Under Section 148 Oftheact Ought To Have Also Been Issued And Proceeded Rn A Facelessmanner v. ' L(2023) [I ][56 ][Taxman

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF APRILTWO THOUSAND ANO TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUETICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE tfARSING RAO NANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION NO: 6779 0F 2025 Between: KatamReddy Ravindar, S/o: Prathap4 Reddy Katam, Aged about 59 years,Upation Business, 21108-4144,8 L Nagar Colony, Ghatkesar Mandal,oduppal, Rangareddi, Telangana-500092 ...PETITIONER AND 1Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax Circle 13(1), Hyderabad, AaykarBhawan, Opposite LB Stadium, Basheer Bagh, Hyderabad, Telangana,500004Bhawan, Opposite LB Stadium, Basheer Bagh, Hyderabad, Telangana,500004 2The Principal Chief Commissioner of lncome Tax AP and TS, 1Oth Floor, C-Block, l.T. Towers, 10-2-3, A.C. Guards, Hyderabad-500004.Block, l.T. Towers, 10-2-3, A.C. Guards, Hyderabad-500004. 3. The Assessment Unrt, lncome Tax Department, National FacelessAssessment Centre, Delhi, t\,4inistry of Finance, Room No. 401 ,2nd Floor, E-Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, Delltri-1 ['10003]Assessment Centre, Delhi, t\,4inistry of Finance, Room No. 401 ,2nd Floor, E-Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, Delltri-1 ['10003] 4. lncome Tax Officer, Ward 15(1), Hyderabad; LT. Towers, AC Guards, [4asabTank, Hyderabad-500004Tank, Hyderabad-500004 ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filedt therewith, the High Court may bepleased to issue an appropriate wrrt order or direction more particularly one in thenature of Writ of [v'landamus, declaring the Assessment Order d|.27.01 .2025passed by the 3'd respondent u/s 147 r.w.E 14411448 of the lncome-tax Act forA.Y.2017-18 vide DIN No. ITBA/AST/5114712024-2511072567337(1), consequentto the order passed u/s 148A(d) dt. 30.03.2024 vide DIN No.ITBA/AST/F/148A12023-2411063686895(1) and the notice u/s 148 dt. 30.O3.2024vide DIN No. ITBA/ASTlsl148112023-2411063687198(1), issued by the JAO(lst respondent) rnstead of FA0(3rd respondent)and further the proceedings havingbeen initiated by 1st respondent having no jurisdiction over the petitioner, as void,illegal' and contrary to the provisions of rncome-tax Act and contrary to thebeen initiated by 1st respondent having no jurisdiction over the petitioner, as void,illegal' and contrary to the provisions of rncome-tax Act and contrary to thePrinciples of Natural Justice IANO:1OF2 025 Petition under Section '1 51 cpc praying that in the crrcumstances stated inthe affidavit frred in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to stayall further proceedings pursuant to the Assessment order dt. 27.01.2025 passedby the 3rd respondent urs 147 r-w-s 144r1448 of the rncome-lax Act for A.y. 2o1r-'lB vide DlN No |TBA/AST/SI1 4712024_2511072567337(1) Counsel for the petitioner: SRI DUNDU MANMOHANSRI DUNDU MANMOHAN Counsel for the Respondents: MS. BOKARO SAPNA REDDy(Jr. SC FOR TNCOME TAx) The Court made the foltowingi ORDER - THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYAND:THE HONOURABLE SRI JT.ISTICE NARSING RAONANDIKONDA W.P.Noj779 OE202s ORDER, (pe r Hon'ble Sri Justice P.Sam,Koshy) Heard Mr. Dundu ManmohEn, learned counsel for thepetitioner and Ms. B.Sapna Reddy, learned Junior StandingCounsel for the Income Tax Depanment for respondent Nos. [I]2 and 4. Perused the record. 2. This is a writ petition where the proceedings are eitherchallenged to the notices which werp issued under Section l48Aand 148 of the Income Tax Act, 196l (for short'the Act') or theassessment orders those have been [passed ]under Section ofthe Act which have been assailed. 3. This writ petition is being takgn up today only on one of the grounds, that the notices issued un{er Section l48A of the Actand the subsequent initiation of proceedings under Section 148 ofthe Act by the [jurisdictional ]Assessing Officer, whereas in termsof the amendment that was brought to the Income Tax Act by [way] Heard Mr. Dundu ManmohEn, learned counsel for thepetitioner and Ms. B.Sapna Reddy, learned Junior StandingCounsel for the Income Tax Depanment for respondent Nos. [I]2 and 4. Perused the record. 2. This is a writ petition where the proceedings are eitherchallenged to the notices which werp issued under Section l48Aand 148 of the Income Tax Act, 196l (for short'the Act') or theassessment orders those have been [passed ]under Section ofthe Act which have been assailed. 3. This writ petition is being takgn up today only on one of the grounds, that the notices issued un{er Section l48A of the Actand the subsequent initiation of proceedings under Section 148 ofthe Act by the [jurisdictional ]Assessing Officer, whereas in termsof the amendment that was brought to the Income Tax Act by [way] of Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f., 01.04.2021 onwards, [proceedings] under Section l48A ofthe Act as also under Section 148 oftheAct ought to have also been issued and proceeded rn a facelessmanner 4. The contention of the petitioner is that the issue olproceedings being in violation of the Finance Act,202l i.e., theimpugned notices under Section 148A and Section 148 of the Actnot being issued in a faceless manner, have already been dealt withand decidecl by this Court in the case of KANKANALARAVINDRA REDDY vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICERT decidedon 14.09.2023 whereby a batch of writ petitions were allowed andthe proceedings initiated under Section l48A 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 ofSeclion l5lA ofthe Act read rvith Notification 1812022 dated29.03.2022. The saidjudgment passed by this Court has also been subsequently followedin a large number ol writ petitions which were allowed on similarterms ' l(2023) [56 ][taxmann.com ][178 ][(Telangana)l] 5. Down the line, we find that t[re same issue [has also ][been]decided against the Revenue by various High Courts i.e.,by the Bombay High Court in fhe case of TECHNOLOGIES LTD., [VS. ]ASStrSTANT COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX & OTHERS2, Qauhati High Court in the [case]of RAM NARAYAN SAH vs. UNION OF INDIAT, [Punjab ][and]Haryana High Court in the case of JATINDER SINGH BANGUvs. UNION OF INDIA4, and Telangpna High Court in the case ofSRI VENKATARAMANA REDDY PATLOOLA [VS. ] COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX5 [where the ][issue ][was ][in]respect of international taxation, Bonlbay High Court in the case ofABHIN ANILKUMAR SHAH VS. TNCOME TAX OFFICER,INTERNATIONAL TAXATION6 which is again on intemationaltaxation and central circle, High Couft of Himachal [Pradesh ][in ][the]case of GOVIND SINGH vs. Itr{COME TAX OFFICERT,Gujarat High Court in the cpse of 'pzoz+l464 [430 ][(Bom)]'[(2024) [156 ][taxmann.com 478 ][(Gauhatl)]]'[(2024) [156 ][taxmann.com 478 ][(Gauhatl)]] " l(2024) [165 ]taxmann.com [1 ][15 ][(Punjab ]& [Haryana)l] ' [2024) [67 ][taxmann.com ][41 ][1 ][(Telangana)]] " [2024) [166 ][taxmann.com 679 ][(Bomba$]] ' [2024\ 165 taxmann.com [113 ][(Himachdl ][Pradesh)]] DAHYABHAI RADADIYA vs. INCOME TAX OFFTCER,WARD 3(3X5)8, Jharkand High Courl in rhe case ol' SIIYAMSUNDAR SAW vs. UNION OF INDIAe, Rajasthan lJigh Court inthe case of SHARDA DEVI CHHAJER vs. INCOME TAXOFFICER & ANOTHER and batch of writ petitionsro whichstood decided on 19.03.2024. Similar views have also been takenby the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in the case ofGIRDHAR GOPAL DALMIA vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS(M.A.T 1690 of 2023), decided on25.09.20246. 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 between 5 to l0 writpetitions. That upon the instructions being sought from theDepartment, they have been taking a solitary ground that thedecision of the Bombay High Court in the case o1' HexawareTechnologies Ltd., (2 supra) as also the one which has beendecided by this Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy '2ozq [Online ][Guj ][4012]'2025 SCC Online Jhar287o ' 72023, RJ- JD : 49 84- D B l - - (1 supra) has been subjected to challenge in a Special LeavePetition i.e., SLP No.3574 of 2024 before the Hon'ble SupremeCourt and the Hon'ble Supreme Court is seized of the matter.In addition, there are about 1200 SLPs also filed arising out ofthesame issue being decided by various H[gh Courts.7. To a query being put to the lear4red counsel for the Revenue,they have categorically accepted the fiact that there is no interimorder granted by the Hon'ble Suprgme Court in any of thesematters pending before it. Meanwhile, fresh writ petitions ofidentical nature are being pited up befpre this Bench on daily basisand the pendency is getting increase( on matter which otherwisehas already been dealt and decided by very High Court itself.this 8. On the one hand, even though the order of this Court thatwas passed as early as on 14.09.2027 and more 16 months havelapsed, till date, we do not find any remedial steps having beentaken by the Income Tax Department to take appropriate steps toeither hold back issuance of notice under Section l48A and underSection 148 of the Act by the [jurisdictional ]Assessing Officer,rather the authorities concemed in thd teeth of series of decisions ,i\ by ,.!i t--:; n;i;t- .g.- ,,r-i:, ['.' ]india are cr,ntinuously stillinitiating proceedings under Section l48A of the Act and alsoinitiating proceedings under Section 148 ot- the Act incontravention to the amendrnents brought into the Income Tax Actpursuant to the Finance Act. 2020 as also thc Financc 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 Ksnakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra), learned StandingCounsel for the lncome Tax Department contends that those wouldunnecessarily burden the Income Tax Department where theywould be required to file equal number of SI-Ps before theHon'ble Supreme Court and it would be lurther burdening theexchequer of the Union of lndia. lt was also the contention of theleamed Standing Counsel that no prejudice would be caused to theinterest of the petitioners in case if this writ petition is kept pendingtill the finalization of the SLPs pending before the Hon'bleSupreme Court and the fact that the petitioner is already enjoyingthe benefit of interim protection. Nonetheless, on the earlier queryof this Courl as to why the Income Tax Department have not comeout with a mechanism to issue acpropriate instructions or to take - appropriate steps in ensuring that prqceedings under Section l48Aof the Act as also the assessment orders under Section I48 of theAct are kept in a hold in the light of ithe decisions dedcided by thevarious High Courts, it was submi(ted 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 ]Fligh Courts 10. As a result of which, what we pre lacing is steep increase ofIitigation day in and day out even thqugh various orders have beenpassed by this I{igh Court allowing writ petitions on the very sameissue. The Income Tax authorities cqncemed are still even now in2025 also initiating proceedings in cqntravention to the provisionsof Section l5lA of the Act and as a [pesult ]by now, more than 600to 700 petitions have been already got piled up before this HighCourt on an issue which otherwise stands squarely covered by thejudgment ol this Court in the case qf Kanakala Ravindrt Reddy(1 supra). What is also surprising is the fact that though whileallowing the writ petitions in the [pase ]of Kanakala RavindraReddy (l supra), the Division Bench while reserving the right ofthe Revenue, has also protected the interest of the petitioners insofar [as ][the ][tiberty which ][was ][granted ][to ][the ][Revenue ][for]initiating [fresh proceedings ][strictly in ][accordance ][with ][the ][amended]of [the ][Act, ][as amended ][by ][the ][Finance ][Act' ][2020 ][and]provisions the Finance [Act,202l ][. ][The petitioner ][assessee ][woul<1 ][be ][entitled ][to]challenge [or ][raise the ][other legal objections ][ilthe ][Revr:nue ][initiates]fresh proceedings. [The ][Department has made ][no ][cndeavour ][in]the [said ][liberty ][that ][was reserved ][for ][the ][Revcnue ][On ][the]availing contrary, they [have been ][stitl ][sticking on ][to ][the ][stand, ][which ][this]High Court as [well ][as ][many other ][High ][Courts ][alrcatly ][held ][to ][be]bad.I l. It appears that because [of ][the ][aloresaid ][liberty ][that ][this High]Court had [granted ][permitting ][the ][Revenue ][for ][ini ][tiating ][fresh]a [one-time ][measure ][in ][a ][faceless manner' ][the]proceedings [as ]Income Tax [Department wants ][to ][take ][advantage ][ol ][the ][same ][by]these [proceedings ][which would ][enable thern ][to ][meet the]protracting timitation that [would ][otherwise ][come ][in ][the ][way' ][t'ikewise, ][if ][the]writ petition [is ][kept pending ][for ][a considerable ][long period ][of ][time]and hnally [at ][a ][later ][stage ][if ][the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme ][C()urt confirms]the decision [taken ][by ][this ][High ][Court ][as ][also ][by ][the ][other High]Courts in which [the ][SLPs ][are ][stilt ][pending, ][the ][Income ][Tax] - - Department would get the advantage of the liberty that is otherwiseprotectedlnfavour of the Revsnue for initiation of freshproceedings from the disposal olthesp matters at a much later stagewhich would be advantageous and beneficial to the Revenue andwould be equally disadvantageous anfl detrimental so far as interestof the assesses are concemed. As a consequence, the Income TaxDepartment gets an extended period of time for initiation of fieshproceedings 12. The alarming trend of docket elplosion in this Court, despitethe clear precedent setin Kanakala Reddy (l supra), is atavindra matter of grave concern. The Incomq Tax Department's persistentinitiation of fresh proceedings, disreg&rding the established judicialpronouncements, has led to an unppcedented surge in litigationwith over 600-700 petitions piling pp on the same issue. Thisdeliberate approach not only undenrlines the principle ofjudicialprecedent but also strains the judicial resources unnecessarily. TheDepartment's strategy of awaiting thel Supreme Court's decision onpending SLPs while continuing to initiate freshproceedingsappears to be a calculated move to buy time andclrcumventlimitation periods, rather than adhe4ing to the established legal position. Suci; conriuct [raises ][serious questions ][about ][the]administrative [efficiency ][and ][the ][respect ][lor ][judicial]pronouncemcnts, [particularly ][when this Court ][has ][alrcady ][provided]a balanced [approach ][by ][preserving ][both the ][Revenue's ][nghts ][and]assesses [interests.] position. Suci; conriuct [raises ][serious questions ][about ][the]administrative [efficiency ][and ][the ][respect ][lor ][judicial]pronouncemcnts, [particularly ][when this Court ][has ][alrcady ][provided]a balanced [approach ][by ][preserving ][both the ][Revenue's ][nghts ][and]assesses [interests.] 13. Another [aspect ][which ][needs ][to be considered ][is ][that ][in ][fact ][it]should have [lteen realized ][by ][the Income ][Tax ][Departnrent ][itself ][and]should [have found ][out ][via ][media ][in ][ensuring ][thaL proceedings]under Sections [148-A ][and ][148 ][should ][not ][have ][becn ][issued ][in ][a]faceless manner, [at ieast ][till ][the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme ][C'ourt decide ][the]twelve hundred [(1200) ][odd SLPs ][which ][it ][is ][already ][seized ][of ][or, at]least the [Income ][Tax ][Department should ][have ][firtrnd ][out ][some]remedial steps to [ensure ][that ][wherever ][the ][authorrties intend ][to]initiate [proceedings ][under Sections ][148-4 ][and ][148, ][other than ][in ][a]faceless manner, [the ][proceedings ][should ][have ][been ][delerred]without [precipitating the matter ][further intimating ][lhc ][assessee ][that]they shatl [initiate ][appropriate ][proceedings ][only ][after the ][SLP's ][are]decided by [the Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Court on the very ][same ][issue.]This again, the [Income ][Tax ][Department, ][has ][not ][been ][able ][to give ][a]convincing reply, [except ][for ][the ][fact ][that ][such a decision ][if ][at ][all] - has to be taken, has to be taken for whole of India, and which{he otherwise has to be by way of a polipy decision and that too at thelevel of Central Board of Direct Taxes. Though the leamedStanding Counsel for the Income Tqx Department contended thatthe Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition of similar nature, onthe one hand [when ]the High Couft is struggting to reduce itspendency, such notices which are under challenge in this writpetition are forcing the assessee to llnock the doors of this HighCourt resulting in filing of hundreds Qf new writ petitions which inthe long run not only affects the dispiosat 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 Supremd Court which is seized of thematter has been reluctant in granting Bny interim protection to theIncome Tax Department. Yet, the puthorities 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 [-l1ax ]DepartmentIS showingaudacity by issuing notices continuouslly under Sections I48-A and 148 through the [jurisdictional ]Assessing Officer whereas it oughtto have been only in the faceless manner. 14. [n thc case of BANK OF INDIA vs. ASSISTANTCOMMISSIONER, INCOME TAX'r, on an issue rvhether it was.lustitiable [on ][the ][part ][of ][the ][Income ][Tax ][Depanrnent ][in ][not]following an order passed by the adjudicating authority only on theground that the appeals are pending, the Division Bench of lhefligh Court of Bombay held at paragraph No.25 as under, viz., : 148 through the [jurisdictional ]Assessing Officer whereas it oughtto have been only in the faceless manner. 14. [n thc case of BANK OF INDIA vs. ASSISTANTCOMMISSIONER, INCOME TAX'r, on an issue rvhether it was.lustitiable [on ][the ][part ][of ][the ][Income ][Tax ][Depanrnent ][in ][not]following an order passed by the adjudicating authority only on theground that the appeals are pending, the Division Bench of lhefligh Court of Bombay held at paragraph No.25 as under, viz., : "24. ivlr. Paridwalla has rightly drawn out attention to thedecision of this Couri in Commissioner of lncome Tax vs. Smt.Godavaridevi Sarafl2 as also the recent decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Samp Furniture (P) Ltd. v. lTOl3of which one cf us (Justice G.S. Kulkarni) was a rnember, whereinthe Court categorically observed that the Revenue having not''accefited' the judgment of the High Court would not mean that tillthe same is set aside in a manner known to law, it would loose itsbinding force. Referring to the decision of the Supreme Court inUnion of lndia vs. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd.14, theCourl observed that the approach of the officials of Revenue oftreating decisions being ["not ]acceptable" was criticized by theSupreme Court. ln such decision, following are the relevantobservations made by the Supreme Court. r' 11zOZs; [170 ][taxmann.com ][422 ][(Bombay)l]'' Jl9z81 [t3 ][trR ][589 ][(Bombay)]" 7ZO2+1 [[65 ][taxmann.com ][581/300 ][Taxman ][452 ][(Bombal)] 'o 1t9921taxinann.ccm [l6155 ] [433 ][(SC)] r' 11zOZs; [170 ][taxmann.com ][422 ][(Bombay)l]'' Jl9z81 [t3 ][trR ][589 ][(Bombay)]" 7ZO2+1 [[65 ][taxmann.com ][581/300 ][Taxman ][452 ][(Bombal)] 'o 1t9921taxinann.ccm [l6155 ] [433 ][(SC)] "6. Sri Reddy is perhaps rigftt in saying that theofficers were not actuated by any mala fides inofficers were not actuated by any mala fides inpassing the impugned ordeps. They perhapsgenuinely felt that the claim of the assessee was nottenable and that, if it was aocepted, the Revenuetenable and that, if it was aocepted, the Revenuewould suffer. But what Sri Reddy overlooks is that weare not concerned here with the correctness orotherwise of their conclusion or of any factualmalafides but with the fact that tlire officers, in reachingin their conclusion, by-passed hyo appellate orders inregard to the same issue which were placed beforethem, one of the Collector (AppBals) and the other ofthe Tribunal. The High Court h|s, in our view, rightlycriticized this conduct of the Aspistant Collectors andthe harassment to thei assesseq caused by the failureIof these officers to give efflct to thei orders ofauthorities higher to them in the Fppellate hierarchy. ltcannot be too vehemently emphasized that it is ofutmost importance that, in disposing of theare not concerned here with the correctness orotherwise of their conclusion or of any factualmalafides but with the fact that tlire officers, in reachingin their conclusion, by-passed hyo appellate orders inregard to the same issue which were placed beforethem, one of the Collector (AppBals) and the other ofthe Tribunal. The High Court h|s, in our view, rightlycriticized this conduct of the Aspistant Collectors andthe harassment to thei assesseq caused by the failureIof these officers to give efflct to thei orders ofauthorities higher to them in the Fppellate hierarchy. ltcannot be too vehemently emphasized that it is ofutmost importance that, in disposing of thequasijudicial issues before them; revenue officers arebound by the decisions of the;appellate authorities.The order of the Appellte Collef tor is binding on theAssistanl Collectors working within his [jurisdiction ]andthe order of the Tribunal is binding upon the AssistantCollectors and the Appellate Cqllectors who functionunder the [jurisdiction ]of the Tribqnal. The [principles ]ofjudicial discipline require that thO orders of the higherappellate authorities should be followed unreservedlyby the subordinate authorities. The [mere fact that the]order of the appellate authority ls not ["acceptable" ][to]the department - in itself an [o$jectionable phrase ]-and is the subject [matter ][of an ]appeal [can furnish ][no]ground for not following it unlqss its operation [has]been suspended by a competenl court. [lf ]this [healthy]bound by the decisions of the;appellate authorities.The order of the Appellte Collef tor is binding on theAssistanl Collectors working within his [jurisdiction ]andthe order of the Tribunal is binding upon the AssistantCollectors and the Appellate Cqllectors who functionunder the [jurisdiction ]of the Tribqnal. The [principles ]ofjudicial discipline require that thO orders of the higherappellate authorities should be followed unreservedlyby the subordinate authorities. The [mere fact that the]order of the appellate authority ls not ["acceptable" ][to]the department - in itself an [o$jectionable phrase ]-and is the subject [matter ][of an ]appeal [can furnish ][no]ground for not following it unlqss its operation [has]been suspended by a competenl court. [lf ]this [healthy] rule is not followed, the result will only be undueharassment to assesses and chaos in administrationof tax laws. rule is not followed, the result will only be undueharassment to assesses and chaos in administrationof tax laws. 12. We have dealt with this aspect at some length,because it has been suggested by the learnedAdditional Solicitor General that the observationsmade by the High Court, have been harsh on theofficers. lt is clear that the observations of the HighCourt, seemingly vehement, and 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 benefitto the Revenue. We would like to say that thedepartment should take these observations in theproper spirit. The observations of the High Courtshould be kept in mind in future and the utmost regardshould be paid by the adjudicating authorities and theappellate authorities to the requirements of judicialdiscipline and the need for giving effect to the ordersof the higher appellate authorities which are bindingon them." I 5. What is worrying this Bench more is the fact that anendeavour is being made whole heartedly to ensure not to generatefurther litigation on issues which have been laid to rest by a largenumber of High Courts all of whom have taken a consistent standthat the action of the Income Tax Department being violative of the Finance Act,2020 and Finance Act,2All: Now, in [-ord0ntd ]protectthe interest of the Revenue as also that of the assessee, it would betrite at this junchrre, if we disposei of the writ petition with anobservation/direction that the dispos4l of the instant writ petition interms of the [judgment ]rendered by dlr High Court in the case ofKankanala Ravindra Reddy (1 supr4) shall however be subject tothe outcome of the SLPs which wpre filed by the Income TaxDepartment and which is pending corhsideration before the Hon'bleSupreme Court. 16. In the given facis and circumlstances, this Bench is of theconsidered opinion that unless and until we do not timely disposeof matters which are squarely covere{ by the decision of this Courtand which stands fortified by the dpcisions of the various otheriHigh Courls on the very same lssu , sthe pendency of this HighCourt would further be burdened whlich otherwise can be decidedand disposed of as a covered matter. 17 . So far as the interest of the Reyenue is concemed, we are ofthe considered opinion that the intereft of the Revenue has alreadybeen considered and protected, as hag been observed in paragraphs 36,37 ano 38 of the order u,hich, foi ready reference, is reproduce:ihereunder: 36. For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned nolicesissued and the proceedings drawn by the respondent-Department is neither tenable, nor sustainable.The notices so issued and the procedure adopted beingper se illegal, deserves to be and are accordingly setaside/quashed. As a consequence, all the impugnedorders getting quashed, the consequential orders passedby the respondent-Department pursuant to the noticesissued under Section 147 and 148 would also getquashed and it is ordered accordingly. The reason weare [quashing ]the consequential order is on the principlesthat when the initiation of the proceedings itself wasprocedurally wrong, the subsequent orders also getsnullified automatically. 37. The preliminary objection raised by the petitioner 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 petitioner whichstands reserved to be raised and contended 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 Article 142 of theConstitution of lndia, permitted the Revenue to proceedunder the substituted provisions, and this Court allowingthe petitions only on the procedural flaw, the right 37. The preliminary objection raised by the petitioner 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 petitioner whichstands reserved to be raised and contended 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 Article 142 of theConstitution of lndia, permitted the Revenue to proceedunder the substituted provisions, and this Court allowingthe petitions only on the procedural flaw, the right conlerred on the [Revenue ][would ][remain ][reserved ][to]proceed furlher if they so want [from ][the ][stage ][of ][the]order of the supreme [court ][iq ][the ][case ][of ][Ashish]Agarwal, supra. 18. We would only [further ][like to ][m4ke ][observations ][that ][since]we are inclined to dispose [of ][the ][instant ][writ ][petition, ][conscious ][ol]the fact that the [earlier order ][of ][this ][kigh ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]Kanakala Ravindra [Reddy ][(l ][supra),is ][subjected ][to ][challenge]before the Hon'ble [Supreme ][Court ][irir ][SLP No'3574 ][of ][2024,]preferred by the lncome [Tax Department, we ][make ][it ][clear ][that]allowing of the [instant ][writ ][petition ][is ][subject ][to ][outcome ][of ][the]aforesaid SLP [prelerred ][by ][the ][Revenue ]iagainst [the decision ][of ][this]High Court in the [case ][of ][Kanakala ]\avindra [Reddy ][(l ][supra)']This, in other words, [would ][mean ][that ]dither [of ][the parties, ][if ][they]so want, may [move an ][appropriate ][petilion ][seeking ][revival of ][this]writ petition in the light of [the decisiofl ][of ][the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme]Court in the [pending SLP ][on ][the ][very ][saqle issue'] 19. Accordingly, the [instant ][writ ][petition ][stands ][allowed ][in]ISf,avour of the assessee [so ][far ][as ][thg ][issue ][of ][jurisdiction]concemed. As a [consequence, ][the ][impugned ][notice ][under]challenge under Sections [148-A and ][148 ][stands ][set ][aside/quashed'] The consequential orders, if any, also stand set aside/quashed insimilar terms as have been passed by this High Court in the case ol Kankunala Ravindra Reddy (l supra). There shall be no order as - to costs Consequently, rniscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed SD/. AHMED ABDULLAH KHANASSISTANT REGISTRARsecrEHkrrcen //TRUE COPY// To,1 . Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax Circle 13('l ), Hyderabad, AaykarBhawan, Opposite LB $tadium, Basheer Bagh, Hyderabad, Telangana,5000041 . Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax Circle 13('l ), Hyderabad, AaykarBhawan, Opposite LB $tadium, Basheer Bagh, Hyderabad, Telangana,500004 2. The Principal Chief Commissioner of lncome Tax AP and TS, lOth Floor, C-Block, LT. Towers, 10-2-3, A.C. Guards, Hyderabad-500004.Block, LT. Towers, 10-2-3, A.C. Guards, Hyderabad-500004. 3. The Assessment Unit, lncorne Tax Depaltment, Nationa! FacelessAssessmenl Centre, Delhi, Ministry of Finance, Room Nc,. 401 ,znd Floor, E-Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadrum, Delhi-1 ['10003]Assessmenl Centre, Delhi, Ministry of Finance, Room Nc,. 401 ,znd Floor, E-Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadrum, Delhi-1 ['10003]4. lncome Tax Officer, Ward 15(1), Hyderabad, l.T. Towers AC Guards, MasabTank, Hyderabad-500004Tank, Hyderabad-500004 5. One CC to Sri Dundu lt4anmohan, Advocate 6. One CC to IVls Bokaro Sapna Reddy (Jr. SC for lncome Tax) 7. Two CD Copies7. Two CD Copies TJGJP HIGH COURT DATED:2410412025 ORDER WP.No.6779 of 2025 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ca/4{5// tl'€ o..llll.'21 [2025]\,.zi/-_i_--