Under Section L4Ga Of Rhe Act As Also Under Section L4G Of Theact Ought To Have Also Been Issued And Proceeded In A Facelessmanner.l4G Of Theact Ought To Have A v. The Income Tax Officer

t3447l lN rHE [couRr ][FoR ][rHltlt"Tff,]5,:t}So*o ][Ar ] MONDAY, TWO PRESENT THE HONOURABLE [P'SAM ] THE HONOURABLE WRIT PETITI[ON NO: 34610][ OF][ 2024] Between: Mrs. ShaPuHouse [wife,]['fltitj3lift ],Hl?.}llf [:aBlJ:n":^'jtl]lB,T,:':i'u"n"ouo"?i'l'n;n"1"] ,.PETITIONER AND 1. rhe [rncome ][rax ][orricer, ][ward ][17-(1), ][,Hvderai,Xh-t#ililfl"- ][LlY,?li,:]Botanical Garndes'Botanical Garndes'' i; N;67Pt. kondapur, opp H'VaeraU'aA [- 500 ][084' ][Telangana]H'VaeraU'aA [- 500 ][084' ][Telangana] H'VaeraU'aA ,ft i.?il:.1!3?lli{':i?';If; i.*llll''ffil?3,]i,,Ei.iI}lE.k,}.i:"j,1i [j.}tf ]:i?';If; i.*llll''ffil?3,]i,,Ei.iI}lE.k,}.i:"j,1i [j.}tf ]New Delhi 3. " rhe i;i"^;;;;'Hvderabad [Principal ].chief [Commissioner-of^ ]PETITION ER lS [llcome ]Room[ra-Orfl3i;",3i?:"rt[,3;;1]ii:?;"*;;''i67 [a, ][nc ][Guaros' ][HYderabad]ii:?;"*;;''i67 [a, ][nc ][Guaros' ][HYderabad] ...RESPONDENTS Petition [under ][Article ][226 ][of ][lhe Constitution ][of ][lndia ][praying ][that in ][the]circumstances [stated ][in ][the ][affidavit ][filed ][therewith' ][the ][High Court may ][be]pleased to issue [a ][Writ ][of ][Mandamus ][or ][any other ][appropriate ][Writ' ][Order ][or]Direction. [declaring ][that ][a ][)the ][order passed by ][the ][1st ][Respondent ][u/s ][147 ][Ow]Sec. 144 [of ][the ][lncome Tax ][Act' ][196'l' dated ][OB03'2024' bearing DIN and ][Notice]No. .rBA/AST/ [st147t2023_z4t1o62z4so76(1), for the Assessment ][year ][2016 ][- ][17]and b.)the [orders ][passed ][by ][the ][2nd ][Respondent, ][revying ][penarties ][u/s]271F,271(1)(b) [and 271('lXc) ][of the ][lncome ][Tax ][Act' ][1961' ][dated 04'092024']24.0g'2024and24.og.2024,bearingDIN.ITBA/PNLtFl271Fl2024-25t10o8325205(1), [lrBA/PN ][LtFt271(1)(b)t2024-25t106s048208(1)' ][and] lrBAlPNLlFt2Tl(1)(c)t2o2a-2s/1069067141(1), respectivery, for the AssessmentYear 2016 -17'as arbitrary, illegal, bad in law, barred by time, void-ab-initio,violative of the principres of naturar justice, apart from being viorative of Articres1 ' 19(1)(g) and 265 0f the constitution of India and Sec 14BA of the rncome TaxAct' 1961' and to consequenfly set aside the same in the interests of justice. lA NO: 1 oF 2024 Petition under Section 151 cPc praying that in the circumstances stated inthe affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to stayall further proceedings, including any recovery, pursuant to the notice uh. 148 ofthe Act' dated 24 03 2023, issued by the 1st Respondent, vide DrN and Notice.,rBA/AST/S/148-112022- 23t1051267765(1), for the Assessment year 2016 _ 17,pending disposal of the above Writ petition. Counsel for the petitioner : SRI A.V.A.SIVA KARTIKEYA Counsel for the Respondents: Ms.J.SUNITHA, Jr.SG for lT DEpT The Court made the following: ORDER i- THE HONOURABLE [JUSTICE P'SAM ] ANDTHE HONOURABLE NANDIKONDAWRIT PETITION[ No.3461][00] 8, [(per ][Hon'bte ][sri Justice ][Narsing ][Rao ][Narulikonda)] 9 Heard Mr. [A.V'A'Siva ][Kartikeya' ][leamed counsel ][for ][the]petitioner [and ][Ms' ][J.Sunitha, ][learned ][Junior ][Standing Counsel ][for]the Income [Tax ][Department ][for ][the ][respondents' ][Perused ][the]record. 2. This is a writ [petition ][where ][the ][proceedings ][are ][either]challenged [to ][the notices ][which ][were ][issued ][under ][Section ] and 148 [of ][the Income ][Tax ][Ac[ ][1961 ][(for ][short ]['the ][Act') ][or ][the]assessment [orders those have been ][passed ][under Section ][147 ][of]the Act which [have ][been ][assailed'] i- THE HONOURABLE [JUSTICE P'SAM ] ANDTHE HONOURABLE NANDIKONDAWRIT PETITION[ No.3461][00] 8, [(per ][Hon'bte ][sri Justice ][Narsing ][Rao ][Narulikonda)] 9 Heard Mr. [A.V'A'Siva ][Kartikeya' ][leamed counsel ][for ][the]petitioner [and ][Ms' ][J.Sunitha, ][learned ][Junior ][Standing Counsel ][for]the Income [Tax ][Department ][for ][the ][respondents' ][Perused ][the]record. 2. This is a writ [petition ][where ][the ][proceedings ][are ][either]challenged [to ][the notices ][which ][were ][issued ][under ][Section ] and 148 [of ][the Income ][Tax ][Ac[ ][1961 ][(for ][short ]['the ][Act') ][or ][the]assessment [orders those have been ][passed ][under Section ][147 ][of]the Act which [have ][been ][assailed'] 3. This writ [petition ][is ][being ][taken up today ][only ][on one ][of ][the]that [the ][notices ][issued ][under Section ][1484' ][of ][the Act]grounds, and the subsequent [initiation ][ofproceedings ][under Section ][148 ][of]the Act by [the ][jurisdictional ][Assessing ][Officer, ][whereas ][in ][terms]of the amendrrynt [that ][was ][brought to ][the Income ][Tax ][Act ][by ][way]of Finance [Acr, ][2021 ][w'e'f', ][01'04'2021 onwards' ][proceedings] under Section l4gA of rhe Act as also under Section l4g of theAct ought to have also been issued and proceeded in a facelessmanner.l4g of theAct ought to have also been issued and proceeded in a facelessmanner. 4. The contention contention of the petitioner the petitioner petitioner is that the issue that the issue the issue issue ofproceedings being in violation of the Financ e Act, 2021 i.e., theimpugned notices under Section 14gA and Section l4g ofthe Actnot being issued in a faceless manner, have already been dealt withand decided by this Court in the case of KANKANALARAVINDRA REDDY vs. INCOME_TAX OFFICERT decidedon 14.09.2023 whereby a batch of writ petitions were ailowed andthe proceedings initiated under Section r4gA as arso under section148 of the Act were held to be bad with consequential reliefs on theground of it being in vioration of the provisions of Section 1 5 r A ofthe Act read wirh Norification lg/2022 dated2g.O3.2022. The saidjudgment passed by this Court has also been subsequently followedin a large number of writ petitions which were alrowed on similarterms The contention contention of the petitioner the petitioner petitioner is that the issue that the issue the issue issue of '[(2023) 156 taxmann.com l7g (Telangana)] Down [[the ][line' ][we ][find ][that ][the ][same ]][[line' ][we ][find ][that ][the ][same ]][[we ][find ][that ][the ][same ]][[find ][that ][the ][same ]][[that ][the ][same ]][[the ][same ]][[same ]][issue has also ][been] 5. Down [[the ][line' ][we ][find ][that ][the ][same ]][[line' ][we ][find ][that ][the ][same ]][[we ][find ][that ][the ][same ]][[find ][that ][the ][same ]][[that ][the ][same ]][[the ][same ]][[same ]]decided [against ][the ][Revenue ][by ][various ][High ][Courts i'e"]the [Bombay ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ] by TECHNOLOGIES [LTD., ][VS. ] OF [& ][OTHERS2' ][Gauhati ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case]of RAM [SAH vs' ][UNION OF INDIA3' ][Punjab ][and]HaryanaHigh [Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ] vs. UNION [INDIA4' ][and ][Telangana ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]SRI [PATLOOI,A ][VS. ] COMMISSIONER [where ][the ][issue ][was in]respect [of ][intemational taxation' Bombay ][High Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]ABTIIN [VS. ] [OFFICER"]INTERNATIONAL [which ][is ][again ][on ][international]hxation [and ][central ][circre, ][High ][court ][of ][Himachar ][pradesh ][in ][the]case of [SINGII vs' ] [OFFICERT']Gujarat [High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ] , lrR 430 (Bom)lzoz+1464 lzoz+1464 , lrR 430 (Bom)lzoz+1464 lzoz+1464 , i,zoz+i 156 taxmann.com 478 [(Gauhati)l]'iirt;) [165 ][taxmann'com ][115 ][(Punjab ][&Haryana)l]'iirt;) [165 ][taxmann'com ][115 ][(Punjab ][&Haryana)l] 'f)OZql' [[167 ][taxmann.com ][411 ][(Telangana)l]][[taxmann.com ][411 ][(Telangana)l]][[411 ][(Telangana)l]][[(Telangana)l]] 'f)OZql' [[167 ][taxmann.com ][411 ][(Telangana)l]][[taxmann.com ][411 ][(Telangana)l]][[411 ][(Telangana)l]][[(Telangana)l]]"izozq) [166 ][taxmann.com ][679 ][(Bombay)l ]'i;o;ii - [ii1,r*.* ][tom ] [l3 ][(Himachal ][Pradesh)l]4-\'i;o;ii - [ii1,r*.* ][tom ] [l3 ][(Himachal ][Pradesh)l]4-\ DAHYABHAI RADADIYA vs. INCOME TAx OFFICE&WARD 3(3X5)8, Jharkand High Court in the case of SHyAMSUNDAR SAW vs. UNION OF INDIAe, Rajasthan High Court inthe case of SHARDA DEVI CHHAJER vs. INCOME TAXOFFICER & ANOTHER and batch of writ petitionsr0 whichstood decided oo 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 TNDIA & ORS(M.A.T I 690 ot 2023\.decided on 25.09.2024. 6. Even though the same issue having been decided by a largenumber of High Courts, we are still confionted with large filing ofidentical matters on daily basis ranging between 5 to 10 writpehttons. That upon the instructions being sought fiom theDepartment, they have been taking a'solitary ground that thedecision of the Bombay High Court in the case of HexawareTechnologies Ltd., (2 supra) as also the one which has beendecided by this Court in the case of Kqnakala Ravindra Reddy '2024 [sCC ][online ]Guj 40tZ'2025 SCC Online lhar287'o 72023 [: ] :4984-DBl (1 supra) [has been ][subjected ][to ][challenge ][in ][a ][Special ][Leave]Petition [i.e., ] [No'3574 ][of ][2024 ][before the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme]Court [and ][the Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Court ][is ][seized ][of ][the ][matter']In addition, [there are ][about ][1200 SLPs also ][filed ][arising out ][ofthe]same [issue ][being ][decided ][by various High Courts']7. To a [query being put ][to ][the learned counsel ][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 ][befbre ][it' ][Meanwhile' fresh ][writ ][petitions ][of]identical [nature ][are ][being ][piled ][up before ][this ][Bench ][on ][daily ][basis]and [the ][pendency ][is ][getting ][increased ][on ][matter ][which ][otherwise]hasalreadybeendealtanddecidedbythisveryHighCourtitself.8. On the [one hand, even though the ][order ][of ][this ][Court ][that]was [passed as ][early ][as ][on ][14'09'2023 ][and ][more ][16 months ][have]till [date, ][we ][do not ][find ][any remedial ][steps ][having ][been]lapsed, taken by [the lncome ][Tax ][Department ][to ][take ][appropriate ][steps ][to]either [hold ][back ][issuance ][of ][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 all the major High Courts in India are continuously stillinitiating proceedings under Section l48A of the Act and alsoinitiating proceedings under Section 14g of the Act incontravention to the amendments brought into the Income Tax Actpursuant to the Finance Act,2020as also the Finance Act202l.9' upon a query being put as to why can,t this wnt petition bedisposed of in the teeth of the decision rendered by this Court inthe case of Kanakalu Rwindm Reddy (l supra), leamed StandingCounsel for the Income Tax Department contends that those wouldunnecessarily burden the Income Tax Department where theywould be required to fire equar number of SLps before theHon'ble Supreme Court and it would be further burdening theexchequer of the Union oflndia. It 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 ftnalization of the SLps pending before the Hon,bleSupreme Court and the fact that the petitioner is already enjoyingthe benefit ofinterim protection. Nonetheless, on the earlier queryof this Court as to why the Income Tax Department have not comeout with a mechanism to issue appropriate instructions or to take appropriate [steps ][in ][ensuring that ][proceedings ][under Section ][148A]ofthe [Act ][as ][also ][the ][assessment ][orders ][under Section ][148 ][ofthe]Act are [kept ][in ][a ][hotd ][in ][the ][light ][ofthe ][decisions dedcided ][by ][the]various [High ][Courts, ][it ][was ][submitted ][by ][the ][learned ][Standing]Counsel [that ][the ][said ][steps ][can ][only ][be ][taken ][at ][the ][level of CBDT]as any [such ][steps ][would ][have ][to ][be taken Pan ][India ][and ][cannot ][be]limited [to ][any ][of ][these ][jurisdictional ][High Courts'] 10. As [a ][result ][of ][which, ][what ][we ][are ][facing ][is ][steep ][increase ][of]litigation [day ][in ][and ][day out ][even ][though various ][orders have ][been]passed by [this ][High ][Court ][allowing ][writ ][petitions ][on the ][very ][same]issue. [The ][Income ]['I ][ax authorities ][concemed are ][still ][even ][now ][in]2025 also [initiating ][proceedings ][in ][contravention to the provisions]of Section [15 ][1A ][of ][the ][Act ][and ][as a ][result ][by ][now' ][more ][than 600]toT00petitionshavebeenalready.gotpiledupbeforethisHighCourt on [an issue ][which ][otherwise ][stands ][squarely ][covered ][by ][the]judgment of this [Court ][in ][the ][case ][of Kanukala ][Ravindra ][Redd'y](1 supra). [What ][is ][also surprising ][is ][the fact ][that though while]allowing [the ][writ ][petitions ][in ][the ][case ][of ][Kanakala ][Ravindra]Reddy (l [supra), the ][Division ][Bench ][while ][reserving the ][right ][of]the Revenue, [has also ][protected ][the ][interest ][of ][the ][petitioners] tnsofar as the liberty which was granted to the Revenue forinitiating fresh proceedings initiating fresh proceedings strictry in accordance with the amendedprovisions of the Act, as amended by the Financ e Act, 2020 and,the Finance Act, 2021. The petitioner assessee would be entitled toprovisions of the Act, as amended by the Financ e Act, 2020 and,the Finance Act, 2021. The petitioner assessee would be entitled tochallenge or raise the other legal objections irthe Revenue initiatesfresh proceedings. The fresh proceedings. The Department has made no endeavour inavailing the said liberty that was reserved for the Revenue. On theavailing 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 mahy other High Courts already held to bebad.High Court as well as mahy other High Courts already held to bebad. I l. It appears that because ofthe aforesaid appears that because ofthe aforesaid that because ofthe aforesaid because ofthe aforesaid ofthe aforesaid aforesaid liberty that this HighHighCourt had Court had granted permitting the Revenue for initiating freshinitiating freshproceedings as a one_time measure in a faceless manner, themanner, theIncome Tax Department wants to take advantage of 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 protracting 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 period of timeand finally at a later stage if the Hon,ble Supreme Court confirmsthe decision taken by this High Court as also by the other Highthe decision taken by this High Court as also by the other HighCourts in which the SLpsare still pending, Income Taxnthe nthe It appears that because ofthe aforesaid appears that because ofthe aforesaid that because ofthe aforesaid because ofthe aforesaid ofthe aforesaid aforesaid liberty that this HighHigh I f the [libertY that ][is ][otherwtse]Department [would ][get ][the advantage ][o]Revenue[for ][initiation ][of ][fresh]protected [in ][favour ][of ][the]f these [matters ][at ][a ][much later ][stage]proceedings [from ][the ][disPosal ][o]and [beneficial ][to ][the ][Revenue ][and]which [would ][be ][advantageous]would [be equatly disadvantageous and ][detriinental ][so ][far ][as ][interest]of the [assesses ][are ][concemed' ][As ][a consequence' the ][Income Tax]Department [gets an extended ][period ][of time ][for ][initiation of ][fresh]proceedings' 12. [The alarming ][trend ][of ][docket ][explosion ][in ][this ][Court' ][despite]Kanakala [Ravindra ][Refuty ][(l ][supra)' is ][a]the clear Precedent [set ][tn ][l]matter of [grave concern' ][The ][Income ][Tax ][Department's persistent]initiation [of ][fresh proceedings, ][disregarding ][the ][established ][judicial]pronouncements, [has ][led ][to ][an ][unprecedented ][surge ][in ][litigation]with over [600-700 ][petitions ][piling ][up ][on ][the ][same ][issue' ][This]deliberate [approach ][not only ][undermines ][the ][principle ][ofjudicial]precedent [but ][also strains the ][judicial ][resources ][unnecessarily' The]Department's [strategy ][of ][awaiting the ][Supreme ][Court's decision ][on]pending SLPs [while ][continuing ][to ][initiate ][fresh ][proceedings]to [be ][a ][calculated ][move ][to ][buy ][time ][and ][circumvent]appears limitation [perionds, ][rather ][than ][adhering ][to ][the ][established ][legal] posltion. Such conduct raises serious questions about theadministrative efficiency and therespect for judicialpronouncements, particularly when this Court has alreadyprovideda balanced approach by preserving both the Revenue,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 l4g_A and l4g 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, atIeast the Income Tax Department should have found out someremedial steps to ensure that wherever the authorities intend toinitiate proceedings under Sections l4g-A and l4g, other than in afaceless manner, the proceedings should have been deferredwithout precipitating the matter further intimating the assessee thatthey shall. initiate appropriate proceedings only after the SLp,s aredecided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the very same issue.This again, the Income Tax Department, has not been able to give aconvincing reply, except for the fact that such a f,ecision if at all has to [be taken, ][has ][to ][be ][taken ][for ][the ][whole ][of ][India' ][and ][which]otherwise [has ][to ][be ][by ][way ][of ][a ][policy ][decision ][and ][that too ][at ][the]level of [Central ][Board ][of ][Direct ][Taxes' ][Though ][the ][leamed]Standing [Counsel ][for ][the ][Income ][Tax ][Department ][contended that]the Delhi [High ][Court ][dismissed ][a ][writ ][petition ][of ][similar ][nature' ][on]the one [hand ][when ][the High Court ][is ][stmggling ][to ][reduce ][its]pendency, [such notices ][which ][are under ][challenge ][in ][this ][writ]are [forcing the ][assessee ][to ][knock ][the ][doors ][of ][this High]petition Court [resulting ][in ][filing ][of ][hundreds ][of ][new ][writ ][petitions ][which in]the long [run not ][only ][affects the disposal ][of ][the ][writ ][petitions ][but]also [consumes ][substantial ][time ][of ][the ][Bench ][in ][hearing ][these]matters [again and again ][on ][daily ][basis' ][Admittedly' in ][spite ][of ][the]matter [before ][the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Court ][having ][been taken on]many occasions, [the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Court ][which ][is ][seized ][of ][the]matter [has ][been ][reluctant ][in ][granting any ][interim protection ][to ][the]Income [Tax Department' ][Yet, ][the ][authorities ][concemed ][at ][the]State [level ][are ][not ready to ][accept ][the verdict ][passed ][by ][a ][maj ][ority]of HiC{r [Courts ][of ][different ][States ][on the ][same issue; and ][to ][make]things [lfurther ][worse, ][the ][Income ][Tax ][Department ][is ][showing]audacity [by ][issuing ][notices ][continuously ][under Sections ][148-4 ][and] 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. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, INCOME TAXil, on an issue whether it wasjustifiable on the part of the Income Tax Department in notfollowing an order passed by the adjudicating authority only on theground that the appeals are pending, the Division Bench of theHigh Court of Bombay held at paragraph No.25 as under, viz., : "25' Mr. paridwara has righry drawn out attention to thedecision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Smt.Godavaridevi Sarafr2 as also the recent decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this Crt^ill or wh i ch o n e or us,r r.,,"'"' I l r:il:: :j:i::t; ;r'":;the court categoricary observed that the Revenue having not"accepted,, the judgment of the High Court would not mean that tillthe same is set aside in a manner known to law, it would loose itsbinding force. Referring to the decision of the Supreme Court inUnion of lndia vs. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd.r4, theCou( observed that the approach of the officials of Revenue oftreating decisions being *not acceptable,, was criticized by theSupreme Court. ln such decision, following are the relevantobservations made by the Supreme Court. I '- ',1, l\}ol;t,r.t3 Ie78l ',1, l\}ol;t,r.t3 Ie78l t l\}ol;t,r.t3 Ie78l Ie78l .r=rmann. com 422 (B ombay) ) '- ',1, l\}ol;t,r.t3 Ie78l ',1, l\}ol;t,r.t3 Ie78l t l\}ol;t,r.t3 Ie78l Ie78l I I3 ITR 589 (Bombay) " 12024) I65 taxmann.com 5gl/300 Taxman 452 (Bombay) 'o Tl}gZltaxmann.com 16/ 55 ELT433 (SC) r-l: I '- ',1, l\}ol;t,r.t3 Ie78l ',1, l\}ol;t,r.t3 Ie78l t l\}ol;t,r.t3 Ie78l Ie78l .r=rmann. com 422 (B ombay) ) '- ',1, l\}ol;t,r.t3 Ie78l ',1, l\}ol;t,r.t3 Ie78l t l\}ol;t,r.t3 Ie78l Ie78l I I3 ITR 589 (Bombay) " 12024) I65 taxmann.com 5gl/300 Taxman 452 (Bombay) 'o Tl}gZltaxmann.com 16/ 55 ELT433 (SC) r-l: "6. Sri Reddy is perhaps right in saying that theofficers were not actuated by any mala fides inpassing the impugned orders. They perhapsgenuinely felt that the claim of the assessee was nottenable and thal, if it was accepted, 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 the officers, in reachingin their conclusion, by-passed two appellate orders inregard to the same issue which were placed beforethem, one of the Collector (Appeats) and the other ofthe Tribunal. The High Court has, in our view, righflycriticized this condupt of the Assistant Collectors andthe harassment to the assessee caused by the failureof these officers to give effect to the orders ofauthorities higher to them in the appellate hierarchy. ltcannot be too vehemently emphasized that it is ofutmost importance that, in disposing of thequasUudicial issues before them, revenue officers arebound by the decisions of the appellate authorities.The order of the Appellte Collector is binding on theAssistant Collectors working within his jurisdiction andthe order of the Tribunal is binding upon the AssistantCollectors and the Appellate Collectors who functionunder the [jurisdiction ]of the Tribunal. The principles ofjudicial discipline require that the orders of the higherappellate authorities should be followed unreservedlyby the subordinate authorities. The mere fact that theorder of the appellate authority is not "acceptable" tothe department - in itself an objectionable phrase -and is the subject matter of an appeal can furnish noground for not following it unless its operation hasbeen suspended by a competent court. If this healthy rule is net followed, the result will only be undueharassment to assesses and chaos in administrationof tax laws. 12We have dealt with this aspect at some length,because it has been suggested bythe learnedAdditional Solicitor General that theobservationsAdditional Solicitor General that theobservationsmade by the High Court, have been harsh on theofficers. lt is clear that.the observations of the Highofficers. lt is clear that.the observations of the HighCourt, seemingly vehement, and apparenflyunpalatable to the Revenue, are only intended to curba tendency in revenue matters which, if allowed toa tendency in revenue matters which, if allowed tobecome widespre?d, could result in considerableharassment to the assesses_public without any benefitto the Revenue. We would like to say that theto 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 theshould 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."of 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 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 15 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'2021' Now' ][in ][order ][to ][protect]the interest [of ][the Revenue ][as ][also ][that ][of ][the ][assessee' ][it ][would ][be]trite [at ][this juncture' ][if ][we ][dispose ][of ][the ][writ ][petition ][with ][an]observation/direction [that the disposal ][of ][the ][instant ][writ ][petition in]terms [of ][the ][judgment ][rendered ][by ][this High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]Kankanara [Ravindra ][Reddy ][(r ][supra) ][shafl however be ][subject to]the outcome [of ][the ][SLPs ][which ][were ][filed ][by ][the ][Income ][Tax]Department [and ][which ][is pending consideration ][before ][the ][Hon'ble]Supreme [Court'] 16. [In ][the given ][facts and ][circumstances' ][this ][Bench ][is ][of ][the]considered [opinion ][that ][unless and ][untit ][we do ][not ][timely ][dispose]of matters [which ][are ][squarely covered ][by ][the decision ][of ][this Court]and [which ][stands ][fortihed ][by ][the ][decisions ][of ][the ][various ][other]Courts [on ][the ][very ][same ][issue' ][the ][pendency ][of ][this ][High]High Court [would further ][be ][burdened][ which ][otherwise ][can ][be ][decided]and disposed [of ][as ][a ][covered matter'] 17. So [far ][as ][the ][interest ][of ][the ][Revenue ][is concemed' we ][are ][of]the considered [opinion ][that ][the ][interest ][of ][the Revenue ][has ][already]been considered [and ][protected, ][as ][has been ][observed ][in ][paragraphs] 36,,37 and 3g of the order which, for ready reference rs reproducedhereunder: 36. For all the aforesaid n i s s ue d a n d,.,u p ro"u"i ins"r' :::;iTJTJi::il:::?Department is neithertenable' nor sustainabre.:::;iTJTJi::il:::?Department is neithertenable' nor sustainabre.The notices so issued and Procedure adopted beingper se iflegar, deserves ,othe be and are accordingly setper se iflegar, deserves ,othe be and are accordingly setaside/quashed. As a cons all the impugnedorders getting quashed, ,n" ,uou"ntu' by the responde".r"*-r::ltT,:::::,lT: :ffi::issued under Section 147by the responde".r"*-r::ltT,:::::,lT: :ffi::issued under Section 147quashed and ir is *0",."0 .;:o"lffiT ,Jj::, ;jare quashing the consequential order is on the principtesthat when the. initiation of the proceedings itself wasprocedurally ,Jj::, ;jare quashing the consequential order is on the principtesthat when the. initiation of the proceedings itself wasprocedurally wrong, the subnulified automaticafly. ['sequent orders ][also ][gets] 37. The preliminary objection raised by the petitioner is sustained 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 raisedand contended in anappropriate proceedings. 38. Since the Hon,ble Supreme Court had, in the case of Ashish Agarwal, supra, as a one-time measureexerCising the powers under Articte 142 of theConstitution of lndia, permitted the Revenue to proceedunder the substituted [provisions, ]and this Court [allowing]the petitions only on the [procedural ][flaw, ][the ][right]exerCising the powers under Articte 142 of theConstitution of lndia, permitted the Revenue to proceedunder the substituted [provisions, ]and this Court [allowing]the petitions only on the [procedural ][flaw, ][the ][right] conferred [on ][the ][Revenue ][would ][remain reserved ][to]proceed further [if ][they ][so want ][from the ][stage ][of ][the]order of [the ][Supreme ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][ofAshish]Agarwal, [suPra.] 38. Since the Hon,ble Supreme Court had, in the case of Ashish Agarwal, supra, as a one-time measureexerCising the powers under Articte 142 of theConstitution of lndia, permitted the Revenue to proceedunder the substituted [provisions, ]and this Court [allowing]the petitions only on the [procedural ][flaw, ][the ][right]exerCising the powers under Articte 142 of theConstitution of lndia, permitted the Revenue to proceedunder the substituted [provisions, ]and this Court [allowing]the petitions only on the [procedural ][flaw, ][the ][right] conferred [on ][the ][Revenue ][would ][remain reserved ][to]proceed further [if ][they ][so want ][from the ][stage ][of ][the]order of [the ][Supreme ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][ofAshish]Agarwal, [suPra.] 18. [We ][would only ][further ][like ][to ][make ][observations ][that ][since]we are [inclined to ][dispose ][of ][the ][instant ][writ ][petition' ][conscious ][of]the fact [that ][the ][earlier order ][of ][this High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]KanakalaRavindraReddy(lsupra)issubjectedtochallengebefore the [Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Court ][in ] [No'3574 ][of ][2024']preferred [by the ][lncome ][Tax Department' we ][make ][it ][clear that]allowing [of ][the ][instant ][writ ][petition ][is ][subj ][ect ][to ][outcome ][of ][the]aforesaid [SLP preferred ][by ][the Revenue ][against ][the decision ][ofthis]Court [in ][the ][case ][of ][Kanakala Ravindra ][Reddy ][(l ][supra)']High in [other words, ][would ][mean ][that either ][of ][the parties' ][if ][they]This, so want, [may move an ][appropriate ][petition ][seeking ][revival ][of ][this]writ [petition ][in ][the ][light ][of ][the ][decision ][of ][the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme]Court in the [pending SLP on the ][very ][same ][issue'] 19Accordingly, [the ][instant ][writ ][petition ][stands][ allowed ][in]favour of the [assessee ][so ][far ][as ][the ][issue ][of ][jurisdiction ][is]concemed. [As ][a ][consequence, ][the ][impugned ][notice ][under]rphallenge [under Sections ][148-4 ][and ][148 ][stands ][set ][aside/quashed'] The consequential orders, if any, also stand set aside/quashed insimilar tenns as have been passed by this High Court in the case ofKanksnala Ravindra Reddy (l supra). There shall be no order asto costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/-M. OSMAN ALI BAIGISTANT REGISTRARISTANT REGISTRAR//TRUE COPYIIToSECTION OFFICER1lgnature Towers,1lgnature Towers,ltfr rilingampally, R.R. District,iiJ:[8:;fl ;{f i"",, [j_,#Jrk,Hils3sls3]2. The Assessment Unit lncome Tax D-epartment, National a Assessment.rawarrirrir r.rerrru.rawarrirrir r.rerrruS,"*,,il:fi9*r6,j,,n,*.o, [ruo ][aoi ][-z"iJFi;;';,,E'H:,p, ]3 Telanoana LTTowers. The Principat Chief Hvderabact 1b23 AC Guards, a"rll+:g,,o1r9r_oI pETtTtON ER HGrrOiO""""'"tncome iS R;;;i?;'. Tax, Andhra s22, gthFtoor, pradesh andB Btock,Telanoana LTTowers. The Principat Chief Hvderabact 1b23 AC Guards, a"rll+:g,,o1r9r_oI pETtTtON ER HGrrOiO""""'"tncome iS R;;;i?;'. Tax, Andhra s22, gthFtoor, pradesh andB Btock, 4. One CC to SRI A V A STVA KART|KEYA, Advocate. tOpUCltOpUCl5. One CC to Ms J SUNITHA, (JUN|OR SC FOR TNCOME rAX) tOpUCl6. Two CD Copies6. Two CD Copies BSK W BS HIGH COURT DATED:28 tO4t2O2S ORDER WP.No.34610 of 2024 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITIONWTHOUT COSTS 4dq9 !( 1HE Ir/..ct'r4-,{:(r)o).21 rlJE [zffi]2a't-l'.\D.: