> Under Section L4Ga Of The Act As Also Under Section L4G Of The Act Ought To Have Also Been Issued And Proceeded In A Faceless Manner v. Tncome_Ta

TELANGANAcouRr [t?T ]H|GH ITEDSIIIEoF lSPeciai [Original Jurisdiction)] THURSDAY, rwo iiou3nND [rwENrY ][FlvE] PRESENT THE HONOURABLE [SRI JUSTICE P'SAM KOSHY]AND THE HONOURABLE [SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA] WRIT [NO:][ 32158][ OF][ 2024] Between: ff [lxli'"$3,[i,:!'{lffii!Pf#E:'Td;:ffi!;ir#}trr:l[r-ta'."si+]nt Yea [r ][20 ][1 ][8 - ][1 ][e]XBAL'd [- ]:f"::RAl?:,,?H.kll [?'i- ][fit ][n'p"gE'+ffr, ][n' ] "'sm [" ] .....PETITIONER AND -."":5is[',if1l;il1',j8:iXi::U.,'"]:-orrice'8-1-22'1stn""l:s"#f, [,-.fl ] 1 I?#:[:'S:,'rT;fl [s3'Xt's',"i,?::'^,[::r? ][J"t ][li"iJflffi ][ttt6;E ][:]Telangana.Telangana. 2 rhe centrar [Board. ][of ][Direct ][r35:s*::ltrJ;lt3? ]-)llJll3isJ![?'?iBif,8[H"llJll3isJ![?'?iBif,8[H"of Revenue, [fVlinistry ][ot ][Ftnl]New Delhi [- ][1 ][10 ][001]New Delhi [- ][1 ][10 ][001]4The National [Faceless ][Assessment Center'][ lncome ][Tax ][DePartment, ][New]DelhiDelhi 6e,Jl:?$'"}H":::::Kg,}"r'*}f; ,9"i'"63[":"''I8,',,{li"J"?:i"3&siB'"fi I8,',,{li"J"?:i"3&siB'"fi ...,.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 [an ][appropriate ][writ' ][order or direction more ][particularly ][one ][in]the nature of [Writ ][Mandamus' declaring ][the ][order ][passed ][by ][the ][income ][tax]authorities [National Faceless ][E-Assessment ][Centre ][completed ][the ][assessment] uls 147 r.w.s 144 read with section 1448 Date of 1gro3r2o24, DrN ITBATAST/S/14712023-2411062 940966(1) for the Assessment year 2018-19 determining thetotal income of Rs. 3,26,38,4651 as arbitrary, i,egal, bad in law, withoutjurisdiction, void-ab-initio, viorative of the principres of naturar justice apart frombeing violative of Articles 1a, 19(1)(g) and 265 of the constitution of India andSec l4gA of the rncome Tax Act, 1g61, and consequenay set aside the same inthe interests of justice. l.A.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 tosuspend the order Under section 147 r.w.s 144 read with section .144B Date of 1g03-2024, DrN rrBA/ ASTrs 114zr2o23 2411062940966(.r ) for the Assessment year2018-19 determining the totar income of Rs. 3,26,3g,465/- and Demand notice u/s156 0f the rncome Tax act 1g61, vide DrN & Notice No:,rBA/AST/ st156/2023-2411062541191(1) Dt: 19-03-2024 for the assessment year 2018-1g pendingdisposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the petitioner : SRI THANNERU CHAITANYA KUMAR rNcoME 9:^rl:"_l [for ]TAX)[the ][Respondent ][Nos.l ][& ][2 ]: Ms. J.SUN|THA (JUN|OR SC FOR Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEpUrySOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIAKUMAR, DEpUrySOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA counser for the Respondent Nos.4 to 5 : sRt p.sHAsHrDHAR REDDy The Court made the following ORDER TIIE [JUSTICE P'SAM ][I(OSHY] rrrE IroNo [,RABL1;$#X5X ] [NAR'TN ] [RAo] ONNo.321[58 ][of][ 2024] PETTTI ORDER, [(per ][Hon'ble ][Sri ][Jttstice ][P'Sam Koshy)] Heard [Mr. ][T.Chaitanya ][Kumar, ][learned counsel ][for ][the]petitioner [and ][Ms'J'sunitha' ][leamed ][Junior Standing ][Counsel ][for]Perused [the]the lncome [Tax ][DePartment][ for ][the ][resPondents']record. This is is [[a ][writ ][petition ]][[writ ][petition ]][[petition ]][[where ][the ][proceedings ]][[the ][proceedings ]][[proceedings ]][are ][either] counser for the Respondent Nos.4 to 5 : sRt p.sHAsHrDHAR REDDy The Court made the following ORDER TIIE [JUSTICE P'SAM ][I(OSHY] rrrE IroNo [,RABL1;$#X5X ] [NAR'TN ] [RAo] ONNo.321[58 ][of][ 2024] PETTTI ORDER, [(per ][Hon'ble ][Sri ][Jttstice ][P'Sam Koshy)] Heard [Mr. ][T.Chaitanya ][Kumar, ][learned counsel ][for ][the]petitioner [and ][Ms'J'sunitha' ][leamed ][Junior Standing ][Counsel ][for]Perused [the]the lncome [Tax ][DePartment][ for ][the ][resPondents']record. This is is [[a ][writ ][petition ]][[writ ][petition ]][[petition ]][[where ][the ][proceedings ]][[the ][proceedings ]][[proceedings ]][are ][either] 2. This is is [[a ][writ ][petition ]][[writ ][petition ]][[petition ]][[where ][the ][proceedings ]][[the ][proceedings ]][[proceedings ]]chalienged [to ][the ][notices ][which ][were ][issued ][under Section 148A]and [148 ][of ][the ][Income ][Tax ][Act' ][t961 ][(for ][short'the ][Act') ][or ][the]assessment [orders ][those ][have ][been ][passed ][under ][Section ][147 ][of]the Act [which ][have ][been assailed'] This [[writ ][petition ]][[petition ]][[is being taken ]][up ][today ][only ][on ][one ][of the] 3. This [[writ ][petition ]][[petition ]][[is being taken ]]grounds, [that ][the ][notices ][issued ][under Section ][1484. ][of ][the ][Act]and the [subsequent ][initiation ][of ][proceedings under ][Section ][148 ][of]the Act [by ][the ][jurisdictional ][Assessing ][Officer' ][whereas ][in ][terms]oftheamendmentthatwasbroughttothelncomeTaxActbywayof Finance [Act, ][2021 ][w'e'f'' ][01'04'2021 onwards' ][proceedings] under Section l4gA of the Act as also under Section l4g of theAct ought to have also been issued and proceeded in a facelessmannerl4gA of the Act as also under Section l4g of theAct ought to have also been issued and proceeded in a facelessmanner 4. The contention of the petitioner is that the issue ofproceedings being in violation of the Finance 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 Courr in the case of KANKANALARAVINDRA REDDY vs. TNCOME_TAX OFFICEI{T decidedon 14.09.2023 whereby a batch of writ petitions were allowed 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 violation of the provisions of Secrion 15 tA ofthe Act read with Notification 1gl2}22 d,ated.29.03.2022_ The saidjudgment passed by this Court has also been subsequently followedin a large number of writ petitions which were aflor,ved on similarterms. ' [(2023) 1 56 raxmann.com 17g (Telangana)] ' I ..r:.. 'jffss, .la*^:t[., ][.a ]'fr,. : 'r.:i}il{ ' [(2023) 1 56 raxmann.com 17g (Telangana)] ' I ..r:.. 'jffss, .la*^:t[., ][.a ]'fr,. : 'r.:i}il{ Down [the ][line, we find ][that the ][same issue ][has ][also ][been]various [High ][Courts t'e"]decided [against ][the ][Revenue ][bY]the [case ][of ] the [BombaY ][High ][Court ][tn]by TECHNOLOGIES [LTD'' ][vs' ASSISTANT COIVIMISSIONER]OF INCOME [& ][OTIIERS2' ][Gauhati ][High ][Court in ][the ][case]of RAM [vs' ][UNION OF INDIA3' ][Punjab ][and]Haryana [High ][Court in ][the ][case ][of ] vs. UNION [oF ][INDIA4, ][and Teiangana ][High court in ][the ][case ][of]SRI [VS. ] COMMISSIONER [Ot'' ] [where ][the ][issue ][was ][in]respect [of ][international taxation, Bombay ][High court ][in ][the ][case ][of]ABHIN [VS. ] [OFFICER']INTERNATIONAL [1'AXATION6 ][which is ][again ][on intemational]taxation [and ][central ][circre, ][High ][courl ][of Himachar ][pradesh ][in ][the]case of [vs' ] [OFFICER?']Gujarat [High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ] 'lzoz+1464 [430 ][(Bom)]'ifrozil [l56 ][taxmann.com ][478 ][(Gauhati)l]^ l(2024) [165 ][taxmann.com ][115 ][(Punjab ][& ][Flaryana)l]'t)OZq [167 ][taxmann'com ][411 ][(Telangana)l]:1zoz+l 166 taxmann.com 679 [(Bombay ][)l]'\1oi+l [tOs ][taxmann'com ] [l3 ][(l'limachal ][Pradesh)l] 5 DAIIYABHAI RADADIYA vs. INCOME TAx OFFICER,WARD 3(3Xr8, Jharkand High Courr in the case of SHyAMSUNDAR SAW vs. UNION OF INDIAe, Rajasrhan High Courl inthe case of SHARDA DEVI CHHAJER vs. INCOME TAXOFFICER & ANOTHER and batch of wrir petitionsr0 whichstood decided on 19.03.2024. Similar views have also been takenby the Division Bench of Calcutta High Courl in the case ofGIRDHAR GOPAL DALMIA vs. UNION OF TNDIA & ORS(M.A.T 1690 of 2023), decided on25.09.2024.6. Even though the same issue having been decided by a largenumber of High Courts, we are still confronted with large liling ofidentical matters on daily basis ranging between 5 to I 0 rvritpetitions. That upon the instructions being sought frorn theDepartment, they have been taking a solitary grouncl that thedecision of the Bombay High Court in the case of He:iawareTechnologies Ltd-, (2 supra) as also the one which has beendecided by this Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy 82024 SCC Online Guj 4012'2025 SCC Online lhar287to p2023 : RJ-JD:4984-DBl '.i..1.;.. .,.:.. ' (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']ln addition, [there ][are about ][1200 SLPs ][also ][filed ][arising out ][ofthe]same [issue ][being ][decided ][by ][various ][High Coutls']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 ][before ][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]has already [been ][dealt ][and ][decided ][by ][this ][very ][High ][Court ][itself']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]tapsed, [titl ][date, ][we ][do ][not'find ][any remedial ][steps ][having ][been]taken [by ][the Income Tax ][Department to ][take ][appropriate ][steps ][to]either hold [back ][issuance ][of ][notice ][under ][Section ][1484 ][and ][under]Section [148 ][of ][the Act ][by ][the ][jurisdictional ][Assessing ][Oflicer']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 14gA of the Act and alsoinitiating proceedings under Section 14g of the Act incontravention to the amendments brought into the lncome Tax Actpursuant to the Finance Act;2020 as also the Finance Act 2021. 9. Upon a query being put as to why can,t this writ petition bedisposed of in the teeth of the decision rendered by this Court inthe case of Kanakula Ravintlra Reddy (1supra.), Ieamed StandingCounsel for lhe Inccme Tax Deoarlment contends tl_rat those wouldumecessarily burden the Income Tax Deparlment where theywouid be required to file equal number of sl-ps befor.e trreHon'ble Supreme Court and it would be further burdening theexchequer of the Union of India. It was also the contention oltheleamed Standing counser 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 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]of the Act [as ][also ][the ][assessment ][orders ][under Section ][148 ][of ][the]Act are [kept in ][a ][hold ][in the ][light ][ofthe ][decisions dedcided ][by ][the]various High [Courts, ][it ][was ][submitted ][by ][the ][leamed ][Standing]Counsel [that ][the said ][steps ][can ][only ][be taken at ][the tevel ][of CBDT]such [steps ][would ][havg to ][be ][taken Pan ][India ][and ][cannot ][be]as any 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 ][Tax ][authorities concemed ][are ][still ][even ][now ][in]2025 [also ][initiating ][proceedings ][in ][contravention to the provisions]of Section [151A ][of ][the ][Act ][and ][as ][a ][result ][by now' ][more ][than ][600]to ?00 [petitions ][have been already ][got ][piled up before this ][High]Court on [an ][issue ][which ][otherwise ][stands ][squarely ][covered ][by ][the]judgment of this Court [in ][the ][case ][of ][Kanukala Ravindra ][Reddy](1 supra). What is [also ][surprising ][is ][the ][fact ][that though ][while]allowing the writ [petitions ][in ][the ][case ][of ][Kanakala ][Ravindra]the [Divisiqn ][Bench ][while ][reserving ][the ][right ][of]Reddy (l supra), the Revenue, has [also ][protected ][the ][interest ][of ][the ][petitioners] insofar as the liberty which was granted to trre Revenue forinitiating fresh proceedings strictly in accordance with the amendedprovisions of the Act, as amended by the Financ e Act,, 2020 and,the Finance Act, 2021 . The petitioner assessee would be entitred tochallenge or raise the other legal objections if the Reve,ue initiatesfresh proceedings. The Department has made no endeavour inavailing the said liberty that was reserved for the Revenue. On thecontrary, they have been still sticking on to the stand, which thisHigh Court as well as many other High Courts already held to bebad. It appears that because ofthe aforesaid liberty that this High 11. Court had grantcd pemtitting the Revenue for initiating freshproceedings as a one-time measure in a faceless manner, theIncome Tax Department wants to take advantage ol.the same byprotracting these proceedings which would enable them [o 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 confimrsthe decision taken by this High Court as also by the other HighCourts in which the SLps are still pending, the Income Taxd,_ It appears that because ofthe aforesaid liberty that this High 11. Court had grantcd pemtitting the Revenue for initiating freshproceedings as a one-time measure in a faceless manner, theIncome Tax Department wants to take advantage ol.the same byprotracting these proceedings which would enable them [o 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 confimrsthe decision taken by this High Court as also by the other HighCourts in which the SLps are still pending, the Income Taxd,_ Department [would ][get ][the ][advantage ][of ][the ][tibeny ][that is ][otherwise]protected [in ][favour ][of ][the ][Revenue ][lor ][initiation ][of ][fresh]proceedings [from the ][disposal ][ofthese ][matters ][at ][a ][much later ][stage]which [would ][be ][advantageous and ][benefrcial ][to ][the ][Revenue ][and]would be [equally ][disadvantageous and ][detrimental ][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]the clear [precedent ][set ][in ][Kanakalo Rovindra ][Reddy ][l1 ][supra)' ][is ][a]matter of [grave concern' ][The ][Income ][Tax ][Department's ][persistent]initiation [of ][fresh ][proceedings' ][disregarding ][the ][established ][iudicial]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 of judicial]precedent [but ][also strains the ][judicial ][resources ][unnecessarily' ][The]Deparlment's [strategy ][of ][awaiting the ][Supreme ][Court's decision on]pending [SLPs ][while ][continuing ][to ][initiate fresh ][proceedings]appears [to ][be ][a ][calculated ][move ][to ][buy ][time ][and ][circumvent]limitation [periods, rather ][than ][adhering ][to ][the ][established legal] position. Such conduct raises serious questions about theadministrative efficiency and the respect fbr judicialpronouncements, particularly when this Couil has alreadv provideda balanced approach by preserving both the Revenue,s rights andassesses lrlterests. 13. Another aspect which needs to be considered is that in fact itshould have been realized by the Income Tax Deparlment itself andshould have found out via media in ensuring that proceedingsunder Sections i4g_A and i4g should not have been issued in afaceless manner, at least till the Hon,ble Supreme Court decide thetwelve hundred (r200) odd slps which it is arready seized of or., atleast the Income Tax Department should have tbund out someremedial steps to ensure that wherever the authorities intend toinitiate proceedings under Sections 14g_A anci 14g, other than in afaceless lnanner, the pr.oceedings shourd have becn defe*edwithout 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 decision if at all 1 1 has to be [taken, has ][to ][be ][taken ][for the ][whole ][oflndia' ][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 lncome ][Tax ][Department ][contended ][that]the Delhi [High ][Court ][dismissed ][a ][writ ][petition ][of ][similar nature' on]theonehandwhentheHighCourtisstrugglingtoreduceitspendency, [such notices ][which ][are ][under ][challenge ][in ][this ][writ]are [forcing ][the ][assessee ][to ][knock ][the ][doors ][of ][this ][High]petition Courl 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]rnatters again [and again on ][daily ][basis' ][Admittedly' in ][spite ][of ][the]matterbeforetheHon,bleSupremeCourthavingbeentakenonmany occasions, [the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Court ][which ][is ][seized ][of ][the]matter has [been ][reluctant ][in ][granting any ][interim ][protection ][to ][the]lncome Tax [Department' ][Yet' ][the ][authorities ][concemed ][at ][the]State level [are ][not ready to ][accept ][the verdict ][passed ][by ][a ][majority]of High Courts [of ][different ][States ][on the ][same issue; ][and to ][make]things [further ][worse, ][the ][lncome ][Tax ][Department ][is ][showing]audacity by [issuing ][notices ][continuously ][under ][Sections 148-A ][and] 148 through the jurisdictional Assessing Officer whereas it oughtto have been only in the faceless manner. 14. In the case of BANK OF INDIA OF INDIAINDIAvs.ASSISTANTCOMMISSIONER, INCOME TAXil, on an isru" wherher it wasjustifiable on the part of the Income Tax Departrnent in notfollowing an order passed by the adjudicating authority only on theground that the appears are pending, the Divisio, Bench of theHigh Court of Bombay held at par.agraph No.25 as under, viz., : "25. Mr. paridwalla has righfly drawn out attention to thedecision of this Court in Commissioner of lnccme Tax vs. Smt.Godavaridevi Sarafl2 as also the recent declsion of the co_ordinate Bench of this Court in Samp Furniture (p) Ltd. v. ITO13of which one of us (Justice G.S. Kulkarni) was a member, whereinthe Court categorically 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 j4, Corporation Ltd. thecourt obseryed that the approach of the officiars of Revenue oftreating decisions being [,,not ]acceptable,, was criticized by theSupreme Court. ln such decision, following are the relevantobservations made by the Supreme Court, ',) 11zl32t .t.t [o ]yax mann.com 422 ( B ombay \ l'.'11978) '.'11978) 11zl32t .t.t .t.t '.'11978) I l3 ITR 589 (Bombay) t,j,7ZOZ41l65 taxmann.com 5gl/300 Taxman 452 (Bombay)taxmann.com 5gl/300 Taxman 452 (Bombay) 'a llegZl raxmann.com L6/55 ELT 433 (SC) .t l ',) 11zl32t .t.t [o ]yax mann.com 422 ( B ombay \ l'.'11978) '.'11978) 11zl32t .t.t .t.t '.'11978) I l3 ITR 589 (Bombay) t,j,7ZOZ41l65 taxmann.com 5gl/300 Taxman 452 (Bombay)taxmann.com 5gl/300 Taxman 452 (Bombay) 'a llegZl raxmann.com L6/55 ELT 433 (SC) .t l "6. Sri Reddyis perhaPs [right ][in ][saying ][that ][the]officers [were]not actuated [bY ][anY ][mala fides ][in]passing theimpugned orders. [TheY ][PerhaPs]genuinely felt that [the ][claim of ][the ][assessee ][was ][not]tenable [and ][that, ][if ][it ][was ][accepted, ][the ][Revenue]would suffer. [But ][what Sri ][Reddy overlooks ][is ][that we]are not concerned [here ][with ][the ][correctness ][or]otheruvise of [their ][conclusion ][or of ][any ][factual]malafides [but with the ][fact ][that ][the officers' ][in reaching]in their conclusion, [by-passed ][two ][appellate ][orders ][in]regard to the [same issue which ][were ][placed ][before]them, one [of ][the Collector ][(Appeals) and ][the ][other ][of]the Tribunal. [The High ][Court ][has, ][in ][our ][view' ][rightly]criticized this [conduct ][of ][the Assistant Collectors ][and]the harassment [to ][the ][assessee caused ][by the ][failure]of these officers [to ][give effect ][to ][the ][orders ][of]authorities [higher ][to ][them ][in ][the appellate ][hierarchy' lt]cannot be [too ][vehemently emphasized ][that ][it ][is ][of]utmost importance [that, ][in ][disposing ][of ][the]quasijudicial issues [before them, revenue officers ][are]bound by the [decisions ][of ][the ][appellate ][authorities-]The order of [the Appellte Collector ][is ][binding on ][the]Assistant [Collectors working ][within ][his ][jurisdiction ][and]the order of [the Tribunal ][is binding upon ][the ][Assistant]Collectors and [the Appellate Collectors ][who ][function]under the [jurisdiction of the ][Tribunal ][The principles ][of]judicial discipline require [that ][the ][orders ][of ][the ][higher]appellate [authorities should ][be ][followed ][unreservedly]by the [subordinate ][authorities. The ][mere ][fact ][that the]order of the [appellate ][authority ][is ][not "acceptable' ][to]the department - [in ][itself ][an objectionable phrase ][-]and is [the subject matter of an ][appeal ][can furnish ][no]ground for [not ][following ][it ][unless ][its ][operation ][has]been suspended [by ][a ][competent ][court ][lf this ][healthy] 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 Courl, have been harsh on theofficers. lt is clear that theoot"t"t'ons of the Highcourt, seemingry ,un", unpatatabre to rhe Revenue,:::'"",;;:".::ff:,.,Ja 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 futushourd be paid by rhe ,.,".,jil:liltf""::'iil:appellate authorities to thedisciptine and the need r".. n,r#'"",[:,':;:'::::of the higher appellate authorities which are bindingon them." 15. What is worrying this Bench more is the tact 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 Depaftment being violative of the '<. .nl 15. What is worrying this Bench more is the tact 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 Depaftment being violative of the '<. .nl 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]Kankanala [Ravindra ][Retldy ][(1 ][supra) shall ][however be ][subject ][to]the outcome [of ][the ][SLPs ][which ][were ][hled ][by ][the ][Income ][Tax]Department [and ][which ][is ][pending consideration before ][the ][Hon'ble]Supreme [Coutl.] 16. In [the ][given ][facts and ][circumstances' ][this ][Bench ][is ][of ][the]considered [opinion that ][unless ][and ][until ][we ][do not ][timely ][dispose]of matters [which ][are ][squarely covered ][by ][the ][decision ][of ][this ][Coutt]and which [stands ][fortified ][by ][the ][decisions ][of ][the various ][other]Courts [on ][the very ][same issue' the pendency ][of ][this High]High Court [would furlher ][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 38 of the order which, for ready reference, is reproducedhereunder: 36. For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned noticesissued 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 l4gwould 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 petitloner lssustained 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, permifted the Revenue to proceedunder the substituted provisions, and this Court allowingthe 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 caseof Ashish Agarwal, supra, as a one{ime measureexercising the powers under Article 142 of theConstitution of lndia, permifted the Revenue to proceedunder the substituted provisions, and this Court allowingthe 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 fuither like ][to ][make ][observations ][that ][since]we are inclined [to dispose ][of the ][instant ][writ ][petition' ][conscious ][of]thefactthattheearlierorderofthisHighCourtinthecaseofKunakala [Ravindra ][Redcly ][(l ][supra) ][is ][subjected ][to ][challenge]before the [Honrbte ][Supreme ][Court ][in ] [No'3574 ][of ][2024']preferred [by ][the lncome ][Tax Department' we ][make ][it ][clear that]atlowing [of ][the ][instant ][writ ][petition ][is ][subject ][to ][outcome ][of ][the]aforesaid [preferred by ][the ][Revenue ][against ][the ][decision ][of ][this]Court [in ][the ][case ][of ][Kanakala Ravindra ][Reddy ][(1 ][supta)']High This, in other [words, ][would ][mean ][that either ][of ][the parties' ][if ][they]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'] 19. Accordingly, [the ][instant ][writ ][petition ][stands ][allowed ][in]favour of [the ][assessee ][so ][far ][as ][the ][issue ][of ][jurisdiction ][is]concerned. [As ][a ][consequence, ][the ][impugned ][notice ][under]challenge [under Sections ][148-4 ][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 Courl in the case ofKonkanalo Ravintrra Redcy (r supra). There shau be no order asto costs Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. t'i, HIGH COURT DATED:01 l0st2O2S ORDER WP.No.32158 of 2OZ4 ALLOWING THE W.PWITHOUT COSTS. o [THE. ][i^]:i:-,hic\?ur.t\ii'10 sEP 206\i4..+. ,.,/L;