Under Section L4Ga Ofa Act As Also Under Section Act Ought To Have 148 Of The Llranner. ",." On ,Een Issued And Proceeded In A Faceless v. Inc,Me-Tax Offrcerr ; On R4.09.2023Wh6Rebv N A Batch H

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE AT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF MAYTWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM ANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING WRIT PETITION NO: 31435 OF [2024] Between: PRII/ARY AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVE [LllVlTED, Rep- ][by]the Secretary MERIGE VITTAL REDDY [S/o. ] [IMERIGE']Aged about 44 [years, ]Occupation. [Business, R/o. ] [2 ][14 JAMBIKUNJA,]NI'ZANIPET, SANGAREDDV'"502371, [Telangana, ][lndia. ][Assessment ][Year.]2018-19 ...PETtrtoNER AND 1The lncome Tax Officer, Ward [1, ][Siddipet lncome ][Tax Office, 8-1-22, ]['lst]Floor, Subhash Road, Siddipet,Telangana.Floor, Subhash Road, Siddipet,Telangana.2The lncome Tax Officer, Ward 1, [Sangareddy ][lncome ][Tax]Office,Veerabhadra Nagar, New Bus [Stand,Veerabhadra ][Nagar,Sanga]Reddy,Telangana.Office,Veerabhadra Nagar, New Bus [Stand,Veerabhadra ][Nagar,Sanga]Reddy,Telangana. Reddy,Telangana.3The Hyderabad, ijrincipal Chief lT Towers, Commissioner AC Guards, of [t\/asab ][lncome ][Tank, ][Tax, ][Hyderabad ][Telangana alq ][- ][500028,]- &E'Telangana.Telangana. 4The Cintral Board of Direct Taxes, [Represented ][by ][its Chairman, Department]of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, [Government ][of ][lndia, ][Secretariat ][Buildings,]New Delhi - 1 10 001.of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, [Government ][of ][lndia, ][Secretariat ][Buildings,]New Delhi - 1 10 001. EThe National Faceless Assessment Center, [lncome ][Tax ][Department, ][New]Delhi.Delhi. Delhi.The Union of lndia, Represented by [its ][Secretary ][to ][the ][Government,]Department of Revenue, Ministry [of Finance, New ][Delhi ][- ][110001 ][.]The Union of lndia, Represented by [its ][Secretary ][to ][the ][Government,]Department of Revenue, Ministry [of Finance, New ][Delhi ][- ][110001 ][.] ...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 bepleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one inthe nature of Writ of Mandamus , declaring the order passed by the lncome TaxAuthorities (National Faceless E-Assessment Centre) completed the assessmentU/S 147 r.w.s 144 Date of 28-03-2024, DIN ITBA/AST/S/14712023-2411 063585367 (1) for the Assessment Year 20'18-19 determining the total rncome of Rs. 4,36,05 ,2261_ as arbitrary, illegal, bad in law, without jurisdiction,void-ab-initio' viorative of the principles of naturar justice apart from beingviolative of Artictes la, rc()@) and 265 of the Constitution of lndia & Sec. .148Aof the lncome Tax Act, 1961, and consequen y set aside the same in theinterests of justicelA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stateoin the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased tosuspend the order Under section 147 r.w.s 144 Date of 28_03_2024, DINIrBA/AST/S/14712023-24/10635S5367(1) for the Assessment year 2018_19determining the totar income of Rs. 4,36,05 ,226r- and Demand notice u/s 156 0fthe Income Tax act 1961, vide DrN and Notice No. rrBA/AST/s/15 612023-24/1063585444(1) Dt. 28-03-2024 for the assessment year 2018-19 pendingdisposal of the above Writ petition Counsel for the petitioner: SRl. THANNERU CHAITANYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1toS: Ms. J. SUNITHAcounserrortheRespondentruo.o:snrlJeuXJ?F-"^"rEEft [,,|rffi ].*,counserrortheRespondentruo.o:snrlJeuXJ?F-"^"rEEft [,,|rffi ].*, DY. SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE [ruSTTCE P'SAM ] ANDTHE HONOURABLE NANDIKONDA WRIT PE [No.3l][ 4][35 ][of2024] ORDER, [(per ][Hon'ble ][Sri ][Justice ][P Sam ][Koshy)] Counsel for the petitioner: SRl. THANNERU CHAITANYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1toS: Ms. J. SUNITHAcounserrortheRespondentruo.o:snrlJeuXJ?F-"^"rEEft [,,|rffi ].*,counserrortheRespondentruo.o:snrlJeuXJ?F-"^"rEEft [,,|rffi ].*, DY. SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE [ruSTTCE P'SAM ] ANDTHE HONOURABLE NANDIKONDA WRIT PE [No.3l][ 4][35 ][of2024] ORDER, [(per ][Hon'ble ][Sri ][Justice ][P Sam ][Koshy)] Heard Mr. [T'Chaitanya ][Kumar' ][learned ][counsel ][for ][the]petitioner [and ][Ms.J.Sunitha, ][learned ][Junior Standing Counsel ][for]the Income [Tax ][Department ][for ][the ][respondents' ][Perused ][the]record. 2. l'his is a [writ ][petition ][where ][the ][proceedings ][are ][either]challenged [to the ][notices ][which ][were ][issued ][under ][Section ][1484]arrdl48ofthe[ncome.I.axAct,1961(forshort.theAct,)ortheassessmentordersthosehavebeenpassedundersectionl4Tofthc Act [which ][have ][been assailed'] 3.Thiswritpetitionisbeingtakenuptodayonlyononeofthethat [the ][notices ][issued ][under Section 148A ][of ][the ][Act]grounds, and the subsequent [initiation of ][proceedings ][under Section ][148 ][of]the Act by the [jurisdictional ][Assessing ][Officer' ][whereas ][in ][terms]of the amendment [that ][was ][brought ][to ][the ][lncome Tax ][Act ][by way]of Finance Act, [2O2l ][w'e.f., ][01'04'2021 onwards' ][proceedings] under Section l4gA ofaAct as also under section Act ought to have 148 of thellranner. ",." on ,een issued and proceeded in a faceless 4. Thc coutention of the petitioner is that the issue proceedings . being tn violation of the Financ e Act, 2021i.e., impugned norices under theSection 14gA andSection I4g ofthe not being issued in a faceless Actand decide<J manner, have already been dealt withby rh.ts Court in the case ,KANKANALARAVINDRA REDDY vs. INC,ME-TAx oFFrcERr ; on r4.09.2023wh6rebv n a batch h.,!--L of writ :"':-'^^ decidec,petitions were allowed the proceedings andinitiatr "t [Section ][1484 ][as ]also under sectionr4g of the Act were n", be bad with consequential reliels ground of it on thebeing in vi< the provisions rhe Act read with *o,,0:''"o'of of Section I5rA ofdated 29'03'2022' The saidjudgment passed by ,n,, f"o' Court has .18/2022 also been subsequently followedin a Iarge number of writ petitions which were allowed on similartelms. s that the issue that the issue the issue issue of '[(20n) i56 raxmann.corn l7g (l.elangana)] ( 5. Down the line, we find that the same [issue has ][also ][been]decided against the Revenue by various [High ][Courts ][i.e.,]by the Bombay High Court in the case of HEXAWARETECHNOLOGIBS LTD., vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX & OTHERS2, Gauhati High Court in the caseof RAM NARAYAN SAH vs. UNION OF INDIA3, Punjab andI{aryana High Court in the case of JATINDER SINGH BANGUvs. TJNION OF INDIA4, and Telangana High Court in the case ofSRI VENKATARAMANA REDDY PATLOOLA [VS. ] COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX5 [where ]the [issue ][was in]respect of international taxation, Bombay High Court in the case ofABHIN ANILKUMAR SHAH VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER'INTERNATIONAL TAXATION6 which is again on intemationaltaxation and central circle, High Court of Himachal Pradesh [in ]thecase of GOVIND SINGH vs. TNCOME TAX OFFICERT,Cujarat Lligh Court in the case of MANSUKIIBHAI 'lzoz+1464 [430 ][(Bom)]'l(2024) [156 ][taxmann.com ][478 ][(Gauhati)l]" 1Q024) 165 taxmann.com I l5 (Punjab &Haryana)l'[2024) [167 ][taxmann.com ][4l ] [(Telangana)]]"l2\24l 166 taxnann.com 679 (Bombay)l'12024) 165 taxmann.com I l3 (Himachal Pradesh)l 'lzoz+1464 [430 ][(Bom)]'l(2024) [156 ][taxmann.com ][478 ][(Gauhati)l]" 1Q024) 165 taxmann.com I l5 (Punjab &Haryana)l'[2024) [167 ][taxmann.com ][4l ] [(Telangana)]]"l2\24l 166 taxnann.com 679 (Bombay)l'12024) 165 taxmann.com I l3 (Himachal Pradesh)l DAHYABHAT RADADIYA vs. INCoME TAX OFFICER,WARD 3(3X5)8, Jharkand High Court in the case of SHyAMSUNDAR SAW vs. UNION OF INDIAT, Rajasthan High Courr in. [the ][case ][of ]SHARDA DEVI CHHAJER vs. INCOME TAXOFFICER & ANOTHBR and batch of writ petitionsr0 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 TNDIA & ORS(M.A.T 1690 ol 2023), a".iA.a on 25.09.2024.6. Even though the same issue having been decided by a largenumber of High Courts, we are still confronted with large filing ofidentical matters on daily basis ranging between -5 to I 0 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 of HexawareTechnologies Ltd., (2 supra) as also the one which has beendecided by this Court in the case of Kanakalo Ravirtdra Retldy 12024 SCC Online Guj 40 t 2'2025 SCC Online Jhar 287to y2023 : RJ_JD:4984_DB I : *--i 'l (l supra) [has been ][subjected ][to ][challenge ][in ][a ][Special ][Leave]Petition [i.e., ] [No'3574 ][ol ][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 ][hled ][arising out ][of ][the]same issue [being decided by various ][High ][Courts']7. To a [query ][being put ][to ][the leamed counsel ][for ][the Revenue']have [categorically ][accepted ][the fact ][that ][there ][is ][no ][interim]they order [granted ][by ][the ] [lon'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 thc [one ][hand, even though ][the order ][of ][this ][Court ][that]was passed [as ][early ][as ][on ][14'09'2 ][023 ][and ][more ][16 ][months ][have]till [date, ][we do ][not find ][any remedial ][steps ][having ][been]lapsed, taken by [the Income ][Tax ][Department to ][take ][appropriate ][steps ][to]either hotd [back ][issuance ][of ][notice under Section 148A ][and under]Section 148 of [the ][Act by ][the ][jurisdictional ][Assessing ][Officer']ra[her the authorities [concemed ][in ][the teeth ][of ][series ][of ][decisions] by all thema..1or High Courts in lndia are continuously stillinitiating proceedings under Secrionl48A of the Act and alsoinitiating proceedings under Section l4g of the Act incontravention to the amendments brought into the Income Tax Actpursuant to the Finance Act, 2020 as also the Finance Act 2021 . 9. Upon a query being pur as ro why can,t this writ petition bedisposed of in the teeth of the decision rendered by this Courl inthe case of Kanakala Rovindra Rertd.y (l supra), leamed StandingCounsel for the Income Tax Deparlment contends that those wouldunnecessarily burden the Income Tax Deparlment where theywould be required to fire equar number of SLIrs before theHon'ble Supreme Court and it would be further burdening theexchequer of the Union of Inclia. [t was also the contention of theleamed Standing counsel that no prejudicc 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 Deparlment have not comeout with a mechanism lo issue appropriate instructions or ro gke I I 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 ][learned ][Standing]Counsel [that the ][said ][steps can ][only ][be ][taken ][at ][the level ][ofCBDT]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 ]['t'ax ][authorities ][concerned ][are ][still ][even ][now ][in]2025 [also ][initiating ][proceedings ][in ][contravention ][to ][the ][provisions]of Section [1 ][5 I ][A of ][the ][Act ][and ][as ][a ][result ][by now' ][more ][than 600]to 700 [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 ][Kanakala ][Roindra ][Reddy](1 supra). [What ][is ][also surprising ][is ][the fact that ][though while]the [writ ][petitions ][in ][the ][case ][of ][Kanakala ][Ravindra]allowing Reddy [(1 ]supra), [the ][Division ][Bench ][while ][reserving the ][right ][of]the Revenue, [has also ][protected ][the ][interest ][of ][the ][petitioners] insofar as the liberty which was granted to the Revenue forrnitiating fresh proceedings strictly in accordance rnitiating fresh proceedings strictly in accordance r.r,ith the amendedprovisions of the Act, as antended by the Finance Act, 2020 andprovisions of the Act, as antended by the Finance Act, 2020 andthe Finance Act,2021. The petitioner assessee would be entitled tochallenge or raise the other legal objections if the Revenue initiatesfresh proceedings. The legal objections if the Revenue initiatesfresh proceedings. The Department has made no endeavour inavailing the said liberty that was reserved for the Revenue. On theinavailing the said liberty that was reserved for the Revenue. On thecontrary ' they have been still sticking on to the sta,d, which thisHigh court as well as many other High courts High court as well as many other High courts arready herd to bebadbad 11. It appears that because of the aforesaid libe of the aforesaid the aforesaid liberty thar rhis HighCourt had granted permitting the Revenue forinitiaringfreshproceedings as a one_time measure rn a face.lessmanner, theIncome Tax Department wants to take advantageof the same byprotracting these proceedings which would enable rhem to nleet thelimitation that would other-wise come in rhe 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 couft confirmsthe decision raken by this High Court as also by the other HighCourts in which the SLps are still pending, the Income Tax l : \l\ Department [would ][get ][the ][advantage ][of ][the ][liberty ][that ][is ][otherwise]in [favour ][of ][the ][Revenue ][for ][initiation ][of ][fresh]protected proceedings [from ][the disposal ][ofthese ][matters ][at ][a ][much later ][stage]which [would ][be ][advantageous ][and ][beneficial ][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. l : \l\ Department [would ][get ][the ][advantage ][of ][the ][liberty ][that ][is ][otherwise]in [favour ][of ][the ][Revenue ][for ][initiation ][of ][fresh]protected proceedings [from ][the disposal ][ofthese ][matters ][at ][a ][much later ][stage]which [would ][be ][advantageous ][and ][beneficial ][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 ][tn ][Kanakola Ravindra ][Reddy ][(l ][supra)' is ][a]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]withover600-T00petitionspilinguponthesameissue.Thisdeliberate [approach ][not only ][undermines ][the ][principle of judicial]precedent [but ][also strains the ][judicial ][resources ][unnecessarily' ][The]Depaftment's [strategy ][of ][awaiting the ][Supreme ][Court's decision ][on]to initiate [fresh ]Proceedingspending SLPs [while ][continuing]to be [a ][calculated ][move]to buy time [and ][circumvent]appears limitation [periods, rather ][than ][adhering ][to ][the ][established ][legal] position. Such conduct raises serious questions about theadministrative efficiency and the respect for judicialpronouncements, parlicularly when this Court has already provideda balanced approach by preserving both the Revenue,s rights andassesses lnterests. 13. Another aspect which needs to be considerecl is that in lact itshould have been realized by the Income Tax Dcpartment itself andshould have found out.yia media in ensuring that proceedingsunder Sections 14g-A and 14g should not have been issued in afaceless manner, at least till the Hon,ble Suprerne Court decide thetwelve hundred (1200) odd SLps which it is already seized of or., atleast the Income Tax Department should have lbund out someremedial steps to ensure that wherever the authorities intcnd toinitiate proceedings under Sections I4g-A and l4g, orher than in afaceless manner, the proceedings should have been deferrcclwithout precipitating the matter further intimating the assessee thatthey shall initiate appropriate proceedings only after the SLp,s ar.edecided 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 11has 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 ][struggling ][to ][reduce ][its]pendency, [such notices ][which ][are ][under challenge ][in ][this ][writ]petition [are ][forcing the ][assessee ][to ][knock the ][doors ][of ][this ][High]Courl [resulting ][in ][filing ][of ][hdndreds ][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 ][Couft ][having ][been ][taken ][on]many [occasions, the ][Hon'bte ][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]Courts [of ][different ][States ][on the ][satne issue; ][and to ][make]of High things further [worse, ][the ][Income ][Tax ][Departrrent ][is ][showing]audacity by [issuing ][notices ][continuously ][under ][Sections 148-A ][and] I48 through the jurisdictional Assessing officer whereas it oushrto have been only in the faceless manner 14. In the case of BANK OF INDIA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, INCOME TAXI r, on an issue whether ir r^,asjustifiable on the part of the Income Tax Depaftment 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. paridwalla has righ,y drawn out attention to thedecision of this Court in Commissioner of lncome Tax vs. Smt.Godavaridevi Sarafi2 as also the recent decision of the co_ordinate Bench of this Court in Samp Furniture (p) Ltd. v. lTOr3of which one of us (Justice G.s. Kurkarni) was a member, whereinthe Court categorically observed that the Revenue having not"accepted" the judgment of the High Court would not mean that tithe 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, thecourt observed that the approach of the officiars of Revenue oftreating decisions being [,,not ]acceptable,, was criticized by theSupreme Court. In such decision, following are the relevantobservations made by the Supreme Court. ','rlr,,1o-r1.l.r.r^ort\mann.com422Bombay)l ','rlr,,1o-r1.l.r.r^ort\mann.com422Bombay)l" | 1978 | I tj ITR 589 (Bombay)" | 1978 | I tj ITR 589 (Bombay)'' to [2024) [65 taxmann.corn 5gl/300 Taxman 452 (Bornbay)to [2024) [65 taxmann.corn 5gl/300 Taxman 452 (Bornbay) lOe2l raxmann.com I6155 ELT 433 (SC) r] \ ','rlr,,1o-r1.l.r.r^ort\mann.com422Bombay)l ','rlr,,1o-r1.l.r.r^ort\mann.com422Bombay)l" | 1978 | I tj ITR 589 (Bombay)" | 1978 | I tj ITR 589 (Bombay)'' to [2024) [65 taxmann.corn 5gl/300 Taxman 452 (Bornbay)to [2024) [65 taxmann.corn 5gl/300 Taxman 452 (Bornbay) lOe2l raxmann.com I6155 ELT 433 (SC) r] \ "6. Sri [Reddv ][is ][peihaps ][risht ][in ][savins ][t::l^tt:]*,""r" [*"tt ][not ][actuated ][by ][any ][mala ][fides ][ln],,,n", l"j:':;"".'rno'n""l,i'li';" "rr':::" genuinelY [felt that the claim ][I]tenable [and ][that' ][if it ][was ][accepted' ][the ][Revenue]But [what ][sri ][Reddv overlooks ][is ][that ][we];;; ;", are [not ][concerned ][here ][with ][the ][correctness ][or]otherwise [of ][their ][conclusion ][or ][of ][any ][factual]but [with the fact that the officers' in ]'"::i",:;il intheirconclusion,by-passedtwoappellateorderstnregard [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]this [conductof ][the Assistant ][collectors ][and]";;,;; the [harassment ][to the ][assessee caused ][by ][the ][failure]of these [officers ][to ][give ][effect ][to ][the ][orders ][o{]authorities [higher ][to ][them ][in ][the ][appellate ][hierarchy ][lt]cannot [be ][too ][vehemently emphasized ][that ][it ][ts^of]utmost [importance ][that' ][in ][disposing ][of ][the]or".U*'t"i [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 iurisdiction and]the [order ][of ][the ][Tribunal ][is ][binding upon the ][Assistant]ColiectorsandtheAppellateCollectorswhofunctionunder [the iurisdiction ][of the ][Tribunal ][The principles ][of]iudicial [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 subiect ][matter ][of ][an ][appeal can ][furnish ][no]ground [for ][not following ][it ][unless ][its ][operation ][tlas]been [suspended by ][a ][competent ][court ][lf ][this ][healthy] rule is not followed, the result wiil only be undueharassment to assesses andchaos in administrationof tax laws. 12. We hdealt with this because [.ave ]aspect at some length,t^ nal ueen suggested by the rearnedAdditionar Solicitor General that the observationsmade by the High Court, have been harsh on the. ctear that.the observations of the Hish::fi" l: ,nprr"trbr. [gy ][vehement, ][and]a tendencv ll'T l***' ","'on"i''nlnol:i:..::,.lrevenue matters become wic which, if allowed tocould result in considerableharassment ,lu"OruaA, the assesses-public without to the Reve any benefitdepartment ! ihould we take would these like observations to say that in thethe:;:il fl:,, ]T,,:::ffi :::iln#:i ::*ishoutd be paid by the adjudicating ,rti_itiu" ,no tn"appellate auftdiscipline ,no ['o'"'"t ][to ][the ][requirements ][of ][judicial]or rhe hsher [j::#:iffi#"1T:T:::"#H;]on them.,, 15. What is worrying this Bench more is the fact that anendeavour is being made whole heartediy 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 standthatlhe action of the Income Tax Department being vioialive of the r. 15. What is worrying this Bench more is the fact that anendeavour is being made whole heartediy 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 standthatlhe action of the Income Tax Department being vioialive of the r. FinanceAct,2o20andFinanceAct,202l.Now,inordertoprotectthe 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 ][(l ][supra) ][shall however ][be ][subject to]theoutcomeoftheSLPswhichwerefrledbythelncomeTaxDeparlment [and ][which ][is pending consideration before ][the ][Hon'ble]Supreme Court. I 6. 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 Court]and which [stands ][fortihed ][by ][the ][decisions ][of ][the ][various ][other]Courls [on ][the ][very ][same ][issue; ][the ][pendency ][of ][this ][High]High Court would [further ][be ][burdened ][which ][otherwise can ][be decided]and disposed [ofas ][a ][covered matter'] 17. So far as [the ][interest ][of ][the ][Revenue ][is concemed' ][we ][are ][of]the considered opinion [that the ][interest ][ofthe ][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 accordtngly 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 14g 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 gefting 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 caseof Ashrsh Agarwal, supra, as a one_time measureexercising the powers under Article 142 of theConstitution of lndia, permitted the Revenue to proceedunder the substituted provisions, and this Court allowingthe petitions onlyon the procedural flaw, the right/ fIY-1 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 ][of ][Ashish]Agarwal, suPra. 38. Since the Hon,ble Supreme Court had, in the caseof Ashrsh Agarwal, supra, as a one_time measureexercising the powers under Article 142 of theConstitution of lndia, permitted the Revenue to proceedunder the substituted provisions, and this Court allowingthe petitions onlyon the procedural flaw, the right/ fIY-1 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 ][of ][Ashish]Agarwal, suPra. 18. We [would only ][further ][like to ][make ][observations ][that ][since]we arc inclined [to ][dispose ][of ][the ][instant ][writ ][petition' ][conscious ][of]the facr that [the ][earlier order ][of ][this High ][court ][in ][the ][case ][of]Kanakala [Ravindra ][Reddy ][(l ][supra) ][is ][subjected ][to ][challenge]befbre the [Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Court ][in ] [No'3574 ][of ][2024']pret-erred by [the ][[ncome ][Tax Department' we ][make ][it ][clear ][that]of [the ][instant ][writ ][petition ][is ][subject ][to ][outcome ][of ][the]attowing aforesaid SLP [prefened by ][the ][Revenue against the decision ][of ][this]courl in [the ][case ][of ][Kanakala Ravindra ][Reddy ][(l ][supra)']Fligtr 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]Coult in [the pending SLP ][on ][the ][very ][same issue'] 19. Accordingty, [the ][instant ][writ ][petition ][stands ][allowed ][in]favouroftheassesseesofarastheissueofjurisdictionisconcerned. As [a ][consequence, ][the ][impugned ][notice ][under]challenge [under Sections ][148-4 and ][148 stands ][set aside/quashed'] I \ The consequential orders, if any, also stand set aside/quashed insimilar terms as have been passed by this High Court in the case ofKankualo Ravindra Retlrty (l supra). There shall be no order assimilar terms as have been passed by this High Court in the case ofKankualo Ravindra Retlrty (l supra). There shall be no order as to costs Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/. M. OSMAN ALI BAIGASSISTANT REGISTRARN.lSECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, 1. The lncome Tax Officgr, Ward '1 , Siddipet lncome Tax Office, 8-1-22, 1'lFloor, Subhash Road, Siddipet,Telangana. 1. The lncome Tax Officgr, Ward '1 , Siddipet lncome Tax Office, 8-1-22, 1'lFloor, Subhash Road, Siddipet,Telangana. Floor, Subhash Road, Siddipet,Telangana.2. The lncome Tax Officer, Ward 1, Sangareddy lncome TaxOffice,Veerabhadra Nagar, New Bus Stand,Veerabhadra Nagar,SangaRed d y,Tela nga n a.a.Office,Veerabhadra Nagar, New Bus Stand,Veerabhadra Nagar,SangaRed d y,Tela nga n a.a. Red nga n a.a.3. The Principal Chief Commissioner of lncome Tax, Telangana and A.P,Hyderabad, lT Towers, AC Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad - 500028,Telangana.Hyderabad, lT Towers, AC Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad - 500028,Telangana. 4. The Chairman ,Central Board of Direct Taxes, Department of Revenue,Ministry of Finance, Government of lndia, Secretariat Buildings, New Delhi -110001.Ministry of Finance, Government of lndia, Secretariat Buildings, New Delhi -110001. 5. The National Faceless Assessment Center, lncome Tax Department, [New]Delhi.Delhi. 6. The Secretary, Union of lndia, Government, [Department of Revenue, ][IVlinistry]of Finance, New Delhi - [1 ]10001.of Finance, New Delhi - [1 ]10001. 7. One CC to SRl. THANNERU CHAITANYA [KUIVAR, ][Advocate ] B. One CC to MS. J. SUNITHA [(JUNIOR SC FOR ] [TAX) ] 9. One CC to SRl. GADI [PRAVEEN KUMAR, DY. SOLICITOR ] rND|A rND|A 10. Two CD CopiesBMBM GJP € HIGH COURT DATED:01 1051202s ORDER o[n litE ] (.!)(-D2 0 rlj8 zlEJ-a,9c 11g1rf:C WP.No.31435 of 2024 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS \a