Under Section L4Ga Ofthe Act As Also Under Section L4G Of Theact Ought To Have Also Been Issued And Proceeded In A Facelessmanner v. The Contention Of The Petitioner Rs That The Issue Contention Of The Petitioner Rs That The Issue Of The Petitioner Rs That The Issue The Petitioner Rs That The

HIGH COURT FOR THE ST TE OF T€LANGANAAT HYDEBAD(Special Originalurisdictlon) MONDAY, THE TWENry EIHTH DAY OF APRILTWO THOUSAND ANTWENW FIVE PRESET THE HONOURABLE SRI JU TICE P.SAM KOSHY ANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICEARSING RAO NANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION NO:311 0F 2024 Between: Smt. Sailaja Devi Malagani, D/o. Sriarasimha Rao, Aged about 57 years,Occupation. House Wit'e, No.401, 83-1046, Narayan Reddy SaraswathiApts., Srinagar Colony, Ameerpet, Hydrabad - 50O073. ...PETITlONER AND The lncome Tax Officer, Ward- 6(1), ITowers, A.C. Guards, Masabtank,Hyderabad - 500004. ...RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the Costitution of lndia praying that in thecircumstarrces stated in the affidavit filedtherewith, the High Court may bepleased to pass an order or direction, espially one in the nature of WRIT OFMANDAMUS holding that the order passedy Respondent u/s.1 48A(d) of the Act,d1.30.08.2024 with DIN and Notice No.lTBA/sT t F t 1 48 N2024- % I 1 0681 9497 8(1 )and the notice dated 30.08.2024 issued undr section 148 of the Act with DIN andl,Iotice No.ITBA/AST/S/148 1 12024-25t106895328(1) for the assessment year2018-19, as being illegal, arbitrary and pased in gross violation of principles ofnatural [justice ]Without application of mind, anconsequently set aside the same. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC prayig that in the circumstances stated inthe affidavit fibd in support of the petition,the High Court may be pleased tothe affidavit fibd in support of the petition,the High Court may be pleased tosuspend the operation of the notice issuedthe Respondent u/s.1zE of the Act,dt.30.O8.2024 for the assessment year2018-19 with DIN and Noticedt.30.O8.2024 for the assessment year2018-19 with DIN and Notice No.ITBA/AST/S1148_112024-25/1068195328(1) and alt consequential proceedingsthereto.thereto. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI A.V.RAGHU RAMCounsel for the Respondent: M/s. BOKARO SAPNA REDDY, Jr. SC FORINCOME TAX The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOT]RABLE SRISTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTIIE HONOT]RABLE SRITICE NARSINGRAONANDIKA WRITPETITIONN .263ttOB 2024 $DEB, [(per ][Hon'ble ][Sri ][Justice ][Narsing] Nandikonda) Heard Mr. A.V.Raghuleamed counsel for thepetitiofler, Ms. B.Sapna Reddy, leaJunior Standing Counselfor the Income Tax Department fothe respondent. Perused the record 2. This is a writ petition whethe proceedings are eitherchallenged to the notices which [wer]issued under Section l48Aand 148 of the Income Tax Act, [19] I [(for ][short 'the ][Act') ][or ][the]assessment orders those have beenssed under Section 147 ofthe Act which have been assailed 3. This writ petition is being takup today only on one of thegrounds, that the notices issued un er Section l48A of the Actand the subsequent initiation ofproings under Section 148 oftthe Actby the [jurisdictional ]Assessg Officer, whereas in termsof the arrendment that was [brought ][t]the lncome Tax Act by wayof Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f., 0l.2021 onwards, proceedings under Section l4gA ofthe Act as also under Section l4g of theAct ought to have also been issued and proceeded in a facelessmanner. record 2. This is a writ petition whethe proceedings are eitherchallenged to the notices which [wer]issued under Section l48Aand 148 of the Income Tax Act, [19] I [(for ][short 'the ][Act') ][or ][the]assessment orders those have beenssed under Section 147 ofthe Act which have been assailed 3. This writ petition is being takup today only on one of thegrounds, that the notices issued un er Section l48A of the Actand the subsequent initiation ofproings under Section 148 oftthe Actby the [jurisdictional ]Assessg Officer, whereas in termsof the arrendment that was [brought ][t]the lncome Tax Act by wayof Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f., 0l.2021 onwards, proceedings under Section l4gA ofthe 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 rs that the issue contention of the petitioner rs that the issue of the petitioner rs that the issue the petitioner rs that the issue petitioner rs that the issue rs that the issue that the issue the issue issue ofproceedings being in violation of the Finance Act,2021i.e., theimpugned notices under Section I4gA and Section I4g 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 allowed andthe proceedings initiated under Section 14gA as also under Section148 of the Act were held to be bad with consequential reliefs on theground of it being in violation of the provisions of Section I 5 I A ofthe Acr read with Notification lg/2022 dated29.03.2022. The saidjudgment passed by this Court has also been subsequently lollowedin a large number of writ petitions which were allowed on similartermsI0 The contention of the petitioner rs that the issue contention of the petitioner rs that the issue of the petitioner rs that the issue the petitioner rs that the issue petitioner rs that the issue rs that the issue that the issue the issue issue of 'tQ023) 156 raxmann.com I7g (Telangana)l ,/, ,/// 5. 5. Down the lirrc, we findthe same issue has also beendecided against the Reventre bvaflous High Courts i.e.,by the Bombay High Courtthe case of TIEXAWAR-ETECHNOLOGIES LTD., vs. ASISTANT COMMISSTONEROF INCOME TAX& OTTIERS2,Gauhati High Court in the caseof RAM NARAYAN SAH vs.ON OF INDIA3, Punjab andHaryana High Court in the case ofATINDER SINGH BANGUvs. UNION OF INDIA4, and Telaa High Court in the case ofSRI VENKATARAMANA REDY PATLOOLA vs. DEPUTYCOMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX5 where the issue was inrespect of international taxation, Bobay High Court in the case ofABHIN AMLKT,MAR SHAH vsINCOME TAX OFFICER,INTERNATIONAL TAXATIOIt'which is again on internationaltaxation and central circle, High Cort of Himachal Pradesh in thecase of GOVII\D SINGH vs.COME TAX OFFICER?,Gujarat High Court in these of MANSUKIIBI{AI ' 1zozty [464 ][rrR ][430 ][(Bom)]lI'l(2024) [156 ]taxmann.com 4nE G(auha )l' t(2024)h65 t"*r,il-.co. tI 5 (Punj&Haryana)l'[202q [lbl ]taxmarn.com 4l1(reang)l" [2024) [166 ]taxmann.com 679 (Bombal' [2024) 165 taxnann.com I 13 (HimaPradesh)l ' 1zozty [464 ][rrR ][430 ][(Bom)]lI'l(2024) [156 ]taxmann.com 4nE G(auha )l' t(2024)h65 t"*r,il-.co. tI 5 (Punj&Haryana)l'[202q [lbl ]taxmarn.com 4l1(reang)l" [2024) [166 ]taxmann.com 679 (Bombal' [2024) 165 taxnann.com I 13 (HimaPradesh)l DAHYABTIAI RADADIYA [VS. ] [OFFICER,]WARD 3(3X5)E, Jharkand [High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ] SUNDAR SAW vs. UNION [INDIAe, ][Rajasthan ][High Court ][in]the case of SHARDA DEVI CIIHAJER [vs. ] OFFICER & ANOTHER and [batch ][of ][writ ][petitionsro which]stood decided on 19.03.2024. [Similar ][views ][have ][also been taken]by the Division Bench of [Calcutta ][High Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]GIRDHAR GOPAL DALMIA [vs. ] [& ] (M.A.T 1690 o12023), decided on25.Q9.2024.6. Even though the same issue [having ][been ][decided ][by ][a large]number of High Courts, [we ][are ][still ][confronted ][with ][large ][filing ][ot]identical matters on daily basis [ranging ][between ][5 ][to ][l0 ][writ]petitions. That upon the instructions being [sought ][from ][the]f)epartment, they have been [taking ][a ][solitary ][ground ][that ][the]decision of the Bombay High [Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ][Hexaware]Technologies Ltd., (2 supra) as also [the ][one ][which ][has ][been]decidefl by this Court in the case of Kanakala [Ravindra ][Reddy]t3202+ SCC online Guj 4012I" 2025 Online [Jhar ]287'u12023 [: ][RJ-JD:4984-DBl] (l supra) has been subjected tosubjected to (l supra) has been subjected tosubjected tolenge, in a Specia.l LeavePetition i.e., SLP No.3574 of 20before the Hon'ble SupremeCourt and the Hon'ble Supremeourt is seized of the matter.In addition, there are about 1200 Ss also filed arising out of thesame issue being decided by varioHigh Courts. 7. To a query being put to theed counsel for the Revenue,they have categorically acceptede fact that there is no interimorder granted by the Hon'ble SuCourt in any of thesematters pending before it. Meanle, fresh writ petitions olidentical nature are being piled upore this Bench on daily basisand the pendency is getting inon matter which otherwisehas already been dealt and decided bthis very High Court itself. 8. On the one hand, even thouthe order of this Court thatwas passed as early as on 14.09.203 and more 16 months havelapsed, till date, we do not find anremedial steps having beentaken by the Income Tax Depto take appropriate steps toeither hold back issuance of noticeer Section l48A and underSection 148 of the Act by the jsdictional Assessing Offrccr,rather the authoriti€s concemed ine teeth of series of decisions by all the ma;or' High Ccrrrts in lndia [are ][continuously ][stilt]initiating proceedings under Section l48A of the Act and alsoinitiating proceedings under Section 148 of the Act incontravention to the amendments brought into the Income [Tax ][Act]pursuant 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 [in]the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra), learned StandingCounsel for the Income Tax Department contends that those wouldunnecessarily burden the lncome Tax Department where theywould be required to hle equal number of SLPs before theHon'ble Supreme Court and it would be further burdening theexchequer ol the Union of India. It was also the contention of theleamed Standing Counsel that no prejudice would be caused to theinterest olthe petitioners in case itthis writ petition is kept pendingtill the hnalization 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 [ncome Tax Department have not comeout with a mechanism to issue appropriate instructions or to take appropriate steps in ensuring that punder Section 1484.of the Act as also th€ assessmentunder Seotion 148 oftheAct are kept in a hold in the lightthe decisions dedcided by thevarious High Courts, it wastted by the leamed StandingCounsel that the said steps can onlbe taken at ttre level of CBDTas any such steps would have to betaken Pan India and cannot belimited to any of these jurisdictionalHigh Courts. 10. As a result of which, whatare facing is steep increase oflitigation day in and day out evenugh various orders have beenpassed by this High Court allowingpetitions on the very sameissue. The Income Tax authoritiesare still even now in2025 atso initiating proceedings inntravention to the provisionsof Section l5lA of the Act and asresult by now, more than 600to 700 petitions have been alreadygot piled up before this HighCourt on an issue which otherwisesquarely covered by thejudgment of this Court in the casef Kanakala Ravindra Reddy( t supra). What is also surprisingis the fact that though whileallowing the writ petitions in thecas€ of Kanakala RavindraReddy (l supra), the Division Bwhile reserving the right ofthe Revenue, has also protectedinterest of the petitioners insofar as the liberty [which was ][granted ][to ][the ][Revenue ][for]initiating fresh proceedings strictly in accordance [with ][the ]amendedprovisions of the Act, as amended by the Finance Act, 2020 and,the Finance Act,202l. The petitioner [assessee ][would ]be [entitled ]tochallenge or raise the other lega[ objections if the Revenue initiatesfresh proceedings. The Department has made no endeavour inavailing the said liberty that was reserved for the Revenue. On theconkary, they have been still sticking on to the stand, which thisHigh Court as well as many other High Courts already held to bebad I l. It appears that because of the aforesaid liberty that this HighCourt had granted permitting the Revenue for initiating freshproceedings as a one-time measure in a laceless manner, 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 lor 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 HighCourts in which the S LPs are still pending- the Inco_m_rc Tax 1i!511 iiaI Department would get ttre advantagof the liberty that is otherwiseprotected in favour of the Revfor initiation of freshproceedings from the disposal ofmatters at a much later stagewhich would be advantageous andeficial to the Revenue andwould be equally disadvantageousd detrimental so far as interestof the assesses are concerned. Asconsequence, the Income TaxDepartment gets an extended [perio]of time for initiation of freshproceedings. 12. The alarming trend of docketlosion in this Court, despitethe clear precedent set in KanakalaavindraReddy (l supra), is amatter of grave concern. The IncoTax Departuent's persistentinitiation ol fresh proceedings, disrearding the established [judicial]pronouncements, has led to anrecedented surge in litigationwith over 600-700 petitions [piti]up on the same issue. Thisdeliberate approach not only undes the principle ofjudicialprecedent but also strains the [judici]I resources unnecessarily. TheDepartment's strategy of awaitingSupreme Court's decision onpending SLPs while continuinginitiate fresh proceedingsappears to be a calculated [move]to buy time and circumventlimitation periods, rather [than ][ad]ng to the established legal fl-rsr:io;i.. [;juch ][cc,ridc,,1 ][''2:rei ][:,..ious ][questions ][about ][the]administrative effrciency and the respect for [judicial]pronoun@ments, particularly when this Court has already provideda balanced approach by preserving both the Revenue's rights andassesses interests. fl-rsr:io;i.. [;juch ][cc,ridc,,1 ][''2:rei ][:,..ious ][questions ][about ][the]administrative effrciency and the respect for [judicial]pronoun@ments, particularly when this Court has already provideda balanced approach by preserving both the Revenue's rights andassesses interests. 13. Another aspect which needs to be considered is that in fact itshould have been realized by the lncome Tax Department itself andshould have found out via media in ensuring that proceedingsunder Sections 148-4 and 148 should not have been issued in afaceless manner, at least tilt the Hon'ble Supreme Court decide thetwelve hundred (1200) odd SLPs it is already seized ofor, at"vhich least the Income Tax Department should have found out somerernedial steps to ensure that wherever the authorities intend toinitiate proceedings under Sections 148-A and 148, 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 ior the facj that such a decision if at all has to be taken, has to be taken forwhole of Indiar. iind whichotherwise has to be by way of a poliy decision and that too at theotherwise has to be by way of a poliy decision and that too at thelevel of Central Board of Directaxes. Though the leamedStanding Counsel for the Income TDepartment contended thatthe Delhi High Court dismissed a wripetition of similar nafure, onthe one hand when the High Couis struggling to reduce itsthe Delhi High Court dismissed a wripetition of similar nafure, onthe one hand when the High Couis struggling to reduce itspendency, such notices which arender challenge in this writpetltlon are forcing the assessee toock rhe doors of this HighCourt resulting in filing of hundredsonew writ petitions which inpetltlon are forcing the assessee toock rhe doors of this HighCourt resulting in filing of hundredsonew writ petitions which inthe long run not only affects the dispsal of the writ petitions butalso consumes substantial time ofe Bench in hearing thesematters again and again on daily basis.Admittedly, in spite of thematter before the Hon'ble matter before the Hon'ble Supreme Curt having been taken onmany occasions, the Hon,ble Supremeourt which is seized of thematter has been reluctant in granting ay interim protection to themany occasions, the Hon,ble Supremeourt which is seized of thematter has been reluctant in granting ay interim protection to theIncome Tax Department. yet. the athorities concerned at theState level are not ready to accept the vrdict passed by a majorityof High Courts of diff'erent States on tsame tssue; and to makethings further worse, the Income TDepartment is showingaudacity by issuing notices continuouslynder Sections 148-.4. andof High Courts of diff'erent States on tsame tssue; and to makethings further worse, the Income TDepartment is showingaudacity by issuing notices continuouslynder Sections 148-.4. and 148 through the [jurisdictional ][Assessing ][Officer ][whereas ][it ][ought]to have been only [in ][the ][faceless ][manner.] 14. In the case of BANK OF [vs. ] COMMISSIONER, INCOME [TAXrr, ][on ][an ][issue ][whether ][it ][was]justifiabte on the part of the Income Tax Department in notfollowing an order [passed ]by the [adjudicating ][authority only ][on ][the]ground that the appeals are pending, the [Division ][Bench ][of ][the]High Court of Bombay held at [paragraph ][No.25 ][as ][under, ][viz., ][:] 148 through the [jurisdictional ][Assessing ][Officer ][whereas ][it ][ought]to have been only [in ][the ][faceless ][manner.] 14. In the case of BANK OF [vs. ] COMMISSIONER, INCOME [TAXrr, ][on ][an ][issue ][whether ][it ][was]justifiabte on the part of the Income Tax Department in notfollowing an order [passed ]by the [adjudicating ][authority only ][on ][the]ground that the appeals are pending, the [Division ][Bench ][of ][the]High Court of Bombay held at [paragraph ][No.25 ][as ][under, ][viz., ][:] "25. Mr. Paridwalla has rightly drawn out attention to thedecision of this Court [in ]Commissioner [of ][lncome ][Tax ][vs. ][Smt.]Godavaridevi Sarafl2 as also the recent decision [of ][the ][co-]ordinate Bench of this Court [in ]Samp [Furniture ][(P) Ltd. ][v. ][lTOr3]of which one of us [(Justice G.S. ][Kulkarni) ][was ][a ][member, ][wherein]the Court categorically observed that [the ][Revenue having ][not]"accepted" the [judgment ]of the High Cou( would [not ][mean ]that [till]the same is set aside in a manner [known to law, ][it ][would loose ][its]binding force. Refening to lhe [decision ]of [the ][Supreme Court ][in]Union of lndia vs. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation [Ltd.14, the]Cou( observed that the approach of the [officials ][of ][Revenue of]treating decisions being ["not ]acceptable" [was ][criticized ][by ][the]Supreme Court. ln such decision, [following ][are ][the ][relevant]observations made by the Supreme [Court.] " 11zOzs'S [170 ][taxmann.com 422 ][(Bombay)l] '2 1t9281 [113 ] [589 ][(Bombay)] " 120241165 [taxmann.com 581/300 Taxman 452 ][(Bombay)] 'o 1t99z1taxmaffr.com [16155 ] [4ll ][(SC)] $. Sri Reddy is [perhaps]in saying that theoffrcers were not actuatedby any mala frdes inpassirE {he impugned oThey [perhaps]genuinely felt that the claimf the assessee was nottenable and that, if it was, [the ][Revenue]would suffer. But what Sriddy overlooks is that weare not concerned herethe conectness orotherwise of their conclusnor of any factualmalafides but with the fact thathe ofiicers, in reachingin their conclusion, by-pastwo appellate orders inregard to the same issueich were placed beforethem, one of the Collector [(]ls) aM the other ofthe Tribunal. The High Couhas, in our view, rightlycriticized this conduct of theistant Collectors andthe harassment to the assese caused by the failureof these officers to [give]to the orders ofauthorities higher to them in te appellate hierarchy. ltcannot be too vehemently ephasized that it is ofutrnost importance that,disposing of thequasijudicial issues before tm, revenue officers arebound by the decisions of te appellate authorities.The order of the Appellte Colector is binding on lheAssistant Collectors workingithin his [jurisdiction ]andthe order of the Tribunal is biing upon the AssistantCollectors and the Appellatelectors who functionunder the [jurisdiction ]of the Tnal. The principles ofjudicial discipline require thatorders of the higherappellate authorities shouldfollowed unreservedlyby the subordinate authoritiesThe mere fact that theorder of the appellate authoy is not "acceptaue" tothe department - in itself anobjectionable phrase -and is the subject matter of aappeal can furnish noground for not following it uless its operation hasbeer -ended by a comnt court. lf this healthy <+= rule is not followed, the result will only be undueharassment to assesses and chaos in administrationof tax laws.of tax laws. <+= rule is not followed, the result will only be undueharassment to assesses and chaos in administrationof tax laws.of tax laws. 12. We have dealt with this aspect at some length,because it has been suggested by the learnedAdditional Solicitor General that the observationsmade by the High Court, have been harsh on theofficers. lt is clear that the observations of the HighCourt, seemingly vehement, and apparentlyunpalatable to the Revenue, are only intended to curba tendency in revenue mafters which, if allowed tobecome widespread, could result in considerableharassment to the assesses-public without any beneFitto the Revenue. We would like to say that thedepartment should take these observations in theproper spirit. The observations of the High Courtshould be kept in mind in future and the utmost regardshould be paid by the adjudicating authorities and theappellate authorities to the requirements of judiciatdiscipline and the need for giving effecl to the ordersof the higher appellate authorities which are bindingon them." 15. What is worryiry this Bench more is the fact rhat 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,021 . Now, in order to protectthe interest of tlre Revenue as alsoat ofthe assesse€, it would betrite at this [juncture, ]if we dispoof the writ petition with aoobservation/direction that the disposI of the instant writ petition interms of the judgment rendered byis High Court in the case ofKankanala Ravindra Reddy (l sup) [shall however be ]subject tothe outcome of the SLPs which wre filed by the Income TaxDepartment and which is pending cosideration before the Hon'bleSupreme Court. 16. In the given facts and circutances, this Bench is of theconsidered opinion that unless and util we do not timely disposeof matters which are squarely coveby the decision of this Courtand which stands fortified by the disions of the various otherHigh Courts on the very same issu, [the ][pendency ]of this HighCourt would further be burdened whch otherwise can be decidedand disposed ofas a covered matter 17. So far as th€ inter€st ofthe ReSo far as th€ inter€st ofthe Refar as th€ inter€st ofthe Reas th€ inter€st ofthe Reth€ inter€st ofthe Reofthe ReRe 17. So far as th€ inter€st ofthe ReSo far as th€ inter€st ofthe Refar as th€ inter€st ofthe Reas th€ inter€st ofthe Reth€ inter€st ofthe Reofthe ReReenue is concerned, we are ofthe considered opinion that the interet of the Revenue has alreadybeen considered aod protected, as has been observed in paragraphs l i:i IIIiI 36,37 ar:d 38 ofthe order which, for ready reference, is reproduced hereunder: 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 gefting quashed, the consequential orders [passed]by the respondent-Department pursuant to the noticesissued under Section 147 and 148 would also getquashed and it is ordered acmrdingly. 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 obiection raised by the petitioner issustained and all these writ petitions stands allowed onthis very iurisdictional issue. Since the impugned noticesand orders are getting quashed on lhe point ofjurisdiction, we are not inclined to proceed further anddecide the other issues raised by the petitioner whichslands reserved to be raised and contended in anappropriate proceedings. 37. The preliminary obiection raised by the petitioner issustained and all these writ petitions stands allowed onthis very iurisdictional issue. Since the impugned noticesand orders are getting quashed on lhe point ofjurisdiction, we are not inclined to proceed further anddecide the other issues raised by the petitioner whichslands 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-time measureexercising the powers under Article 142 of theConstitution of lndia, permitted the Revenue to proceedunder the substituted provisions, and this Court allowingthe petitions only on the procedural flaw, the right confened on the [Revenue]uld remain reserved toproceed further if they sot from the stage of theorder of the Supremein the case of AshishAgarural, supra. 18. We would only We would only would only further [[like]] 18. We would only We would only would only further [[like]]make observations that sincewe are inclined to dispose of the inwrit petition, conscious ofthe fact that the earlier order ofs High Court in the case ofKanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supls subjected to challengebefore the Hon'ble Supreme [Co]in SLP No.3574 of 2024,preferred by the Income Tax Depent, we make it clear thatallowing of the instant writ [petitio]is subject to outcome of theaforesaid SLP preferred by the Revue against the decision of thisHigh Court in the case of KanakaRavindra Reddy (l supra).This, in other words, would meant either of the parties, if theyso want, may move an appropnatetition seeking revival of thrswrit petition in ttre light of the decsion of the Hon'ble SupremeCourt in the pending SLP on the [ve]same rssue. 19. Accordingly, Accordingly, the instantinstant 19. Accordingly, Accordingly, the instantinstantpetition stands allowed1nfavour of the assessee so far [as]the issue of [jurisdiction]ISconcemed. As a consequence,the impugned notice underchallenge under Sections 148-4 an148 stands set aside/quashed lI The consequential orders, [if ][any, also ][stand ][set ][aside/quashed ][in]similar terms [as ]have [been ][passed ][by ][this ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]Kunkanala Ravindra [Reddy ][(l ][supra). ][There ][shall ][be ][no ][order ][as]to costs. miscellaneous [petitions pending, ][if ][any, ][shall]Consequently, stand closed. !Ij HIGH COURT DATED:2810412025 ORDER WP.No.26311 of 2024 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITIONWITHOUT COSTS ( A2\+?0 sr<i.rit,,..,/',f'(i(ii 11 AUEzffil ,-^a\*l \._,.LTaiu