Under Sectiorr I4Ga Of The Act As Also Under Section 14G Of Theact Ought To Have Also Been Issued And Proceeded In A Facelessmanner.manner v. L(2023) 1 56 Taxrnann.com 17G (Telangana)Ll(2023) 1 56 Taxrnann.com 17G (Telangana)L

Ar H r G H [c ][o ][u ][Rr ][t ]" i J['.,'"13T.,t,:5 [:: ][i.3]3ffi ] FRIDAY, [TWENTY FIFTH DAY.OF.APRIL]TWO THOUSAND PRESENT THE HONOURABLE [P'SAM ] ANDrHE HoNouRAB [sRl'l ][usritHlrnnslNc ][RAo ] [DIKoN ] WRIT [O:2740][8][ oF ][2024] '"t*"iln, Ve rg hese' [qlo ]Iu [r ][yg'gl"l":,,lP:t*:,T ]P3,J3fl?,i' 3'ft"tttlt [T']Elilr"li,"ii"t "nviLiiEo [No ][97' ][Am^arco-op ][Housing ][50(]Telangana-5ooo8 1' ...PETITIONER AND 1Ass [i ][sta ][nt ]- [co ][mm ][i ][s s ][i ][o ][n e ][r ]Bi friil %, l?ih,llfi :: 3!i. ii,l#i "1"JJ'""'13,ii,l#i "1"JJ'""'13,SIil8rt'5i"1! [f,l,l6lt[;,n';'-HVoL'io"i' ][r"]ansana-500084] The Principal Principal [[Commissioner ]][of ][lncome ][IqT-2 ][l-|y-dep^bad ][sionature ][Towers'] 2The Principal Principal [[Commissioner ]]ilm,'sh,"tlmu;;i1..ld,".i5f [+i::ru'.:tl.oB8l;,,,Gardens]ilm,'sh,"tlmu;;i1..ld,".i5f [+i::ru'.:tl.oB8l;,,,Gardens] Jlktliti:',.+ilrJ#it,$txffid;f. ".,"*#!""ilo "'"TJ:E:lktliti:',.+ilrJ#it,$txffid;f. ".,"*#!""ilo "'"TJ:E: ...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]to [issue ][an ][appropriate ][writ ][order ][or ][direction more ][particularly ][one ][in]pleased the nature [of ][writ ][of ][Mandamus, ][decraring ][the ][notice ][u/s 148 dt. ][1310312024 ][vide]DIN No. [ITBA/AST/S/14 B-112023-2411062543537(1) ][issued ][by ][the ][JA0(1st]respondent) [instead ][of ][FAO(3rd respondent) ][for ][A'Y' ][2O2O-21' ][as ][void ][' ][illegal']and contrary [to ][the ][provisions ][of ][lncome-tax ][Act ][and contrary ][to ][the Principles of]Natural Justice ,,,;a{.-*w?Pl', .f--,:, ,,. IANO: 10F 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumsta.nces statedstay in the a' affidavit fired further proceedings pursuant in support of the petition, to the notice the High u/s court 14g dt. may 13103/2024 be preased videtoDrN No rrBA/AST/s/.4 8-112023-2411062543537(1) issued bv the JAO(1strespondent) instead of FAO(3rd respondent) for A.y. 2O2O_21 , and may passsuch other o.de(s) as the Honou.abre court deems fit and proper in the interestsof substantiar justice, as otherwise the petitioner wourd be put to irreparabre rossand severe injury. Counsel for the petitioner: SRI DUNDU MANMOHAN Counset for the Respondents: Ms. J.SUNITHA, Jr. SC FOR INCOME TAX The Court made the following: ORDER ,l TIIE [P'SAM ] N ARSING ARSING [[RAo]]rHE HoNou."rHi$l#HT', N ARSING ARSING [[RAo]]PETI [ No.2][7408][ f2024]o WRIT ORDER, @er [Hon'bLe ][Sri ][Justice P ][Sam ][Koshy)] Heard [Mr. ][Manmohan ][Dundu' ][leamed ][counsel ][for ][the]petitioner [and ][Ms' ][J'sunitha' ][learned ][Junior Standing ][Counsel ][for]Perused [the]the lncome [Tax ][DePartment][ for ][the ][resPondents]rccord.2. This is [a ][writ ][petition ][where ][the ][proceedings ][are ][either]challenged [to ][the notices ][which ][rvere issued ][under ][Section ][148,4]and 148 [of the ][Income ][Tax ][Act' ][i961 ][(for shod'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]grounds, [that ][the notices ][issued ][under ][Section ][148,{ ][of ][the ][Act]and the [subsequent ][initiation ][of ][proceedings under ][Section ][148 ][of]the Act [by ][the ][jurisdictional ][Assessing ][Officer' ][whereas ][in tems]of the amendment [that was brought ][to ][the ][Income ][Tax ][Act ][by way]of Finance [Act, ][2021 w ][e'f', ][01'04 ][2021 ][onwards' ][proceedings] under Sectiorr I4gA of the Act as also under Section 14g of theAct ought to have also been issued and proceeded in a facelessmanner.manner. under Sectiorr I4gA of the Act as also under Section 14g of theAct ought to have also been issued and proceeded in a facelessmanner.manner. 4' The contention of the petitioner is that the issue orproceedings being in violation of the Financ e Act, 2021 i.e.. theimpugned notices under Section l4gA and Section l4g of the Actnot being issued in a faceless manner, have already been dealt rvirhand decidcd by this Court in the case of KANKANALARAVINDRA REDDY vs. INCOME_TAX OFFICERT dccidedon 11.09.2023 wrrereby a batch of writ petitions wer.e aflowed andthe proceedings initiated under Section r4gA as also under.SectionI48 of the Act were held to be bad with consequential reliefs on theg.ound of it being in vioration of the provisions of Section I 51A oi.the Act read with Notification 1g/2022 dated 29.03 .2022. l.he saidjudg,ent passed by this court has also been subsequentry foilorvedin a large nurnber of writ petitions which were allowccr on similar.telms. 1 l(2023) 1 56 taxrnann.com 17g (Telangana)ll(2023) 1 56 taxrnann.com 17g (Telangana)l -1 5. Down [the line, we ][find ][that ][the ][same ][issue ][has ][also ][been]decided [against ][the ][Revenue ][by ][various ][High ][Courts ][i'e'']the [Bombay ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ] by TECHNOLOGIES [LTD', ][vs' ] oFINCoMETAx&OTHERS2,GauhatiHighCouninthecaseol RAM [vs' UNION ] [INDIA3' ][Punjab ][and]Haryana [High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ] vs. UNION [INDIA4, ][and ][Telangana ][High Courl ][in the ][case ][of]STIMNKATARAMANA [vs' ] COMMISSIONER [where ][the ][issue was ][in]respect [of ][intemational taxation' Bombay ][High Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]ABHIN [SHAH vs' ] [OFFICER']INTERNATIONAL [which ][is ][again on ][international]taxation [and ][central ][circle' ][High ][Courl ][of ][Himachal ][Pradesh ][in ][the]case of [vs' ] [OFFICBRT']Gujarat High [Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ] ' [yzoz+1464 ][lrR ][430 ][(Bom)]'itzozil [156 ][taxmann.com ][478 ][(Gauhati)l]'LQO24) [165 ][taxmann.com ][115 ][(Punjab ][& ][Haryana)l]'L2024) [167 ][taxmann.com ][41i ][(felangana)l]" 12024) [166 ][taxmann.com ][679 ][(Bombay)l]165 taxmann.com [113 ][(Himachal ][Pradesh)]] "[2024) J DAHYABHAI RADADIYA vs. INCOME TAx OFFICER,WARD 3(3X5)8, Jharkand IJigh Courl in the case of SIIyAMSUNDAR SAW vs. UNION OF INDIAe, Rajasthan High Court inthe case of SHARDA DEVI CHHAJER vs. INCOME TAXOFFICER & ANOTHER and batch of writ petitior.rsr0 whichstood decided on 19.03.2024. Similar views have also been takenby the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in the case olGIRDHAIT GOPAL DALMIA vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORs(M.A.T 1690 of 2023). decided on 25.09.2024.6. Even though the same issue having been decide<l by a largenumber of IJigh Courts. we are still confronted with large filing ofidentical matters on daily basis ranging between 5 to l0 r,vr.itpetitions. 1-hat upon the instructions being sought tiorn theDepartment. they have been taking a solitary ground thal thcdecision of the Bornbay High Court in the casc oI- HexaworeTechnologies Ltd., (2 supra) as also the one which ltas beendecided by this court in the case of Konakara Ravindra Reddt, 82024 SCC Online Guj 4012'2025 SCC Onlinc lhar 2g:'o [p2023 ][: ] [:49 ]84-DB l -i 82024 SCC Online Guj 4012'2025 SCC Onlinc lhar 2g:'o [p2023 ][: ] [:49 ]84-DB l -i (1 supra) [has ][been ][subjected ][to ][challenge ][in ][a ][Special ][Leave]Petition [i.e., SLP ][No'3574 ][of ][2024 before ][the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme]Court [and ][the Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Courl ][is ][seized ][of ][the ][matter']In addition, [there ][are ][about ][1200 SLPs ][also ][filed ][arising ][out of ][the]same [issue ][being ][decided by ][various ][High ][Coutls']1. To a [query being put ][to ][the ][leamed counsel ][for ][the ][Revenue']have [categorically ][accepted ][the ][fact ][that there ][is no ][interim]they older [granted ][bY the ][Hon'ble][ Supreme ][Courl ][in ][anY ][of ][these]rnatters [pending ][befbre ][it' ][Meanwhilc' ][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]lrasalreadybeendealtanddecidedbythisveryHighCourtitselt.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 ][ofnotice ][under Section ][1484. ][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 14gA of the Act and alsornrtiating proceedings under Section l4g of the Act incontravention to the amendrnents brought into the Income Tax Actinitiating proceedings under Section 14gA of the Act and alsornrtiating proceedings under Section l4g of the Act incontravention to the amendrnents brought into the Income Tax Actpursuant to the Finance Act,2020 as also the Finance Act2021.9' Upon a query being put as to why can,t this writ petition be9' 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 Konskda Rovindra Reddy (l supra), Iearned StandingCounsel for. the Incorne Tax Department contends that those wouldCounsel for. the Incorne Tax Department contends that those wouldunnecessarrly burden the I ncolue Tax Depar.trnent where the1,would be required to file equal number of SLps before theHon'ble Strpreme Court and it rvould be further burdening thewould be required to file equal number of SLps before theHon'ble Strpreme Court and it rvould be further burdening theexchequer of the Union of India. It was also the contention of thelearned Standing Counsel that no prejudice would be caused to thcinterest 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 comeinterest 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 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 ][of ][the decisions decided 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]lin.rited [to any ][of ][thcse ][jurisdictional High ][Courts"] I0. [As ][a ][result ][ol ][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 [lncome ][Tax ][authorities ][concerned 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]toT00petitionshavebeenalreadygotpiledupbeforethisHighCourt on [an issue ][which ][otherwise ][stands squarely covered ][by ][the]judgment of this [Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ][Kanakala Rovindra ][Redtly]What [is ][also surprising ][is the ][fact ][that ][though while](1 supra). the [writ ][petitions ][in ][the ][case ][of ][Kanakala ][Ravindra]altowing Reddy (l [supra), the ][Division ][Bench ][while ][reserving ][the ][right ][of]the Revenue, [has also ][protected ][the ][interest ][of ][the ][petitioners] insofar as thc libefty which was grantecr to the Revenuc forinitiating fresh proceedings strictly in accor.dance with the amendedprovisions of the Act, as arncnded by trre Financ e Act, 2020 andthe Finance Act, 2o2r . The petitioner assessee would be entitred tochallenge or raisc the other legal objections if the Revenue initiatesfresh procecdings. The Department has lnade no endeavour inavailing the said liberty that was reserved for t[.re l{evenue. On tltecontraty, they havc been still sticking on to the stand, rvhich thisHigh Courl as well as many other High Courls already held to bebad. 1 l. It appears that because ofthe aforesaid liberty that this HighCourt had granted permitting the Revenue for initiating fi.eshproceedings as a one_tinte tneasure in a faceless manner, theliberty that this HighCourt had granted permitting the Revenue for initiating fi.eshproceedings as a one_tinte tneasure in a faceless manner, theIncome Tax Depar.tment wants to take advantage ot.the same byprotracting these proceedings which would enable thenr to mcet thelimitation that rvould otherwisc corne 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 Couft confirmsthe decision taken by this High Courl as also by the other Highsame byprotracting these proceedings which would enable thenr to mcet thelimitation that rvould otherwisc corne 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 Couft confirmsthe decision taken by this High Courl as also by the other HighCourts in v,,hich the SLps are still pending, the lncome Tax l)epafiment [would ][get ][the ][advantage ][of ][the ][liberty ][that ][is ][otherwise]plotected[in ][favour ][of ][the ][Revenue ][for ][initiation ][of ][fresh]proceedings [from ][the disposal ][of ][these ][matters ][at ][a ][much ][later ][stage]r.vhioh 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]Dcpaltrnent [gets ][an ][extended ][period ][of ][time ][for ][initiation ][of ][fresh]ploceedings l)epafiment [would ][get ][the ][advantage ][of ][the ][liberty ][that ][is ][otherwise]plotected[in ][favour ][of ][the ][Revenue ][for ][initiation ][of ][fresh]proceedings [from ][the disposal ][of ][these ][matters ][at ][a ][much ][later ][stage]r.vhioh 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]Dcpaltrnent [gets ][an ][extended ][period ][of ][time ][for ][initiation ][of ][fresh]ploceedings 12. The [alarming trend of docket explosion in ][this ][Court' ][despite]the clear [precedent ][set ][in Konakala ][Rauindra ][Rettdy ][(l ][supra)' is ][a]matter [of ][grave concem' 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]detiberate [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]pending SLPs [white ][continuing ][to ][initiate fresh ][proceedings]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 therespect for judicialpronouncements, 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 Income Tax Deparlment itself andshould har..e fbund out via media in ensuring that proceeclingsunder Sections l4g_A and l4g should not have been issued in afaceless manner, at least till the Hon,ble Suprerne Court decide thetwelve hundred (l2OO) odd SLps which it is alreadl, seized ofor, atIeast the Income Tax Departrnent should have fbund out solneremedial 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 bcen deferredwithout precipitating the rnatter furlhcr intimating the assessec thatthey shall initiate appropriate proceedings only after the SLp,s aredecided by the Hon,ble Suprerne Court on the very same issue.This again, the Income Tax Depaftment, has not been able to give aconvincing reply, except for the fact that such a clecision il 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]leve1 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]are [lorcing ][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]matters [again ][and ][again ][on ][daily ][basis' Admittedly' in ][spite ][of ][the]tnatterbeforetheHon,blesupremeCoufthavingbeentakenonmany occasions, [the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Court ][which ][is ][seized ][of ][the]matter [has been ][reluctant ][in ][granting any ][interim ][protection ][to ][the]Income [Tax ][l)epartment' 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 ][148-4 ][and] 148 through the .jurisdictional Assessing Officer rvhereas it oughtto have been only in the faceless lranner. 14. In the case of BANK OF INDIA OF INDIAINDIAvs.ASSISTANTCOMMISSIONER, INCOME TAX]', on un iSsue rvhether it rvasjustifiable on the parl of the income Tax Deparlmenl in notfollowing an order passed by the adjudicating authority only on theground that the appeals are pending, the Division Uench of theHigh Courr of Bornba;v 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 Sarafl2 as also the recent decision of the co_ordinate Bench of this Court in Samp Furniture (p) Ltd. v. lTO,3of which one of us (Justice G.S. Kurkarni) was a member, whereinthe Court categorically observed that the Revenue hav,ng not"accepted" the judgment of the High Court would not mean that tjllthe same is set aside in a manner known to law, it would loose itsbinding force. Referring to the decision of lhe Supreme Court tnUnion of lndia vs. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd.r4, thecourt observed fllat the approach of the officiars of Revenue oftreating decisions being [,,not ]acceptable,, was criticized by theSupreme Court. ln such decision, following are the retevantobservations made by the Supreme Court. " ll ttlr_tt, [170 rarunann.conr ][422 ][(Bornbay.ll]I I9781 I l3 ITR 589 (Bombay)I I9781 I l3 ITR 589 (Bombay) t3 to 1ZOZ41 165 raxmann.com 5gl/300 Taxman 452 (Bombay)to 1ZOZ41 165 raxmann.com 5gl/300 Taxman 452 (Bombay) to 1ZOZ41 llgozl taxmann.com I6155 ELT 43 j (SC)llgozl taxmann.com I6155 ELT 43 j (SC) " ll ttlr_tt, [170 rarunann.conr ][422 ][(Bornbay.ll]I I9781 I l3 ITR 589 (Bombay)I I9781 I l3 ITR 589 (Bombay) t3 to 1ZOZ41 165 raxmann.com 5gl/300 Taxman 452 (Bombay)to 1ZOZ41 165 raxmann.com 5gl/300 Taxman 452 (Bombay) to 1ZOZ41 llgozl taxmann.com I6155 ELT 43 j (SC)llgozl taxmann.com I6155 ELT 43 j (SC) that the"6 Sri Reddyis [perhaPs ][right ][in ][saylng]fides [in]officers [were]not actuated [bY ][any ][mala]passing theimpugned orders. [TheY]perhaPsgenuinely 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]otherwise 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]quasrjudicial 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 ][.iurrsdiction and]the order of [the ][Tribunal ][is binding upon the Assistant]Collectors [and ][the ][Appeltate 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 [auihorities ][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 Solicrtor General that the observationsmade by the High Court, have been harsh on theofficers. lt is clear that the observations of the HighCourt, seemingly vehenunpararabre to the Revenue, lllt;", ll"".i:i:'::,Ja tendency in revenue matters whtch, if allowed tobecome widespread, could resull 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 requtrements of ludicialdiscipline and the need for giving effect to the ordersof the higher appellate authorities which are bindingon them." 1 5. What is worrying this Bench more is the Iact that anendeavour is being made whole hearledly 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 thefurther 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 1 5. What is worrying this Bench more is the Iact that anendeavour is being made whole hearledly 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 thefurther 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 Finance [Act,2020and ][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]observatiorVdirection [that ][the ][disposal ][of the ][instant ][writ ][petition ][in]terms of [the ][judgment ][rendered ][by ][this ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]Katrkanala [Ravindru ][Recldy ][(1 ][supra) shatl ][however ][be ][subject ][to]the outcome [of ][the ][SLPs ][which were ][filed by the ][Income ][Tax]Department [and ][which ][is pending consideration ][before ][the l:lor-r'ble]Supreme [Coutt.] 16. In [the ][given ][f'acts ][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 ][Coutl]and which [stands ][fortified ][by ][the ][decisions ][of ][the ][various ][other]Courls [on ][the ][very ][same ][issue' the ][pendency ][of ][this ][High]High Courl [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 ][ofthe ][Revenue ][has ][already]been considered and [protected, ][as ][has ][been ][observed ][in ][paragraphs] 36,37 and 38 ofthe 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 respondenlDepartment pursuant to the noticesrssued under Section 141quashed and it is o.o",."o ,j,::";:are quashing the consequential order ""1lol;1;".'l: is on the principlesthat when the initiation of the proceedings ttself wasprocedurally wrong, the subsequent orders also getsnullified automatically. 37. The preliminary objection raised by the petitioner issustained and all these writ petitions stands allowed onthis very jurisdictional issue. Since the impugned noticesand orders are getting quashed on the point ofjurisdiction, we are not inclined to proceed further anddecide the other issues raised by the petitioner whichstands reserved to be rarsed 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 India, 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 ][of Ashish]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 India, 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 ][of Ashish]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]KunakalaRavindraReddy(|supra)issubjectedtochallengebelore [the Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Courl ][in ][SLP No'3574 ][of ][2024']preferred [by ][t[-re ][Income ][Tax Departmenl' we ][rnake ][it ][clear that]allowing [of ][the ][instant ][writ ][petition ][is ][subject ][to ][outcome ][of ][the]aforesaid [prefened by ][the ][Revenue against ][the ][decision ][of ][this]High [Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ][Kanakala ][Ravindra Reddy ][(l ][srtpra)']This,inotherwords,wouldmeanthateitheroftheparties'iftheyso want, [may ][move ][an ][appropriate ][petition ][seeking ][revival ][of ][this]writ petition [in ][the ][light ][of ][the decision ][of ][the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme]Coun in [the pending SLP on ][the ][very ][same ][issue'] 19. Accordingly, [the ][instant ][writ ][petition ][stands ][allowed]1nfavouroftheassesseesofarastheissueofjurisdictionconcemed. [As ][a ][consequence, ][the ][impugned ][notice ][under]challenge [under Sections ][148-4 and ][148 ][stands set asideiquashed] It The consequential orders, if any, also stand set asi<ielquashecl insimilar terrns as have been passed by this High court in the case ofKankanolo Rovindro Reddy (l supra). There shall be no order.as to costs Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/-A. PRATHIMADEPUW REGISTRARSECTION OFFICER i/TRUE COPY/iToSECTION OFFICER1The Assistant Commissioniv [ruo ][bipj"oi ][x;il#;: ]3il{i?fl?,],{:q,:,i:: %B!,r..,ffiil!i%I?1,"T3Serlingampaly. Ranga neoov,-ni-o6ri;;;: '"; ilY;ffr;lsoooa+.1The Assistant Commissioniv [ruo ][bipj"oi ][x;il#;: ]3il{i?fl?,],{:q,:,i:: %B!,r..,ffiil!i%I?1,"T3Serlingampaly. Ranga neoov,-ni-o6ri;;;: '"; ilY;ffr;lsoooa+.2The Principat Commissioner sy.No.6(P) of Kondaour oJ-l19om9 Tax_2, Hyderabad, Signature Towerssert insa mpa ly Ra nsi neooy,-ni,o6rab;;, S,v.a.qtFi "i k"tiAili,, i;Y;ffi;;!soooa+.opp. Botanica! Gardenssy.No.6(P) of Kondaour oJ-l19om9 Tax_2, Hyderabad, Signature Towerssert insa mpa ly Ra nsi neooy,-ni,o6rab;;, S,v.a.qtFi "i k"tiAili,, i;Y;ffi;;!soooa+.opp. Botanica! Gardens3. The Assessment Unit, lncome Tax Department, National FacelessAssessment Centre. Dethi, Ramp, Jawahartat Nehru staaium,b6tni-ii0o0b. wtinistry oi Fi;r;ff il;rn [*']No. 40.1 , 2nd Ftoor, E-Assessment Centre. Dethi, Ramp, Jawahartat Nehru staaium,b6tni-ii0o0b. wtinistry oi Fi;r;ff il;rn [*']No. 40.1 , 2nd Ftoor, E-4. One CC to SRt DUNDU IMANIVOHAN, Advocate IOPUC]IOPUC] 5. One CC to Ms. J.SUN|THA, Jr. SC FOR tNCOIVE TAX IOPUCI6Two CD CopiesBSRGJP HIGH COURT DATED:25 tO4t2O2s ORDER WP.No.27408 of 2024 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION,WITHOUT COSTS B 14:o)oo(13 tlj0 2u5;,o*1' ,/D8si, 1i.. '