Unsel [For ][The ][Income ][Tax ][Department ][For ][Respondent]Nos.2 & 3. [Perused The ][Record v. The Union Of India

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSNCE NARSING WRIT PETITION NO: 31719 OF 2024 Between: Naresh Reddy Manchireddy, S/o. Manchi Reddy [Sanieeva Reddy, ][Age, 35 ][Years,]H.No.16-2-752lK7OlA, Sai Ganga Colony, [New ][Gaddiannagaram, ][Dilsukhnagar,]Hyderabad 500060. .....PETITIONER AND 1. The Union of lndia, Represented by its Secretary, [Department ][of ][Revenue,]tvlinistry of Finance, New Delhi.tvlinistry of Finance, New Delhi. 2. The lncorne Tax Officer, Ward 15(1), [Towers, ] [Guards, ][lvlasab ][Tank,]Hyderabad - 500004.Hyderabad - 500004. 3. The Assessment Unit, National Faceless [Assessment Centre, lncome ][Tax]Departrnent, New Delhi.Departrnent, New Delhi. .....RESPONDENTS Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of [India ][praying ][that ][in ][the]circumstances stated in the affidavit [filed ][therewith, ][the ][High Court may ][be]pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more [particularly ]one [in ][the ][nature ][of ][a]Writ of Mandamus, declaring the impugned [Notice issued ][by the 2nd ][Respondent]u/s 148 of the Act having DIN and [Notice ][No, ][ITBA/ASTlsl148 ][112022-]2311042618360( 1 ) dated 07 [-04-2022 ]aM the [consequent Assessment ][Order]passed by the Respondent No. 3 uls 147 read with Section [144 and 1448 of ][the]lncome Tax Act. ['1961 ]bearing DIN No. [ITBtuAST/S/14712023-2411059228729\1)]ciated 30-12-2O23 for the [Assessment ][Year ][2015-16, ][as ][arDrtrary. ][rllegal, bad ][in] law, issued urithout jurisdiction, and barred by rimitation and to consequenfly setaside the same l.A.NO: 1 0F 2024 Petition Under Section 151 CpC praying that in the (:ircumstances stated inthe affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court rnay be preased to stayalt further proceedings in pursuance of the Assessment order passed by theRespondent No. 3 u/s 147 read with section 144 and 1448 of the rncome TaxAct, 1961 bearing DrN No. .'BA/AST/S/147t2023-24t105g22872g(1) dated 30-12-2023 for the Assessment year 201 5-16 pending dispo:;ar of the above writpetition Counsel for the petitioner: SRI T.PRADYOTH !9111C]lOT [ttrE ][RESPONdCNT ][NO.1 ][: ] [B.MUKHERJEE, ]LEARNED COUNSELREPRESENTING SRI GADI PRAVEEN K-T.iAi]OEPUW SOLICITOR GENERALOF INDIA 9gy.f:tfor [the Respondent ][Nos.2 ][& ][3 ][: SRt ]K.SUDHAKAII REDDY, LEARNEDSENIOR STANDING COUNSEL FOR THE]N'dTT,ti TAX DEPARTMENT The Court made the following ORDER THE HONOURABLE [P.SAM ] ANDTHE HONOURABLE NANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION[No.3][ t7t9 ][0B ][2024] ORDER: [(per ][Hon'ble ][Sri ][Justice P'Sam ][Koshy)] Heard Mr. T.Pradyoth, [learned counsel ][for ][the ][petitioner'] Mr. B. Mukherjee, [learned counsel representing the ][Union ][of ][tndia]for respondent [No.t ][and ][Mr. ][K.Sudhakar ][Reddy' ][learned ][Senior]Standing Counsel [for ][the ][Income ][Tax ][Department ][for ][respondent]Nos.2 & 3. [Perused the ][record.] 2. This is a writ [petition ][where ][the ][proceedings ][are ][either]challenged [to ][the ][notices ][which ][were ][issued under ][Section ][t48A]andl48ofthelncomeTaxAct,lg6l(forshort'theAct')ortheassessment orden [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 ][l48A ][of ][the Act]and the subsequent [initiation ofproceedings ][under ][Section ][148 ][of]the Act by the [jurisdictional ][Assessing ][Oflicer' ][wlereas in ][terms]of the amendment [that ][was ][brought ][to ][the ][Income ][Tax ][Act ][by way] 2. This is a writ [petition ][where ][the ][proceedings ][are ][either]challenged [to ][the ][notices ][which ][were ][issued under ][Section ][t48A]andl48ofthelncomeTaxAct,lg6l(forshort'theAct')ortheassessment orden [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 ][l48A ][of ][the Act]and the subsequent [initiation ofproceedings ][under ][Section ][148 ][of]the Act by the [jurisdictional ][Assessing ][Oflicer' ][wlereas in ][terms]of the amendment [that ][was ][brought ][to ][the ][Income ][Tax ][Act ][by way] of Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f., 01.04.2021 onward,s, proceedingsunder Section l48A of the Act as also under Section l4g oftheAct ought to l'rave also been issued and proceede<l in a facelessmanner.4. The contention of the petitioner is that the issue contention of the petitioner is that the issue of the petitioner is that the issue the petitioner is that the issue petitioner is that the issue is that the issue that the issue the issue issue ofproceedings being in violation of the Finance Act, 2O2l i.e., theimpugned notices under Section l4gA and Section 14g of the Actnot being issued in a faceless manner, have already been dealt withand decided by rhis Court in the case of k.ANKANALARAVINDRA REDDY vs. INCOME_TAX OFFICIIRT decidedon 14.09.202i whereby a batch of writ petitions were allowed andthe proceedings rnitiated under Section r4gA as arso uder Section148 olthe Acr u,ere held to be bad with consequential reliefs on theground olit being in violation of the provisions of St:ction I5lA ofthe Act read with Notification lg/2022 dated29.03.2022. The saidjudgment passed by this court has also been subsequentry folrowedin a large number or writ petitions which were ailorved on similar The contention of the petitioner is that the issue contention of the petitioner is that the issue of the petitioner is that the issue the petitioner is that the issue petitioner is that the issue is that the issue that the issue the issue issue of terms 't(2021) 156 raxurann.com tTg (Telangana)] 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 TECHNOLOGIES LTD., VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX & OTIIERS2, Gauhati [High ][Court in ][the ][case]of RAM NARAYAN SAH vs. UNION OF INDIA3, [Punjab ][and]Haryana High Court in the case of JATINDER SINGH vs. UNION OF INDI#, and Telangana High Court [in the ][case ][of]SRI VENKATARAMANA REDDY PATLOOLA [VS. ] COMMISSIOI\ER OF INCOME TAX5 [where ][the ][issue was ][in]respect of international taxation, Bombay High [Court ][in the ][case ][of]ABI{IN ANILKUMAR SIIAH vs. INCOME [OFFICER']INTERNATIONAL TAXATION6 which is [again ][on intemational]taxation and central circle, High Court of [Himachat ][Pradesh ][in ][the]case of GOVIND SINGH vs. INCOME [OFFICERT,]Gujarat High Court in the case of ' lzoz+1464 [trR ][430 ][(Bom)]'l(2024) [[56 ][taxmann.com ][478 ][(Gauhati)]]^tQ024) 165 taxmann.com 115 @unjab [&Haryana))]'12024\ [167 ][taxmann.com ][4l ] [(Telangana)l]" 12024) [166 ][taxmann.com ][679 ][(Bombay)l]'[2024) [165 ]taxmann.com [113 ][(Himachal ][Pradesh)]] DAHYABHAT RADADIYA vs. INCoME TAx OFF,ICE&*ARD 3(3x5)ti, Jharkand High court in the case of sIfyAMSUNDAR SAW vs. UNION OF INDIAe, Rajasthar High Court inthe case of SHARDA DEVI CHHAJER vs. II\COME TAXOFFICER & ANOTHER and batch of writ peritionsro v/hichstood decided on 19.03.2024. Simitar views have aiso been takenby the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in the case ofGIRDHAR GOPAL DALMIA vs. UNION OF.n,tDIA & ORS(M.A.T 1690 of 2023), decided on25.09.2024.6. Even though rhe same issue having been deci,led by a largenumber of High Courts, we are still confronted with large filing ofidentical matters on daily basis ranging between 5 to l0 w.itpetitions. That upon the instructions being sought ftom theDepartment, rhey have been taking a solitary gr<lund 1121 thedecision ol the Bornbay High Court in the case of Hoawar"Technologies Lt(t-, (2 supra) as also the one which has beendecided by this Courr in rhe case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddl 8202+ scc online cuj 4012'2025 SCC Online Jl.tar 2gl'o 12023, [-JD ]:4984-DB l (1 supra) has been subjected to challenge in a Special Leave Petition i.e., SLP No.3574 of 2024 before the Hon'ble SupremeCourt and the Hon'ble Supreme Court is seized of the matter.In addition, there are about 1200 SLPs also filed arising out ofthesame issue being decided by various High Courts. '7. To a query being put to the learned counsel for the Revenue, they have categorically accepted the fact that there is no interimorder granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in any of thesematters pending before it. Meanwhile, fresh writ [petitions ]ofidentical nature are being piled up before this Bench on daily basisand the pendency is getting increased on matter which otherwisehas already been dealt and decided by this very High Court itselt8. On the one hand, even though the order of this Court [that]was passed as early as on 14.09.2023 arrd more 16 months havelapsed, till date, we do not find any remedial steps having beentaken by the lncome Tax Department to take appropriate steps toeither hotd back issuance of notice under Section 148A and underSection 148 of the Act by the [jurisdictional ]Assessing Officer,rather the authorities concemed in the teeth of series of decisions by alt the major High Courrsln India are continuously stillinitiating proceedings under Section l48A of the Act and alsoinitiating proceedings under Section 148 of the Act incontravention to the amendments brought into the [rcome Tax Actpursuant to the Finance Act,2020 as also the Financr: ActZ02l.9. Upon a query being put as to why can't this tvrit petition bedisposed of in the teeth of the decision rendered blz this Court inthe case of Kanakala Ravindro Reddy (l supra), Ieamed StandingCounsel for the Income Tax Department contends that those wouldunnecessarily burden the Income Tax Department where theywould be required to file equal number of SLps before theHon'ble Supreme Court and it would be further burdening theexchequer of the Union of India. [t was also the contention of theleamed Standing Counsel thar no prejudice would b,: caused to theinterest of the petitioners in case if this writ petition is kept pendingtill the finalization ol the SLps pending befonr the Hon,bleSupreme Court and the lact that the petitioner is al-eady 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 instruct ons or to take appropriate steps in ensuring that proceedings under Section l48Aof the Act as also the assessment orders under Section 148 of theAct are kept in a hold in the light of the decisions dedcided by thevarious High Courts, it was submitted by the learned StandingCounsel that the said steps can only be taken at the level of CBDTas any such steps would have to be taken Pan India and cannot belimited to any of these [jurisdictional ]High Courts. appropriate steps in ensuring that proceedings under Section l48Aof the Act as also the assessment orders under Section 148 of theAct are kept in a hold in the light of the decisions dedcided by thevarious High Courts, it was submitted by the learned StandingCounsel that the said steps can only be taken at the level of CBDTas any such steps would have to be taken Pan India and cannot belimited to any of these [jurisdictional ]High Courts. 10. As a result o[ which, what we are facing is steep increase oflitigation day in and day out even though various orders have beenpassed by this High Court allowing writ petitions on the very sameissue. The Income Tax authorities concemed are still even now in2025 atso initiating proceedings in contravention to the provisionsof Section l5tA of the Act and as a result by now, more than 600to 700 petitions have been already got piled up before this HighCourt on an issue which otherwise stands squarely covered by thejudgment ol this Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy(l supra). What is also surprising is the fact that though whileallowing the writ petitions in the case of Kanakala RavindraReddy (l supra), the Division Bench while reserving the right ofthe Revenue, has also protected the interest of the [petitioners]/- insofar as the liberty which was granted to the Revenue forinitiating fresh proceedings strictly in accordance with the amendedinitiating fresh proceedings strictly in accordance with the amendedprovisions of the Act, as amended by the Finance A.ct, 2020 andthe Finance Act, 2021. The petitioner assessee woulri be entitled tothe Finance Act, 2021. The petitioner assessee woulri be entitled tochallenge or raise the other legal objections if the Revenue initiatesfresh proceedings. The Department has made no endeavour inavailing the said liberty that was reserved for the Rerenue. On thefresh proceedings. The Department has made no endeavour inavailing the said liberty that was reserved for the Rerenue. On thecontrary, they have been still sticking on to the stand, which thisHigh Court as well as many other High Courts alrerdy held to bebad.High Court as well as many other High Courts alrerdy held to bebad. I l. It appears that because appears that because that because because ol the aforesaid the aforesaid aforesaid liberty rhat this Highrhat this Highthis HighHighCourt had granted permitting the Revenue lor initiating fieshproceedings as a one-time measure in a faceles:i rnanner, theIncome Tax Department wants to take advantage c I the same byprotracting these proceedings which would enable them to meet thelimitation that would otherwise come in the way. L ikewise, if thewrit petition is kept pending for a considerable long period of timeand f,rnally at a later stage if the Hon'ble Supreme (lourt confirmsthe decision taken by this High Court as also by rhe other Highprotracting these proceedings which would enable them to meet thelimitation that would otherwise come in the way. L ikewise, if thewrit petition is kept pending for a considerable long period of timeand f,rnally at a later stage if the Hon'ble Supreme (lourt confirmsthe decision taken by this High Court as also by rhe other HighCourts in which the SLPs are still pending, thr: lncome Tax It appears that because appears that because that because because ol the aforesaid the aforesaid aforesaid liberty rhat this Highrhat this Highthis HighHigh It appears that because appears that because that because because ol the aforesaid the aforesaid aforesaid liberty rhat this Highrhat this Highthis HighHigh Department would get the advantage of the liberty that is otherwiseprotected in favour of the Revenue for initiation of freshproceedings from the disposal of these matters at a much later stagewhich would be advantageous and benef,rcial to the Revenue andwould be equally disadvantageous and detrimental so far as interestof the assesses are concemed. As a consequence, the Income Taxprotected in favour of the Revenue for initiation of freshproceedings from the disposal of these matters at a much later stagewhich would be advantageous and benef,rcial to the Revenue andwould be equally disadvantageous and detrimental so far as interestof the assesses are concemed. As a consequence, the Income TaxDepartment gets an extended period of time for initiation of freshproceedings.proceedings. 12. The alarming trend of docket explosion in this Court, despitethe clear precedent setin Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra), is amatter of grave concern. The Income Tax Department's persistentinitiation of fresh proceed i ngs, disregarding the established [judicial]pronouncements, has led to an unprecedented surge in litigationwith over 600-700 petitions piting up on the same issue. Thisdeliberate approach not only undermines the principle of [judicial]precedent but also strains the judicial resources unnecessarily. TheDepartment's strategy of awaiting the Supreme Court's decision onpending SLPs while continuing to initiate fresh proceedingsappears to be a calculated move to buy time and circumventlimitation periods, rather than adhering to the established legal position. Such conduct raises serious questiorrs about theadministrative efficiency and the respect fbr judicialpronouncements, particularly when this Court has already provideda balanced approach by preserving both the Revenue's rights andassesses lnterests. 13. Another aspect which needs to be considered is that in fact itshould have been realized by the Income Tax Departinent itself andshould have found out via media in ensuring that proceedingsunder Sections 148-4 and 148 should not have been issued in afaceless rnaluer, at least till the Hon'ble Suprerne C turt 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 author itics 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 tl e assessee thatthey shall initiate appropriate proceedings only afie.rhe SLP's aredecided by the Hon'ble Supreme Coud on the vcrv same issue.This again, the Income Tax Department, has nor beer able to give aconvincing reply, except for the lact that such a dr:cision if at all has to be taken, has to be taken for the whole of India, and whichotherwise has to be by way of a policy decision and that too at thelevel of Central Board of Direct Taxes. Though the leamedStanding Counsel for the Income Tax Department contended thatthe Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition of similar nature, onthe one hand when the High Court is struggling to reduce itsotherwise has to be by way of a policy decision and that too at thelevel of Central Board of Direct Taxes. Though the leamedStanding Counsel for the Income Tax Department contended thatthe Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition of similar nature, onthe one hand when the High Court is struggling to reduce itspendency, such notices which are under challenge in this writpetition are forcing the assessee to knock the doors of this HighCourt resulting in filing of hundreds of new writ petitions which inthe long run not only affects the disposal of the writ [petitions ]butalso consumes substantial time of the Bench in hearing thesematters again and again on daity basis. Admittedly, in spite of thematter before the Hon'bte Supreme Court having been taken onmany occasions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court which is seized of [the]matter has been reluctant in granting any interim [protection ]to theIncome Tax Department. Yet, the authorities concemed at theState 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 Income Tax Department is showingaudacity by issuing notices continuously under Sections [148-A ][and]petition are forcing the assessee to knock the doors of this HighCourt resulting in filing of hundreds of new writ petitions which inthe long run not only affects the disposal of the writ [petitions ]butalso consumes substantial time of the Bench in hearing thesematters again and again on daity basis. Admittedly, in spite of thematter before the Hon'bte Supreme Court having been taken onmany occasions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court which is seized of [the]matter has been reluctant in granting any interim [protection ]to theIncome Tax Department. Yet, the authorities concemed at theState 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 Income Tax Department is showingaudacity 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 vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, INCOME TAX", on an issue wherher it wasjustifiable on the part of the Income Tax Departntent 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., :following 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 righfly drawn out attenlion to thedecision of this Court in Commissioner of lncome Tax vs. Smt.Godavaridevi Sarafr2 as also the recent decision cf the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Samp Furniture (p) Ltd. v. tTO'3of which one of us (Justice G.S. Kulkarni) was a memb-.r, whereinthe Court categorically observed that the Revenue ,raving not"accepted'' the judgment of the High Court would not mean that tiltthe same is set aside in a manner known to law, it woLid loose itsbinding force. Referring to the decision of the Suprerre Court inUnion of lndia vs. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd.'., theCourt observed that the approach of the of{icials of Revenue oftreating decisions being "not acceptable" was critici;.ed by theSupreme Court. ln such decision, following are ttre relevantobservations made by the Supreme Cou(. "I(2025) 170 taxmann.com 422 (Bombay)l,, I19781 I l3 ITR 589 (Bombay),, I20241 165 taxmann.com 581/300 Taxman 452 (Bornba1.),, I19921 taxrnann.com 16/55 ELT 433 (SC) "6. Sri Reddy is perhaps right in saying that theofficers were not actuated by any mala fides inpassing the impugned orders. They perhapsofficers were not actuated by any mala fides inpassing the impugned orders. They perhapsgenuinely felt that the claim of the assessee was nottenable and that, if it was accepted, the Revenuewould suffer. But what Sri Reddy ovedooks is that weare not conc€rned here with the correctness orothenrvise of their conclusion or of any factualmalafides but with the fact that the officers, in reachingin their conclusion, by-passed two appellate orders inregard to the same issue which were [placed ]beforethem, one of the Collector (Appeals) and the other ofthe Tribunal. The High Court has, in our view, rightlycriticized this mnduct of the Assistant Collectors [and]the harassment to the assessee caused by the [failure]of these officers to give effect to the orders ofauthorities h(7her to them in the appellate hierarchy. [lt]cannot be too vehernently emphasized that it is [of]utmost importance that, in disposing of [the]quasijudicial issues before them, revenue officers arebound by the decisions of the appellate authorities.The order of the Appellte Collector is binding on theAssistant Collectors working within [his ]iurisdiction [and]the order of the Tribunal is binding upon the AssistantCollectors and the Appellate Collectors who [function]under the [jurisdiction ]of the Tribunal, [The principles ]ofjudicial discipline require that the orders of the higherappellate aulhorities should be followed unreservedlyby the subordinate authorities. The mere [fact ][that the]order of the appellate authority is not ["acceptable" ][to]-tenable and that, if it was accepted, the Revenuewould suffer. But what Sri Reddy ovedooks is that weare not conc€rned here with the correctness orothenrvise of their conclusion or of any factualmalafides but with the fact that the officers, in reachingin their conclusion, by-passed two appellate orders inregard to the same issue which were [placed ]beforethem, one of the Collector (Appeals) and the other ofthe Tribunal. The High Court has, in our view, rightlycriticized this mnduct of the Assistant Collectors [and]the harassment to the assessee caused by the [failure]of these officers to give effect to the orders ofauthorities h(7her to them in the appellate hierarchy. [lt]cannot be too vehernently emphasized that it is [of]utmost importance that, in disposing of [the]quasijudicial issues before them, revenue officers arebound by the decisions of the appellate authorities.The order of the Appellte Collector is binding on theAssistant Collectors working within [his ]iurisdiction [and]the order of the Tribunal is binding upon the AssistantCollectors and the Appellate Collectors who [function]under the [jurisdiction ]of the Tribunal, [The principles ]ofjudicial discipline require that the orders of the higherappellate aulhorities should be followed unreservedlyby the subordinate authorities. The mere [fact ][that the]order of the appellate authority is not ["acceptable" ][to]-the department - in itself an obiectionable [phrase ]and is the subject matter of an appeal can furnish [no]and is the subject matter of an appeal can furnish [no]ground for not following it unless its operation [has]been suspended by a competenl court. [lf ]this [healthy]been suspended by a competenl 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 observa tionsmade by the High Court, have been harsh orr theofficers. lt is clear that the observations of the HighCourt, seemingly vehement, and apparenflyunpalatable to the Revenue, are only intended to curba tendency in revenue matters which, if allow;d tobecome widespread, could result in considerableharassment to the assesses-public without any br:nefitto the Revenue. We would like to say thal thedepartment should take these observations in theproper spirit. The observations of the High ,lourtshould be kept in mind in future and the utmost rogardshould be paid by the adjudicating authorities anC theappellate authorities to the requirements of judicialdiscipline and the need for giving effect to the crdersof the higher appellate authorities which are bildingon them." 15. What is worrying this Bench more is thr. Iact that anendeavour is being made whole heartedly to ensure nor to generatefurther litigation on issues which have been laid to rest b1, a largenumber of High Courts all of whom have taken a consistent standthat the action of the Income Tax Department being violati'e of the Finance Act,2020 and Finance Act,202l . Now, in order to protectthe interest ofthe Revenue as also that ofthe assessee, it would betrite at this [juncture, ]if we dispose of the writ petition with anobservation/direction that the disposal ofthe instant writ petition interms of the [judgment ]rendered by this High Court in the case ofKankanala Ravindra Reddy (l supra) shall however be subject tothe outcome of the SLPs which were filed by the [ncome TaxDepartment and which is pending consideration before the Hon'bleSupreme Court. 16. In the given facts and circumstances, this Bench is of the considered opinion that unless and until we do not timely disposeof matters which are squarely covered by the decision of this Courtand which stands fortif,red by the decisions of the various otherHigh Courts on the very same issue, the pendency of this HighCourt would further be burdened which otherwise can be decidedof matters which are squarely covered by the decision of this Courtand which stands fortif,red by the decisions of the various otherHigh Courts on the very same issue, the pendency of this HighCourt would further be burdened which otherwise can be decidedand disposed ofas a covered matter. 17. So far as the interest of the Revenue is concerned, we are ofthe considered opinion that the interest o[ the Revenue has alreadybeen considered and protected, as has been observed in paragraphs 36,,37 and 38 of the order which, for ready reference, is reproducedhereunder: 36. For ail the aforesaici reasons, the impugne( noticesissued and the proceedings drawn by the respondent-Department is neither tenable, nor sus.ainable.The notices so issued and the procedure adopk)d beingper se illegal, deserves to be and are accordingly setaside/quashed. As a consequence, all the inrpugnedorders getting quashed, the consequential orders passedby the respondent-Department pursuant to the noticesissued under Section 147 and 1zB would also getquashed and it is ordered accordingly. The reitson weare quashing the consequential order is on the principlesthat when the initiation of the proceedings itr;elf wasprocedurally wrong, the subsequent orders also getsnullified automatically. 37. The preliminary obiection raised by the pet tioner issustained and all these writ petitions stands alk)wed onthis very jurisdictional issue. Since the impugnec noticesand orders are getting quashed on the l)oint ofjurisdiction, we are not inclined to proceed furlher anddecide the other issues raised by the petitionr:r whichstands reserved to be raised and contenderj in anappropriate proceedings. 37. The preliminary obiection raised by the pet tioner issustained and all these writ petitions stands alk)wed onthis very jurisdictional issue. Since the impugnec noticesand orders are getting quashed on the l)oint ofjurisdiction, we are not inclined to proceed furlher anddecide the other issues raised by the petitionr:r whichstands reserved to be raised and contenderj in anappropriate proceedings. 38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in he caseof Ashish Agarwal, supra, as a one-time rneasureexercising the powers under Article 142 of theConstrtution of lndia, permitted the Revenue to proceedunder the substituted provisions, and this Court allowingthe petitions only on the procedural flaw, tre right conferred on the Revenue would remain resbrved toproceed further if they so want from the stage of theorder of the Supreme Court in the case of AshishAgarwal, supra. 18. We would only further like to make observations that sincewe are inclined to dispose of the instant writ petition, conscious olthe fact that the earlier order of this High Couft in the case olKonakala Rtvindra Reddy (l supra) is subjected to challengebefore the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No.3574 of [2024,]prelerred by the Income Tax Department, we make it clear [that]allowing o[ the instant writ petition is subject to outcome of [the]albresaid SLP preferred by the Revenue against the decision [o[ ][this]in the case of Kanakala Ravindra [Reddy ][(l ][supra)]High Coun -l'his. in othcr rvords, would mean that either of the parties, if thelso \\'iurt. rna) rnove an appropriate [petition ]seeking [revival ][of ][this]rvrit pctition in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble SuprctneClourt in the pcnding SLP on the very same issue. 19. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands a[lowed [in]t'avour of thc assessee so far as the issue of [jurisdiction]IScorrccmed. As a consequence, the impugned notice [undcr]challcngc urrrlcr Scctions 148-A and 148 stands set aside/quashecl The consequential orders, if any, also stand set asirle/quashed in similar terms as have been passed by this High Court in the case ofKankanala Ravindrq Rcddy (l supra). There shall lte no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed SD/. A. JAYASREEASSISTANT REGISTRAR//TRUE COPY//SECN OFFICER To1. The S-ecretary, union of rndia, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance,New Delhi.1. The S-ecretary, union of rndia, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance,New Delhi. 2. The lncome Tax Officer, Ward t 5(.1 ). lT Towers, AC Guards, Masab Tank,Hyderabad - 500004Hyderabad - 500004 3. The Assessment Untt. Nationai Faceless Assessment C)entre, lncome TaxDepartment, New Delhi.Department, New Delhi. 4. One CC to SRt T.PRADYOTH. Advocate tOpUCltOpUCl5. one cc to SRr cADr PRAVEEN KUruAR, DEpury sCrlrcrroR GENERALOF INDIA Advocare [OpUC]OF INDIA Advocare [OpUC] 6. one cc to SRr K SUDHAKAR REDDY, LEARNED sErJIoR STANDTNGCOUNSEL FOR THE TNCOME TAX DEpARTMe trtl, Atvocaie COUNSEL FOR THE TNCOME TAX DEpARTMe trtl, Atvocaie 7. Two CD CopiesiOi,UCISAGJP (k/GJP (k/ HIGH COURT DATED:0210s12025 t,'.\\..t'10 StPffi\..'ORDER WP.No.31719 of 2024 ALLOWING THE W.PWITHOUT COSTS. "\'d &F'