Wp/10512/2025 Of Ali Arshad v. Income-Tax Officeri Decided On 14.09.2023 Whereby A Batch Of Writ Petitions Were Allowed And The Proceedings Initiated Under Section T48A As Also Under

HIGH COURT FOR AT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI [P.SAiVI ] AND THE HONOURABLE SRI WRIT PETITIO N NO: [10512 ] [2025] Between: Ali Arshad, S/o Dawood [Ali, Aged About ][41 ][years, ][Occ ][; ][Business, ][R/o ][6-5-'109]Nalsabgadda, Sangareddy, [Ivledak, ][502001 ][.] .,...PETITIONER AND 1. lncome Tax Officer, [Ward ][1, ][Sangareddy lncome ][Tax ][Office, ][Veerabhadra]Nagar, New Bus Stand, SangareddY.Nagar, New Bus Stand, SangareddY. 2. The Principal Commissioner [Of lncome Tax 2, Signature Towers, Opp']Botanical bardens, Kondapur [Serilingampally [tIandal, ][R.R. District,]Hyderabad, Telangana.Botanical bardens, Kondapur [Serilingampally [tIandal, ][R.R. District,]Hyderabad, Telangana. 3. The National Faceless [Assessment ][centre ][lncome ][Tax ][Department, Ministry]of Finance Govt. of lndia, [New Delhi.]of Finance Govt. of lndia, [New Delhi.] 4. Union of lndia, [Ir4inistry ][of ][Finance ][Rep. ][by ][its ][Secretary, 166-8 North ][Block,]New Delhi - 110 001 [.]New Delhi - 110 001 [.] ....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 [of ][the constitution ][of ][lndia ][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]Writ of Mandamus, declaring [the ][order ][passed ][by ][the ][Respondent ][No ][2 ][in]passing the order dated 28.03.2024 [uts. ][14SA(d) ][and ][Notice issued ][by ][the]Respondent No.2 under section [148 ][of ][the ][Income ][Tax ][Act, ][1961dated]30.03.2024 as illegal, arbitrary, [bad ][in ][law, ][void ][ab ][initio, violative of the ][principles]of natural [justice ]and being [violative ][of Articles ][14,19 ][and ][265 ][of the ][constitution] of lndia and consequently, ii.Set aside the Order [dated ][28.03.2024 ][u/s. ][14BA(d)]and Notice issued by the Respondent No.2 [under ][Section ][148 ][of the ][Income ][Tax]Act, 1961 dated 30.03.2024 calling for the [return ][of ][income ][of ][the ][Petitioner ][for]AY 2017-18and consequent Assessment order dated [25.02.2025 ][and ][the]initiation of penalty [proceeding ]as lacking in [jurisdiction.] l.A.NO:1 OF 2025 Petition Under Section 151 CPC [praying ]that [in ]the [circumstances stated ][in]the affidavit filed in support of the [petition, ][the ][High ][Court ][may be ][pleased ][to]direct the Department not to take any coercive [steps ][for ][recovery ][of ][demand]pursuant to the Assessment Order passed by the lncome Tax Department underSection 147 rlw Section 144 and Section 1448 of [the ][lncome ][Tax ][Act,1961 ][dated]2510212025 for Assessment Year 2017-18. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI P.SOMA SHEKAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 : Ms. J.SUNITHA [(JUNIOR ] rNcoME TAX) Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : SRI GADI PRAVEEN [KUMAR, ] SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA The Court made the following ORDER ri. THE HONOTJRABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAONANDIKONDAW.P.No.10512 OR 2025 ORDER, (per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy) Heard Mr. P.Soma Shekar Reddy, leamed counsel for thepetitioner and Ms. J.Sunitha, learned Junior Standing Counsel forthe Income Tax Department for respondent Nos.l & 2. Perusedthe record2. This is a writ petition where the proceedings are eitherchallenged to the notices which were issued under Section 148,{and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') or theassessment orders those have been passed under Section 147 ofthe Act which have been assailed. Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : SRI GADI PRAVEEN [KUMAR, ] SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA The Court made the following ORDER ri. THE HONOTJRABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAONANDIKONDAW.P.No.10512 OR 2025 ORDER, (per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy) Heard Mr. P.Soma Shekar Reddy, leamed counsel for thepetitioner and Ms. J.Sunitha, learned Junior Standing Counsel forthe Income Tax Department for respondent Nos.l & 2. Perusedthe record2. This is a writ petition where the proceedings are eitherchallenged to the notices which were issued under Section 148,{and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') or theassessment orders those have been passed under Section 147 ofthe Act which have been assailed. 3. This writ petition is being taken up today only on one of thegrounds, that the notices issued under Section 148,4. of the Actand the subsequent initiation of proceedings under Section 148 ofthe Act by the [jurisdictional ]Assessing Officer, whereas in termsof the amendment that was brought to the Income [Tax ][Act ]by wayof Finance Act,202l w.e.f., 01.04.2021 onwards, [proceedings] under Section 148.4 of the Act as also under Section 148 of theAct ought to have also been issued and proceeded in a facelessmanner4. The contention of the petitioner is that the issue ofcontention of the petitioner is that the issue ofof the petitioner is that the issue ofthe petitioner is that the issue ofpetitioner is that the issue ofis that the issue ofthat the issue ofthe issue ofissue ofofproceedings being in violation of the Finance Act, 2021 i.e., theimpugned notices under Section 148A and Section 148 of the Actnot being issued in a faceless manner, have already been dealt withand decided by this Court in the case of I(ANKANALARAVINDRA REDDY vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICERI decidedon 14.09.2023 whereby a batch of writ petitions were allowed andthe proceedings initiated under Section t48A 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 1A ofthe Act read with Notification 1812022 dated29.03.2022. The saidjudgment passed by this Court has also been subsequently followedin a large number of writ petitions which were allowed on similarterms. The contention of the petitioner is that the issue ofcontention of the petitioner is that the issue ofof the petitioner is that the issue ofthe petitioner is that the issue ofpetitioner is that the issue ofis that the issue ofthat the issue ofthe issue ofissue ofof ' l(2023) [1 ][56 ][taxmann.com ][178 ][(Telangana)l] 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 OF 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 ] vs. UNION OF INDIA4, and [Teiangana ][High Court in ][the ][case ][of]SRI VENKATARAMANA [VS. ] COMMISSIONER OF INCOME [where ][the ][issue ][was ][in]respect of intemational taxation, [Bombay ][High ][Court in the ][case ][of]ABHIN ANILKUMAR SHAH [vs. ] [OFFICER']INTERNATIONAL TAXATION6 [which ][is ][again ][on ][intemational]taxation and central circle, [High ][Court ][of ][Himachal ][Pradesh ][in ][the]case of GOVIND SINGH [vs. INCOME ] [OFFICERT,]Gujarat High Court in the [case ][of ] '7zoz+1464 [430 ][(Bom)]'l(2024) [156 ][taxmann.com ][478 ][(Gauhati)l]' l(2024) [165 ][taxmann.com ][1 ][15 ][(Punjab ][& ][Haryana)l]'L2024) [167 ][taxmann.com ][4l ] [(Telangana)l]"12024) [166 ][taxmann.com 679 ][(Bombay)l] '12024) [165 ][taxmann.com ][113 ][(Himachal ][Pradesh)l] '7zoz+1464 [430 ][(Bom)]'l(2024) [156 ][taxmann.com ][478 ][(Gauhati)l]' l(2024) [165 ][taxmann.com ][1 ][15 ][(Punjab ][& ][Haryana)l]'L2024) [167 ][taxmann.com ][4l ] [(Telangana)l]"12024) [166 ][taxmann.com 679 ][(Bombay)l] '12024) [165 ][taxmann.com ][113 ][(Himachal ][Pradesh)l] DAHYABIIAI RADADIYA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE&WARD 3(3X5)8, Jharkand High Court in the case of SHYAMSUNDAR SAW vs. UNION OF INDIAe, Rajasthan High Court inthe case of SHARDA DEVI CHIIAJER vs, INCOME TAXOFFICER & ANOTHER and batch of writ petitionsro 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 INDIA & ORS(M.A.T 1690 of 2023), decided on25.09.2024.6. Even though the same issue having been decided by a largenumbel of High Courts, we are still conaonted with large filing ofidentical matters on daily basis ranging between 5 to 10 writpetitions. That upon the instructions being sought fiom 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 Kanakala Ravindra Reddy rzo24SCC Online Guj 4012" [2025 ]SCC Online Jhar 287o ' 12023 : RI-JD :49 g4-DBl (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 Court is [seized ][of ][the ][matter.]In addition, there are about 1200 SLPs [also ][filed ][arising out ][ofthe]same issue being decided by [various ][High ][Coutts.] 7. To a query being put to the [learned counsel ][for ][the Revenue,]they have categorically accepted [the ][fact ][that ][there ][is no ][interim]order granted by the Hon'ble [Supreme ][Court ][in ][any ][of ][these]matters pending before it. [Meanwhile, fresh ][writ ][petitions ][of]identical nature are being [piled up ][before ][this Bench ][on ][daily ][basis]and the pendency is [getting ][increased ][dn ][matter ][which ][otherwise]has already been dealt and [decided ][by ][this ][very ][High ][Court itself.]8. On the one hand, even [though the ][order ][of ][this ][Court ][that]was passed as early as on [14.09.2023 ][and ][more ][16 months ][have]lapsed, till date, we do [not ][hnd ][any remedial ][steps ][having ][been]taken by the Income [Tax ][Department ][to ][take appropriate ][steps to]either hold back [issuance ][of ][notice under Section ][l48A ][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 148,4. of the Act and alsoinitiating proceedings under Section 148 of the Act incontravention to the amendments 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 beinitiating proceedings under Section 148,4. of the Act and alsoinitiating proceedings under Section 148 of the Act incontravention to the amendments 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 bedisposed of in the teeth of the decision rendered by this Court inthe case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra), leamed StandingCounsel for the Income Tax Department contends that those wouldCounsel 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 and it would be further burdening the.Court would be required to file equal number of SLps before theHon'ble Supreme and it would be further burdening the.Court exchequer of the Union of India. It was also the contention of thelearned Standing Counsel that no prejudice would be caused to theinterest ofthe petitioners in case ifthis writ petition is kept pendingtill the f,rnalization of the SLPs pending before the Hon'bleSupreme Court and the fact that the petitioner is already enjoyingthe benefit of interim protection. Nonetheless, on the earlier queryof this Court as to why the Income Tax Department have not comelearned Standing Counsel that no prejudice would be caused to theinterest ofthe petitioners in case ifthis writ petition is kept pendingtill the f,rnalization of the SLPs pending before the Hon'bleSupreme Court and the fact that the petitioner is already enjoyingthe benefit of interim protection. Nonetheless, on the earlier queryof this Court as to why the Income Tax Department have not comeout with a mechanism to issue appropriate instructions or to take appropriate steps in ensuring that proceedings under Section 148,{of 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 of 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 concerned are still even now in2025 also initiating proceedings in contravention to the [provisions]of Section 151A 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 of this Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy(1 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 amendedprovisions of the Act, as amended 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 Department has made no endeavour inavailing the said liberty that was reserved for the Revenue. On thecontrary, they have been still sticking on to the stand, which thisHigh Court as well as many other High Courts already held to bebad. insofar as the liberty which was granted to the Revenue forinitiating fresh proceedings strictly in accordance with the amendedprovisions of the Act, as amended 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 Department has made no endeavour inavailing the said liberty that was reserved for the Revenue. On thecontrary, they have been still sticking on to the stand, which thisHigh Court as well as many other High Courts already held to bebad. 11. [t appears that because ofthe afofesaid liberty that this HighCourt had granted permitting the Revenue for initiating freshproceedings as a one-time measure in a faceless manner, thelncome 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 for a considerable long period of timeand finally at a later stage if the Hon'ble Supreme Court conf,rrmsthe decision taken by this High Court as also by the other HighCourts in which the SLPs are still pending, the Income Tax Department would [get ]the [advantage ][of ][the ][liberty ][that ][is otherwise]protected in favour of the Revenue for initiation [of ][ftesh]proceedings from the disposal of these [matters ][at ][a ][much ][later ][stage]which would be advantageous [and ][beneflrcial ][to the ][Revenue ][and]would be equally disadvantageous [and ][detrimental ][so ][far ][as ][interest]of the assesses are concerned. [As ][a ][consequence, ][the Income Tax]Department gets an extended [period ][of ][time ][for initiation ][of ][fiesh]proceedings. 12. The alarming trend [of ][docket ][explosion in this Court, ][despite]the clear precedent setin [Kanakala Ravindra ][Reddy ][(1 ][supra), ][is ][a]matter of grave concem. [The Income ][Tax ][Department's persistent]initiation of fresh [proceedings, disregarding the ][established ][judicial]pronouncements, has led to [an ][unprecedented ][surge ][in ][litigation]with over 600-700 [petitions ][piling up ][on ][the ][same issue. This]deliberate approach [not ][only ][undermines ][the principle ][of judicial]precedent but also strains the [judicial ][resources ][unnebessarily. ][The]Department's strategy [of ][awaiting the ][Supreme ][Court's decision ][on]pending SLPs while 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 the respect for 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 Department itself andshould have found out via media in ensuring that proceedingsunder Sections 148-4 and 14g should not have been issued in afaceless manner, at least till the Hon,ble Supreme Court decide thetwelve hundred (1200) odd SLps which it is already seized ofor, atleast the lncome Tax Department should have found out someremedial steps to ensure that wherever the authorities intend toinitiate proceedings under Sections r4g-A and r4g, other than in afaceless manner, the proceedings should have been deferredwithout precipitating the matter further intimating the assessee thatthey shalt initiate appropriate proceedings only after the SLp,s aredecided by the Hon,ble Supreme Court on the very same issue.This again, the Income Tax Department, has not been able to give aconvincing reply, except for the fact that such a decision if at all has to be taken, has to be taken for the whole oflndia, 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 Courl 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 daily basis. Admittedly, in spite of thematter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court having been taken onmany occasions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court which is seized of thematter 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 [maj ]orityof 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 148-4 and 148 through the jurisdictional Assessing Offrcer whereas it oughtto have been only in the faceless manner. 14. In the case of BANK OF INDIA vs. ASSISTANTCOMMISSIONER, INCOME TAX1r, on an issue whether it wasjustifiable on the part of the Income Tax Department 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 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 Fdrniture (P) Ltd. v. lTOl3of which one of us (Justice G.S. Kulkarni) was a member, whereinthe Court categorically observed that the Revenue having not"accepted" the judgment of the High Court would not mean that tillthe same is set aside in a manner known to law, it would loose itsbinding force. Referring to the decision of the Supreme Court inUnion of lndia vs. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd.14, theCourt observed that the approach of the officials of Revenue oftreating decisions being "not acceptable' was criticized by theSupreme Court. ln such decision, following are the relevantobservations made by the Supreme Court. '.' 71zOzS1 [170 ][taxmann.com 422 ][(Bombay)l] t2 1t97811 13 ITR 589 (Bombay)1t97811 13 ITR 589 (Bombay) " 72OZ+1 [1 ][65 ][taxmann. ][com ][58 ] [/3 ]00 axmat 4 52 [(Bombay)] 'o TlggZ|taxmann.com [16/55ELT ][433 ][(SC)] '.' 71zOzS1 [170 ][taxmann.com 422 ][(Bombay)l] t2 1t97811 13 ITR 589 (Bombay)1t97811 13 ITR 589 (Bombay) " 72OZ+1 [1 ][65 ][taxmann. ][com ][58 ] [/3 ]00 axmat 4 52 [(Bombay)] 'o TlggZ|taxmann.com [16/55ELT ][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 overlooks is that weare not concerned here with the correctness orotherwise 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 conduct of the Assistant Collectors andthe harassment to the assessee caused by the failureof these officers to give effect to the orders ofauthorities higher to them in the appellate hierarchy. ltcannot be too vehemently emphasized that it is ofutmost importance that, in disposing of thetenable and that, if it was accepted, the Revenuewould suffer. But what Sri Reddy overlooks is that weare not concerned here with the correctness orotherwise 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 conduct of the Assistant Collectors andthe harassment to the assessee caused by the failureof these officers to give effect to the orders ofauthorities higher to them in the appellate hierarchy. ltcannot be too vehemently emphasized that it is ofutmost importance that, in disposing of thequasijudicial 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 [jurisdiction ]andthe order of the Tribunal is binding upon the AssistantCollectors and the Appellate Collectors who functionunder the [jurisdiction ]of the Tribunal. The [principles ]ofjudicial discipline require that the orders of the higherappellate authorities should be followed unreservedlyby the subordinate authorities. The mere fact that theorder of the appellate authority is not ["acceptable" to]bound by the decisions of the appellate authorities.The order of the Appellte Collector is binding on theAssistant Collectors working within his [jurisdiction ]andthe order of the Tribunal is binding upon the AssistantCollectors and the Appellate Collectors who functionunder the [jurisdiction ]of the Tribunal. The [principles ]ofjudicial discipline require that the orders of the higherappellate authorities should be followed unreservedlyby the subordinate authorities. The mere fact that theorder 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 noand is the subject matter of an appeal can furnish noground for not following it unless its operation hasbeen suspended by a competent court. lf this healthybeen suspended by a competent court. lf this healthy rule is not followed,. the result will ohly be undueharassment to assesses and chaos in administrationof tax laws. rule is not followed,. the result will ohly be undueharassment to assesses and chaos in administrationof tax laws. 12. We have dealt with this aspect at some length,because it has been suggested by the learnedAdditional Solicitor General that the observationsmade by the High 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 matters which, if allowed tobecome widespread, could result in considerableharassment to the assesses-public without any benefitto the Revenue. We would like to say that thedepartment should take these observations in theproper spirit. The observations of the High Courtshould be kept in mind in future and the utmost regardshould be paid by the adjudicating authorities and theappellate authorities to the requirements of judicialdiscipline and the need for giving effect to the ordersof the higher appellate authorities which are bindingon them." 15. What is worrying this Bench more is the fact that anendeavour is being made whole heartedly to ensure not to generatefurther litigation on issues which have been laid to rest by a largenumber of High Courts a1l of whom have taken a consistent standthat the action of the Income Tax Department being violative of the Finance Act, 2020 and Finance Act, 2021. Now; [inorder ][to ][pI ][otect]the interest of the Revenue as aiso [that of the ][assessee, ][it ][would ][be]trite at this [juncture, ]if we dispose of the writ [petition ][with ][an]observatior/direction that the disposal [ofthe ][instant ][writ ][petition ][in]terms of the [judgment ]rendered [by this High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]Kankanala Ravindra Reddy (l [supra) shall ][however be ][subject to]the outcome of the SLPs [which ][were ][hled ][by ][the ][Income ][Tax]Depaftment and which is [pending consideration before the ][Hon'ble]Supreme Court. 16. In the given facts and [circumstances, ][this ][Bench ][is ][of ][the]considered opinion that [unless and ][until'we ][do ][not ][timely ][dispose]of matters which are squarely [covered ][by ][the decision ][of ][this Court]and which stands fortified by [the ][decisions ][of ][the various ][other]High Courts on the very same [issue, the pendency ][of ][this ][High]Court 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 ][of the ][Revenue ][has ][already]been considered and [protected, ][as ][has been ][observed ][in ][paragraphs] I 35,37 atd 38 of the c.irder wirich, folready reference, is reproduoedhereunder: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 getting quashed, the consequential orders passedby the respondent-Department pursuant to the noticesissued under Section 147 and 148 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 getting quashed on the point ofjurisdiction, we are not inclined to proceed further anddecide the other issues raised by the petitioner whichstands reserved to be raised and contended in anappropriate proceedings. 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 raised and contended in anappropriate proceedings. 38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the caseof Ashish Agarwal, supra, as a one{ime measureexercising the powers under Article 142 of theConstitution of lndia, permitted 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 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 ofthe fact that the earlier order of this High Court in the case ofKunakals Ravindra Reddy (1 supra) is subjected to challengebefore the Hon'ble Supreme Courl in SLP No.3574 of 2024,preferred by the Income Tax Department, we make it clear thatallowing of the instant writ petition is subject to outcome of theaforesaid SLP preferred by the Revenue against the decision ofthisHigh Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (l sttpra).This, in other words, would mean that either of the parties, if theyso want, may move an appropriate petition seeking revival of thiswrit petition in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble SupremeCourt in the pending SLP on the very same issue. 19. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands allowed infavour of the assessee so far as the issue of [jurisdiction ]isconcemed. As'a consequence, the impugned notice underchallenge under Sections 148-4 and 148 stands set aside/quashed. The consequential orders, if any, also stand set aside/quashed insimilar terms as have been passed by this High Court in the case of Kankanala Ravtndra Reddy (l supra). There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/. AHMED ABDULLAH KHANASSISTANT REGISTRAR//TRUE COPYi/iIToSECTION OFFICERASSISTANT REGISTRAR//TRUE COPYi/iIToSECTION OFFICER 1. The lncome Tax Officer, W^ard ], Sangareddy Income Tax Office,^ [Veerabhadra Nagar, New ][Bus ][Si""d ]["S;;;i;;;']2. The The Principa I Coirmission". Coirmission". ^ [Veerabhadra Nagar, New ][Bus ][Si""d ]["S;;;i;;;']2. The The Principa I Coirmission". Coirmission". ^ 2. The The Principa I Coirmission". Coirmission". oir n"o-mJ Bota nica I Ga rdens, Kondapur Serif inga;palfi' ir"rll!]dnrtrr" r,i'i,no, r. R. Towers, R. District,opp.Hyderabad, Telanoana.2. The The Principa I Coirmission". Coirmission". oir n"o-mJ Bota nica I Ga rdens, Kondapur Serif inga;palfi' ir"rll!]dnrtrr" r,i'i,no, r. R. Towers, R. District,opp.Hyderabad, Telanoana. 3. The National Faceiess Assessment Centre Income Tax Department,. [Minis^try ][of Finance Govt. of ][f ][nOia, ]New fjef fri ['"""'"]. [Minis^try ][of Finance Govt. of ][f ][nOia, ]New fjef fri ['"""'"]4. The S^ecretary, Union of lnOia, trrtiiristry o-f iinrn.", .166-8 North Btock,New Delhi - i l0 001.New Delhi - i l0 001. 001.5. one CC to SRt p.SoN/A p.HEl1^tEEDDy, Advocare p.HEl1^tEEDDy, Advocare 6 .ne cc ro rvrs. J.suNrrHA (JuNioi-sc ion rir"dbrvr topuclrAX), AdvocatetoPUCltoPUClz 9f gg to SRt cADt PRAVEEN KUIVAR, DEpUTy SoLtCtTOR 8 ^ Two CD Copies[tNDtA, ][AdvocaG ][fOFUbl] SAGJPPA(C,,GJPPA(C,, HIGH COURT DATED:2410412025 ORDER WP.No.1O512 of 2025 ALLOWING THE W.PWITHOUT COSTS. q'^1^,5\[+\u(] ,"i):\*.(+v5 SEP [zffi]a.nttD6:St^rCHf(t