Wp/12983/2025 Of Sri Bramaramba Mallikharjuna Swamy Temple v. The Income Tax Officer

iIi HIGH couRT FoR THE srATp nr .rr, -.. _ srATp nr .rr, -.. _ nr .rr, -.. _ -.. _ _ t [3441 ]l (sG;16,I;iPj THE srATp nr .rr, -.. _ srATp nr .rr, -.. _ nr .rr, -.. _ -.. _ _ Ar HYDERABADl5ifjf,ili A/ONDAY, THE TYrwo,rb u lrnTJI fi tflE flf,Iffi e n r i PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICEP.SAM KOSHYTHE HONOURABLE ANDSRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA ITP TITEloNNO:12583 OF 2025 Between: ,8djrditfl [3$?5,y:"J33gH3,iy1?,u:,xl;;s?fl ] ,.,,,#""n1,,rs,"?fl","j AND...PETITIONER...PETITIONER1.J!3,., [n%#". r"?j., ftjf "d;. K,:i,i l:,E ji"%Tilili" ftjf "d;. K,:i,i l:,E ji"%Tilili" "d;. K,:i,i l:,E ji"%Tilili" K,:i,i l:,E ji"%Tilili" l:,E ji"%Tilili" ra x orrice,Jff :IE, :IE, J!3,., [n%#". r"?j., ftjf "d;. K,:i,i l:,E ji"%Tilili" ftjf "d;. K,:i,i l:,E ji"%Tilili" "d;. K,:i,i l:,E ji"%Tilili" K,:i,i l:,E ji"%Tilili" l:,E ji"%Tilili" ra x orrice,Jff :IE, :IE, J!3,., [n%#". ji"%Tilili" ji"%Tilili" r"?j., ftjf "d;. K,:i,i l:,E ji"%Tilili" ftjf "d;. K,:i,i l:,E ji"%Tilili" "d;. K,:i,i l:,E ji"%Tilili" K,:i,i l:,E ji"%Tilili" l:,E ji"%Tilili" Jff :IE, :IE, Jff :IE, :IE, 2Jff :IE, :IE, $!*:,:si"dl"l'iffi Hr:#l:ilf *,H#;g1;;6ilm*%r?Y"",i:$!*:,:si"dl"l'iffi Hr:#l:ilf *,H#;g1;;6ilm*%r?Y"",i: 3 I;iT.iffi*trh"Hijt,jl,fl,ff#,,fl6pnil"iT,iTr.F,#:: ...RESPONDENTS circumstances petition under Articre 226 0f the constitution of rndia praying that in thestated in the affidavit filed therewpteased to issue a writ, order or direction, ,"r" Writ of l\4andamus, declaring the Assessment or'l:r,tj;:::J :;T"ff::;the 3rd respondent urs 147 r.w.s 144r1448or Orddt 24'01 .2024 passed bytrre r,e 20 vide DIN No IrBA/ASr/s/1 4 7 / 2023.24t 1 o6.r;".ffiI'":iljr,l;i,jr,ir"order passed u/s 148A(d) dt. 31 .03.2023 vide DrN No. ,.BA/AST rFr148At2o22_2311051734722(1) ano the notice urs 148 dt. 31.03.2023 vide DrN No.ITBA/AST/S/148-1t2022-23t1os1t34Bo7(1), issued by the JAo(1sr respondent)instead of FAO(3rd respondent) and consequentiat penarty orders passed videorder u(s 2T0A of the Act dt.25.062024, order uts 2?2A(1xd) or the Acr dr. 20062o24,andorder'l';JJ"?:"":]::l"i::::::":il:i;:l?il;'fi1;and [contrary ][to the ][Provisit]Natural [ustice ]['] IA NO:[[10F][ 2][025]][[ 2][025]][[025]] IA NO:[[10F][ 2][025]][[ 2][025]][[025]]CPC [praying ][that ][in ][the ][circumstances ][stated]Petition [under Section ][151],i" 0"i0,"", [the ][High ][court ][may ][be ][pleased ][to]in the [a{fidavit ][filed ][in ][support ][of]suant [to ][the ][Assessment ][Order ][dI ][2401 ][2024]stay [all ][further ][Proceedings ][Pur]144t1448 [of ][the ][lncome-tax Act ][for],. lo, [,.* ]' passed [bY ][the ][3rd ][resPondent ][u]/AsT/S/1 [47l2023-24l1 ][06004s5S3(1 ][)]AY [2019-20 ][vide ] [No ] Counsel [for ][the ][Petitioner: ] Counsel [for ][the ][Respondents: Ms' ][J'SUNITHA' ][Jr' ] [1T]The Court [made ][the ][following: ] THE ITONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYrHE HoNouRAu., .*TrrrrcE NARSTNG RAoNANDIKONDAPETTTTONNo.129830F 2025 ORDER, (per Hon'ble Sri Justice Narsing Rao Nandikonda) Heard Mr. Dundu Manmohan, reamed counser for the petitioner and Ms. J.Sunitha, leamed Junior Standing Counsel forthe Income Tax Department for the respondents. perused therecord. 2. This is a writ is a writ a writ writ petition petition where the proceedings the proceedings proceedings are eithereitherchallenged to the notices which were issued under Section 14gAand 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. This is a writ is a writ a writ writ petition where the proceedings the proceedings proceedings are eithereither THE ITONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYrHE HoNouRAu., .*TrrrrcE NARSTNG RAoNANDIKONDAPETTTTONNo.129830F 2025 ORDER, (per Hon'ble Sri Justice Narsing Rao Nandikonda) Heard Mr. Dundu Manmohan, reamed counser for the petitioner and Ms. J.Sunitha, leamed Junior Standing Counsel forthe Income Tax Department for the respondents. perused therecord. 2. This is a writ is a writ a writ writ petition petition where the proceedings the proceedings proceedings are eithereitherchallenged to the notices which were issued under Section 14gAand 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. This is a writ is a writ a writ writ petition where the proceedings the proceedings proceedings are eithereither 3. This writ petition is being writ petition is being petition is being is being being taken up today only on one of thetoday only on one of theonly on one of theon one of theone of theof thethegrounds, that the notices issued under Section l4gA of-the Actand the subsequent initiation ofproceedings under Section l4g ofthe Act by the jurisdictiona[_Assessing Offrcer, whereas in termsof the amendment that was brought to the Income Tax Act by way This writ petition is being writ petition is being petition is being is being being taken up today only on one of thetoday only on one of theonly on one of theon one of theone of theof thethe of Finance [Lct, ][2O2l ][w'e'f'' ][01 ][04'2021 onwards' ][proceedings]under [Section 148A ][of ][the ][Act ][as also ][under ][Section ][148 ][of ][the]Act ought [to ][have ][also ][been ][issued and proceeded i:n ][a ][faceless]manner.4. The [contention ][of ][the ][petitioner ][is ][that ][rhe ][issue of]proceedings [being ][in ][violation ][of ][the Finance Acl' ][2021 ][i'e'' ][the]impugned [notices ][under Section ][l48A ][and ][Section ][148 ][of ][the ][Act]not being [issued ][in ][a ][faceless ][manner' ][have ][already ][h'een ][dealt ][with]and [decided ][by ][this ][Couft ][in ][the ][case ][of ] RAVINDRA [vs' INCOME-TAX ] [decided]on 14.09.2023 [whereby ][a ][batch ][of ][writ ][petitions were allowed ][and]the proceedings [initiated ][under Section 148,{ ][as also ][under ][Section]148 ol the [Act ][were heid ][to be bad ][with ][consequential ][reliefs ][on the]ground of it [being ][in violation ][of ][the ][provisions of 'section ][l51A of]tlre Act [read ][with ][Notihcation ][l8l2)22 ][dated2g'03 ][2022' ][The said]judgment passed by this [Court ][has ][also ][been ][subsequently ][followed]in a large [number ][of ][writ ][petitions ][which were all'rwed ][on ][similar] terms ' l(2023) [1 ][56 ][taxmann.corr-pS ][(Telangana)l] t Down the line, we find that the same tssue has also been 5 terms ' l(2023) [1 ][56 ][taxmann.corr-pS ][(Telangana)l] t Down the line, we find that the same tssue has also been 5 decidedagarnst the Revenue by various High CourtsI.€.,by the Bombay High Courl in thecase of HEXAWARETECIINOLOGIES LTD., vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX & OTHERS2, Gauhati High Courr in the caseof RAM NARAYAN SAH vs. UNION OF INDIAT, punjab andby various High CourtsI.€.,by the Bombay High Courl in thecase of HEXAWARETECIINOLOGIES LTD., vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX & OTHERS2, Gauhati High Courr in the caseof RAM NARAYAN SAH vs. UNION OF INDIAT, punjab andHaryana High Court in rhe case of JATINDER SINGH BANGUSINGH BANGUvs' UNION o['INDIA4, and Terangana High court in the case ofSRI VENKATARAMANA SRI VENKATARAMANA REDDY PATLOOLA vs. DEPUTYCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX5 where the issue was invs. DEPUTYCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX5 where the issue was inrespect of international taxation, Bombay High Court in the case ofABIIIN ANILKUMAR SHAII vs. TNCOME TAx OFFICER,INTERNATIONAL TAXATION6 which is again on intemationaltaxation and central circre, High court of Himachal pradesh in they High Court in the case ofABIIIN ANILKUMAR SHAII vs. TNCOME TAx OFFICER,INTERNATIONAL TAXATION6 which is again on intemationaltaxation and central circre, High court of Himachal pradesh in thecase of GOVIND SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER?,OFFICER?,Gujarat High Court in the case of MANSUKHBHAI'1zoz+1464 ITR 430 (Bom)'LQ024l I56 raxmann.com 47g (Cauhali)l'l(2024) 165 taxmann.com l15 (punjab & Uaryana)1'12024) I67 taxmann.com 4l ltlelangana)l"-12024) 166 taxmann.com 679 (Bombay)l' 12024) 165 taxmann.com I 13 (Himac[ai pradesh)]'1zoz+1464 ITR 430 (Bom)'LQ024l I56 raxmann.com 47g (Cauhali)l'l(2024) 165 taxmann.com l15 (punjab & Uaryana)1'12024) I67 taxmann.com 4l ltlelangana)l"-12024) 166 taxmann.com 679 (Bombay)l' 12024) 165 taxmann.com I 13 (Himac[ai pradesh)] DAHYABHAI [vs'][ INCOME ] [OFFICER']WARD [3(3X'E' ][Jharkand ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ] SUNDAR [vs' ][UNfON ] [INDIAe' ][Rajasthan ][Fligh Court ][in]thecaseofSIIARDADEVICHHAJERvs'INCoMETAxOFFICER [& ] [and ][batch ][of ][writ ][peti';ionsro ][which]stood [decided ][on ][19'03'2024' ][Similar views ][have ][al;o ][been ][taken]the [Division ][Bench ][of ][Calcutta ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]by GIRDHAR [vs' ] [INDIA & ] (M.A.T [1690 ][of 2023)' ][decided ][on25'09'2024'] Even [[though the ][same ][issue ]][[same ][issue ]][[issue ]][[having been ][decided ]][[decided ]][[by ][a ][large]][[a ][large]][[large]] 6. Even [[though the ][same ][issue ]][[same ][issue ]][[issue ]][[having been ][decided ]][[decided ]][[by ][a ][large]][[a ][large]][[large]]number [of ][High ][Courls, ][we ][are ][still ][confronted ][wittr ][large ][friing ][of]identicalmattersondailybasisrangingbetweer,5tol0writThat [upon ][the ][instructions ][being ][sought ][from ][the]petitrons. Department, [they ][have ][been ][taking ][a ][solitary ][6iround ][that ][the]decision of [the ][Bombay ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][cas': ][of ][Hexaware]Technologies [Ltd', (2 ][supra) as ][also ][the ][one ][rvhich ][has ][been]decided [by ][this ][Coi't ][in ][the ][case ][of ][Kanakala Ravindra ][Reddy] "2024 [sCC ][online ][Guj ][4012]"2025 [SCC OnLine Jhar287]' o 72023 : RJ-JD :4984-DBl 6. Even [[though the ][same ][issue ]][[same ][issue ]][[issue ]][[having been ][decided ]][[decided ]][[by ][a ][large]][[a ][large]][[large]]number [of ][High ][Courls, ][we ][are ][still ][confronted ][wittr ][large ][friing ][of]identicalmattersondailybasisrangingbetweer,5tol0writThat [upon ][the ][instructions ][being ][sought ][from ][the]petitrons. Department, [they ][have ][been ][taking ][a ][solitary ][6iround ][that ][the]decision of [the ][Bombay ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][cas': ][of ][Hexaware]Technologies [Ltd', (2 ][supra) as ][also ][the ][one ][rvhich ][has ][been]decided [by ][this ][Coi't ][in ][the ][case ][of ][Kanakala Ravindra ][Reddy] "2024 [sCC ][online ][Guj ][4012]"2025 [SCC OnLine Jhar287]' o 72023 : RJ-JD :4984-DBl (1 supra) has been subjected to challenge in a Special LeavePetition 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 leamed 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 itself.8. On the one hand, even though the order of this Court thatwas passed as early as on 14.09.2023 and,more 16 months havelapsed, till date, we do not find any remedial steps having beentaken by the Income Tax Department to take appropriate steps toeither hold back issuance of notice under Section l4gA and underSection I48 of the Act by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer,rather the authorities concemed in the teeth of series of decisions ail [the ][major ][High ][Courts ][in ][India ][are][ continuouslY ][still]by initiating [proceedings ][under Section 148A ][of ][the ][lr'ct ][and ][also]initiating [proceedings ][under ][Section ][148 ][of ][the ][Act ][in]contravention [to the ][amendments ][brought ][into ][the Income Tax ][Act]pursuant [to ][the ][Finance ][Act'2020 ][as ][also the ][Finance ]['\ct202l']a [query ][being ][put ][as ][to ][why ][can't ][this ][writ ][petition ][be]9. Upon disposed [of ][in ][the teeth ][of ][the ][decision ][rendered ][by ][this ][Court in]the case [of ][Kanakala Ravindru ][Reddy ][(I ][supra)' learned ][Standing]Counsel [for ][the Income ][Tax Department ][contends ][that ][those ][would]unnecessarily [burden ][the ][Income ][Tax ][Deparlmen ][t ][where ][they]would be [required ][to ][frle ][equal number ][of ][SUPs ][before ][the]Hon'ble [Supreme ][Court ][and ][it ][would ][be further ][burdening ][the]exchequer [of ][the ][Union ][of ][India' It ][was ][also ][the contention ][of ][the]leamed Standing [Counsel ][that ][no ][prejudice ][would ][be caused ][to ][the]interest of [the ][petitioners in ][case ][if this writ petition ][is ][kept pending]tillthefinalizationoftheSLPSpendingbeforetheHon,bleSupreme [Court ][and ][the ][fact ][that the ][petitioner ][is ][already enjoying]the benefit [of ][interim protection. ][Nonetheless, on the ][earlier query]of this Court as to why the Income Tax Department [have ]not comeout with a mechanism to issue appropriate instruciions or to take -a appropnate steps in ensuring that proceedings under Section l4gAof the Act as also the assessment orders under Section l4g of theAct are kept in a hold in the iight 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. -a appropnate steps in ensuring that proceedings under Section l4gAof the Act as also the assessment orders under Section l4g of theAct are kept in a hold in the iight 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 ofIitigation 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 also initiating proceedings in contravention to the provisionsof Section l5lA of the Act and as a result bynow, more than 600to 700 petitions have been already got piled up befbre 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 llevenue ][for]initiating [fresh ][proceedings ][strictiy ][in ][accordance ][with the ][amended]provisions [of ][the ][Act, ][as ][amended ][by ][the ][Finance ][Act' ][2020 ][and]the Finance [Act, ][2021'The ][petitioner ][assessee ][would be entitied ][to]challenge [or ][raise ][the ][other ][legal ][objections ][if ][the ][Rer ][enue ][initiates]fresh [proceedings' The ][Department ][has ][made ][no ][endeavour ][rn]availing [the ][said ][liberty ][that was reserved ][for ][the ][Revenue' ][On ][the]contrary, [they ][have ][been ][still ][sticking ][on ][to the ][stand' ][which ][this]High [Court ][as ][weil ][as ][many other ][High ][Courts ][alreirdy ][held ][to ][be]bad.1 1. [It ][appears ][that ][because ][of ][the aforesaid liberl1' ][that ][this ][High]Court had [granted ][permitting ][the ][Revenue ][for ][initiating ][fresh]proceedings [as ][a ][one-time measure ][in a ][faceless ][manner' ][the]Income Tax [Department wants ][to ][take ][advantage ][of the ][same ][by]these [proceedings ][which would ][enable ][t'nem ][to ][meet ][the]protracting limitation that [would ][otherwise ][come ][in ][the ][way ][Likewise' ][if ][the]writ petition [is kept ][pending ][for ][a ][considerable ][long period of ][time]and finally at [alater ][stage ][if ][the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Court ][confirms]rhe 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 otherwiseliberty that is otherwiseprotected in favour of the Revenue for initiation of freshproceedings from the disposai of these matters at a much later stagewhich would be advantageous and beneficial to the Revenue andwould be equally disadvantageous and detrimental so far as interestof the assesses are concerned. As a consequence, the Income TaxDepartment gets an extended period of time for initiation of freshproceedings12. The alarming trend of docket explosion in this Court, despitethe clearprecedent set in Kanakala Ravindra stagewhich would be advantageous and beneficial to the Revenue andwould be equally disadvantageous and detrimental so far as interestof the assesses are concerned. As a consequence, the Income TaxDepartment gets an extended period of time for initiation of freshproceedings12. The alarming trend of docket explosion in this Court, despitethe clearprecedent set in Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (lsupra), is amatter of grave concern. The Income Tax Depaftment,s persistentlnrtration of fresh proceedings, disregarding the established judicialpronouncements, has led to an unprecedented surge in litigationpronouncements, has led to an unprecedented surge in litigationwith over 600_700 petitions piling up on lhe same issue. Thisdeliberate deliberate approach not only undermines the principle ofjudicialprecedent but also strains thejudicial 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 legalpending 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 iI1 about [the]conduct [raises ][serious ][questlons]position. [Such]administrativeefficiency [and ][the ][respect ][firr ][judicial]pronouncements, [particularly ][when ][this ][Court ][has alrerrdy ][provided]a balanced [approach ][by ][preserving ][both ][the Revenuds ][rights ][and]assesses [interests'] 13. [Another ][aspect ][which ][needs to ][be ][considered ][is ][that in fact ][it]should [have been ][realized ][by ][the ][lncome Tax ][Departrnent ][itself ][and]should [have found ][out ][via ][media ][in ][ensuring ][that ][proceedings]under [Sections ][148-A and 148 ][should ][not have ][been ][issued ][in ][a]faceless [manner, ][at ][least ][till ][the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Ccurt ][decide ][the]twelve [hundred ][(1200) ][odd SLPs ][which ][it ][is ][already seized ][ofor' ][at]least [the ][Income ][Tax ][Department ][shouid ][have frlund ][out ][some]remedial [steps ][to ][ensure ][that ][wherever ][the ][authorities intend ][to]initiate [proceedings under ][Sections 148-A and ][148' ][other ][than ][in ][a]faceless [manner, ][the ][proceedings ][should have ][been ][deferred]without [precipitating ][the ][matter further ][intimating ][the ][assessee ][that]they [shal1 ][initiate ][appropriate proceedings ][only ][after the SLP's ][are]decided by [the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Court ][on ][the ][\1ery ][same ][issue']This again, [the Income Tax ][Department, ][has ][not ][beren ][able to ][give ][a]convincing reply, except for the fact that such a rlecision 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 Departm*, .*r*O**othe 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 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 majorityof High Courts of different States on the same issue; and to makethings further worse, the Income Tax Department is showingaudacity by issuing notices continuousry under Sections l4g-A and Ofhcer.wheleas [it ][ought] 148 [through ][the ][jurisdictional ][Assesstng]to have [been ][only ][in the ][faceless ][manner'] 14. [In ][the ][case ][of ] [vs' ]['\SSISTANT]COMMISSIONER' [TAXIr' ][on ][an ][issue ][vuhether ][it ][was]justifiable [on ][the ][part ][of ][the ][Income ][Tax ][Depaltrnent ][in ][not]lollowing [an ][order ][passed ][by the adjudicating authonty ][only ][on ][the]ground [that the ][appeals ][are ][pending' ][the ][Division ][Bench ][of ][the]:High [Court ][of ][Bombay held ][at ][paragraph ][No'25 ][as ][under' ][viz ' ] "25. Mr' Paridwalla [has ][rightly drawn ][out ][attention ][to ][the]decision [of ][this Court in ][Commissioner of lncome ][Tax ][vs' ][Smt']Lodavaridevi [Sarafl2 ][as ][also ][the ][recent ][decision ][of ][the ][co-]ordinate [Bench ][of this ][Court ][in Samp ][Furniture (P) ][l-td' ][v' ][lTO13]of which [one ][of ][us (Justice G ][s ][Kulkarni) was ][a ][member' wherein]the Court [categorically observed ][that the ][Revenue ][having ][not]"accepted" [the ][judgment of ][the ][High ][Court would ][not ][mean ][that ][till]the same [is set ][aside ][in ][a manner known ][to law' ][it wr:uld ][loose ][its]force. [Referring ][to ][the decision of the ][Supreme ][Court ][in]binding Unionoflndiavs.KamlakshiFinanceCorporationLtd'14'theCourt observed [that ][the approach ][of ][the ][officials ][of ][Revenue ][of]treating decisions [being ]["not ][acceptable" ][was ][criticized ][by ][the]Supreme Court. [ln ][such ][decision, ][following ][are the ][relevant]observations [made ][by the Supreme ][Court'] r.7-0. t ax m a nn. c ax m a nn. c m a nn. c a nn. c nn. c c o m 4 22 m 4 22 4 22 22 ( B o mb a y)l r.7-0. t ax m a nn. c ax m a nn. c m a nn. c a nn. c nn. c c o m 4 22 m 4 22 4 22 22 : : !,,1o:s., . ,:!:::?l [r] ][rrR ][58e ][(Bombay)] ,"i?:;:l:,1:;:r:#",';,:';:::**452(Bonbay) r.7-0. t ax m a nn. c ax m a nn. c m a nn. c a nn. c nn. c c o m 4 22 m 4 22 4 22 22 ( B o mb a y)l r.7-0. t ax m a nn. c ax m a nn. c m a nn. c a nn. c nn. c c o m 4 22 m 4 22 4 22 22 : : !,,1o:s., . ,:!:::?l [r] ][rrR ][58e ][(Bombay)] ,"i?:;:l:,1:;:r:#",';,:';:::**452(Bonbay) "6. Sri Reddy is perhright in officers saying that fhewere ,o, passing the ,aornnu'utuo ""nuo" by any mala fides ingenuinery fert that the .l. [o'0"" ]They perhapstenabre and that, if it *" [aim ][of ][the assessee ][was ]notthe Revenuewould suffer. But what "t"ot"o' R"dov o'urlooks are not concerned n.;'i is that weotherwise of their l"n [the ][correctness ][or]or of marafides "onl. any factuarbut with the ,u""'u"'on officers, in reachinsregard. in rheir to concrusio", the same ,arra'"uo * ,":l1i':ne which were two appellate orders inplaced beforethem, one of tne cottector the Tribunar. (Anoeats) and the other orThe High in our view, righflycriticized this conduct "- o, ,;'*-n'., Assistant corectors andthe harassment to tn" a.".' or these orricers to ;;;';ilT';:'I:J:,,:;authorities higher to them incannor be too vehemenryffij"Tl"Hff:]Jutmost importance that, in disposing of thequasijudicial issues before them, revenue officers arebound by the decisions of the appellate authorities.The order of the Appellte Co ector 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,, tothe department - in itself an objectionable phrase _and 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 healthy rule [is ][not ][followed' ][the ][result ][will ][only ][be ][undue];;"".";, to assesses [and chaos ][in ][administration]of tax [laws] 12. [We have ][dealt ][with ][this aspect ][at some ][lerLgth']because [it ][has ][been ][suggested ][by thb ][learned]OOO,i"^"' [Solicitor General ][that the ][observations];;;; * [the ][Hish ][court' ][have ][been ][harsh ][orr ][the]on,""r. [lt is ][clear ][that ][the ][observations ][of ][the ][High]tourt, [seemingly ][vehement' ][and ][appa'ently]unpalatable [to ][the ][Revenue' ][are only intended ][tc' ][curb],,"no"n"V [in ][revenue matters ][which' ][if ][allowed ][to]o"ao*" [widespread' ][could result ][in ][consid':rable]harassment [to ][the assesses-public without ][any ][benefit]to the [Revenue ][We ][would ][like ][to ][say ][that ][the]department [should ][take ][these ][observations ][in ][the]proper spirit. [The ][observations ][of ][the ][High ][Court]should [be ][kept ][in ][mind ][in future and the utmost ][regard]shoutd be [paid ][by ][the ][ad.iudicating ][authorities and the]appellate [authorities ][to ][the ][requirements ][of ][iudicial]discipline [and the ][need ][for ][giving ][effect ][to the ][orders]of the [higher appellate authorities which ][are ][binding]on them." 15. What [is ][worrying ][this ][Bench ][more ][is ][the fact ][that ][an]endeavour [is ][being made ][whole ][heartedly ][to ][ensure ][not ][to ][generate]further [litigation ][on ][issues ][which ][have been ][laid to ][rest ][by ][a large]number of [High ][Courts ][all ][of ][whom have taken a ][consistent ][stand]rhat the action of the Income TaxDepartment being violative of the 15. What [is ][worrying ][this ][Bench ][more ][is ][the fact ][that ][an]endeavour [is ][being made ][whole ][heartedly ][to ][ensure ][not ][to ][generate]further [litigation ][on ][issues ][which ][have been ][laid to ][rest ][by ][a large]number of [High ][Courts ][all ][of ][whom have taken a ][consistent ][stand]rhat the action of the Income TaxDepartment being violative of the Finance Act,2020 and Finance Act,2021. Now, in order to protectthe interest of the Revenue as also that of the assessee, it would beobservation/direction that trite at this juncture, if we dispose of the writ petition with anthe disposar of the instant writ petition interms of the judgment rendered by this High court in the case ofKankanala Ravindro Reddy (l supra) shall however be subject tothe outcome of the SLps which were filed by the Income TaxDepartment and which is pending consideration before the Hon,bleSupreme Court. 16. In the given facts and circumstances, this Bench is of theconsidered opinion that unless and until we do not timely disposeof matters which are squarely covered by the decision of this Courtand which stands fortified 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. 17.So far as the interest of the Revenue ts concerned, we are ofthe considered opinion that the interest of the Revenue has alreadybeen considered and protected, as has been observed in paragraphs 36,3'7 [and38 ][of ][the order ][which' ][for ][ready reference' ][is ][reproduced]hereunder: 36. [For ][all ][the ][aforesaid reasons' the impugned ][llotices]issued [and ][the ][proceedings ][drawn by ][the ][respondent-],"Ornr"*, [is ][neither tenable' ][nor ][sustziinable']fn" noti"", [so ][issued ][and the ][procedure ][adopte'J ][being]deserves [to ][be ][and ][are ][accordingly set]Or. "" '*n"', aside/quashed [As ][a ][consequence' ][all the ][impugned]orders [getting quashed' the consequential orders passed]to the notices-respondenlDepartment pursuant by tne ssued [under ][Section ][147 ][and ][148would ][also ][get]and [it ][is ][ordered ][accordingly ][The ][reason ][we]quashed are [quashing the consequential ][order ][is on ][the ][prrinciples]that [when ][the ][initiation ][of ][the ][proceedings ][itself ][was]procedurally [wrong' ][the ][subsequent ][orders ][also ][gets]nullif ied automatically' 37. [The preliminary ][ob.lection ][raised ][by ][the ][petitioner ][is]sustained [and ][all ][these ][writ ][petitions stands ][allowed ][on]this very iurisdictional [issue ][Since ][the ][impugnc'd notices]and orders [are ][getting ][quashed ][on ][the ][point ][of]jurisdiction, we [are ][not ][inclined ][to ][proceed further ][and]decide [the other issues ][raised ][by the ][petitioner ][which]stands reserved [to ][be ][raised ][and ][contended ][in ][an]approPriate Proceedings' 38. Since [the ][Hon'ble Supreme Court ][had' ][in ][the ][case]measureof AshishAgarwal, [suPra, ][as ][a ][one-time]of theexercisingthe [powers ][under ][Article ][142:']Constitution of lndia, [permitted ]the [Revenue ][to ][proceed]under the substituted provisions, and this Cor.,'rt 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. 38. Since [the ][Hon'ble Supreme Court ][had' ][in ][the ][case]measureof AshishAgarwal, [suPra, ][as ][a ][one-time]of theexercisingthe [powers ][under ][Article ][142:']Constitution of lndia, [permitted ]the [Revenue ][to ][proceed]under the substituted provisions, and this Cor.,'rt 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 ofKanakala Ravindra Reddy (1 supra) is subjected to challengebefore the Hon'ble Supreme Court 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 of thisHigh Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindru Reddy (l supra).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 allowed1nfavour of the assessee so far as the issue of jurisdictionlsconcemed. As a consequence, the impugned notice underchallenge under Sections 148-4 and 148 stands set aside/quashed. i. The consequential [orders, ][if ][any, ][also stand set ][aside/quashed ][in]similar terms [as ][have been ][passed ][by this ][High ][Court in the ][case ][of] Kankanala Ravindra [Reddy ][(l ][supra). ][There shall ][be ][no order ][as] to costs Consequently, miscellaneous [petitions ][pending, ][if ][any, shall] stand closed SD/. M. NAGAMANIASSISTANT //TRUE [COPY']SEoOFFICER To,1 rhe [rncome. ][rax ][officer;.Ee'So,i,"?3i3fJ;:+Xi,|.l!SllBortt ][office]Veerabhadra [Nagar, ][Net]1 rhe [rncome. ][rax ][officer;.Ee'So,i,"?3i3fJ;:+Xi,|.l!SllBortt ][office]Veerabhadra [Nagar, ][Net] 2. The Principal [Commissioner ][of ][lncome ][Tax-2' ][Hyderabad ][Siqnature Towers']Sv No.6(P) [ot ][xonoap'ii'"dfi;iPi;i ][r<oftraguo'a' ][opp ][Botanical ][Gardens']56rlingampally, [Ranga ][tii'iov' ][ui'o'"*bad' ][Telangana-50O084']Sv No.6(P) [ot ][xonoap'ii'"dfi;iPi;i ][r<oftraguo'a' ][opp ][Botanical ][Gardens']56rlingampally, [Ranga ][tii'iov' ][ui'o'"*bad' ][Telangana-50O084'] 3. - The [Assessment ][Unit' ][lncome ][Tax ][Department National ]No 401' [2nd ][Faceless][Froor' ][t-]n.i"...Lni centre, P"iti,S'il*#ii??633,,U"" RamP, Jawaharlal [Nehrt]n.i"...Lni centre, P"iti,S'il*#ii??633,,U"" RamP, Jawaharlal [Nehrt] 4. One [CC to ] [MANI/OHAN' ][Advocate 5. One [to ][tr,4s. ][J.SUNITHA' ][Jr. ] 6. Two [CD CoPies] BSRGJP -)X HIGH COURT DATED:2810412025 ORDERWP.No.12983 of 2025 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION,WITHOUT COSTS 6.9R?Atu --,'^a:-. == [--.::r ]-l|;r'6t [t ][t'''"' "t'-:\]l:.)i. [r.r]0I sEP [2025]!-;'1.,.,\-,,\'.'ii,1!I,.,