Wp/13859/2023 Of M/S Ms Agarwal Foundries Private Limited v. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 5(1)

\ TELANGANAH|GH couRr [.?+ ]I+ED:IIIEoF (SPecial Original [Jurisdiction)] TUESDAY ,THE -- TWO iUOUSRNO AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE [JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY]ANDTHE HONOURABLE [SRI .TUSiTdE ruENSING ] WRIT [P]ETITION[NO:138][59 ][0F ][2023] Between: tr,4/s t\4S Agarwal [Foundries Private ][Limited' ][5- ][4 ][-83 ][TSK Chambers' ][Opposite]Raniouni Bus [Depot, ][iil]c ]["nti"ol ][sl-cuno9raual ][relanoana ][- ][500 ][003']Reor6sented [by ][its ][Nlan"agj;g'b"iiJitoi-M?. pramod ][KumaiAgarwal' ][sio ][tv1r.]Maniklal [Aganrval.] ...PETITIONER AND 1The Deputy [Commissioner of lncome ][Tax' ][Circle ][5(1)' ][Room ][No ][344' ][3td]Floor, [Block, ][lncome ]' " [ttiil'lil'"nC6-'i'os' ][tr/bdab ][Tank' ][Hvderabad ][-]500 004.Floor, [Block, ][lncome ]' " [ttiil'lil'"nC6-'i'os' ][tr/bdab ][Tank' ][Hvderabad ][-]500 004. 2. The Principal [Chief ][Commissioner of ][lncome-Tax ][Andhra Pradesh ][and]Telanqana, [Hvo"|.,o"'i'ioo'i.l"r'rJ" ][oD' ][ot'5oot' ][B Block' lncome Tax]i;*;;..'id -ii,Acouaioi' [Hvderabad - ][500 ][004' ][Telangana']Telanqana, [Hvo"|.,o"'i'ioo'i.l"r'rJ" ][oD' ][ot'5oot' ][B Block' lncome Tax]i;*;;..'id -ii,Acouaioi' [Hvderabad - ][500 ][004' ][Telangana'] ...RESPONDENTS Petition under [A(icle ][226 ][of ][lhe Constitution.of ][lndia ][praying ][that ][in ][the]circumstances [stated ][in ][t[Jr?iir"ii-tilld ][therewitr, ][the ][High ][CgYrt ][I?y ][be]oleased to [issue ][a ][Writ ][of'"UanO"tn's ][or ][any ][other ][appropriate ][Writ ]' [Order^or]o;;ilng. [a. the ][ti"r. ][p"ttto ][u/s ][t ][+'eA(d) ][ot ][the ][lncome Tax ][Act' ][1 ][961 ][']dated [2OtO4t2O23, ][U"a,i;g""biN-lno ][uotice ][ttn ] ";;;il", 24t1052216356(1 ), [by ][tn" ][iJt ][netponOent' for ][the. ]l;sessment [Year 2019 ][- ][20 ][b']the notice [issued ][u/s ][f ][+a ][oi ][t'f'" ][lnlome ][fax ][Act' ][1961 ][' ][daled 2Olo4l2o23' bearing]DrN and [Notice ][No'. ][rreAlAsiisli+8-1t2o23-2411o5222295o(1\' ][bv ][the ][1st]Resoondent, [for ][the ][Rssesiment ][Year ZOfi ][- ][ZO' ][as ][arbitrary' illegal' ][bad ][in' ][law'];]]|]o];ii;, [;,olativ" ][or ][g,e ][piinciples ][oJ ][natural ][justice, ][apart ][from ][beins- ][violative]of Artictes [1a, ][19(1 ])(g) [uno-ios ][oi ][the ][constitution ][of ][lndia and Sec ][148A ][of ][the]lncome Tax [Act, ][f SOf ][, and ][;sequently ][set ][aside ][the ][same ][in the ][interests of]justice. ,. IA NO:10F 2023 the affidavit Petition under fired in suonort of Section 151 the cPC petition, praying that in the circumstances stated ir,""iish court inatt further proceedinos'"Jrorrg may oe pleaseJ'tol'taythe 1st J"yi";;;;;';,1,;.rrnt1o the notice issued Respondentlu/s 148 byoi,.," tn.or.iJ, bearing DtN and Norice No.. rretuesircliia 1.1,^190f [, ][dated ][2Ot04t2023,]att further proceedinos'"Jrorrg may oe pleaseJ'tol'taythe 1st J"yi";;;;;';,1,;.rrnt1o the notice issued Respondentlu/s 148 byoi,.," tn.or.iJ, bearing DtN and Norice No.. rretuesircliia 1.1,^190f [, ][dated ][2Ot04t2023,]1st Respondent, for rhe Rr.".rr"nii.ri 'io1if"-'zo, _iizozs_z+t,os22L2950(1), bv theabove Writ petilionpending disposar of the Counsel for the petitioner: SRl. A V A SIVA KARTIKEYA Counset for the Respondents: SRI J V PRASAD (JR. SC FOR INCOME TAX) The Court made the following: ORDER ,, TIIE HONOURABLE [JUSTICE P'SAM ] AI{DTIIE HONOURABLE NANDIKONDA WRTTPETIT [o.13859][ of2023] ORDER, [(per ][Hon'ble ][Sri ][Justice ] [Sam ][Koshy)] Heard [Mr. ][A'V'A'Siva ][Kartikeya' ][leamed counsel ][for ][the]petitioner [and ][Mr. ][J'V'Prasad, learned ][Junior ][Standing ][Counsel]for the Income [Tax ][Deparlment ][for ][the ][respondents' ][Perused the]record. Counsel for the petitioner: SRl. A V A SIVA KARTIKEYA Counset for the Respondents: SRI J V PRASAD (JR. SC FOR INCOME TAX) The Court made the following: ORDER ,, TIIE HONOURABLE [JUSTICE P'SAM ] AI{DTIIE HONOURABLE NANDIKONDA WRTTPETIT [o.13859][ of2023] ORDER, [(per ][Hon'ble ][Sri ][Justice ] [Sam ][Koshy)] Heard [Mr. ][A'V'A'Siva ][Kartikeya' ][leamed counsel ][for ][the]petitioner [and ][Mr. ][J'V'Prasad, learned ][Junior ][Standing ][Counsel]for the Income [Tax ][Deparlment ][for ][the ][respondents' ][Perused the]record. 2. This is a [writ ][petition ][where ][the ][proceedings ][are ][either]challenged [to the ][notices ][which ][were ][issued ][under Section ][148.4]and 148 [of ][the Income ][Tax ][Act, ][1961 ][(for ][short'the ][Act') ][or ][the]assessment [orders ][those ][have ][been ][passed ][under ][Section ][147 ][of]the Act which [have been assailed'] This writ [[petition is ][being ]][[being ]][[taken ][up ][today ][only ][on ][one ][of ][the]][[up ][today ][only ][on ][one ][of ][the]][[today ][only ][on ][one ][of ][the]][[only ][on ][one ][of ][the]][[on ][one ][of ][the]][[one ][of ][the]][[of ][the]][[the]] 3. This writ [[petition is ][being ]][[being ]][[taken ][up ][today ][only ][on ][one ][of ][the]][[up ][today ][only ][on ][one ][of ][the]][[today ][only ][on ][one ][of ][the]][[only ][on ][one ][of ][the]][[on ][one ][of ][the]][[one ][of ][the]][[of ][the]][[the]]that [the ][notices ][issued ][under Section ][1484 of ][the Act]grounds, and the [subsequent ][initiation ][of ][proceedings under ][Section ][148 ][of]the Act [by ][the ][jurisdictional ][Assessing ][Officer' ][whereas ][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 onwards' ][proceedings] under Section 14gA of the Act as also under Section I4g of theAct ought to have also been issued and proceeded in a facelessmanner. 4. The contention contention of the petitioner the petitioner petitioner is that the issue that the issue the issue issue ofproceedings being in violation of the Financ e Act, 2021 i.e., theimpugned notices under Section 14gA and Section l4g ofthe Actnot being issued in a faceless manner, have already been dealt withand decided by this Court in the case of KANKANALARAVINDRA REDDY vs. INCOME_TAX OFFICERT decidedon 14.09.2023 whereby a batch of writ petitions were allowed andthe proceedings initiated under Section 14gA as arso 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 l51A ofthe Act read with Notification lgl2o22 d,ated 29.03.2022. The saidjudgment passed by this Court has also been subsequently followedin a large number of writ petitions which were ailowed on similarterms The contention contention of the petitioner the petitioner petitioner is that the issue that the issue the issue issue of ' [(2023) 156 taxmann.corn I 7g (Telangana)] The contention contention of the petitioner the petitioner petitioner is that the issue that the issue the issue issue of ' [(2023) 156 taxmann.corn I 7g (Telangana)] 5. Down the [line, ][we find ][that ][the ][same issue ][has ][also ][been]decided against [the ][Revenue ][by ][various ][Higlr ][Courts ][i'e'']by the Bombay [High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ] TECHNOLOGIES [LTD., ][VS. ] oFINCOMETAx&OTHERS2,GauhatiHighCourtinthecaseof RAM [vs' ][UNION OF INDIA3' ][Punjab ][and]Haryana [High Court in ][the ][case ][of JATINDER ] vs. UNION [INDIA4, ][and ][Telangana ][High ][Court ][in the ][case ][of]SRI VENKATARAMANA [VS. ] COMMISSIONER [where ][the ][issue ][was ][in]respect [of ][international taxation' Bombay ][High ][Court in ][the ][case ][of]ABHIN [vs' ] [OFFICER']INTERNATIONAL [which is ][again on ][international]taxation [and ][central ][circle, High ][Court ][of ][Himachal ][Pradesh ][in ][the]case of [vs' ] [OFFICERT']Gujarat [High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ] '1zoz+1464 [430 ][(Bom)]'iQozi) [156 ][taxmann.com ][478 ][(Gauhati)l]" l(2024) [165 ][taxmann.com ][115 ][(Punjab ][& ][Haryana)l]' 12024) [167 ][taxmann.com ][4 ][1 ][1 ][(Telangana)l]- [. ]-" 12024) [166 ][taxmann.com 679 ][(Bombay)l ]'izOZqi [165 ][taxmann.com ][113 ][(Himachal ][Pradesh)l] DAIIYABHAI RADADIYA vs. INCOME TAx OFFICER,WARD 3(3Xq8, Jharkand High Court in the case of SHyAMSUNDAR SAW vs. UNION OF INDIAe, Rajasrhan High Court inthe case of SHARDA DEVI CHHAJER vs. INCOME TAXOFFICER & ANOTHER and batch of writ petitionsr0 whichstood decided on 19.03.2024. Similar views have also been takenby the Division Bench of Calcutta I{igh 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 largenumber of High Courts, we are still confronted with large filing ofidentical matters on daily basis ranging between 5 to 10 writpetitions. That upon the instructions being sought from 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 Kanskala Ravindra Retldy t2024 SCC Online Guj 4012"2025 SCC Online lhar2BTto 72023 [: RJ- ]JD :49 84-DBl has [been ][subjected ][to ][challenge ][in a ][Special ][Leave](1 supra) Petition [i.e., SLP No.3574 ][of ][2024 before the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme]Court [and the ][Hon'bte ][Supreme ][Court ][is ][seized ][of ][the ][matter']In addition, [there ][are ][about ][1200 ][SL'Ps ][atso ][filed ][arising out ][ofthe]same 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 ][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 ][on ][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,tiltdate,wedonotfindanyremedialstepshavingbeentaken by the [Income ][Tax ][Department ][to take ][appropriate steps ][to]either hold back [issuance ][of ][notice under Section 148A ][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 l4gA of the Act and alsoinitiating proceedings under Section I 4g of the Act incontravention to the amendments brought into the lncome Tax Actpursuant to the Finance Act, z0z0 as also the Finance Act 202r.9' Upon a query being put as to why can.r this writ petition bedisposed of in the teeth of the decision rendered bv this Court inthe case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra), leamed StandingCounsel for the Income Tax Department contends that those wouldunnecessarily burden the Income Tax Department where theywould be required to flle equal number of SLps before theHon'ble Supreme Court and it would be further burdening theexchequer of the Union of India. It was also the contention of theleamed Standing Counsel that no prejudice would be caused to theinterest of the petitioners in case ifthis writ petition is kept pendingtill the finalization of the SLps pending before the Hon,bleSupreme Court and the fact that the petitioner is already enjoyingthe benefit of interim protection. Nonetheless, on the earlier queryof this Court as to why the Income Tax Department have not comeout with a mechanism to issue appropriate instructions or to take :: appropriate [steps ][in ][ensuring that proceedings under ][Section 148A]of the Act as [also the ][assessment ][orders ][under Section ][148 ][of ][the]Act are kept [in ][a ][hold ][in ][the ][light ][ofthe ][decisions decided ][by ][the]various High [Courts, ][it ][was submitted ][by ][the ][leamed ][Standing]Counsel [that ][the ][said steps can ][only ][be ][taken ][at ][the level ][of CBDT]as any such [steps ][would ][have ][to be ][taken Pan ][India ][and cannot ][be]limited to [any ][of ][these ][jurisdictional ][High Courts']l0.Asaresultofwhich,whatwearefacingissteepincreaseoflitigation [day ][in ][and day ][out ][even ][though various ][orders ][have ][been]passed by [this ][High ][Court ][allowing ][writ ][petitions ][on the ][very ][same]issue. The [Income Tax authorities concemed ][are ][still ][even ][now ][in]2025 also [initiating ][proceedings ][in ][contravention ][to ][the provisions]of Section [151A ][of ][the ][Act ][and as ][a result ][by ][now' ][more ][than ][600]to 700 [petitions ][have been already ][got ][piled ][up ][before ][this High]Court on [an ][issue ][which ][otherwise ][stands ][squarely covered ][by ][the]of [this ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ][Kanakala Ravindra ][Redd'y]judgment (1 supra). [What ][is ][also surprising ][is ][the fact that ][though ][while]allowing [the ][writ ][petitions ][in ][the ][case ][of ][Kanakala ][Ravindra]Reddy (l supra), [the ][Division ][Bench ][while ][reserving the ][right ][of]the Revenue, has [also ][protected ][the ][interest ][of ][the ][petitioners] insofar as the riberty 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,202l. The petitioner assessee would be entitled toinitiating fresh proceedings strictly in accordance with the amendedprovisions of the Act, as amended by the Finance Act,, 2020 andthe Finance Act,202l. 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 reseled for the Revenue. On thefresh proceedings. The Department has made no endeavour inavailing the said liberty that was reseled 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 bebadHigh Court as well as many other High Courts already held to bebad I l. It appears appears that because of the aforesaid because of the aforesaid of the aforesaid the aforesaid aforesaid liberty that this Highthis HighHighCourt had liberty that this Highthis HighHighCourt had granted permitting the Revenue for initiating freshproceedings as a one_time measure in a faceless manner, theproceedings as a one_time measure in a faceless manner, theIncome Tax Department wants to take advantage of. the same byprotracting these proceedings which would enable them to meet thelimitation that would otherwise come in the way. Likewise, if thewrit petition is kept pending for a considerable long period of timeand finally at a later stage if the Hon,ble Supreme Courl confirmsthe decision taken by this High Court as also by the other Highprotracting 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 Courl confirmsthe decision taken by this High Court as also by the other HighCourts in which theSLPs are stillpending, the Income Tax It appears appears that because of the aforesaid because of the aforesaid of the aforesaid the aforesaid aforesaid liberty that this Highthis HighHigh Department [would ][get ][the ][advantage ][of ][the ][liberty ][that is ][otherwise]in favour [of ][the ][Revenue ][for ][initiation ][of ][fresh]protected from [the disposal ][ofthese ][matters ][at ][a ][much ][later ][stage]proceedings which would [be ][advantageous ][and ][beneficial ][to ][the ][Revenue ][and]would be equally [disadvantageous ][and ][detrimental ][so ][far ][as ][interest]of the assesses [are ][concemed' As ][a ][consequence' ][the Income Tax]Department [gets ][an ][extended ][period ][of ][time ][for initiation ][of ][fresh]proceedings. 12. The [alarming ][trend ][of ][docket ][explosion ][in ][this Court' ][despite]the clear [precedent setin ][Kanakala Ravindra ][Reddy ][(| ][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 ][titigation]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 ][unnecessarily' The]Department's [strategy ][of ][awaiting ][the ][Supreme ][Court's decision ][on]SLPs [while ][continuing ][to ][initiate fresh ][proceedings]pending 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 (evenue,s rights andassesses tnterests 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 14g_A and 14g should not have been issued in afaceless manner, at least till the Hon,ble Supreme Court decide thetwelve hundred (r200) odd SLps which it is arready seized ofor, atleast the Income Tax Department should have fbund out someremedial steps to ensure that wherever the authorities intend toinitiate proceedings under Sections l4g_A and l4g, other than in afaceless manner, the proceedings should have been defertedwithout precipitating the matter further intimating the assessee thatthey shall initiate appropriate proceedings only after the SLp,s aredecided by the Hon,ble Supreme Court on the very same issue.This again, the Income Tax Department, has not been able to give aconvincing reply, except for the fact that such a decision if at all has to [be taken, has ][to ][be ][taken ][for ][the ][whole ][oflndia' ][and ][which]otherwise has [to be by ][way ][of ][a ][policy ][decision ][and ][that too ][at ][the]level of Central [Board ][of ][Direct ][Taxes' ][Though ][the ][leamed]Standing Counsel [for ][the Income ][Tax ][Department ][contended ][that]the Dethi [High ][Court ][dismissed ][a ][writ ][petition of ][similar nature' ][on]theonehandwhentheHighCourtisstrugglingtoreduceitspendency, [such ][notices ][which ][are ][under challenge ][in ][this ][writ]are [forcing ][the ][assessee ][to ][knock ][the ][doors ][of ][this ][High]petition Court [resulting ][in hling ][of ][hundreds ][of ][new ][writ ][petitions ][which ][in]the long [run not ][only ][affects the ][disposal ][of ][the ][writ ][petitions ][but]also consumes [substantial ][time ][of ][the ][Bench ][in ][hearing ][these]matters [again and again ][on daily ][basis' ][Admittedly' in ][spite ][of ][the]matterbeforetheHon,bieSupremeCourlhavingbeentakenonmany occasions, [the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Court ][which ][is ][seized ][of ][the]matter [has been ][reluctant ][in ][granting ][any ][interim ][protection ][to ][the]Income [Tax Department' ][Yet' ][the ][authorities ][concemed ][at ][the]State level [are ][not ][ready ][to ][accept ][the verdict ][passed ][by ][a ][maj ][ority]of High [Courts ][of ][different ][States ][on the ][same issue; and ][to ][make]things further [worse, ][the ][Income ][Tax ][Department ][is ][showing]audacity by issuing [notices ][continuously under ][Sections 148-A and] 148 through the jurisdictionai Assessing Officer whereas it oughtto have been only in the faceless maru1er. 14. In rhe case of BANK OF INDIA vs. ASSISTANTCOMMISSIONER, INCOME TAXn, on an ibsue whether ir 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 righfly drawn out attention to thedecision of this Court in Commissioner of lncome Tax vs. Smt.Godavaridevi Saraflz as also the recent decision of the co_ordinate Bench of this Court in Samp Furniture (p) Ltd. v. lTOr3of which one of us (Justice G.s. Kurkarni) 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.,4, thecourt observed that the approach of the officiars of Revenue oftreating decisions being [,,not ]acceptable,, was criticized by theSupreme Court. ln such decision, following are the relevantobservations made by the Supreme Court. -.---- t,'rl{202^51 17O taxmann.com 422 ( Bombay)lBombay)l taxmann.com 422 ( Bombay)lBombay)l" [978] l l3 ITR 589 (Bombay)'' 120241 165 taxmann.com 581i300 Taxman 452 (Bombay)'' 120241 165 taxmann.com 581i300 Taxman 452 (Bombay) 'o llggZl [taxmann.com ]16/55 ELT 433 (SC) -.---- t,'rl{202^51 17O taxmann.com 422 ( Bombay)lBombay)l taxmann.com 422 ( Bombay)lBombay)l" [978] l l3 ITR 589 (Bombay)'' 120241 165 taxmann.com 581i300 Taxman 452 (Bombay)'' 120241 165 taxmann.com 581i300 Taxman 452 (Bombay) 'o llggZl [taxmann.com ]16/55 ELT 433 (SC) "6. Sri Reddy is [perhaps ][right ][in ][saying ][that ][the]officers were [not ][actuated ][by ][any ][mala ][fides ][in]passing the impugned [orders' ][They ][perhaps]genuinely felt that [the ][claim ][of ][the ][assessee ][was ][not]tenable [and that, ][if ][it ][was ][accepted' ][the ][Revenue]would suffer. [But ][what ][Sri Reddy overlooks ][is ][that we]are not [concerned ][here ][with the ][correctness ][or]otheMise [of ][their ][conclusion ][or ][of ][any ][factual]malafides [but ][with ][the ][fact ][that ][the officers' ][in ][reaching]in their conclusion, [by-passed ][two ][appellate ][orders ][in]to [the same ][issue ][which were ][placed ][before]regard them, one [of the ][Collector (Appeals) ][and the other of]the Tribunal. [The High ][Court ][has' ][rn ][our view' ][rightly]criticized this [conduct of the Assistant ][Collectors and]the harassment [to ][the ][assessee caused by the failure]of these [officers ][to ][give effect ][to ][the ][orders ][of]authorities [higher ][to them ][in ][the ][appellate ][hierarchy ][lt]cannot be [too ][vehemently emphasized ][that ][it ][is ][of]utmost importance [that, ][in ][disposing ][of ][the]quasijudicial issues [before ][them' ][revenue officers are]bound by the [decisions ][of ][the ][appellate ][authorities']The order [of ][the Appellte Collector ][is ][binding ][on ][the]Asslstant [Collectors working ][within ][his ][jurisdiction ][and]the order of [the ][Tribunal ][is ][binding upon the Assistant]Collectors [and ][the ][Appellate Collectors who ][function]under the [jurisdiction ][of the ][Tribunal ][The ][principles ][of]iudicial [discipline require ][that ][the ][orders ][of the ][higher]appellate authorities [should ][be ][followed ][unreservedly]by 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]ground for not following [it ][unless ][its ][operation ][has]been suspended [by a ][competent ][court ][lf this healthy] / rule is not followed, the result will only be undueharassment to assesses and chaos in administrationof tax laws. 12We have dealt with this aspect at some length,because it has been suggested bythe learnedAdditional Solicitor ceneral that theobservationsAdditional Solicitor ceneral that theobservationsmade by the High Court, have been harsh on theofficers. lt is clear that the observations of the HighCourt, seemingly vehement, and apparenflyofficers. 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 allowed tobecome widespread, could result in considerableharassment to the assesses_public without any benefitto the Revenue. We would like to say that theto 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 theshould 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 ordersdiscipline and the need for giving effect to the ordersof the higher appellale authorities which are bindingon them."on them." 15' what is wonying 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 all of whom have taken a consistent standthat the action of the Income Tax Department being violative of the Finance [Act,2020 ][and ][Finance ][Act'2021' ][Now' ][in ][order to ][protect]the interest [of ][the Revenue ][as also ][that of the ][assessee' ][it ][would be]trite at [this juncture, ][if ][we ][dispose ][of ][the ][writ ][petition ][with ][an]observation/direction [that ][the ][disposal ][of ][the ][instant ][writ ][petition ][in]terms [of ][the judgment ][rendered ][by ][this High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]Kankanala [Ravindra ][Retldy ][(l ][supra) shall ][however be ][subject ][to]the outcome [of ][the ] [which were ][filed ][by ][the ][Income Tax]Department [and ][which ][is pending consideration before the ][Hon'ble]Supreme [Court.] 16. tn [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]Courts [on ][the ][very ][same ][issue' the ][pendency ][of ][this ][High]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 ][concerned' we are ][of] the considered [opinion ][that ][the interest ][of ][the ][Revenue ][has ][already]been considered [and protected, ][as ][has been ][observed ][in ][paragraphs] 36,37 and 38 ofthe order which, for ready reference, is reproducedhereunder: 36. For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned noticesissued and the proceedings drawn by the respondent_Department is neither tenable, nor sustainable.The notices so issued and the procedure adopted beingper se illegal, deserves to be and are accordingly setaside/quashed. As a consequence, all the impugnedorders getting quashed, the consequential orders passedby the respondent-Department pursuant to the noticesissued under Section 147 and 14g would also getquashed and it is ordered accordingly. The reason weare quashrng 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. 38. Since the Hon,ble Supreme Court had, in the caseof Ashish Agarwal, supra, as a one{ime measureexercising the powers under Article 142 of . theConstitution of India, 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 ][to]proceed further [if ][they ][so ][want ][from ][the ][stage ][of ][the]order of [the ][Supreme ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ][Ashish]Agarwal, [suPra.] 38. Since the Hon,ble Supreme Court had, in the caseof Ashish Agarwal, supra, as a one{ime measureexercising the powers under Article 142 of . theConstitution of India, 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 ][to]proceed further [if ][they ][so ][want ][from ][the ][stage ][of ][the]order of [the ][Supreme ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ][Ashish]Agarwal, [suPra.] 18.We would [only ][further like ][to ][make observations ][that ][since]we are inclined [to ][dispose ][of ][the instant ][wril ][petition, ][conscious ][of]thefactthattheearlierorderofthisHighCourtinthecaseofKanakala [Ravindra ][Reddy ][(l ][supra) ][is ][subjected ][to ][challenge]before the [Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Court ][in ][SLP No'3574 ][of ][2024']preferred [by ][the lncome ][Tax Department' we ][make ][it ][clear that]of [the ][instant ][writ ][petition ][is ][subj ][ect ][to ][outcome ][of ][the]allowing aforesaid [SLP preferred by the Revenue ][against the ][decision ][of ][this]Court [in ][the ][case ][of ][Kanakala Ravindra ][Reddy ][(l ][srryra)']High in [other ][rvords, ][would ][mean ][that either ][of ][the ][parties' ][if ][they]This, so want, [may ][move ][an appropriate ][petition ][seeking ][revival ][of ][this]writ petition [in ][the ][light ][of ][the ][decision ][of ][the Hon'ble ][Supreme]Court in [the pending ] [on the ][very ][same ][issue'] 19. Accordingly, [the ][instant ][writ ][petition ][stands ][allowed ][in]favouroftheassesseesofarastheissueofjurisdictionisconcemed. [As ][a ][consequence, ][the ][impugned ][notice ][under]under [Sections ][148-4 ][and ][148 stands ][set aside/quashed']challenge ([I] The consequential orders, if any, also stand set aside/quashed insimilar terms as have been passed by this High Court in th. "u.. ofKankanala Ravirulra Reddy (l supra). There shall be no order asto costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/. P. PADMANABHA REDDYDEPUTY REGISTRAR'i SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, 1The Deputy Commissioner of !f"r.lo?.r,""u tncome Tax Towers, AC lncome. Tax, C,r;;.d.. Circle 5(1), Room No.. il:Jao rank. Hyderabad 344. 3rd_The Deputy Commissioner of !f"r.lo?.r,""u tncome Tax Towers, AC lncome. Tax, C,r;;.d.. Circle 5(1), Room No.. il:Jao rank. Hyderabad 344. 3rd_2.The Principal Chief Commis_sioner of lncome Tax, Andhra pradesh and_r rowers, [eranEana, ]10 -2_ [Hyderabad ]3, AC Guards. RnlT,ryo, Hyoeriolj gzz, riin'Fr.Ii, _'srid"rio+i, 6''ajf"r,. "rlrunnrnutncome Tax_r rowers, [eranEana, ]10 -2_ [Hyderabad ]3, AC Guards. RnlT,ryo, Hyoeriolj gzz, riin'Fr.Ii, _'srid"rio+i, 6''ajf"r,. "rlrunnrnutncome TaxJ.One CC to SRt. A V A SIVA KART|KEYA Advocate tOpUCltOpUCl4.One CC to SRt. J V PRASAD (Jr SC FOR |NCOIVE IAX) IOPUC]5.Two CD Copies5.Two CD Copies KKS a ,/ HIGH COURT DATED:291041202s ORDER WP.No.13859 of 2023 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITIONWITHOUT COSTS ir [l.li ] 14a, ::',Jha,0 stp 2q2t)*{+