Wp/14325/2025 Of Premnivas Attal v. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department

HIGH COURT FOR THE S ATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDEABAD(Special OriginaJurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SECTWO THOUSAND A D DAY OF MAYD TWENTY FIVE PRESNT THE HONOURABLE SRI JSTICE P.SAM KOSHYAN THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA :14325 OF 2025 WRIT PETITION N Between:Premnivas Attal, S/o: Late Sri Ramnvas Attal, Ryo 4-5-145, Hashmath Gunj,Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad..PETITIONERPremnivas Attal, S/o: Late Sri Ramnvas Attal, Ryo 4-5-145, Hashmath Gunj,Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad..PETITIONERAND1Assessment Unit, Income Tax Depaent, National e assessment centre,New Delhi, Room No.401, 2nd Floor,-Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium,New, Delhi. -1 10003.1Assessment Unit, Income Tax Depaent, National e assessment centre,New Delhi, Room No.401, 2nd Floor,-Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium,New, Delhi. -1 10003. 2. Hyderabad. 500004lncorhe Tax Officer, , Ward 5('1), lT Twers 10-2-3, A.C Guards, lvlasab Tank, 3. Principal Chief Commissioner of lncoe Tax, Andhra Pradesh andTelangana, Hyderabad. Room No.92, 9th Floor, ['B'Block, ]l. [T. ]Towers, 10-2-3, A.0 Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderab d. 500004Telangana, Hyderabad. Room No.92, 9th Floor, ['B'Block, ]l. [T. ]Towers, 10-2-3, A.0 Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderab d. 500004 4. The Union of lndia, rep. by its Secret, [lt/linistry ]of [Finance, Department ]ofRevenue, Direct Taxes, Governmentlndia, North Block, Ground Floor,Sansad [t/larg, New Delhi-1 1000 1 .Revenue, Direct Taxes, Governmentlndia, North Block, Ground Floor,Sansad [t/larg, New Delhi-1 1000 1 . ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Cnstitution of lndia praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filetherewith, the High Court may bepleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus oany other appropriate writ, order orseeking a declaration for the assessmentrder passed by 1't respondent dated25.03.2025 under section 147 Rl/w sectin 1448 of the lncome Tax Act, 1961bearing DIN No. ITBtuAST/S/14712024-5/1074996991(1) for the assessmentyear 2019-20 pursuant to the notice isued under section 148 of the Actdt.11.04.2023 issued by the 2nd respodent as without lurisdiction arbitrary,illegal, bad i0 law, void- ab-initio, violativef the principle of natural justice, apart from being violative of Articles 1a, 19(1)(g) and 265 of the constitution of lndia andsection ['l4BA ]of the Income Tax Act, l 961 and issued penalty notices undersection 274 read with section 2724(1)(d) of the lncometax Act, 1961 dated24.O3.2025, vide DIN No. ITBA/PNLtSt272A(1)(d)_FLt2O24-25t1074968048(i),Notice for Penalty under section 274 read with section 27oA of the lncome{axAct,1961 dated 25.03 2025 vide DtN No. |TBA/PNL/S/270A|2O24_2511074997337(1), Notice for Penalty under section 274 read with section271AAC(1) of the lncome-tax Act,1961 dated 25.03.2025 Vide DtN No.lrBA/PNL/s/271 A\c(1)12024-2sliot4997338('1) and consequenfly set aside ailthe impugned proceedings and compliances in the interest of justice. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 from being violative of Articles 1a, 19(1)(g) and 265 of the constitution of lndia andsection ['l4BA ]of the Income Tax Act, l 961 and issued penalty notices undersection 274 read with section 2724(1)(d) of the lncometax Act, 1961 dated24.O3.2025, vide DIN No. ITBA/PNLtSt272A(1)(d)_FLt2O24-25t1074968048(i),Notice for Penalty under section 274 read with section 27oA of the lncome{axAct,1961 dated 25.03 2025 vide DtN No. |TBA/PNL/S/270A|2O24_2511074997337(1), Notice for Penalty under section 274 read with section271AAC(1) of the lncome-tax Act,1961 dated 25.03.2025 Vide DtN No.lrBA/PNL/s/271 A\c(1)12024-2sliot4997338('1) and consequenfly set aside ailthe impugned proceedings and compliances in the interest of justice. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under section 15i cpc praying that in the circumstances stated inthe affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to stayall further proceedings, including any recovery of lncome Tax and penalty notice,the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to stayall further proceedings, including any recovery of lncome Tax and penalty notice,pursuant the demand notice d1.25.03.2025 passed by the 1st through cpc,pursuant to the assessment order dated 25.03.2025 section 147 Rtw section 144Bof the lncome Tax Act, ['1961 ]bearing IXN No. ITBA/AST/S/14712024_pursuant to the assessment order dated 25.03.2025 section 147 Rtw section 144Bof the lncome Tax Act, ['1961 ]bearing IXN No. ITBA/AST/S/14712024_251107 4996991(1 ) for the assessment year 2019-20 and penalty notice issuedunder section 274 read with section 272A(1)(d) of the lncome-tax Act,1961 dated24.03.2025, vide DIN No. |rBA/PNLtst272A(1)(d) FLt2o24-25t1074968048(t ),Penalty notice issued under section 274 read with section 27oA of the lncome-taxAct,1961 dated 25.03.202s vide DIN No. rrBA/pNL/s/270A12o24-under section 274 read with section 272A(1)(d) of the lncome-tax Act,1961 dated24.03.2025, vide DIN No. |rBA/PNLtst272A(1)(d) FLt2o24-25t1074968048(t ),Penalty notice issued under section 274 read with section 27oA of the lncome-taxAct,1961 dated 25.03.202s vide DIN No. rrBA/pNL/s/270A12o24-251107 4997337(1 ) and Penalty notice issued under section 274 read with section271AAC(1) of the lncometax Act, 1961 dated 25.03.2025 Vide DtN No.271AAC(1) of the lncometax Act, 1961 dated 25.03.2025 Vide DtN No.lrBA/PNL/s/271AAC(1)12024-2st107 4gg733B(1 ) for the assessmen t year 2019-20under the Act, pending disposal of the above writ petition.under the Act, pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI TEJpRAKASH TOSHNIWALCounsel for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2: MS.BOKARO SAPNA REDDY counserf ortheRespdndentNo.4:.*,oo(jl'rt*1i?E^1"^"rorlxt*l*'DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIAThe Court made the following: ORDER ICE P.SAM KOSHYTHE HONOURABLE ANDTTIE HONOURABLE ICE NARSING NANDIKOAWRIT PETITION [No.]4325 of2025 shY) QBDEB, [(per ][Hon'ble ][Sri ][Justice ][P.Sam] Heard Mr. [TejPrakash ][Toshni], [leamed counsel ][for ][the]petitioner and Ms. [Bokaro ][SaPna]y, leamed Junior [Standing]Counsel for [the ][Income ][Tax ][DeP]ent, for resPondent [Nos. ][I]and 2. Perused [the ][record.] This is a writ Petition is a writ Petition a writ Petition writ Petition Petition [[where][ the ][proceedings ]][[ the ][proceedings ]][[proceedings ]][[are ]][[either]] 2. This is a writ Petition is a writ Petition a writ Petition writ Petition Petition [[where][ the ][proceedings ]][[ the ][proceedings ]][[proceedings ]][[are ]][[either]]challenged to [the notices ][which ][wer]issued under [Section ][148A]and 148 of the [Income Tax ][Act, ][196](for short 'the Act') [or ][the]assed under [Section ][147 ][of]assessment [orders ][those have ][been]the Act which [have ][been assailed'] Heard Mr. [TejPrakash ][Toshni], [leamed counsel ][for ][the]petitioner and Ms. [Bokaro ][SaPna]y, leamed Junior [Standing]Counsel for [the ][Income ][Tax ][DeP]ent, for resPondent [Nos. ][I]and 2. Perused [the ][record.] This is a writ Petition is a writ Petition a writ Petition writ Petition Petition [[where][ the ][proceedings ]][[ the ][proceedings ]][[proceedings ]][[are ]][[either]] 2. This is a writ Petition is a writ Petition a writ Petition writ Petition Petition [[where][ the ][proceedings ]][[ the ][proceedings ]][[proceedings ]][[are ]][[either]]challenged to [the notices ][which ][wer]issued under [Section ][148A]and 148 of the [Income Tax ][Act, ][196](for short 'the Act') [or ][the]assed under [Section ][147 ][of]assessment [orders ][those have ][been]the Act which [have ][been assailed'] 3. This writ Petition [is ][being ][take]up today onlY [on one of the]grounds, that the [notices ][issued]er Section l48A [of ][the ][Act]and the subsequent [initiation of ][proc edings ][under Section ][148 ][of]the Act by the [jurisdictional ][Assessi][ g ][Officer, ][whereas ][in ][terms]the Income [T@Ulct ][bY ][waY]of the amendment [that ][was ][brought] of Finance Act, [2O2l ][w.e.f., ][01'0][ .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 facelessmanner. 4. The contention of the petitioner contention of the petitioner of the petitioner the petitioner petitioner is that the issue ofthat the issue ofthe issue ofissue ofofproceedings being in violation of the Finance Act, 2021 i.e., theimpugned notices under Section l48A 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 KANKANALARAVINDRA REDDY vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICERT decidedon 14.09.2023 whereby a batch of writ petitions were allowed andthe proceedings initiated under Section 148,4. as also under Section148 of the Act were held to be bad with consequential reliefs on theground of it being in violation ofthe provisions of Section 15lA ofthe Act read with Notification 1812022 dated 29.03.2022. The saidjudgment passed by this Court has also been subsequently followedin a large number of writ petitions which were allowed on similartelms. The contention of the petitioner contention of the petitioner of the petitioner the petitioner petitioner is that the issue ofthat the issue ofthe issue ofissue ofof 'l(2023) [156 ]taxmann.com I78 [(Telangana)l] 5. Down the [line, ][we ][find ][that ][th]same issue [has ][also ][been]arlous High Courts [i.e.,]decided against [the ][Revenue ][bY]by the [BombaY ][High ][Court ][in]ecase of TANT COMMISSIONERTECHNOLOGIES [LTD.' ][vs' ] OF INCOME [& ][OTHERS2,]High Court [in ][the ][case]N OF INDIAT, [Punjab ][and]of RAM NARAYAN [SAH vs' ] TINDER STNGH Haryana High [Court ][in ][the ][case ][of J]vs. UNION [INDIA4, ][and ][Te]High Court [in the ][case ][of]PATLOOLA [vs. ] SRI VENKATARAMANA AXs where [the ][issue ][was tn]COMMISSIONER Court [in the ][case ][of]of [international taxation, Bom]y High respect COME TAX [OFFICER,]ABHIN ANILKUMAR [vs']hich is again [on ][intemational]TNTERNATIONAL t']of Himachal [Pradesh ][in ][the]taxation and [central ][circle, ][High ][Co]COME TAX [OFFICERT,]case of GOVIND [vs']Gujarat High [Court ][in ][the]ase of MANSUKIIBHAI ' Tzoz+1464 [430 ][(Bom)](Gu)l' [(2024) [15S ][lalmann'som ][478]" l(2024) [165 ][taxmann'com ][1 ] [5]@unjab[&]Haryana)l)l'[2024) [167 ][taxmann.com ][411]" 12024) [166 ][taxmann.com ][679](Bomb)l' 12024) I65 [taxmann.com ] [3](H maal Pradesh)l ' Tzoz+1464 [430 ][(Bom)](Gu)l' [(2024) [15S ][lalmann'som ][478]" l(2024) [165 ][taxmann'com ][1 ] [5]@unjab[&]Haryana)l)l'[2024) [167 ][taxmann.com ][411]" 12024) [166 ][taxmann.com ][679](Bomb)l' 12024) I65 [taxmann.com ] [3](H maal Pradesh)l DAHYABHAI RADADIYA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 3(3X5)8, Jharkand High Courr in the case of SHyAMSUNDAR SAW vs. UNION OF INDIAe, Rajasthan High Court inthe case of SIIARDA DEVI CHHAJER 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 on25.09.20246. 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 HernwareTechnologies Ltd., (2 supra) as also the one which has beendecided by this Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Retldy'202+ [Ont.ine ][Guj ][4012]'2025 SCC Online Jhar287'o [p2oz3, ][RI-JD :4984-DBl] , (1 supra) has [been ][subjected ][to ][ch]lenge in a [SPecial ][Leave]fore the [Hon'ble ][SuPreme]Petition [i.e., ][SLP No.3574 ][of ][2024]is seized of [the ][matter']Court and [the Hon'ble ][SuPreme ][Co]also filed arising [out of ][the]In addition, [there ][are ][about ][1200 ] same issue [being decided by ][various]gh Courts. ed counsel [for ][the ][Revenue,]7. To a query being Put [to ][the I]fact that there [is ][no ][intenm]have [categorically ][accepted ][the]they me Court in [anY ][of ][these]order granted [bY ][the ][Hon'ble ][Su]ile, fresh writ Petitions [of]matters [pending ][before ][it' ][Meanw]identical nature [are ][being piled up ][be]ore this Bench [on ][dailY ][basis]and the [pendencY ][is ][getting ][in]on matter [which ][otherwise]this very [High ][Court ][itself]has already [been ][dealt and decided ][by]the order of [this Court ][that]8. On the [one hand, ][even ][thou]3 and more [16 ][months ][have]was passed [as ][earlY ][as ][on ][14'09'20]remedial [stePs ][having ][been]till [date, ][we do not hnd]lapsed, t to take aPProPriate [steps ][to]taken by [the [ncome ][Tax ][DePartme]Section 148,{ [and under]either hold [back ][issuance ][of ][notice]sdictional [Assessing Offrcer,]Section [148 ][of ][the ][Act ][bY ][the ][j]e teeth of [series ][of ][decisions]rather the [authorities concemed in] . ffi1;". -=iL by all the major High Courts in India are continuously stillinitiating proceedings under Section l48A of the Act and alsoinitiating proceedings under Section 148 of the Act incontravention to the amendments brought into the Income Tax Actpursuant to the Finance Act, 2020 as also the Finance Act 2021.9. 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 Kanakalo Ravindra Reddy (l supra), learned StandingCounsel for the Income Tax Department contends that those wouldunnecessarily burden the lncome Tax Department where theywould be required to file equal number of SLPs before theHon'ble Supreme Court and it would be further burdening theexchequer of the Union of India. It was also the contention of thelearned Standing Counsel that no prejudice would be caused to theinterest of the petitioners in case if this writ petition is kept pendingtill the finalization of the SLPs pending before the Hon'bleSupreme Courl and the fact that the petitioner is already enjoyingthe beneht 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 edings under [Section 148,{]appropriate [steps ][in ][ensuring ][that]of the Act [as ][also ][the ][assessment ][o]rs under Section [148 ][ofthe]e decisions [dedcided ][bY ][the]Act are kept [in ][a ][hold ][in ][the ][light ][of ][t]various High [Courts, ][it ][was ][submi]d by the [leamed ][Standing]taken at the [level ][of ] Counsel [that ][the ][said steps can ][only]en Pan India [and cannot ][be]as any such [stePs ][would ][have ][to ][be]timited to [any ][of ][these ][jurisdictional]gh Courts. t 0. As [a ][result ][of which, ][what ][we]facing is [steep increase ][of]ugh various [orders have ][been]litigation [day ][in ][and ][day out ][even ][th]passed bY [this High Couft allowing]it petitions [on ][the ][very ][same]ncemed are [still ][even ][now ln]issue. The [Income ][Tax ][authorities ][c]ntravention [to ][the ]Provisions2025 also [initiating ][proceedings ][in ][c]result by [now, ][more than 600]of Section [15 ][1A of ][the ][Act ][and ][as ][a]ot piled [uP before ][this ][High]to 700 [petitions ][have been ][alreadY]tands squarelY [covered ][bY ][the]Court on [an ][issue ][which ][otherwise]f Kanakala [Ravindra ][ReddY]judgment of this Court [in ][the ][case]is the fact [that ][though while](1 supra). What [is ][also ][surPrising]allowing the [writ ]Petitions [in ][the]case of [Kanakala ][Ravindra]Reddy (l [suPra); ][the ][Division ][Ben]h while [reserving ][the ][right ][of]e interest [of ][the ]Petitionersthe Revenue, [has ][also ]Protected insofar as the liberty which was granted to the Revenue forinitiating fresh proceedings strictly in accordance with the amendedinitiating fresh proceedings strictly in accordance with the amendedprovisions of the Act, as amended by the Financ e Act, 2020 andthe Finance Act,202l. The petitioner assessee would be entitled tothe Finance Act,202l. The petitioner assessee would be entitled tochallenge or raise the other legal objections if the Rcvenue initiatesfresh proceedings. The Department has made no endeavour inavailing the said liberty that was reserved for the Revcnue. On thefresh proceedings. The Department has made no endeavour inavailing the said liberty that was reserved for the Revcnue. On thecontrary, they have been still sticking on to the stand, which thisHigh Court as well as rnany other High Courts already held to bebad.High Court as well as rnany other High Courts already held to bebad. I 1. It appears that because of the aforesaid libertl, that this HighCourt had granted pennitting the Revenue for initiating freshCourt had granted pennitting the Revenue for initiating freshproceedings as a one-time measure in a faceless manner, theIncome Tax Department wants to take advantage ol'the same byprotracting these proceedings which would enable them to meet thelimitation that rvould 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 C]ourt confirmsprotracting these proceedings which would enable them to meet thelimitation that rvould 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 C]ourt confirmsthe decision taken by this High Court as also by the other HighCourts in which the SLps are still pending, the lncome Tax the liberty that [is ][otherwise]Department [would ][get ][the ][advantage o]protected in favour [of ][the ][Reve]e for initiation [of ][fresh]matters at [a ][much ][later ][stage]proceedings [from ][the disposal ][of ][these]eficial to the [Revenue ][and]which would [be ][advantageous and]detrimental [so ][far ][as ][interest]would be equally [disadvantageous an]the [lncome Tax]of the assesses [are ][concerned' ][As ][a]nsequence, f time for initiation [of ][fresh]Department [gets an extended ][period]proceedings. the liberty that [is ][otherwise]Department [would ][get ][the ][advantage o]protected in favour [of ][the ][Reve]e for initiation [of ][fresh]matters at [a ][much ][later ][stage]proceedings [from ][the disposal ][of ][these]eficial to the [Revenue ][and]which would [be ][advantageous and]detrimental [so ][far ][as ][interest]would be equally [disadvantageous an]the [lncome Tax]of the assesses [are ][concerned' ][As ][a]nsequence, f time for initiation [of ][fresh]Department [gets an extended ][period]proceedings. 12. The [alarming trend of ][docket ][e]plosion in this Court, [desPite]avindra RedtlY [(l ][suPra), ][is ][a]the clear [precedent ][set ][in Kanukala]matter of [grave concem. The ][lncom]Tax Departmenf [s ]Persistentinitiation [of ][fresh proceedings, disre]ing the established [judicial]cedented surge [in ][litigation]pronouncements, [has ][led ][to ][an ][unP]with over [600-700 petitions ][piling]up on the same [issue. This]es the princiPle [of ][judicial]deliberate [aPProach ][not ][onlY ][unde]precedent [but ][also strains ][the ][judici]resources unnecessarilY. [The]Supreme Court's [decision ][on]Department's [strategy ][of ][awaiting ][th]pending SLPs while [continuing]initiate fresh Proceedingsappears to [be ][a ][calculated ][move]to buy time [and ][circumvent]limitation periods, [rather than ][ad]ring to the [established ][legal] position. Such conduct raises serious questions about theadministrative efficiency and the respect lor judicialpronouncements, particularly when this Court has already provideda balanced approach by preserving both the Revenue's rights andassesses interests. 13. Another aspect which needs to be considered is that in fact itshould have been realized by the Income Tax Depar.tment itself andshould have found out via media in ensuring that proceedingsunder Sections 148-,,{ and 148 should not have bccn issued in afaceless maru1er, at least till the Hon'ble Supreme Court decide thetwelve hundred (1200) odd SLPs which it is already seized olor, atleast the Income Tax Department should have found out someremedial steps to ensure that wherever the authorities intend toinitiate proceedings under Sections 148-A and 148, other than in afaceless manner, the proceedings should have been deferredwithout precipitating the matter further intimating the assessee thatthey shall initiate appropriate proceedings only alter 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 ( rl lL ( rl lL has to be [taken, ][has ][to ][be ][taken ][for]e whole of [India, ][and ][which]decision and [that ][too ][at ][the]otherwise has [to ][be ][bY ][waY ][of ][a ]Policlevel of Central [Board ][of ][Direct]axes.Though the [leamed]Depadment [contended that]Standing [Counsel ][for ][the ][Income ][T]the Delhi [High ][Court ][dismissed ][a ][wri]petition of similar [nature, ][on]the one hand [when ][the ][High ][Co]is struggling [to ][reduce ][ils]der challenge [in ][this ][writ]pendency, [such notices ][which ][are]nock the doors [of ][this ][High]petition are [forcing the ][assessee ][to]f new writ [petitions ][which ][in]Court resulting [in ][filing ][of ][hundreds]sal of the [writ ]Petitions [but]the long [run ][not ][only ][affects ][the ][dis]the Bench [in ][hearing ][these]also consumes [substantial ][time ][of]SAdmittedly, [in spite ][of ][the]matters again [and again on ][daily ][bas]Court having [been ][taken ][on]matter before [the ][Hon'ble ][SuPreme]many occasions, [the ][Hon'ble ][SuPre]e Court [which ][is ][seized ][of ][the]matter has [been ][reluctant ][in ][grantin]any interim Protection [to ][the]authorities [concemed ][at ][the]Income Tax [DePartment. ][Yet, ][th]e verdict [passed ][bY ][a ][majoritY]State level are [not ][readY ][to ][accePt]the same issue; [and ][to ][make]of High Courts [of ][different ][States]Tax DePartment [is ][showing]things further [worse, ][the ][Income]usly under Sections [148-A ][and]audacity by [issuing ][notices ][continu] 148 through the [jurisdictional ]Assessing Officer whereas it oughtto have been only in the faceless manner 14. In the case of BANK OF INDIA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, INCOME TAXIr, on an issue u,hether 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 Bornbay 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 Furniture (P) Ltd. v. lTO13of 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 Ioose 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. It 11zozs1 [170 ][taxmann.com ][422 ][(Bombay)l]'' 1tszs1 [u3 ] [589 ][(Bombay)] 3 ' TZOZ+7 [1 ][6 ][5 taxmann.com ][5 ][8 I ][/3 ][00 ][T axman ][4 ][52 ][(Bombal)]to 1l9921taxmann.com- [16/55 ] [433 ][(SC)] f It 11zozs1 [170 ][taxmann.com ][422 ][(Bombay)l]'' 1tszs1 [u3 ] [589 ][(Bombay)] 3 ' TZOZ+7 [1 ][6 ][5 taxmann.com ][5 ][8 I ][/3 ][00 ][T axman ][4 ][52 ][(Bombal)]to 1l9921taxmann.com- [16/55 ] [433 ][(SC)] f "6. Sri ReddY [is ]PerhaPs [right]in saying that [the]officers [were ][not ][actuated ][bY]any mala fides [in]passing the [imPugned ][orde]They PerhaPsassessee [was ][not]genuinely [felt ][that the claim ][of]tenable [and ][that, ][if ][it ][was ][a]pted, the Revenuewould suffer. [But ][what ][Sri Redd]overlooks [is ][that ][we]the correctness [or]are not concerned [here ][with]otherwise of [their ][conclusion]or of anY [factual]malafides [but ][with the fact that]officers, [in ][reaching]in their conclusion, [bY-Passed]appellate orders [in]were [placed ][before]regard to the [same ][issue ][whic]ls) and the [other ][of]them, one [of ][the Collector ][(]the Tribunal. [The ][High Court]s, in our [view, rightly]sistant Collectors [and]criticized [this conduct of ][the ][A]caused [bY ][the ][failure]the harassment [to ][the ][assess]to the orders [of]of these [officers ][to ][give]authorities [higher ][to them ][in ][the]appellate [hierarchY]Itcannot be [too ][vehemently e]phasized that it [is ][of]utmost imPortance [that' ][I]disposing of [the]quasijudicial issues [before the], [revenue officers ][are]bound [bY ][the ][decisions ][of ][th]appellate [authorities.]The order of [the ][APPellte ][Coll]or is binding [on ][the]hin his [jurisdiction ][and]Assistant [Collectors working]the order [of ][the ][Tribunal ][is ][bin]ing upon [the ][Assistant]llectors who [function]Collectors [and ][the ][APPellate]unal. [The ]PrinciPles [of]under the .lurisdiction [of ][the ][Tri]judicial disciPline [require ][that]e orders [of ][the ][higher]followed [unreservedlY]appellate [authorities should]The mere [fact ][that ][the]by the subordinate [authorities]is not ["acceptable" to]order of the [aPPellate author]the department - [in ][itself ][an]objectionable Phrase -and is the [subject ][matter ][of ][a]appeal [can ][furnish ][no]ground for not [following ][it ][u]less its oPeration [has]nt court. [lf ]this [healthy]been susPlended [bY ][a compe] rule is not followed, the result will only be undueharassment to assesses and chaos in administrationof tax laws. 12. We have dealt with this aspect at some length,because it has been suggested by. the learnedAdditional 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 [judicial]discipline and the need for giving effect to the ordersof the higher appellate authorities which are bindingon them." 1 5. What is worying 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 ( 1 5. What is worying 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 ( 21 . Now, [in ][order to ]ProtectFinance [Act,202O ][andFinance ][Act' ][2]of the assessee, [it ][would ][be]the interest [of the ][Revenue ][as ][also]f the writ Petition [with ][an]trite at [this ][juncture, ][if ][we ][dispose]of the instant [writ ]Petition [in]obserwation/direction [that ][the ][disposal]is High Court [in ][the ][case ][of]terms of [the ][judgment ][rendered ][bY]shall however [be subject ][to]Kankanala [Ravindra ][ReddY ][(1 ][*Pr]e frled bY [the ][Income Tax]the outcome [of ][the ][SLPs ][which ][w]ideration [before ][the ][Hon'ble]Department [and ][which is ]Pending [co]Supreme [Court.] 16. In [the ][given ][facts ][and circ]stances, [this ][Bench ][is ][of ][the]til we do not [timelY ][disPose]considered [opinion ][that ][unless and]decision [of this ][Coutt]by the of matters [which ][are ][squarelY ][cove]ecisions of [the ][various ][other]and which [stands ][fortified ][bY the]Courts [on ][the ][very ][same ][iss]e, the [pendencY ][of ][this ][High]High ch otherwise [can ][be ][decided]Court [would ][further be ][burdened]and disposed [of ][as ][a ][covered ][matter'] enue is concemed,, [we ][are ][of] 17. So [far ][as ][the ][interest ][ofthe] st of the [Revenue ][has ][alreadY]the consideted [opinion that ][the ][inte]s been observed [in ]ParagraPhsbeen considered [and ]Protected, [as] 36,37 and 38 ofthe order which, for ready reference, is reproducedhereun der: 36. For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned noticesissued and the proceedings drawn by the respondent-Department rs 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 pro€ed 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-time measureexercising the powers under Article 142 of theConstitution of lndia, permifted the Revenue to [proceed]under the substituted provisions, and this Court allowingthe petitions only on the procedural flaw, the right .l,. conferred on the [Revenue]uld remain [reserved ][to]proceed further if theY [so ][wa]t from the stage [of ][the]order of the SuPreme [Cou]in the case [of Ashish]Agarwal, supra. 38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the caseof Ashish Agarwal, supra, as a one-time measureexercising the powers under Article 142 of theConstitution of lndia, permifted the Revenue to [proceed]under the substituted provisions, and this Court allowingthe petitions only on the procedural flaw, the right .l,. conferred on the [Revenue]uld remain [reserved ][to]proceed further if theY [so ][wa]t from the stage [of ][the]order of the SuPreme [Cou]in the case [of Ashish]Agarwal, supra. 18. We would only [further like]make observations [that ][since]we are inclined [to ][dispose ][of ][the ][ins]t writ petition, [conscious ][of]the fact that the [earlier order ][of]s High Court in [the ][case ][of]Kanakala [Ravindra ][ReddY ][(l ][srtP]) [is ][subjected ][to ][challenge]before the Hon'ble [SuPreme ][Co]in SLP No.3574 [of ][2024,]preferred by the [lncome ][Tax ][De]ent, we make it [clear ][that]allowing of the [instant ][writ ][petitio]is subject to outcome [of ][the]aforesaid SLP [preferred by ][the ][Reve]ue against the [decision ][of ][this]High Court in the [case ][of ][Kanaka]Ravindru Reddy [(l ][srtPra).]This, in other [words, ][would ][mean]t either of [the ][parties, ][if ][theY]so want, may move [an ][aPProPriate]tition seeking [revival ][of ][this]writ petition in the [light ][of ][the d]ision of the [Hon'ble ][SuPreme]Court in the [pending ][SLP on ][the ][v]same rssue. 19. AccordinglY, [the ][instant]t petition stands [allowed ][in]favour of the assessee [so ][far]the issue of [jurisdiction]ISconcemed. As a [consequence,]the impugned notice [under]148 stands [set ][aside/quashed.]challenge [under Sections ][148-,4' ][an] ( (( l \ The consequential orders, if any, also stand set aside/quashed insimilar terms as have been passed by this High Court in the case of Kankanals Ravindra Reddy (l supra). There shall be no order as to costs Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- A. JAYASREEAPstANT REGISTRARi/TRUE COPY//t, I \ sEcTtoN oFFtcER To, Assessment Unit, lncome Tax. D€partmejt, D€partmejt, Nationali assessment centre,New D^elhi, D^elhi, Room No.40.t No.40.t , 2nd Fldor, e-nimp, Jlwahrrfri f.f"f,r, Strai*i,2nd Fldor, e-nimp, Jlwahrrfri f.f"f,r, Strai*i,e-nimp, Jlwahrrfri f.f"f,r, Strai*i,f.f"f,r, Strai*i,Strai*i,New. Delhi. -1 [['10003]] 1Assessment Unit, lncome Tax. D€partmejt, D€partmejt, Nationali assessment centre,New D^elhi, D^elhi, Room No.40.t No.40.t , 2nd Fldor, e-nimp, Jlwahrrfri f.f"f,r, Strai*i,2nd Fldor, e-nimp, Jlwahrrfri f.f"f,r, Strai*i,e-nimp, Jlwahrrfri f.f"f,r, Strai*i,f.f"f,r, Strai*i,Strai*i,New. Delhi. -1 [['10003]]2lncome Tax Officer, Ward 5(.t ), lT Towers 10-2-3, A.C Guards, l\4asab Tank,Hyderabad. 5000043Principal Chief Commissioner of lncorne Tax, Andhr.a praCesh andTelangana, Hyderabad Room No.922, bt-Fio.jils,b'toct<, l. i. iowers, 10_2-3. A.0 Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad. SOOOO+. [- -'] 4IP.9":l"ISry,-.[9 Kevenue, Litrect taxes. [union ]Government [or ][rndia, ][rr,linistry ]of lndia, North [oiFinance, ]Block, [Department ]Ground Floor,[of]Sansad Marg. New Delhi-1 10001. 9f 99 [to ].Sri [Tejprakqsh Toshniwat Advocate ]IOPUCI6une CC to [Vls. Bokaro Saona,Reddy (Jr. SC foilncome Tax; 7one cc to Sri Gadi prave6n t<r.iiid"prtis"ori.it"oi'i"n"rar of tOpUC]rndia[opUC]BTwo CD CopiesTJGJv oI HIGH COURT DATED:0210512025 ORDERs r,q 16:o[$]WP.No.14325 ot 2025.)C13 rlJB zffilt:jt+,/ ALLOWNG THE WRIT PETITIONWITHOUT COSTS