Wp/14354/2023 Of Mr. Pavan Kumar Cholleti v. A. Siva Kartikeya

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF APRILTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM ANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 14354 OF 2023 Between: Mr. Pavan Kumar Cholleti, S/o Mr. [C.Papi Reddy, aged ][45 ][years, ][Occ.-]Business, H.No-- 9-2-242, Sapthagiri Colony, Near [Auto ][Stand, Karimnagar ][-]505 001, Telangana. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The lncome Tax Officer, Circle 1, Karimnagar, [lncome ][Tax ][Office, ][Aayakar]Bhawan, Near Natraj Theatre, Karimnagar [- ]505 [001 ], [Telangana.]Bhawan, Near Natraj Theatre, Karimnagar [- ]505 [001 ], [Telangana.]2. The Principal Chief Commissioner of lncome [Tax, ][Andh.ra ][Pradesh ]- [and]Telangana, Hyderabad Room No.- 922, 9th [Floor, B Block, l.T.Towers' ]['10-2-]3, AC Guards, Hyderabad [- ]500 004, TelanganaTelangana, Hyderabad Room No.- 922, 9th [Floor, B Block, l.T.Towers' ]['10-2-]3, AC Guards, Hyderabad [- ]500 004, Telangana ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of [lndia ][praying ][that ][in ][the]circumstances ['stated ]in the affidavit filed therewith, the [High ][Court may ][be]pleased to issue a Writ of [Vtandamus or any other appropriate [Writ, ][Order ][or]Direction, declaring a. the order [passed ]u/s [148A(d) ]of [the ][lncome Tax Act, ][1961 ][,]dated 24.03.2023, bearing DIN and [Notice ][No.- ][ITBA/AST|F|14BN2O22-]23t1O51621231(1), by the 1't Respondent, [for the ][Assessrhent ][Year ][2016 ]- [17;]b. the notice issued u/s [148 ]of [the ][lncome ][Tax ][Act, ][1961, ][dated ][30.03.2023 ]'bearing DIN and Notice No.- ITBAiAST/Si14B-112022-2311051689916(1)' [bv ][the]1st Respondent, for the Assessment Year [2O16 ][- ]['1 ][7 as arbitrary, illegal, barred ][by]Iimitation, bad in law, void-ab-initio, violative [of ][the ][principles ][of ][natural justice,]apart from being violative of Articles 14, 19(t)(g) [and 265 ][of ][the ][Constitution of]lndia and Sec 14BA of the lncome Tax Act, [1961 ], and consequently [set ][aside ][the]same in the interests of [justice]lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC [praying ]that in the circumstances [stated ][in]the affidavit filed in support of the Writ [petition, ]the High Court may be [pleased ][to]stay all further [proceedings, ]including any recovery, [pursuant ]to the [notice ][issued]u/s ['148 ]of the lncome Tax Act, 1961, dated 30.03.2023, bearing DIN and [Notice]No.- ITBA/ASTtsl148-1t2022- 2311051689916(1), by the 1't Respondent, [for ]theAssessment Year 2016 - ['17, ][pending ]disposal of the above Writ Petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI A. V. A. SIVA KARTIKEYA Counsel for the Respondents: Ms. SUNDARI R PISUPATI(sR.sc FoR tNcoME TAX DEPARTMENT)The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAONANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION No.14354 of 2023 ORDER, (per Hon'ble Sri Justice P-Sam Koshy) Heard Mr. A.V.A.Siva Kartikeya, leamed counsel for thepetitioner and Ms.Sundari R. Pisupathi, learned Senior StandingCounsel for the Income Tax Department for the respondents.Perused the record.petitioner and Ms.Sundari R. Pisupathi, learned Senior StandingCounsel for the Income Tax Department for the respondents.Perused the record. 2. This is a writ petition where the proceedings are eitherchallenged to the notices which were issued under Section 148,4,and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') or theassessment orders those have been passed under Section 147 ofthe Act which have been assailed THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAONANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION No.14354 of 2023 ORDER, (per Hon'ble Sri Justice P-Sam Koshy) Heard Mr. A.V.A.Siva Kartikeya, leamed counsel for thepetitioner and Ms.Sundari R. Pisupathi, learned Senior StandingCounsel for the Income Tax Department for the respondents.Perused the record.petitioner and Ms.Sundari R. Pisupathi, learned Senior StandingCounsel for the Income Tax Department for the respondents.Perused the record. 2. This is a writ petition where the proceedings are eitherchallenged to the notices which were issued under Section 148,4,and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') or theassessment orders those have been passed under Section 147 ofthe Act which have been assailed 3. This writ petition is being taken up today only on one of thegrounds, that the notices issued under Section 148A of the Actand the subsequent initiation ofproceedings under Section 148 ofthe Act by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, whereas in termsof the amendment that was brought to the Income Tax Act by wayof Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f., 01.04.2021 onwards, proceedings under Section 148A of the Act as also under Scction 148 of theAct ought to have also been issued and proceeded in a facelesstTlanner 4. The contention of the petitioner is that the issue olproceedings being in violation of the Finance Act, 2021 i.e., theimpugned notices under Section 148,{ and Section 148 of the [Act]not being issued in a faceless manner, have already been dealt [rvith]and decided by this Court in the case ol KANKANAI,ARAVINDRA REDDY vs. INCOME-TAX OFFI(IEIIr decidedon 14.09.2023 whereby a batch of writ petitions were allowed andthe proceedings initiated under Section 148A as also under Section148 of the Act were held to be bad with consequential reliefs on thcground of it being in violation of the provisions of Section 1 5 1A ofthe Act read with Notification 1812022 dated 29.03.2()22. ['fhe ]saidjudgment passed by this Court has also been subsequcntly' followcdin a large number of writ petitions which were allou'ed on similarterms. 5. Down the line, we find that the same issue has also beendecided against the Revenue byvanous High Courts i.e.,by the Bombay High Court in the case of HEXAWARETECHNOLOGIES LTD., vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX & OTHERS2, Gauhati High Court in the caseof RAM NARAYAN SAH vs. UNION OF INDIAT, Punjab andHaryana High Court in the case of JATINDER SINGH BANGUvs. UNION OF INDIA4, and Telangana High Court in the case ofSRI VENKATARAMANA REDDY PATLOOLA vs. DEPUTYCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX5 where the issue was inrespect of international taxation, Bombay High Court in the case ofABHIN ANILKUMAR SHAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,INTERNATIONAL TAXATION6 which is again on intemationaltaxation and central circle, High Court of Himachal Pradesh in thecase of GOVIND SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERT,Gujarat High Court in the case of MANSUKHBHAI ' lzoz+1464 [430 (Bom)]' l(2024) 156 taxmann.com 478 (Gauhati)l^ [(2024) 165 taxmann.com 115 (Punjab & Haryana)]' 12024) 167 taxmann.com 4l I (Telangana)l " 12024) 166 taxmann.com 679 (Bombay)l ' [2024) 165 taxmann.com 113 (Himachal Pradesh)] DAHYABHAI RADADIYA vs. TNCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 3(3)(rE, Jharkand High Court in the case of SHYAMSUNDAR SAW vs. UNION OF INDIAe, Rajasthan High Court inthe case of SHARDA 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 & OIIS(M.A.T 1690 of 2023), decided on25.09.2024. ' lzoz+1464 [430 (Bom)]' l(2024) 156 taxmann.com 478 (Gauhati)l^ [(2024) 165 taxmann.com 115 (Punjab & Haryana)]' 12024) 167 taxmann.com 4l I (Telangana)l " 12024) 166 taxmann.com 679 (Bombay)l ' [2024) 165 taxmann.com 113 (Himachal Pradesh)] DAHYABHAI RADADIYA vs. TNCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 3(3)(rE, Jharkand High Court in the case of SHYAMSUNDAR SAW vs. UNION OF INDIAe, Rajasthan High Court inthe case of SHARDA 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 & OIIS(M.A.T 1690 of 2023), decided on25.09.2024. 6. Even though the same issue having been decided by a largenumber of High Courls, we are still confronted with large filing ofidentical matters on daily basis ranging between 5 to l0 [rvrit]petitions. 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 HetcawareTechnologies Ltd., (2 supra) as also the one uhich has beendecided by this Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy t2024 SCC Online Guj 4012'2025 [Online ][Jhar287]I o y2023 : RI-JD : 49 84-DBl (l 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 of thesame issue being decided by various High Courts. 7. To a query being put to the learned counsel for the Revenue,they have categorically accepted the fact that there is no interimorder granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in any of thesematters pending before it. Meanwhile, fresh writ petitions ofidentical nature are being piled up before this Bench on daily basisand the pendency is getting increased on matter which otherwisehas already been dealt and ddbided 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 148,4 and underSection I 48 of the Act by . the j urisdictional 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 l48A of the Act and alsoinitiating proceedings under Section 148 o1' the Act incontravention to the amendments brought into the lncorne Tax Actpursuant to the Finance Act,2020 as also the Finance Act 20219. Upon a query being put as to why can't this rvrit petition bedisposed of in the teeth of the decision rendered by. this Court inthc case of Konakalo Ravindra Reddy (1 supra), learnecl StandingCounsel for the Income Tax Deparlrnent contends that those wouldunnecessarily burden the Income Tax Deparlrnent where thcywould be required to file equal number of SLPs before theI lon'ble Supreme Couft and it would be furlher burdening theexchequer of the Union of India. It was also the contenlion ol thelearned Standing Counsel that no prejudice would be caused to theinterest of the petitioners in case if this writ petition is kept [pending]till the finalization of the SLPs pending before the [Hon'ble]Supreme Court and the fact that the petitioner is [already enjoying]the benefit ol interim protection. Nonetheless, on [the ]earlier [query]of this Court as ttr why the Income Tax Department have not comeout with a mechanisrr to issue appropriate instructions or to take appropriate steps in ensuring that proceedings under Section 148Aof the Act as also the assessment orders under Section 148 of theAct are kept in a hold in the light of the decisions decided by thevarious High Courts, it was submitted by the leamed StandingCounsel that the said steps can only be taken at the level of CBDTas any such steps would have to be taken Pan India and cannot belimited to any of these jurisdictional High Courts. 10. As a result of which, what we are facing is steep increase oflitigation day in and day out even though various orders have beenpassed by this High Courl allowing writ petitions on the very sameissue. The Income Tax authorities concemed are still even now in2025 also initiating proceedings in contravention to the provisionsol'Section l51A of the Act and as a result by now, more than 600to 700 petitions have been already got piled up before this [{ighCourt 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 RuvindraReddy (l supra), .the Division Bench while reserving the right oftl-re Revenue, has also protected the interest of the petitioners .,e.;' insofar as the liberty which was granted to the Revenue fbrinitiating frcsh procecdings strictly in accordance with thc amendedprovisions ol the Act, as amended by the Finance Act, 2020 andthe Finance Act,202l. ['fhe ]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 r€served for the Revenue. On thecontrary, they havc been still sticking on to the stand, which thisHigh Court as well as many other High Courts already l.reld to bcbad 11. It appears that because of the aforesaid liberty that this HighCourl had glantcd permitting the Revenue for initiating freshproceedings as a one-time measure in a faceless manner, theIncome Tax Deparlment 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 thcwrit petition is kept pending for a considerable long period of tirneand finally at a later stage if the Hon'ble Supreme Court confirmsthe decision taken by this High Court as also by the other HighCourts in which the SLPs are still pending, the Income Tax Deparlment would get the advantage of the liberly that is otherwiseprotected1n favour of the Revenue for initiation of freshprotected1n favour of the Revenue for initiation of freshproceedings from the disposal 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 concemed. As a consequence, the Income TaxDeparlmcnt gets an extended period of time for initiation of freshproceedings.which would be advantageous and beneficial to the Revenue andwould be equally disadvantageous and detrimental so far as interestof the assesses are concemed. As a consequence, the Income TaxDeparlmcnt gets an extended period of time for initiation of freshproceedings. 12. The alarming trend of docket explosion in this Court, despitethe clear precedent set in Kanakalu Ravindra Reddy (l supra), is arnatter of grave concern. The Income Tax Department's persistentinitiation of fresh proceedings, disregarding the established judicialpronouncements, has led to an unprecedented surge in litigationrvith over 600-700 petitions piting up on the same issue. Thisdeliberate approach not only undermines the principle of judicialprecedent but also strains the judicial resources unnecessarily. TheDeparlment'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 circumventlirnitation periods, rather than adhering to the established legal 12. The alarming trend of docket explosion in this Court, despitethe clear precedent set in Kanakalu Ravindra Reddy (l supra), is arnatter of grave concern. The Income Tax Department's persistentinitiation of fresh proceedings, disregarding the established judicialpronouncements, has led to an unprecedented surge in litigationrvith over 600-700 petitions piting up on the same issue. Thisdeliberate approach not only undermines the principle of judicialprecedent but also strains the judicial resources unnecessarily. TheDeparlment'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 circumventlirnitation periods, rather than adhering to the established legal position. Such conduct raises serious questions about theadministrativc efficiency and the respect for [judicial]pronouncements, particularly when this Court has alr-eady provideda balanced approach by preserving both the Revenue's rights andassesses rntercsts. 13. Anothcr aspect which needs to be considered is that in fact itshould have been realized by the Income Tax Depaftrnent itself andshould have lound out via media in ensuring that proccedingsunder Sections 148-.4 and 148 should not have been issued in afaceless manner, at least tilt the Hon'ble Supreme [(lourt ]decide thetwelve hundred (1200) odd SLPs which it is already'seized ofor, atieast the Incorne Tax Department should have f<rund out someremedial steps to ensure that wherever the authorities intend toinitiate procecdings 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 after the SLP's aredecided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the very same issueThis again, thc Iricome Tax Department, has not been able to give aconvincing rcply, except for the fact that such a dccision if at all has to be taken, has to be taken for the whole of India, and whichotherwise has to be by way of a policy decision and that too at thelevel of Central Board of Direct Taxes. Though the leamedStanding Counsel for the Income Tax Department contended thatthe Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition of similar nature, onthe one hand when the High Court is struggling to reduce itspendency, such notices which are under challenge in this writpetition are forcing the assessee to knock the doors of this HighCourl 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 theserratters again and again on daily basis. Admittedly, in spite of thernatter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court having been taken onnrany occasions, the Hon'ble. Supreme Court which is seized of thematter has been reluctant in granting any interim protection to thelncome 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 lurther worse, the Income Tax Departmentrs showingaudacity by issuing notices continuously under Sections 148-A and - .''& 148 through the [jurisdictional ]Assessing Officer rvhereas it oughtto have been only in the faceless manner. 14. ln the case of BANK OF INDIA vs. ASSISTANTCOMMISSIONER, INCOME TAX|r, on an issuc wl.rether it wasjustifiable on the part of the Income Tax Departmcnt in notfollowing an order passed by the adjudicating authority only on theground that the appeals are pending, the Division Bench of theHigh Court olBombay held at paragraph No.25 as under, viz., : "25. - .''& 148 through the [jurisdictional ]Assessing Officer rvhereas it oughtto have been only in the faceless manner. 14. ln the case of BANK OF INDIA vs. ASSISTANTCOMMISSIONER, INCOME TAX|r, on an issuc wl.rether it wasjustifiable on the part of the Income Tax Departmcnt in notfollowing an order passed by the adjudicating authority only on theground that the appeals are pending, the Division Bench of theHigh Court olBombay held at paragraph No.25 as under, viz., : "25. "25. It/r. Paridwalla has rightly drawn out attentron 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 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 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. " 11ZOZS1 [1 ][70 taxmann.com 422 (Bornbay) ][l] '2 1tezs1 [113 ][lt'R ][589 ][(Bombay)] '3 7zo2+1165 [taxmann.com ][581i300 Taxman ][452 (Bombay)] ta TtggZl taxrnann.com 16155 EL1' 433 (SC) " 11ZOZS1 [1 ][70 taxmann.com 422 (Bornbay) ][l] '2 1tezs1 [113 ][lt'R ][589 ][(Bombay)] '3 7zo2+1165 [taxmann.com ][581i300 Taxman ][452 (Bombay)] ta TtggZl taxrnann.com 16155 EL1' 433 (SC) "6. Sri Reddy is perhaps right in saying that theofficers were not actuated by any mala fides inpassing lhe impugned orders. They perhapsgenuinely felt that the claim of the assessee was nottenable and that, if it was accepted, the Revenuewould suffer. But what Sri Reddy overlooks is that weare not concerned here with the correotness orotherwise of their conclusion or of any factualmalafides but with the fact that the officers, in reachingin their conclusion, by-passed two appellate orders inregard to the same issue which were placed beforethem, one of the Collector (Appeals) and the other ofthe Tribunal. The High Court has, in our view, rightlycriticized this conduct of the Assistant Collectors andthe harassment to the assessee caused by the failureof these officers to give effect to the orders ofauthorities higher to them in the appellate hierarchy. ltofficers were not actuated by any mala fides inpassing lhe impugned orders. They perhapsgenuinely felt that the claim of the assessee was nottenable and that, if it was accepted, the Revenuewould suffer. But what Sri Reddy overlooks is that weare not concerned here with the correotness orotherwise of their conclusion or of any factualmalafides but with the fact that the officers, in reachingin their conclusion, by-passed two appellate orders inregard to the same issue which were placed beforethem, one of the Collector (Appeals) and the other ofthe Tribunal. The High Court has, in our view, rightlycriticized this conduct of the Assistant Collectors andthe harassment to the assessee caused by the failureof these officers to give effect to the orders ofauthorities higher to them in the appellate hierarchy. ltcannot be too vehemently emphasized that it is ofutmost importance that, in disposing of thequasijudicial issues before them, revenue officers arebound by the decisrons of the appellate authorities.The order of the Appellte Collector is binding on theAssistant Collectors working within his jurisdiction andthe order of the Tribunal is binding upon the AssistantCollectors and the Appellate Collectors who functionunder the [jurisdiction ]of the Tribunal. The [principles ]ofjudicial discipline require that the orders of the higherappellate authofllres 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 noutmost importance that, in disposing of thequasijudicial issues before them, revenue officers arebound by the decisrons of the appellate authorities.The order of the Appellte Collector is binding on theAssistant Collectors working within his jurisdiction andthe order of the Tribunal is binding upon the AssistantCollectors and the Appellate Collectors who functionunder the [jurisdiction ]of the Tribunal. The [principles ]ofjudicial discipline require that the orders of the higherappellate authofllres 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 healthybeen 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. 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, seemrngly vehement, and apparentlyunpalatable to the Revenue, are only intended to curba tendency in revenue matters which, rf 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 [,n ]theproper spirit. The observations of the High Courtshould be kept in mind in future and the utmost regardshould be paid by the adjudicating aulhorities 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." I 5. What is worrying this Bench rrore 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 Courls 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 protectthe interest of the Revenue as also that of the assessee, it would betrite at this [juncture, ]if we dispose of the writ petition with anobservation/direction that the disposal of the instant writ petition interms of the [judgment ]rendered by this High Court in the case ofKsnktnokt Ravindra Reddy (l supra) shall however be subject tothe outcome of the SLPs which rvere 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 forlified by the decisions of the various otherHigh Courls on the very same issue, the pendency of this HighCourt would further be burdened which otherwise can be decidedand disposed ofas a covered matter 17. So far as the interest of the Revenue is concemed, we are ofthe considered opinion that the interest of the Revenue has alreadybeen considered and protected, as has been observed in paragraphs 36,37 and 38 of the order which, for ready referencc. is reproducedhereunder: 36. For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned noticesissued and the proceedings drawn by the respondent-Department is neither tenable, nor sustainabte.The notices so issued and lhe procedure adopted beingper se illegal, deserves to be and are accordingly setaside/quashed. As a consequbnce. 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 altowed 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-time measureexercising the powers under Article 142 of theConstitution of lndia, permitted the Revenue to proceedunder the substituted provisions, and this Court allowingthe petitions only on the procedural flaw, the right \\ 37. The preliminary objection raised by the petitioner issustained and all these writ petitions stands altowed 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-time measureexercising the powers under Article 142 of theConstitution of lndia, permitted the Revenue to proceedunder the substituted provisions, and this Court allowingthe petitions only on the procedural flaw, the right \\ conferred on the Revenue would remain reserved loproceed further if they so want from the stage of theorder of the Supreme Court in the case ofAshishAgarwal, 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 Depaftment, we rnake 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 Ravindra Reddy (l supra).'I'his, 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 SupremeCourl in the pending SLP on the very same issue. 19. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands allowed inf'avour of the assessee so far as the issue of [jurisdiction]ISconcemed. As a consequence, the impugned notice underchallenge under Sections 148-4 and 148 stands set aside/quashed. The consequential orders, if any, also stand set asrde/quashed insimilar terms as have been passed by this High Coulr in the case of Kankanala Rovindra Reddy (1 supra). There shall be no order asto costs Conscquently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. S /.L.VIJAYA LAKSHMISTANT REGISTRrqB//TRUE COPY//\ [sEcTtoN ][oFFtcER]STANT REGISTRrqB//TRUE COPY//\ [sEcTtoN ][oFFtcER] To, 'l . The lncome Tax Officer, Circle 1, Karimnagar, I nme Tax Office, AayakarBhawan, Near Natraj Theatre, Karim nagar - 505 001, TelanganaBhawan, Near Natraj Theatre, Karim nagar - 505 001, Telangana2. The Principal Chief Commissioneroi ln"or" ia'r, enoiir-pradesh andTelangana, Hyderabad Room No.- 922, [glh ]Floor, B Block, l.T.Towers, 10-2-3, AC Guards, Hyderabad - 500 004, TelanganaTelangana, Hyderabad Room No.- 922, [glh ]Floor, B Block, l.T.Towers, 10-2-3, AC Guards, Hyderabad - 500 004, Telangana3. One CC to SRl.A. SIVA KARTIKEYA, Advocate [OPUC4. One CC to MS.SUN DAR| R P|SUPAT| (SR.SC FORINCOTUE TAXDEPARTMENT)loPUCl4. One CC to MS.SUN DAR| R P|SUPAT| (SR.SC FORINCOTUE TAXDEPARTMENT)loPUCl5. Two CD Copies MBM HIGH COURT DATED:2910412025 ORDER oR[1HE ][S.>4-]c (-^c(i,(t)r!2 JUll 2025tt,tt' t..r':/ WP.No.14354 of 2023 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 1b5I