Wp/16900/2025 Of Mr. Leela Damodar Prasad Kanuri v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF AT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JUNETWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING WRIT PETITION NO: ['16900 ]OF 2025 Between: Mr. Leela Damodar Prasad Kanuri, S/o. [Late ][Sri K. Ranjith ][Kumar, ][aged ][57]years, Occ- Business, Rlo. 8-2-293182, Flat No.- [301 ], [Excel ][Lolus]Apartments, AP Photographers Colony, [Road ][No.- ][12, ][Baniara ][Hills,]Hyderabad - 500 034. Telangana. ...PETITIONER AND 1The Assistant Commissioner of lncome [Tax, ][Circle ][6( ][1), ][Hyderabad, ][l.T.]Towers, 10-2-3, AC Guards, Masab Tank, [Hyderabad - ][500 044, ][Telangana.]Towers, 10-2-3, AC Guards, Masab Tank, [Hyderabad - ][500 044, ][Telangana.] 2The Principal Chief Commissioner of [lncome ][Tax, ][Andhra Pradesh ][and]Telangand, Hyderabad, Room No 922,91h [Floor, ] [Block, ][I.T. ][Towers, ][10-2-]3, A.C-. Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad - [500 ][004, ][Telangana.]Telangand, Hyderabad, Room No 922,91h [Floor, ] [Block, ][I.T. ][Towers, ][10-2-]3, A.C-. Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad - [500 ][004, ][Telangana.] 3Assessment Unit, lncome Tax Department,, [National ][e-Assessment ][Center,]New Delhi, Rooni No.- 401 , 2nd Floor, [E-Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru ][Stadium,]New Delhi - ['l ]l0 003.New Delhi, Rooni No.- 401 , 2nd Floor, [E-Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru ][Stadium,]New Delhi - ['l ]l0 003. ...RESPONDENTS Pelition 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 Mandamus or any other [appropriate ][Writ, ][Order ][or]Direction, declaring that- a. [the ][order passed ][u/s ][148A(d) of ][the ][lncome Tax ][Act,].1961, dated 23.08.2024, bearing DIN and Notice No.- ITBA/AST/F/148412O24-25t1O67g4OO1g(1), by the 1st [Respondent, ][for ][the ][Assessment Year 2018 ][- ]['19, ][b]the notice issued u/s 148 of the [lncome Tax ][Act, ][1961, ][dated 23.08.2024, bearing]DIN and Notice No.- ITBA/AST/S/'148 [112024-2511067940359(1)' ][bv the ][lst]Respondent, for the Assessment Year [2018 ][- ][19, ][as arbitrary, illegal, ][bad in ][law,]void-ab-initio, violative of the [principles of natural ][justice, ][apart ][from ][being violative] of Articles [14, ][19(1)(g) ][and 265 ][of ][the ][Constitution ][of ][lndia and Sec ][14BA ][of ][the]rncome [Tax ][Act, ][1961, ][and ][to ][consequenfly set aside ][the ][same in ][the ][interests of]justice IA NO:1 petition under Section 151 [Cpc ][praying ][that ][in ][the circumstances stated ][in]the affidavit [filed ][in ][support ][of ][the ][petition' ][the ][High ][Court may ][be ][pleased ][to ][Stay]all further [proceedings, including ][any ][recovery' pursuant ][to ][the ][notice issued ][u/s]148 of the [lncome Tax ][Act, ][1961' dated ][23 ][08.2024' ][bearing DIN ][and ][Notice ][No ][-]ITBA/AST/S/14 [1t2024-25t1067940359(1)' ][by the ]['1st ][Respondent' ][for ][the]Assessment [Year ][2018- ][19, ][pending disposal ][of ][the ][above ][Writ ][Petition" ][pending]disposal [of ][the ][above ][Writ ][Petition'] Counsel [for the Petitioner: ] [A' ][V' A' ] Counsel [for the Respondents: ][MS' ][BOKARO.SAPNA REDDY](sENlOR SC [lNcoME ][TAX)]The Court [made ][the ][following: ] THE HONOURABLE SRI.'US'i'ICE, P"SAM KOSHYANI")TTIE HONOURABLE SRI JI.JSTICE NARSING RAONANDIKT}NDA WRIT PETITI0\\o_. i 5900 ot 20?5 RDER(per Hon'ble Sri .lustice N'ar;;ittg !!ao ititrndtkutiul Ileard Mr.A.V.A.Siva Kartikci il. iearricr,l counseI fbr thepetitioner and Ms. B.Sapna Reriti.,., lcl,r.ncd Senior StandingCounsel for the Income Tar: I):paltnent a1.)pcar.ing for therespondents. Perused the rccord. Counsel [for the Petitioner: ] [A' ][V' A' ] Counsel [for the Respondents: ][MS' ][BOKARO.SAPNA REDDY](sENlOR SC [lNcoME ][TAX)]The Court [made ][the ][following: ] THE HONOURABLE SRI.'US'i'ICE, P"SAM KOSHYANI")TTIE HONOURABLE SRI JI.JSTICE NARSING RAONANDIKT}NDA WRIT PETITI0\\o_. i 5900 ot 20?5 RDER(per Hon'ble Sri .lustice N'ar;;ittg !!ao ititrndtkutiul Ileard Mr.A.V.A.Siva Kartikci il. iearricr,l counseI fbr thepetitioner and Ms. B.Sapna Reriti.,., lcl,r.ncd Senior StandingCounsel for the Income Tar: I):paltnent a1.)pcar.ing for therespondents. Perused the rccord. 2This is a writ petition r.r,here rr,-e ptoceedirrgs are eitherchallenged to the notices wtrich *,erc issued rrrid:. Section t48Aand l4E of thr: Income Tax Act, i9C, t ({or short 'tho Act') or theand l4E of thr: Income Tax Act, i9C, t ({or short 'tho Act') or theassessment orders those have been ltassed r.indel. Scc:ion 147 ofthe Act which have been assailed,the Act which have been assailed, 3. This writ petition is being tiriruri tip krtja," oniv oir one of thegrounds, that ttre notices issue<l unr.l;t. Settion i.l8A of thc Actand the subsequent initiation olproc11,ji6g5 unricr Section 148 ofthe Act by the jurisdictional Asscssii.r.!,-- i.)flicr:r. vr.irereas in termsof the amendment that was brough'L trr the Inc,,rrne l'ax_ Act by wayof Finance Act, 2O2i w.e.f., 0i {1,1.':,121 on'*arri:;, proceedings under Section of [thc ][Act ][as ][also under Section ][148 ][of ][the]Act ought to [have also ][l-:e.'n ][issued ][and ][proceeded ][in ][a ][laceless]manller 1. Thc cortientiot't t.rf [ih'.- ][petitioner ][is ][that the ][issue ][of]procccclings being in [violation ][ol ][the ][Finance ][Act,202l ][i.e', ][the]impugnecl notices [Lrn(ier ][Sectiitu ][l48A ][and Section ] [48 ][of ][the ][Act]not being issued [in a ][laceless ][lllantler, ][have ][already ][been dealt ][with]and decided b;' this [Clor.rrt ][in ][the ][case ][of ] RAVINDRA REDDY [vs. ] [decided]on I 4.09.2013 [wlrcre ][by ][a ][L-'aich ][o1' ][r+'rit ][petitions ][were ][allowed ][and]the proceeclings initiated [uncier: ][Section ][l48A ][as ][also ][under Section]148 olthe [,A.ct ][q,e|e ][held ][to ][be ][bad ][with ][consequential ][reliefs ][on the]ground oi- it being in [violation ][of the provisions ][of ][Section 151A ][of]the Act tead r'vith Notification [1812022 ][dated ][29.03.2022. ][The ][said]iudgment [passerl ][by ][this ][Corrrt ][has ][also ][been ][subsequently ][followed]in a large trumber of [wr-il. ][pr:titions ][which ][were ][allowed on similar]terms. '[(2023) [156 ][taxnratttt.conr ][1?,q ][( l ][clangana)l] 5. Down the line, we find that the sanie issue has also beendecided against the Revenue b,v verious High Courts i.e.,by the Bombay High Courl iri tl-,e case of HEXAWARETECHNOLOGIES LTD., vs. r\SSiS'IANT COMNIISSIONEROF INCOME TAX & OTHERS:, iieirhati IIigh Court in rhe caseof RAM NARAYAN SAH vs. tiNlON OF INDIAT, Punjab andHaryana High Court in the case of JATINDER SINGH BANGUvs. UNION OF INDIAI, and Telanil"in:r Fiigh Llrurl in the case ofSRMN KATARAMANA' REDIIY PATLOOLA vs. DEPUTYCOMMISSIONER OF INCOMFI ['l'.1\s ]uhcrc rhe issue was inrespect of international taxation. B,.l:rrb:y li igir CoLirt in tl're case ofABHIN ANILKUMAR SHAII vs. INC,O]ITE TAX OFFICER,INTE,RNATIONAL TAXATION" q.iiich is agzrin on inrernarionaltaxation and central circle, High Ci-.rirt trf l{irnachrrl Pradesh in thecase of GOVIND SINGH vs. INCON,IE TAX OFFICERT,Gu-iarat High Court in the ..rii-ic ol I\.IANSUKHBHAI ' ;zoz+1464 [430 ][(Bom)] '[(2024) [156 ][taxmann.com ]4T8 [(GauhaLi)1] " [(2021) 165 taxmann.com ll5 (Puiii.r]: Jr ilaryana)l'[2024) [67 taxmann.ootn 4l I ('felang,r'ra;l" 12024) [166 ][taxmann.cofr ][b79 ][(Bornba ], rl'L2024) 165 [axmann.corn I l3 (Hirrar:hal [i'r:rdesh)l] ' ;zoz+1464 [430 ][(Bom)] '[(2024) [156 ][taxmann.com ]4T8 [(GauhaLi)1] " [(2021) 165 taxmann.com ll5 (Puiii.r]: Jr ilaryana)l'[2024) [67 taxmann.ootn 4l I ('felang,r'ra;l" 12024) [166 ][taxmann.cofr ][b79 ][(Bornba ], rl'L2024) 165 [axmann.corn I l3 (Hirrar:hal [i'r:rdesh)l] DAHYABIIAI tIADADIYA. [r's' ] [OFFICER']WARD 3(-1X5)*. [Jharliancl ][liigh ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ] SUNDAR SA\\.rs. [Oli ][INDIAe, ][Raiasthan ][High Court ][in]the case ol SHAIIDA [DF.VI ][CHHAJER vs. INCOME TAX]OFFICER & [ANOTHER. ][aod ][batch ][of ][writ ][petitionsr0 which]stood decicied on [19.0i.2024 ][Sir.nilar ][views ][have also been ][taken]by the Divisiorr [lJcnch ][ol ][(]alcutta ][High Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]GIRDHAR [(lOPAl, ][DALM,A ][vs' UNION OF ] [& ] (M.A.l- 1690 cri i(i23). d,:r:iri.:ri ort25.09.2024. 6. t.ven tl-roLtsi: lhr sairl,r [il.,ue having ][been ][decided ][by a ][large]number of lJigh [(.c,rrrr.s, ][*c ][;-r1u ][5t!![ ][confronted ][with ][large ][filing ][of]identical urai!,crs on daiii' [basis ][ranging ][between ][5 ][to ][10 writ]petitions. Thiit .rpou thc [r ][l-rs ][iL't-lctions ][being ][sought ][from ][the]Department. thcr havc trec'ir [iaking ][a ][solitary ][ground ][that ][the]decision of ihc ilomba-r [Ilitrh ][(lourt ][in ][the ][case ][of ][Hexawure]Technologies l-r(t". [()- ][sirpr.:i ][rs ][also ][the one which ][has ][been]decided b1 ti.ris [('orrr-t ]it.t titi [.r:rsc ][ol ][Kanaksla ][Ravindra ][Reddy] 8202+ SCC Onl.int (ir;.i 4(J l2'2025 [Orl-irrc.lhar ][l87]'n12023, [RJ-.lr):-loE.l.r)tl ][!] (l supra) has been subjected to chailcnge in a Special LeavePctition i.e., SLP No.3574 of 2024 lretbr.e the iion'ble SupremeCourt and the lJon'ble Suprerne Court is scizcd of the matterIn addition, there are about 1200 SLPs also tilecl aiising out of thesame issue being decided by various I ligh Courrs 7. To a query being put to the learneC counsel tbr. the Revenue,they have categorically accepted tl-re l-act that there is no interimorder granted by the Hon'ble Snprenre Court in any of thesematterspend ing before it. N,lean,,vhile, lresh writ petitions ofidentical nature are being piled up bcfore this Bench on daily basisand the pendency is getting increase<i orl nlatter r.vhich otherwisehas already been dealt and decided hr thl5 1,gry I{igh Court itself. 8. On the one hand, even though the or.der. of this Courl thatwas passed as early as on 14.09.2023 and more 16 months havelapsed, till date, we do not find an5, ierredial stcps having beentaken by the Income ['lax ]Departmenr to take appropriate steps toeither hold back issuance of notice undei Section l4!iA and underSection 148 of the Act by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer,rather the authoritics concemed in rhr. teeth of series of decisions by att the ma!or [ligh ][(-,:rrttts ][in ][lndia ][are ][continuously ][still]initiating plocceclings [unclcl ][Scction ][l48A ][of ][the ][Act ][and ][also]initiating [plocecdiirgs ][tttrilt:i' Section ][148 ][of ][the ][Act ][in]contravention to [the ][atucrldnri:nts ][brought into the ][Income ][Tax ][Act]pursuant to thc r iniince [Act. l()20 ][as ][also the ][Finance ][Act ][2021 ]['] by att the ma!or [ligh ][(-,:rrttts ][in ][lndia ][are ][continuously ][still]initiating plocceclings [unclcl ][Scction ][l48A ][of ][the ][Act ][and ][also]initiating [plocecdiirgs ][tttrilt:i' Section ][148 ][of ][the ][Act ][in]contravention to [the ][atucrldnri:nts ][brought into the ][Income ][Tax ][Act]pursuant to thc r iniince [Act. l()20 ][as ][also the ][Finance ][Act ][2021 ]['] g. Upon a cli.ter',. [be ]inr 1':ri: [ii: ][to u'hy ][can't ][this ][writ ][petition ][be]disposed ol- in rhc [teeth ][ol'rire ][dccision ][rendered ][by ][this ][Court ][in]the case of Kanakulo [Rurintlrt ][Rcddy ][(l ][supra), learned Standing]Counsel fot the [inc,lrrc. ][ir'1 ][i.r1'r11[;11ent ][cot]tends ][that ][those ][would]urLnecessariil, [bLrtclcn ][thc ][i;;i-r-rllle ][Tax ][Department ][where ][they]would be recluitcci [ro ][flit ][crllr;ri tlumber ][of ][S['Ps ][before ][the]Hon'ble Suprctn,: L-oittt [alrrl ][;', ][rvould be ][t'urther ][burdening ][the]of [thr: ][i--li-:ioil ][ll ][itrrir':. It ][was also ][the contention ][of ][the]exchequer leamed Standing Counsci [ti!r ][i .() ][prejudice ][would ][be ][caused ][to ][the]interest of the pctitio;rcrs [ilr L' :i. ][ii ][this ][wlit ][petition ][is ][kept pending]till the finalizaliorr oi [t'ns ][l,l.trs ][pending before ][the ][Hon'ble]Supreme Coun antj thc [iact ][l';ri ][the petitioner is ][already ][enjoying]the benefit ol irtcrrrr [prolCCl ][ii')n. ][Nonetheless, ][on the ][earlier ][query]of this Court as io [,.rhy ][he [intotnc ]Tax Department have [not ][come]out with a r-n:cir,l'lis:n t(r [i. ][.,.,.' ][,rilpropriate instructions ][or to ][take] appropriate steps in ensuring that under Section I48Alrr.oceedirrgs of the Act as also the assessment olders urrder Section 148 of theAct are kept in a hold in the tight oi tlre decisiorrs dedcided by thevarious I ligh Courts, it was sub;;ritted by the learned StandingCounsel that the said steps can only bc ttrkerr at the level of CBDTas any such steps would have to be raken Pan lndia and cannot belimited to any of these jurisdictional Fiigh Couits. 10. As a result of which, what \ve alr: thcing is steep increase oflitigation day in and day out even though various orders have beenpassed by this High Court allor.r,ing 'urlit petitions on the very sameISSUC Thc [ncorne fax authorities cr-rncerned are still even now in2025 also initiating proceedings in coctravention to the provisionsof Section I5l A ol the Act and as a rcsult by now, more than 600to 700 petitions have been already got piled up betbre this HighCourt on an issue which otherwisc stands squarely covered by thejudgment ot'this Court in the casc o{ Ksnukula llavindra Reddy( I supra). What is also surprisine is ihe fact that though whileallowing the writ petitions in the case ol Kanaksl{t RavindraReddv (l supra), the Division Bench [.,vhile ]reserving the right ofthe Revenue, has also protectcd tlic interest of the petitioners insofar as the libcity rrltlcr [....'.ts ][granted ]to the [Revenue ][for]initiating fi'esh 1-.roctedings si.icli' [in ][accordance ][with ][the amended]provisions of the r\ct, as atitetrilcd by the Finance Act, [2020 ][and]the Finance Act. 201 i [. ] [hr.: ][ne ]iiLit.,rter [assessee ][would ][be ][entitled ][to]challenge or raise thc c'tirer l.-1lai objcctions if the Revenue [initiates]fresh proceedings. 1-he l)cpartnrcnt has rnade no endeavour [in]availing the saict liberty thal [r" ]iis resewed fbr the Revenue. On [the]contrary, they have been sliii sticking on to the stand, [which ][this]High Court as weli as rnan; oilicr l-ligh Couns already held [to ][be]bad. insofar as the libcity rrltlcr [....'.ts ][granted ]to the [Revenue ][for]initiating fi'esh 1-.roctedings si.icli' [in ][accordance ][with ][the amended]provisions of the r\ct, as atitetrilcd by the Finance Act, [2020 ][and]the Finance Act. 201 i [. ] [hr.: ][ne ]iiLit.,rter [assessee ][would ][be ][entitled ][to]challenge or raise thc c'tirer l.-1lai objcctions if the Revenue [initiates]fresh proceedings. 1-he l)cpartnrcnt has rnade no endeavour [in]availing the saict liberty thal [r" ]iis resewed fbr the Revenue. On [the]contrary, they have been sliii sticking on to the stand, [which ][this]High Court as weli as rnan; oilicr l-ligh Couns already held [to ][be]bad. 11. lt appears lhat bcr:aL:s.' [,,1'ilre ]albresaid tiberty that this HighCourt had granted periniriir,. ihc Rc',enue lor initiating freshproceedings as a one-tirt.:u [ilJ.ilure ]in a face[ess manner, theIncome Tax Depar'lrnen!- i\'arlis to take advantage of the same byprotracting these procccdiiir..s '.1irich rvoulci enable them to meet thelimitation that rvouid other'ri r.;.: cotne in the way. Likewise, if thewrit petition is kept pcnriiril: iiri :t considerable long period of timeand hnally at a latel stage ii iirt I lon'ble Suprerne Court confirmsthe decision taken by this l li,rh [(loufi ]as also by the other HighCourts in which rhe SI-Ps ,r: c still lrending, the Income Tax Department would get the advantage ol.the liberty that is otherwiseprotected in fhvour of the Rer.cnue lor initiation of freshproceedings liom thc disposal ol these r atters at a nluch later stagewhich would be advantageous anC beneficial to the Revenue andwould be equally disadr,.antageous:utci rlctl.irnental so I'ar as interestof the assesses are concerned. A-. ir_ coilsequetce, lhe Income Taxwould be equally disadr,.antageous:utci rlctl.irnental so I'ar as interestof the assesses are concerned. A-. ir_ coilsequetce, lhe Income TaxDepartment gets an extended perioc of time tbr initiation of freshproceedings.proceedings. 12. The alarming trend of docket exp.rl6si6n in this Court, despitethe clear precedent set in KunuA.tltt littrinrlra Reddy (.l supra), is amatter of grave concem. ['fhe ]Incorue l'ax l)epartment's persistentinitiation of tiesh proceedings, disr.egarding the established judicialpronouncements, has lcd to an ullprccedcnted surge in litigationwith over 600-700 petitions pi lirg up on the same issue. Thisdeliberate approach not only underr:rines the principte of judicialprecedent but also strains the jurllciai :.esourccs unnecessarily. TheDepartment's strategy o['awaiting iit,-. Sirprenre Court's decision onpending SLPs while continuing r,-: iiritiate fresh proceedingsappears to be a calcrrlated moyc l,r buli time and circumventlimitation periods, raiher than ad jr,riing tit the established legat position. Such conduct [llrises ][serious ][questions ][about ][the]administrative ef{iciency [:tttd the ][respect ][lbr ][judicial]pronouncelnents, pratticr.riarll [rvhen ][this Court ][has ][already provided]a balanced apploach by [prescruing ][both ][the ][Revcnue's ][rights ][and]assesses interests- position. Such conduct [llrises ][serious ][questions ][about ][the]administrative ef{iciency [:tttd the ][respect ][lbr ][judicial]pronouncelnents, pratticr.riarll [rvhen ][this Court ][has ][already provided]a balanced apploach by [prescruing ][both ][the ][Revcnue's ][rights ][and]assesses interests- 13. Another aspect [which ][necds ][I-o ][be ][considered is that ][in fact ][it]should have been realized [bi' ]iht [[,rcotne ]['l'ax ][Dcparltnent ][itself ][and]should har.'e loiind out [vi:,:][ ir,,.rdia ][in ][ensuiit.tg ][that ][proceedings]under Sections 148-r\ anri l'lr [strotrld ][not ][have ][been issued ][in ][a]faceless mirnncr'- at least t!li [rl.,.r ][ilrrn'ble ][S,.tprctne ][Court ][decide the]twelve hundled [(1100) ]cdil Si [|'; ][''vhich ][it ][is ][alreadl'seized of ][or, ][at]least the Incotne Tax l)cparlirent [should have fbund ][out ][some]remedial steps ',o enstlrc [ihiii- ]',vherevcr [the authorities intend ][to]initiate proceedings under Sei:iions [148-A and ][[48. ][other ][than ][in ][a]faceless manner, Lhc irrocetdings should havc [been ][deferred]without precipitating thc ntirl-tcr l'urlher intimatir"rg [the ][assessee ][that]they shall initiate appropriali: il'oceedings only after the [S[,P's ][are]decided by the tton'ble Sitpl',:tne Coult on the very same [issue.]This again, the incr:rne [-fax ]!)':irartrnent, has not been able to [give ]aconvincing reply. erlcpt tb: lhc l-act tlrat such a decision if [at ][all] has to be taken, has to be takcn tbr LIte rvhole of lndia, and whichotherwise has to be by rvay of'a policl, decision and lhat too at thelevel of Central Board ol Direct I'ttxes. ['l'hough ]the learnedStanding Counsel fbr the lncornt lli.r l)eparrrnent contended thatthe Delhi High Cour-t dismissed a ',r ril 1:etirion of -similar nature, onthe one hand when the I{igh ('rrLriL is stluggling to reduce itspendency, such notices rvhich ar.:: Lutdr_-r challengc in this writpetition are fbrcing Lhc assessce t.r i.-r:rrck the doors ol this HighCourl resulting in lrling of hundrcd. of.rrew u,rir lrctitions which inthe long run not only affects tlrc <ii:ir,.,r;ai of tjrc. i.vr.it petitions butalso consumes substar-rtial time of' ,-hc Bcnch in hearing thesematters again and again on dailv basis. A{imittedly, in spite of thematter before the Hon'ble SuJ.1'31-,1g ('or-rrt having bcen taken onmany occasions, the Hon'ble Suprtrrre Corirt which is seized of thematter has been reluctant in grantii ri,. an1, iittcrim protection to theIncome Tax Department. Yet. tlre .t,_ilhoritics concemed at theState level are not ready to accept thi. r,erclict passecl by a majorityof High Courts of different Statcs on thc sar-ne issue; and to makethings further worsc, the Incorn.. l'i;.,1 Deltartment is showingaudacity by issuing noliccs contir.ruoirsiy uirder Sections l4g-A and 148 through the.!ulisdictiolr.it [,'\ssessing ][Offlcer ][rvhcreas ][it ][ought]to have been onlf [in ][the laceless ][flanner] 14. In the [case ][o1' ][t],'\NK ] [vs' ] COMMISSIONER' [INCOIvIE ][T,A,Xr', on ][nt.' ][issue ][whether ][it ][was]justifiable on the palt of the [lncome ][Tax ][Department ][in ][not]foltowing an orrier [passed ][blr tirc adjuciicating ][authority ][only ][on ][the]ground that thc appcats [arc pcnding' ][the ][Division ][Rench ][of ][the]High Court of Bornbay [held ][at ][paraglaph No.25 ][as ][under, ][viz ][, ][:] 148 through the.!ulisdictiolr.it [,'\ssessing ][Offlcer ][rvhcreas ][it ][ought]to have been onlf [in ][the laceless ][flanner] 14. In the [case ][o1' ][t],'\NK ] [vs' ] COMMISSIONER' [INCOIvIE ][T,A,Xr', on ][nt.' ][issue ][whether ][it ][was]justifiable on the palt of the [lncome ][Tax ][Department ][in ][not]foltowing an orrier [passed ][blr tirc adjuciicating ][authority ][only ][on ][the]ground that thc appcats [arc pcnding' ][the ][Division ][Rench ][of ][the]High Court of Bornbay [held ][at ][paraglaph No.25 ][as ][under, ][viz ][, ][:] "25- t\.4r. Par;d\r''alla h;:s [rrghtly ][drawn ][out ][attentlon ][to ][the]decision cf this Couri [in ][Commissioner ][of ][lncome ][Tax ][vs' ][Smt']Godavaridevi Saraf'2 [as ][also ][the ][recent ][decision ][of ][the ][co-]ordinate Bench of [this Court ][in ][Samp ][Furniture ][(P) ][Ltd' ][v' ][lTOr3]of which one [of us (.juslice ][G.S ][Kulkarni) ][was ][a rnember, ][wherein]the Court categorically [cbserr,,'1cj ][that ][the ][Revenue ][having ][not]"accepted" ttre [judgrnent ]of the [Higlr ][Court would not ][mean ][that ][till]the same is set [aside in ][a ][iaanner ][known ][to ][!aw, it ][would loose ][lts]binding force. [Referring ][to ][tire ][decision ][of the ][Supreme Court ][in]Union of India vs. [Kamlaksh! ][Finance Corporation ][Ltd'14, ][the]Court observed that the [approach ][of the ][officials ][of ][Revenue of]treating decisions being ["nct ][ac.eptable" was ][criticized ][by ][the]Supreme Court. ln such [tje;ision, ][following ][are ][the ][relevant]observations made [by ][the Suirreme ][Court] " 11zozs1 [I70 ta\rnann.com ][412 ][(l']ombay)]] 't Jtsz8l [i3 ][I'ft( ][589 ][(Bombal)] '3 IZOZ+1165 IZOZ+1165 [taxr:rann.ootr ][,581r'-100 ]['laxtnan ][452 ][(Bombay)] '3 IZOZ+1165 IZOZ+1165 " 1t9921 [ta\manir.corn ][i5i55 ][i ][i ] [4-i3 (SC)] " 11zozs1 [I70 ta\rnann.com ][412 ][(l']ombay)]] 't Jtsz8l [i3 ][I'ft( ][589 ][(Bombal)] '3 IZOZ+1165 IZOZ+1165 [taxr:rann.ootr ][,581r'-100 ]['laxtnan ][452 ][(Bombay)] '3 IZOZ+1165 IZOZ+1165 " 1t9921 [ta\manir.corn ][i5i55 ][i ][i ] [4-i3 (SC)] "6. Sri Reddy is perhaps :-igrr rn saying tnat theofficers were not actuated ay any male frdes inpassing the impugned C|.ier=.. They perhapsgenuinely felt that the clairn cf ille assessee was nottenable and that, if it was .1i:,:eDieC. ihe Revenuewould suffer. But what Sri Rei:,1y cvertocks is that weare not concerned here v,,ith ll.,)e co.rectness ortenable and that, if it was .1i:,:eDieC. ihe Revenuewould suffer. But what Sri Rei:,1y cvertocks is that weare not concerned here v,,ith ll.,)e co.rectness orotherwise of their conclusjor-r oi of any factualmalafides but with the fact lhai lire cfficers jn reachingin their conclusion, by-passe(l i.wc appellaie orders inregard to the same issue u,/l.ltch were placed beforethem, one of the Collector (Appeals) and the cther ofthe Tribunal. The High Coui has in our vrew, righflymalafides but with the fact lhai lire cfficers jn reachingin their conclusion, by-passe(l i.wc appellaie orders inregard to the same issue u,/l.ltch were placed beforethem, one of the Collector (Appeals) and the cther ofthe Tribunal. The High Coui has in our vrew, righflycriticized this conduct of the.^\sststant CDllsctc,rs andthe harassment lo the assessee caused by the failureof these officers ,to give efi-c.t to the orders ofauthorities higher to them in the api_.eliate hjeraichy. ltcannot be too vehementiy emphasrzecj that rt ts ofof these officers ,to give efi-c.t to the orders ofauthorities higher to them in the api_.eliate hjeraichy. ltcannot be too vehementiy emphasrzecj that rt ts ofutmost importance that, in .jisposing of thequasijudicial issues before thern, revenue offrcers arequasijudicial issues before thern, revenue offrcers arebound by the decisions of the appeiiate authorities.The order of the Appellte Cotiector ls btrjding on theAssistant Collectors working wiihirr his jurisdi.jtron andthe order of the Tribunal is bino,t-lg upcn ihe AsststanlCollectors and the Appellate [,_ ]ciiectors :,vito fjr)cttonunder the jurisdiction of the [-l ]libunal. t-he princrpies ofjudicial discipline require thai tire orders of the higherThe order of the Appellte Cotiector ls btrjding on theAssistant Collectors working wiihirr his jurisdi.jtron andthe order of the Tribunal is bino,t-lg upcn ihe AsststanlCollectors and the Appellate [,_ ]ciiectors :,vito fjr)cttonunder the jurisdiction of the [-l ]libunal. t-he princrpies ofjudicial discipline require thai tire orders of the higherappellate authoritles should be folicv/ed unreservedlyby the subordinate authoritiee. Ihe mere fact that theorder of the appellate authc[ty ls nct [,acceptable,, ]toorder of the appellate authc[ty ls nct [,acceptable,, ]tothe department - in itself an objectionaltle phrase _and is the subject matter of an appeai can furnish noand is the subject matter of an appeai can furnish noground for not following it unless its operatlon hasbeen susperded by a competenr court lf this healthybeen susperded by a competenr court lf this healthy !-ule is not followed, th? result will only [be ][undue]harassment to assesses [and chaos ][in ][administration]of tax laws. !-ule is not followed, th? result will only [be ][undue]harassment to assesses [and chaos ][in ][administration]of tax laws. 12 We have dealt u/itl- this aspect at some [length,]because it has been suggested by [the ][learned]Additional Solicitor General that the [observations]made by the High Court, have been [harsh ][on ][the]officers. lt is clear that the observations [of ][the ][High]Court, seerningly [rrehement. ]and [apparently]unpalatable to lhe Rev-ooue, are [only intended ][to ][curb]a tenclency in revenue matters which. [if ][allowed ][to]become widespread, could result in [considerable]harassment tc the assessas-public [without ][any ][benefit]to the Re,/enue. [..ir!i.. ]would like to say [that ][the]departrnent should take these observations [in ][the]proper spirit. l-he observations of the High Courtshould be kept in mind [in ][future and the utmost ][regard]should be [paid ]by the adjudicating [authorities and ][the]appellate authorities io the requirements [of ][judicial]discipline and the neeci for [giving ][effect ]to [the ][orders]of tlre lrigher appellate [authorities ][which ][are ][binding]on therli." I 5. \\/hat is [,.vorrying ]ihi:; [Br:nch ][more ][is ][the ][fhct that ][an]endeavour is being made [whcle ][hearledly ][to ][ensure ][not ][to ][generate]further litigation on issues rvhich have been laid to rest by [a ][large]number of I{igh Courts ail ot u{tom have taken a consistent [stand]that the action of the lncon-rc'l'ax Department being violative olthe Finance AcL,2020 and Finance Acr, ,:01l. Now, ln older to protectthe interest of the Revenue as also tirai o1' the asscssee. it would betrite at this juncture, if rve dispo:;e oi' tire '"r rit irctition with anobservation/direction that the disposai o1'the instarit rrrit petition interms of the judgn-rent rendered b;,, thi:r I {i1rh t'o'rrir- in the case ofKankonola Ravindra Reddy (l sulrr;r) shall lrovvevcr be subject tothe outcome of the Sl-Ps which r.r, ere lilcd b1, the lncome ['lax]Department and which is pending cLiiti iiicratiolt beiiri'c t.he [{on'bleSupreme Court. 16. In the given facts and cil curr stlrflces. this Rtnch is of theconsidered opinion that unless anci irrrlii we clo noi Lr;,.rely disposeof matters which are squarely cor.ered b,v the decision ol this Courtand which stands fortified by the Ceci:;ions ol'tirc various otherHigh Courts on the very same issr,:. iirc I'rcurie'ncy ol this HighCourt would further be burdened rvi:irii otliolrvisr c:in be decidedand disposed of as a covered matl.ei 17 . So far as the interest of the Rei.,.'rruc is concerned, we are ofthe considered opinion that the interest of itre Re., cnue has alreadybeen considered and protected, as ha.., hcr:n obsrn,etl in paragraphsthe considered opinion that the interest of itre Re., cnue has alreadybeen considered and protected, as ha.., hcr:n obsrn,etl in paragraphs 36, 37 and ,i8 oi [the ot-del i'iiricl-,, ][tbr ][ready relerence, ][is ][reproduced]hereuuder 36 Frr ali ihe afcresatC [reasons, ]the [lmpugned ][notices]issued and the [proceeCings ]drawn by [the ][respondent-]Depadnrent is !-!eithe!' tenable, [nor ][sustainable.]The nct,ces so issucil a!':C lhe [procedure adopted ][being]per se rliegal, deserr,es tc be and are accordingly [set]aside/quashed. As -a consequence, all [the ][impugned]orders Eettrng [quasi.)e,i, ][the oonsequential orders ][passed]by the eslir)rident-u"oailment [pursuant ][to ][the ][notices]lssued urider Sect;!',n 147 and 148 would also [get]quashe<i and rt is orrrtred accordingly. The reason weai'e [quashrng ]the conseqireittial [order ][is on ][the ][principles]tnat when ihe' ir'rrti3ticI of the proceedings itself [was]proced,.irailv i,uronil, tlie subsequent olders also [gets]nulhfiecl automaticaiii, 36 Frr ali ihe afcresatC [reasons, ]the [lmpugned ][notices]issued and the [proceeCings ]drawn by [the ][respondent-]Depadnrent is !-!eithe!' tenable, [nor ][sustainable.]The nct,ces so issucil a!':C lhe [procedure adopted ][being]per se rliegal, deserr,es tc be and are accordingly [set]aside/quashed. As -a consequence, all [the ][impugned]orders Eettrng [quasi.)e,i, ][the oonsequential orders ][passed]by the eslir)rident-u"oailment [pursuant ][to ][the ][notices]lssued urider Sect;!',n 147 and 148 would also [get]quashe<i and rt is orrrtred accordingly. The reason weai'e [quashrng ]the conseqireittial [order ][is on ][the ][principles]tnat when ihe' ir'rrti3ticI of the proceedings itself [was]proced,.irailv i,uronil, tlie subsequent olders also [gets]nulhfiecl automaticaiii, 37 're pre!iminai-i; ci',,;aclion raised by the petitioner issustaired and aii trese writ [petitions ][stands ][allowed ][on]t\is ve!"',' [jrrrsdicticnal ]Issue [Since ][the ][impugned notices]and or-iiei-s are [ge'r1ing ][quashed ]on [the ][point ][of]I'ri-rsdiclron. ['*" ][rra ][;,r.,i ][:nclirled ][tc ][proc-oed ][further ][and]decide the oihei issrcs raised [by ][the ][petitioner ][which]stands [reserueC ]lc :'l [raised ][and ][contended ]in [an]appropriate [)roceec]r [Ir:1s] 38 Sirrce the Ficn bie Supreme [Court had, ][in ][the ][case]of Ashish Agaruval, supra as a [ottetime ][measure]exercising the polrers under Article 142 of [the]Constltlltion of [inoia. ];:ermitted the [Revenue ][to ][proceed]under the substitute.J [p:ovisions, ]and this [Court ][allowing]the petitions only on the [procedural ][flaw, ][the ][right] conferred on the Revenue \,/o,-tld remain reserved toproceed further if they so walt ft'om the stage of theorder of the Supreme Coirrt ,n the case cf AshishAganr'ual, supra. 18. We would only fufther like io rnake obsen,;rtions that sincewe are inclined to dispose ol the i;'rs;i:rrt u.iit pctition. cotlscious ofthe fact that the earlier order of this tliiih Coi-rrt iu the case ofKonokala Ravindru Rerl/y ( I sup;"a)IS subjccted to challengebefore the Hon'ble Supreme Couri in SLP No.35 7-t oI- 2024,prefemed by the Inconre Tax Depait;nelt, we lnakc it clear thatallowing of the instant writ petition is sutrjeci tc outcome of theaforesaid SLP prefen'ed by the }ler':r,re against thL-- decision of thisHigh Court in the case of Kanaktlc lluvindru /{crld1, ( i supra)'[his, in other words, would mean thil either ci the partics, il' theyso want, may move an appropriatc f,e titi.ln sccking lc.r'ival of thiswrit petition in the tight of the decision of the I lon'blc SuprerneCourt in the pending SLP on the Ie n sliLle iss;u,,-. 19. Accordingly, the instanl rvlit petition stands allowed inf'avour of the assessee so far as ttre issue ol' iut isdictionISconcemed. As a consequence. tir,: impr rgneii r-rotice underchallenge under Sections 148-A and i,i[i stands set aside/quashed. The consequerrtiai orde [r''s. ]!i [.rri','. ][aiso ][stand ][set ][aside/quashed in]similar tenns as ltave beerr l,.r:.s.'ci [by ][this High Court in ][the ][case ][of]Kankanola Ruvinlra Rcd::i.t i [i ][.'r-ioro). 'I'here ][shall ][be ][no order ][as]to costs Consequentlv. nriscelialgous [petitions ][pending, ]if [any, ][shall] stand closecl SD/-T. JAYASREEPUTY REGISTRAR//TRUE COPY//SECTION To,o1), Hvderabad, 1. The Assistant [Com][ missioner of lncome Tax, Circ]- 500 044, [Telangana]Towers. 10-2-3, [Guards,][ tvlasab ][Tank, ][HYdera]ndhra Pradesh [and]2. The PrinciP[al ][Chief Commissioner of lncome ][Tax,]Telangana, [derabad. ][Room No. 922. ][9th Floor'][ BBlock ][lT ][Towers' ][10-2-]3. A.C. Guards,[Masab ][Tar1k, HYd][erabad - ][500 004, ][Telangana]3. Assessment [Unit, lncom][ e Tax ][Department,, National ][e-Assessmen t ][Center.]New Delhi, [Room No.- ][401, 2nd ][Floor' E-Ramp, ][Jawaharlal ][Nehru Stadium.]New Delhi [- ].1 '10 003.4&;;;'i; [st, ][n ] [n ][siva ][Kartikeva Advocate.[oPucl]5one cc to [tvls ][Bokaro ][srpJH;i;'vJsltitiSd ][lhcome ][rax) ][toPUCl]t)Two CD CoPiesTJBS HIGH SD/-T. JAYASREEPUTY REGISTRAR//TRUE COPY//SECTION To,o1), Hvderabad, 1. The Assistant [Com][ missioner of lncome Tax, Circ]- 500 044, [Telangana]Towers. 10-2-3, [Guards,][ tvlasab ][Tank, ][HYdera]ndhra Pradesh [and]2. The PrinciP[al ][Chief Commissioner of lncome ][Tax,]Telangana, [derabad. ][Room No. 922. ][9th Floor'][ BBlock ][lT ][Towers' ][10-2-]3. A.C. Guards,[Masab ][Tar1k, HYd][erabad - ][500 004, ][Telangana]3. Assessment [Unit, lncom][ e Tax ][Department,, National ][e-Assessmen t ][Center.]New Delhi, [Room No.- ][401, 2nd ][Floor' E-Ramp, ][Jawaharlal ][Nehru Stadium.]New Delhi [- ].1 '10 003.4&;;;'i; [st, ][n ] [n ][siva ][Kartikeva Advocate.[oPucl]5one cc to [tvls ][Bokaro ][srpJH;i;'vJsltitiSd ][lhcome ][rax) ][toPUCl]t)Two CD CoPiesTJBS HIGH DATED:191OG12025 ORDERWP.No.16900 [of ][2025] ALLOWIG WITHOUT s\\x siA).s($,.).J2HlJE 26*r)5sI)4TC'..rf,O