Wp/20181/2025 Of Kinnera Zilla Mahila Samakhya Mutually Aided Cooperative Society Limited v. Income Tax Officer

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD(Special Originat Jurisdiction) IUONDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JULYTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDAWRIT PETITION NO: 20181 OF 2025 Between: Kinnera Zilla Mahila Samakhya Mutually Aided Cooperative Societv Limited.qep by its President Smt KSandhya, Kihnera ZMSAMCS LTD, 1.t'Building,Dwakra Building Complex, Wyra Road, Khammam, SO7OO2, Telangana. ...PETITIONER AND 1lncome Tax Officer, Ward 1, Khammam, Telangana.2The Principal Chief Commissioner of lncome Tax, Hyderabad, Telangana.2The Principal Chief Commissioner of lncome Tax, Hyderabad, Telangana. J,The National Faceless Assessment Centre, lncome Tax Department, Ministryof Finance, Government of lndia, New Delhi.of Finance, Government of lndia, New Delhi. 4Union of.lndia., Ministry of Finance, rep. by its Secretary,166 B North Block,New Delhi 110 001.New Delhi 110 001. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may bepleased to (i) lssue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly, one, in the natureof Writ of Mandamus, declaring the order passed by the Respondent No.1 dated07.04.2022 uis.148A (d) of the lncome Tax Act, i96l as illegal, arbitrary, bad inof Writ of Mandamus, declaring the order passed by the Respondent No.1 dated07.04.2022 uis.148A (d) of the lncome Tax Act, i96l as illegal, arbitrary, bad inlaw, void ab initio, violative of the principles of natural justice and being violative ofArticles 14,19 and 265 of the Constitution of lndia, and consequenfly, (ii) Set asidethe Assessment Order dated 31.0i.2024 uls. 147, read with Sections 144 and1448 oI the lncome Tax Act, 1961 and Notice issued by the Respondent No..lthe Assessment Order dated 31.0i.2024 uls. 147, read with Sections 144 and1448 oI the lncome Tax Act, 1961 and Notice issued by the Respondent No..lunder Section 14BA (b) of the lncome Tax Act, 't961 dated 21 .O3.2O22 identifyingthe petitioner as non-filer with potential tax liabilities for the Ay 2o1s-16 and anythe petitioner as non-filer with potential tax liabilities for the Ay 2o1s-16 and any consequent proceedings as lacking in jurisdiction. (iii) Set aside the demand noticeissued by the lit respondent dated 24.05.2025 directing to pay the demand amountof Rs.25,04,30 ,1761- as being illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law (iv) and/or pass lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated inthe affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grantstay of all further proceedings for recovery of the demand pursuant to theAssessment Order passed by the 1st respondent lncome Tax Department underSection 147 read with Section 144 and Section 1448 of the lncome Tax Act, 1961dated 31 .01 .2024 for Assessment Year 2015-16 including recovery notice dated24.05.2025 of the 1 st respondent. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI B. KRISHNA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: SRI K. SUDHAKAR REDDY, SENIOR STANDINGcouNSEL FOR MS. BOKARO 9APNA REDDy (SEN|OR SC TNCOME TAX) The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI S-I-ICE ][P.SAM ] ANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTTCE NANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION No.20l8l [of ][2025] ORDER, @e r Hon ble [Sri ][.lustice ][,\'za ][rirrg ][Ruo ][Nundikonda)] Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI B. KRISHNA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: SRI K. SUDHAKAR REDDY, SENIOR STANDINGcouNSEL FOR MS. BOKARO 9APNA REDDy (SEN|OR SC TNCOME TAX) The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI S-I-ICE ][P.SAM ] ANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTTCE NANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION No.20l8l [of ][2025] ORDER, @e r Hon ble [Sri ][.lustice ][,\'za ][rirrg ][Ruo ][Nundikonda)] Heard Mr. B.Krishan Rcdd,r'. [learned ][counsel ][lor ][the]petitioner and Mr.K.Sudhakar [Reddy, ][learned ][Senior ][Standing]Counsel for the lncome [Tax ][Department appearing ][for ][the]respondents. Perused the [record]2. This is a writ petition [rvherc ][thc ][proceedings ][are ][either]challenged to the notices [which ][u'ere ][issued ][under ][Section ][l48A]and 148 of the Income Tax Act, [196l (for ][short ]['the ][Act') ][or ][the]assessment orders those [have ][bccn ][passed ][under ][Section ][147 ][of]the Act which have been assailed 3. This writ petition is being takcn [up today ][only ][on ][one ][of ][the]grounds, that the notices issued [under ][Section ][l4ttA ][of ][the Act]and the subsequent initiation [ol'procccdings ][under ][Section ][148 ][of]the Act by the [jurisdictional ][Assessing ][Ofticer, ][whereas ][in ][terms]of the anrs,ndment [that ][was ][brought to the ][Income ][Tax ][Act ][by way]\of F'inance Act, 2021 [w.e.f-', ][0l ][.04.2021 onwards, ][proceedings] under Section [l48A ][of ][the ][Act ][as ][also ][under Section ][l4tt ][of ][the]Act ought [to ][have ][also ][been issued and proceeded ][in ][a ][f-aceless]manner4. 'fhe contention ol' the petitioner is [that ][the ][issue ][of]proceedings [being ][in ][violation ][of ][the ][Finance ][Act' ][202 ] [i ][e'' ][the]impugned [notices under ][Section 148,{ ][and ][Section ][148 ][of ][the Act]not being [issued ][in ][a ][t'aceless ][manner' ][have ][already ][beer-r ][dealt ][with]and decided [by ][this ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ] RAVINDRA [vs' INCOME-TAX ] [decidcd]on 14.09.2023 [whereby ][a ][batch ][of writ ][petitions ][were allo"vcd ][aud]the procecdings [initiated ][under ][Section ][l48A ][as ][also ][LtLrdc'r ][Section],l48 ol'the Act wcre held to be bad with consequential [relict-s ][on thc]of [it ][being ][in violation of ][the provisions ][of ][Section ][l5l ] [ol]ground the Act [read ][with ][Notification l8l2}22 ][dated ][29'03 ][2011' ]['the ][said]judgment passed [by this ][Court ][has ][also ][been ][subsequentl;- ][toliorved]in a large [number ][of writ ][petitions ][which ][were ][allowed on similar]terms. 5. Down the [ine, we find that the same issue has also been[ine, we find that the same issue has also beenwe find that the same issue has also beenfind that the same issue has also beenthat the same issue has also beensame issue has also beenalso beenbeendecided against the Revenue by various l{igh Courts i.e.,by the Bombay High Court in the case o{' 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 JATINDE,R SINGH BANGUvs. UNION OF INDIAI, and Telangana High Court in the case ofSRI VENKATARAMANA R.NOOY PATLOOLA VS. DEPUTYCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX5 uhcre lhe issuc was inrespect of intemational taxation, Bombay t{igh Court in the case ofABHIN ANTLKUMAR SHAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFTCER,INTERNATIONAL TAXATION6 which is again on inremationaltaxation and central circle, High Court ol Ilirnachal Pradesh in thecase of GOVIND SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERT,Gujarat High Court in the case ol- MANSUKHBHAI'lzoz+1464 [430 ][(Bom)]'l(2024) 156 taxmann.com 478 (Gauhati)l't(2024N65 taxmann.com 115 (Punjab & Haryana)l' [2024) l6] taxmann.com 4l I (Telangana)l" [2024) [166 ]taxmann.com 679 (Bombay)l'[2024) [65 taxmann.com I l3 (Himachal [pradesh)]] Down the [ine, we find that the same issue has also been[ine, we find that the same issue has also beenwe find that the same issue has also beenfind that the same issue has also beenthat the same issue has also beensame issue has also beenalso beenbeen DAHYABHAI RADADIYA VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER'WARD 3(3X5)8, Jharkand High Court in the case ol SHYAMSUNDAR SAW vs. UNION OF INDIAe, Rajasthan High Court inthe case of SHARDA DEVI CIIHAJER vs. INCOME TAXOFFICER & ANOTHER and batch of writ petitionsr0 whichstood decided on 19.03.2024. Similar views have also been takenby the Division Bench of Calcutta 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 sarne issue having been decidecl by a largenumber of High Courts, we are still confronted with lalge filing olidentical mattcrs on daily basis ranging between 5 to l0 writpetitions. That upon thc instructions being sought fiom theDepartment, they have been taking a solitary ground that thedecision of the Bombay High Court in the case ol' He-wwtreTechnologies Lttl., (2 supra) as also the one which has becndecided by this Court in the case of Kunakalo Rovindru Reddy *zoza Sbqont-ine Guj 4012" 2025 SCC OnLine Jhar 287' o 12023, RJ-J t) :4984-DI) l (l supra) has been subjected to challengetn a Spccial 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 fited arising our ol thesame issue being decided by various High Courts. 7. To a query being put to the leamed counsel for the Revenue,they have categorically accepted the fact that there is no interimorder granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in any of thesematters pending before it. Meanwhile, fresh writ petitions ofidentical nature are being piled up before this Bench on daily basisand the pendency is getting increased on matter which otherwlsehas already been dealt and decided by this very High Court itself-.8. On the one hand, even though the order ol 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 sreps toeither hold back issuance of notice under Section l48A and underSection 148 of the Act by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer,rather the authorities concemed in the teeth of series of decisions all [the ][rnajor ][High ][Courts ][in ][India ][are ][continuously still]by initiating [procecdings ][under Section ][148,4 ][of ][the ][Act ][and ][also]initiating [proccedings ][under Section ][148 ][of ][the ][Act ][in]contravention [to ][the amendments ][brought into ][the lncotne ][Tax Act]pursuant [to the ][Finance ][Act, ][2020 ][as ][also ][the ][F-inance ][Act ][202 ][l']g. Upon a [query ][being put ][as ][to ][why can't ][this ][writ ][petition ][be]disposed [of ][in ][the ][teeth ][of ][the ][decision ][rendered ][by ][this Court ][in]the case [of ][Kanakola ][Ravindra ][Reddy ][(l ][supra)' leamed ][Standing]Counsel [for ][the ][Incorne ][Tax ][Depaftment ][contends ][that ][those ][would]unnecessarily [burden ][the ][Income ][Tax ][Department ][where ][they]would be [recluirecl ][to ][lile ][equal ][number ][of ][SLPs before ][the]Hon'ble [Suprcme Clourt ][and ][it ][would be further ][burdening ][the]exchequer [of ][the ][tlnion ][of ][lndia' ][lt ][was ][also ][the contention ][of ][the]leamed [Standing Counsel that no prejudice ][would ][be ][caused ][to ][the]interest [of ][the petitioners ][in ][case ][if ][this ][writ ][petition ][is ][kept ][per-rding]tillthefinalizationoftheSLPSpendingbeloretheHon'bleSupreme [Court ][and ][the fact that ][the ][petitioner ][is ][already ][enjoying]the benefit [of ][interim ][protection' ][Nonetheless' ][on ][the earlier ][query]of this Court [as ][to why the ][Income ][Tax ][Department llave not ][come]out with [a ][mcchanism ][to ][issue appropriate ][instructions ][or ][to ][take] appropriate steps in ensuring that proceedings under Section l4gAof the Act as also the assessment orders under Section l4g of theAct are kepr in a hold in the tight of the decisions dedcided bv 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 Court allowing writ petitions on the very sameissue.'lhe Income Tax authorities concerned are still even now in2025 also initiating proceedings in contravention to the provisionsof Section l51A of the Act and as a result by now, more than 600to 700 petitions have been already got piled up before this HighCoum on an issue which otherwise stands squarely covered by the.judgrnent [of ][this Court ]in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy( I supra). What is also surprising is the fact that though whileallowing the writ petitions in the case of Kanskala RavintlroReddy (l supra), the Division Bench while reserving the right ofthe Revenue, has also protected the interest of the petitioners insofar as the liberly which was granted to the Rcvenue forinitiating fresh proceedings strictly in accordance with the amendedprovisions of the Act, as amended by the Finance Act, 2020 andthe Finance Act, 202 I . Thc petitioner assessee would be entitled tochallenge or raise the other legal objections if the Re'" enue initiatesfresh proceedings. ['l'he ]Department has made no endeavour inavailing the said tiberty that was reserved 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 held to bebad 1 l. It appears that because olthe aforesaid liberty that this HighCourt had granted permitting the Revenue for initiating freshproceedings as a one-time rTreasure in a faceless manner, theIncome Tax Department wanls to take advantage ol the same byprotracting these proceedings which would enable them to meet thelimitation that u,ould otherwise corne in the way. Likewise, if thewrit petition is kept pending lbr a considerable long period of timeand finally at a later stage if the I{on'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 ['lax] Department would get the advantage of the liberty that is otherwiseprotected in lavour of the Revenue for initiation of freshproceedings lrom 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 TaxDepartment gets an extended period of time for initiation of freshproceedings12. The alarming trend of docket explosion in this Court, despitethe clear precedent set in Kanokulo Rovindra Reddy (l supra), is amatter of grave concem. The Income Tax Department's persistentinitiation of fresh proceedings, disregarding the established [judicial]pronouncemcnts, has led to an unprecedented surge in litigationwith over 600-700 petitions piling up on the same issue. Thisdeiiberate approach not only undermines the principle of [judicial]precedent but also strains the judicial resources unnecessarily. TheDepartment's strategy of awaiting the Supreme Court's decision onpending SLPs while continuing to initiate fresh proceedingsappears to be a calculated move to buy time and circumventlimitation periods, rather than adhering to the established legat position. Such conducl raises serious questions about theadministrative efficiencl and the respect lor [judicial]pronouncements, particularly when this Court has already provideda balanced approach by preserving both the Revenuc's rights andassesses lnterests position. Such conducl raises serious questions about theadministrative efficiencl and the respect lor [judicial]pronouncements, particularly when this Court has already provideda balanced approach by preserving both the Revenuc's rights andassesses lnterests 13. Another aspect which needs to be considered is that in fact itshould have been realized by the lncome Tax Department itself andshould have found out via ntedia in ensuring thal proceedingsunder Sections 148-.4 and 148 should not have been issued in afaceless manner, at least till thc Hon'ble Supreme Court decide thetwelve hundred (1200) odd SLPs which it is already seized of or, atleast the Incorne 1-ax Deparlrnent 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 det'erredwithout precipitating the matter further intirnating the assessee thatthey shalt initiate appropriate proceedings only after the SLP's aredecided by the Hon'ble Supreme Cour.t on the very same rssue.This again, the Income'fax Department, has not been able to give aconvincing reply, except for the fact that such a decision if at all has to be taken, has to be taken for the whole of tndia, and [which]otherwise has to be by way of a policy decision and that too at thelevel of Central Boald of Dircct [-I-axes. ]Though the leamedStanding Counsel fbr the lncome 1'ax Department contended thatthe Delhi High Cout dismissed a writ petition of similar nature, onthe one hand when the l{ igh Court is struggling to reduce itspendency, such notices which are under challenge in this writpetition are fbrcing the assessee to knock the doors of this HighCourt resulting in tiling olhundreds of new writ petitions [which ][in]the long run not only affects the disposal of the [writ ][petitions ][but]also consumes substantial time of the Bench in hearing [these]matters again and again on daily basis. Admittedly, in spite of [the]matter befbre the Hon'ble Supreme Court having been [taken ][on]many occasions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court which is seized of [the]rnatter has been reluctant in granting any interim [protection ][to ][the]Income Tax Depaftment. Yet, the authorities concemed at [the]State level are not ready to accept [the verdict ][passed ][by ][a ][majority]of High Cqrts of dift'erent States [on ][the ][same issue; ][and ][to ][make]\things further worse, the Income Tax Department [is ][showing]audacity by issuing notices continuously under [Sections 148-A ][and] 148 through the jurisdictional Assessing Olficer wher.eas it oughtto have been only in the faceless manner 14. In the case ol BANK OF INDIA vs. ASSISTANTCOMMISSIONER, INCOME TAXr', on an issue whether ir wasj ustiliabte on the part of the Income Tax Departrnent in notfollowing an order passed by the adjudicating authority only on theground that the appeals are pending, the Division tsench of theHigh Court of Bombay held at paragraph No.25 as under, viz.. : "25. Mr. [paridwalla ]has righ y drawn out attention to thedecision of this Court rn Commissioner of lncome Tax vs. Smt.Godavaridevi Sarafl2 as also the recent decision of the co-ordinate Bench of thts 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 havtng not"accepted" the judgment of the High Courl 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.14, theCourt observed that the approach of the of{icials of Revenue oftreating decisions bejng [,,not ]acceptable,, was criticrzed by theSupreme Court. ln such decision, following are the relevantobservations made by the Supreme Court. t,',1.20251 I70 taxmann.com 422 rBornhal.)JI70 taxmann.com 422 rBornhal.)J ' il3 tTR 589 (tsombay) " 1ZOZI1l65 taxmann.com 581/300 ]-axman1ZOZI1l65 taxmann.com 581/300 ]-axman t,',1.20251 I70 taxmann.com 422 rBornhal.)JI70 taxmann.com 422 rBornhal.)J ' il3 tTR 589 (tsombay) " 1ZOZI1l65 taxmann.com 581/300 ]-axman1ZOZI1l65 taxmann.com 581/300 ]-axman to TtOS2l raxmann.com l6155 EI_ 1433 (SC)TtOS2l raxmann.com l6155 EI_ 1433 (SC) 452 (Bombal ) "6. Sri Reddy is perhaps right in saying that theofficers were not actuated by any mala fides inofficers were not actuated by any mala fides inpassing the impugned orders. They perhapsgenurnely 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 correctness orwould suffer. But what Sri Reddy overlooks is that weare not concerned here with the correctness orotherwise of their conclusion or of any factualmalafides but wjth the fact that the officers, in reachingin their conclusion, by-passed two appellate orders inin 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, righflythem, one of the Collector (Appeals) and the other ofthe Tribunal The High Court has, in our view, righflycriticized this conduct of the Assistant Collectors andthe harassment to the assessee caused by the failureof these officers to give effect to the orders ofthe harassment to the assessee caused by the failureof these officers to give effect to the orders ofauthorities hrgher to them in the appellate hierarchy. ltcannot be too vehemently emphasized that it is ofutmost importance that, in disposing of theutmost importance that, in disposing of thequasryudicial issues before them, revenue officers arebound by the decisions of the appellate authorities.The order of the Appellte Collector is binding on theAssistant Collectors working within his jurisdiction andthe order of the Tnbunal is binding upon the AssistantAssistant Collectors working within his jurisdiction andthe order of the Tnbunal is binding upon the AssistantCollectors and the Appellate Collectors who functionunder the iurisdiction of the Tribunat. The principles ofjudicial discipline require that the orders of the higherunder the iurisdiction of the Tribunat. The principles ofjudicial discipline require that the orders of the higherappellate authorities should be followed unreservedlyby the subordinate authoritres. The mere fact that theby the subordinate authoritres. The mere fact that theorder of the appellate authority is not "acceptable', tothe department - rn itself an objectionable phrase -and is the subject matter of an appeal can furnish noand is the subject matter of an appeal can furnish noground for not following it unless its operation hasbeen suspended by a competent court. lf this healthy - 1l rule is not followed, the result will only be [undue]harassment 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 [learned]Additional Solicitor General that the observationsmade by the High Court, have been harsh on theofficers. lt is clear that the observations of the [Hrgh]Court, seemingly vehement, and apparentlyunpalatable to the Revenue, are only [intended ]to [curb]a tendency in revenue matters which, if allowed [to]become widespreaq, could result in [constderable]harassment to the assesses-public without any benefrtto the Revenqe. 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 Judicialdiscipline and the need for giving effect to the ordersof the higher appellate authorities which are [binding]on them." 15. What is worrying this Bench more is the fhct that anendeavour is being made whole heartedly to ensure not to generatelurther 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 Departrnent being violative of the Finance Act,2020 and Finance Act,202l. 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 ofKunkunala Ravindra Reddy (l supra) shall however be subject tothe outcome of the SLPs which were hled by the Income TaxDepartment and which is pending consideration befbre the Hon'bleSupreme Courl 16. In the given f'acts and circumstances, this Bench is of theconsidered opinion that unless and until we do not timely disposeof matters which are squarely covered by the decision of this Courtand which stands fortified by the dccisions of the various otherHigh Courts on the very same issue, the pendency of this HighCourt would further be burdened which otherwise can be decidedand disposed ofas a covered matter. 17 . 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 paragraphsbeen considered and protected, as has been observed in paragraphs 36,37 and 38 of the order which, for ready ref_erence, is reproducedhereunder: 36. For all the aforesaid reasons, the tmpugned noticestssued and the proceedings drawn by the respondent-Department is neither tenable, nor sustainable.The notices so issued andper se iresar, deserves,"':: T;":,J"":::ffiil"::asideiquashed. As a conso rders setti ns q uashed,,r" ;;.1:i: I:":l :::::;by the respondenGDepartment pursuant to the noticesissued under Section 14iquashed and it is ",.0"'."0 [j;:;fi;?[ ][,:j::" ][lJ]are quashing the consequential order is on the principlesthat when the initiation of the proceedings itself wasprocedurally wrong, the sut)sequent orders also getsnurified automaticary. 37. The preliminary objection raised by the petrtioner issustained and all these writ petitions stands allowed onthis very jurisdictional issue. Since the impugned noticesand orders are gefting quashed on the point ofjurisdiction, we are not jnclined to proceed further anddecide the other issues raised by the petitioler whichstands reserved to be !.aised and contended in anappropriate proceedings. 38Since the Hon,ble Supreme Court had, in the caseof Ashish of Ashish Aganayal, 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 rightunder the substituted provisions,and this Court allowingthe petitions .only on the procedural flaw, the right conferred on the Revenue would remain reserved toproceed further if they so want from the stage of theorder of the Supreme Court in the case of AshishAgarwal, supra.Agarwal, 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 earlicr order of this High Cour-t in the case ofKanakala Ravindra Reddy (I supra) is subjected to challengebefore the Hon'ble Suprerne Court in SLp No.3574 of 2024,preferred by the Income Tax Department, we make it clear thatallowing of the instant.writ petition is subject to ourcome of theaforesaid SLP preferred by the Revenue against the decision of thisHigh Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindro Reddy (l supra).This, in other words, would mean that either of the parties, if theyso want, may move an appropriate petition seeking revival of thiswrit petition in the light of the decision of rhe Hon,ble SupremeCourt in the pending SLp on the very same issue. 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 earlicr order of this High Cour-t in the case ofKanakala Ravindra Reddy (I supra) is subjected to challengebefore the Hon'ble Suprerne Court in SLp No.3574 of 2024,preferred by the Income Tax Department, we make it clear thatallowing of the instant.writ petition is subject to ourcome of theaforesaid SLP preferred by the Revenue against the decision of thisHigh Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindro Reddy (l supra).This, in other words, would mean that either of the parties, if theyso want, may move an appropriate petition seeking revival of thiswrit petition in the light of the decision of rhe Hon,ble SupremeCourt in the pending SLp on the very same issue. 19. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands allowedlnfavour of the assessee so f'ar as the issue of jurisdictionISconcemed. As a consequence, the impugned noticc underchallenge under Sections 148-,{ and f4g stands set aside/quashed. The consequentiai orders, if any. also stand set aside/quashed in similar tenns as have becn passed by this High Court in the case olKankanala Ravindra Redtly (l supra). There shall bc no order.asto costs \ Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, i I.any, shail stand closed. ':,}. :;- [--- ][- ][-: ]4 . "ffi.{r;}: .jn#*-ll HIGH COURT DATED:1410712025 ORDER WP.No.20181 of 2025 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITIONWITHOUT COSTS I^d4 fu" 1HE )c(,(r(IL)2 [s ][JiJL ][2025](\\i L)'\, \rtlr.// ..ii)..jIa1,