Wp/204/2025 Of M/S Bhavya Constructions Private Limited v. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax

HIGH COURT - ATHYDERABAD(SPecial Original [Jurisdiction)] MONDAY,THE TWO THOUSAND ,PRESENT THE HONOURABLE [JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY]ANDTHE HONOURABLE [JUSTdENARSING ] WRIT PE [N][ Oz2O4][ OF 2025] Between: M/s Bhawa [Constructions Private ][Lim'rted ]' [8-2-N3t83.tN1 ][to ][3' ][Plot No - A-1']iligri."lft:;#,q*L*1"+9"-.1:,8'ui::3ra#?J&"'iihniliv" VE"igrl-r, [Src iu,- ][V.inanda ][Prasad] ...PETITIONER AND 1rhe.?E8l%."?il*;il'Pffit3l|ff 8,1?L'!fi :'};1(jli'-#,3t?33lbi?#8,1?L'!fi :'};1(jli'-#,3t?33lbi?#, ??:' l?liiPol?'"n"r [commissionel, ][gl ]- [rgry*I"u-i ][f+lyi,.o'i3?:3'13]Tolrn.ane Room NTolrn.ane Room N,, *:;ti'tU;lt3*J:$'ff [li'flll*ff.r*, ][circre ][- ][1(2) ][Hvderabad ][rr]Towers, [Ac ][Guards, ][-"*iiiaik''nyae'aEd ][:,5m ][004' Telansana]Towers, [Ac ][Guards, ][-"*iiiaik''nyae'aEd ][:,5m ][004' Telansana]I Assrssmen, unit, [tnioffi"r'i'iid*itr{' ][uiiionat ][e-Assessment ][ce-nler]New Delhi, [n*- ][uf"l'i6r' ][2ia-F6'' ][e.Camp' ][Jawaharlal Nehru ][stadrum]NeTv Delhi [- ][110 ][003]New Delhi, [n*- ][uf"l'i6r' ][2ia-F6'' ][e.Camp' ][Jawaharlal Nehru ][stadrum]NeTv Delhi [- ][110 ][003] ...RESPONDENTS Petition under [Artrcle ][226 ][of the ][Constitution ][of ][lndia ][praying ][that ][in ][the]circur.nstances [stated ][in ][the ][ffidavit ][filed ][therewith' ][the ][High Court may ][be]pleased to [issue a Writ ][of ][Mandamus ][or ][any other ][appropriate ][Writ' ][Order ][or]Direction. [declaring- ][a ][the ][order ][dated ][27 '04'2023' passed ][u/s ][148A(d) of the Act']videDlNandNoticeNo.ITBA/ASTlFt14BN2o23-2411o52407422(1),bythelStRespondent. [for ][the ][Assessment ][Year ][2016 ]['17 ][and ][b' ][the ][notice ][dated]27 .04 .2023 , [issued ][try ][the ][1 ]['t ][Respondent' u/s ][148 ][of the lncome ][Tax ][Act' ][1 ][961 ][']videDlNandNotice-ITBA/AST/S/148_1t2o23-2411052407550(1),fortheAssessment [Year 2016 ][- ][17 ][as ][arbitrary' ][illegal' ][bad ][in ][law' ][void-ab-initio']violative [of ][the ][principles ][of ][natural ][justice ][apart from ][being ][violative ][of ][Articles] 14, 19(1Xg) and 265 of the Constitution of lndia and Sec. 148A of the lncome TaxAct, 1 961 , and consequently set aside the same in the interests of justiceIA NO: 10F 2025 ' Petition under section 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated inthe affidavit filed in all further proceedings, including support of the petition, any recovery, pursuant the High court may be to the pleased to notice datedstayvide 27ro4r2023' issued DrN & Notice- by the rrBA/AST/s/14 1'r Respondent, u/s 148 0f the rncome Tax Act, 1961,8-1t2023-2411052407550(1), tor theAssessment year 2016 _ 12,. pending disposal of the above Writ petition Counset for the petitioner: SRl. A V A SIVA KARTIKEYA Gounsel for the Respondents: Ms. BOKARO SAPNA REDDY (Jr. sC FoR tNcoME TAXI The Court made the foltowing: ORDER THE HONOURABLE [P'SAM ] ANDTHE HONOURABLE NANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION[ No.204][ o] [2025] ORDER' [(per ][Hon'ble ][Sri ][Justice ][Narsing ][Rao ][Nandikanda)] HeardMr.ThanneruChaitanyaKumar,leamedcounselfor the [petitioner ][and ][Ms' ][B' ][Sapna ][Reddy' ][learned ][Junior ][Standing]Counsel [for ][the ][lncome ][Tax ][Department ][for ][the ][respondents']Perused the [record.] This is a is a [[writ ][petition ]][[petition ]][[where ][the ][proceedings ]][[the ][proceedings ]][[proceedings ]][[are ][either]][[either]] 2. This is a is a [[writ ][petition ]][[petition ]][[where ][the ][proceedings ]][[the ][proceedings ]][[proceedings ]][[are ][either]][[either]]challenged [to ][the ][notices ][which ][were ][issued ][under Section ][l48A]and t48 of [the [ncome ][Tax Act, ][1961 ][(for ][short ]['the ][Act') ][or ][the]assessment [orders those ][have been ][passed ][under ][Section ][147 ][of]the Act [which ][have been assailed'] HeardMr.ThanneruChaitanyaKumar,leamedcounselfor the [petitioner ][and ][Ms' ][B' ][Sapna ][Reddy' ][learned ][Junior ][Standing]Counsel [for ][the ][lncome ][Tax ][Department ][for ][the ][respondents']Perused the [record.] This is a is a [[writ ][petition ]][[petition ]][[where ][the ][proceedings ]][[the ][proceedings ]][[proceedings ]][[are ][either]][[either]] 2. This is a is a [[writ ][petition ]][[petition ]][[where ][the ][proceedings ]][[the ][proceedings ]][[proceedings ]][[are ][either]][[either]]challenged [to ][the ][notices ][which ][were ][issued ][under Section ][l48A]and t48 of [the [ncome ][Tax Act, ][1961 ][(for ][short ]['the ][Act') ][or ][the]assessment [orders those ][have been ][passed ][under ][Section ][147 ][of]the Act [which ][have been assailed'] This writ writ [[petition ]][[is being taken ][up ][today ]][[up ][today ]][[today ]][[only ][on ][one ][of ][the]][[on ][one ][of ][the]][[one ][of ][the]][[of ][the]][[the]] 3. This writ writ [[petition ]][[is being taken ][up ][today ]][[up ][today ]][[today ]][[only ][on ][one ][of ][the]][[on ][one ][of ][the]][[one ][of ][the]][[of ][the]][[the]]that [the ][notices ][issued ][under Section 148A ][of ][the ][Act]grounds, and the subsequent [initiation ][ofproceedings ][under ][Section ][148 ][of]the Act by [the ][jurisdictional ][Assessing ][Officer' ][whereas ][in ][terms]of the amendment [that ][was brought ][to ][the ][Income ][Tax ][Act ][by ][way]of Finance [Act, ][7021 ][w.e'f', ][0l'04'2021 ][onwards' ][proceedings] under Section l4gA of the Act as also under Section l4g of theAct ought to have also been issued and proceeded in a facelessmanner. 4' The contention of the petitioner is that the issue contention of the petitioner is that the issue of the petitioner is that the issue the petitioner is that the issue petitioner is that the issue is that the issue that the issue the issue issue ofproceedings being in violation of the Finance Act, Z02l i.e., theimpugned notices under Section I4gA and Section l4g of the Actnot being issued in a faceless manner, have already been dealt withand decided by this Court in rhe case of KANKANALARAVINDRA REDDY vs. TNCOME_TAX OFFICERT decidedon 14-09.2023 whereby a batch of writ petitions were allowed andthe proceedings initiated under Section l4gA as arso under Section148 of the Act were held to be bad with consequential reliefs on theground of it being in violation olthe provisions of Section l51A ofthe Act read with Notificarion lgl2022 dated 29.03.2022. The said.judgment passed by this Court has also been subsequently followedin a Iarge number of writ petitions which were alrowed on similarterms The contention of the petitioner is that the issue contention of the petitioner is that the issue of the petitioner is that the issue the petitioner is that the issue petitioner is that the issue is that the issue that the issue the issue issue of 'tQ023) 156 taxmann.com l7g (Telangana)l Down [[the ][line, ][we ][find ][that ][the ][same issue ][has ][also ][been]][[line, ][we ][find ][that ][the ][same issue ][has ][also ][been]][[we ][find ][that ][the ][same issue ][has ][also ][been]][[find ][that ][the ][same issue ][has ][also ][been]][[that ][the ][same issue ][has ][also ][been]][[the ][same issue ][has ][also ][been]][[same issue ][has ][also ][been]][[has ][also ][been]][[also ][been]][[been]] The contention of the petitioner is that the issue contention of the petitioner is that the issue of the petitioner is that the issue the petitioner is that the issue petitioner is that the issue is that the issue that the issue the issue issue of 'tQ023) 156 taxmann.com l7g (Telangana)l Down [[the ][line, ][we ][find ][that ][the ][same issue ][has ][also ][been]][[line, ][we ][find ][that ][the ][same issue ][has ][also ][been]][[we ][find ][that ][the ][same issue ][has ][also ][been]][[find ][that ][the ][same issue ][has ][also ][been]][[that ][the ][same issue ][has ][also ][been]][[the ][same issue ][has ][also ][been]][[same issue ][has ][also ][been]][[has ][also ][been]][[also ][been]][[been]] 5. Down [[the ][line, ][we ][find ][that ][the ][same issue ][has ][also ][been]][[line, ][we ][find ][that ][the ][same issue ][has ][also ][been]][[we ][find ][that ][the ][same issue ][has ][also ][been]][[find ][that ][the ][same issue ][has ][also ][been]][[that ][the ][same issue ][has ][also ][been]][[the ][same issue ][has ][also ][been]][[same issue ][has ][also ][been]][[has ][also ][been]][[also ][been]][[been]]decided against [the ][Revenue ][by ][various ][High ][Courts ][i'e'']the [Bombay ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ] by TECHNOLOGIES [LTD', ][vs' ASSISTANT ][COMIVtrSSIONER]oFINCOMETAx&OTHERS2,GauhatiHighCourtinthecaseof RAM [SAH vs' ] [INDIA'^ ][3' ][Punjab ][and]Haryana [High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ] vs. IINION [OF INDIA4, ][and Telangana ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]SRI VENKATARAMANA [VS. ] COMMISSIONER [O[' ] [where the ][issue ][was ][in]of [intemational taxation' ][Bombay ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]respect ABHIN [VS. ] [OFFICE&]INTERNATIONAL [which ][is ][again on ][internatioflal]taxation [and ][central ][circle, High ][Court ][of ][Himachal ][Pradesh ][in ][the]case of [vs' ] [OFFICEFf']Gujarat High [Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ] ' lzozql464 [430 ][(Bom)]'i2ozil [156 ][taxmann.com ][478 ][(Gauhati)l]'i2ozil [156 ][taxmann.com ][478 ][(Gauhati)l] ^ l(2024) [165 ][taxmann.com ] [5 ][(Punjab ][& ][Haryana)l] '12024) [167 ][taxmann.com ][4I1 ][(Telangana)l] " IZOZ+1 [166'tikmann com ][679 ][(Bombay)l ]-'iZOZ+j165 [taxmann.com ] [l3 ][(Himachal ][Pradesh)l]'iZOZ+j165 [taxmann.com ] [l3 ][(Himachal ][Pradesh)l] DAITYABHAI RADADIYA vS. tNCoME TAx OFFICER, WARD 3(3X5)8, Jharkand High Court in the case of SHyAMSUNDAR SAW vs. UNION OF INDIAe, Rajasrhan High Courr inthe case of SHARDA DEVI CIIHAJER vs. INCOME TAXOFFICER & ANOTHER and batch of writ peritionsro whichstood decided on 19.03.2024. Similar views have also been takenby the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in the case ofGIRDHAR GOPAL DALMTA vs. UNrON OF INDIA & ORS(M.A.T 1690 of 2023), decided on25.09.2024.6. Even though the same issue having been decided by a largenumber of High Courts, we are still confronted with large filing ofidentical matters on daily basis ranging between 5 to l0 writpetitions. That upon the instructions being sought from theDepartment, they have been taking a solitary ground that thedecision of the Bombay High Court in the case of HexawareTechnologies Ltd., (2 supra) as also the one which has beendecided by this Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy 'z\z4 SCCOnLine Guj 4012'2025 SCC Online JharZgT'o 12023 : RI-JD :4984_DB l (1 supra) has [been ][subjected ][to ][challenge ][in ][a ][Special ][[rave]Petition [i.e., ] [No.3574 ][of ][2024 ][before ][the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme]Court [and the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Court ][is ][seized ][of ][the ][matter']In addition, [there ][are ][about ][1200 SLPs also ][filed ][arising out ][ofthe]same issue [being ][decided ][by various ][High Courts'] 'z\z4 SCCOnLine Guj 4012'2025 SCC Online JharZgT'o 12023 : RI-JD :4984_DB l (1 supra) has [been ][subjected ][to ][challenge ][in ][a ][Special ][[rave]Petition [i.e., ] [No.3574 ][of ][2024 ][before ][the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme]Court [and the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Court ][is ][seized ][of ][the ][matter']In addition, [there ][are ][about ][1200 SLPs also ][filed ][arising out ][ofthe]same issue [being ][decided ][by various ][High Courts'] To a [[query ][being put ][to ][th" ][t"u*"d ]][[being put ][to ][th" ][t"u*"d ]][[to ][th" ][t"u*"d ]][[th" ][t"u*"d ]][[t"u*"d ]][[counsel ]][[for ][the Revenue']][[the Revenue']] 7. To a [[query ][being put ][to ][th" ][t"u*"d ]][[being put ][to ][th" ][t"u*"d ]][[to ][th" ][t"u*"d ]][[th" ][t"u*"d ]][[t"u*"d ]][[counsel ]][[for ][the Revenue']][[the Revenue']]they have [categorically ][accepted ][the ][fact that ][there ][is ][no interim]order [granted ][by ][the Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Court ][in ][any ][of ][these]matters [pending before ][it' ][Meanwhile' fresh ][writ ][petitions ][of]identical [nature ][are ][being ][piled ][up before ][this ][Bench on ][daily ][basis]and the [pendency ][is ][getting ][increased ][on matter ][which ][otherwise]has already [been dealt ][and decided ][by ][this ][very High ][court ][itself']E. On [the ][one ][hand, ][even though the ][order ][of ][this ][Court ][that]was [passed as ][early ][as ][on ][t4'09'2023 ][and ][more ][16 months ][have]tilt [date, ][we ][do ][not ][find ][any ][remedial ][steps ][having ][been]lapsed, taken by [the ][lncome ][Tax ][Department ][to ][takc ][appropriate ][steps ][to]either hold [back ][issuance ][of ][notice ][under ][Section 148A ][and ][under]Section [148 ][of ][the ][Act ][by ][the jurisdictional ][Assessing ][officer']rather the [authorities ][concerned ][in ][the ][teeth ][of ][series ][of ][decisions] by all the major High Courts in India are contrnuously still initiating proceedings under Section l4gA of the Act and alsoinitiating proceedings under Section l4g of the Act incontravention to the amendments brought into the Income Tax Actpursuant to the Finance Aci-, 2020 as also the Finance Act 2021.9' upon a query being put as to why can,t this writ petition bedisposed of in the teeth of the decision rendered by this Court inthe case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (I supra), learned Standingcounsel for the Income Tax Department contends that those wouldunnecessarily burden the Income Tax Department w.here theywould be required to file equal number of SLps before theHon'ble Supreme Court and it would be further burdening theexchequer of the Union of India. It was also the contention of thelearned Standing Counsel that no prejudice would be caused ro theinterest of the petitioners in case if this writ petirion is kept pendingtill the finalization of the SLps pending before the Hon,bleSupreme Court and the fact that the petitioner is atready enjoyingthe benefit ofinterim protection. Nonetheless, on the earlier queryof this court as to why the Income Tax Department have not comeout with a mechanism to tssue appropriate instructions or to take appropriate [steps ][in ][ensuring that proceedings under Section ][148A]of the Act [as ][also ][the ][assessment ][orders ][under ][Section ][148 ][of ][the]Act are [kept ][in ][a ][hold ][in the ][light ][of ][the decisions ][dedcided ][by ][the]various [High ][Courts, ][it ][was ][submitted ][by ][the ][learned ][Standing]Counsel [that the said ][steps can ][only ][be ][taken at the ][level ][of CBDT]as any [such ][steps ][would ][have ][to ][be taken ][Pan ][lndia ][and ][cannot ][be]limited [to ][any ][of ][these ][jurisdictional ][High Courts'] appropriate [steps ][in ][ensuring that proceedings under Section ][148A]of the Act [as ][also ][the ][assessment ][orders ][under ][Section ][148 ][of ][the]Act are [kept ][in ][a ][hold ][in the ][light ][of ][the decisions ][dedcided ][by ][the]various [High ][Courts, ][it ][was ][submitted ][by ][the ][learned ][Standing]Counsel [that the said ][steps can ][only ][be ][taken at the ][level ][of CBDT]as any [such ][steps ][would ][have ][to ][be taken ][Pan ][lndia ][and ][cannot ][be]limited [to ][any ][of ][these ][jurisdictional ][High Courts'] 10. [As ][a result ][of ][which, what we ][are ][facing ][is ][steep increase ][of]litigation [day ][in ][and ][day ][out ][even though various ][orders have been]passed by [this ][High ][Court ][allowing ][writ ][petitions on the very ][same]issue. [The ][Income ][Tax ][authorities ][concerned ][are ][still ][even ][now ][in]2025 also [initiating ][proceedings ][in ][contravention ][to ][the ][provisions]of Section [l51A ][of ][the ][Act ][and ][as a ][result ][by ][now' ][more ][than ][600]to 700 [petitions have been already ][got ][pited ][up before ][this ][High]Court on [an ][issue ][which ][otherwise ][stands ][squarely covered ][by ][the]judgment of this [Court ][in ][the ][case ][ol ][Kanakala Ravindra ][Reddy](1 supra). [What ][is ][also surprising ][is ][the ][fact ][that ][though ][while]allowing [the ][writ ][petitions ][in ][the ][case ][of ][Kanakala ][Rsvindrs]Redd.y (l [supra), ][the ][Division ][Bench ][while ][reserving ][the ][right ][of]the Revenue, [has also ][protected ][the ][interest ][ol ][the ][petitioners] insofar as the liberty which was granted to the Revenue for initiating fresh proceedings strictly in accordance with the amendedprovisions of the Act, as amended by the Financ e Act, 2020 and,the Finance Act,2021. The petitioner assessee would be entitled tochallenge or raise the other legal objections if the Revenue initiatesfresh proceedings. The Department has made no endeavour inavailing the said liberty that was reserved for the Revenue. On thecontrary, they have been still sticking on to the stand, which thisHigh Court as well as many other High Courts already held to bebad.I l. It appears that because ofthe aforesaid Iiberty that this HighCourt had granted pennitting the Revenue for initiating freshproceedings as a one_time measure in a faceless manner, thelncome Tax Department wants to take advantage of the same byprotracting these proceedings which would enable them to meer thelimitation that would otherwise come in the way. Likewise, if thewrit petition is kept pending for a considerable long penod of timeand finally at a later stage if the Hon,ble Supreme Couft confirmsthe decision raken by this High Court as also by the other HighCourts in which the SLps are still pending, the Income Tax Department [would ][get ][the ][advantage ][of ][the ][liberty ][that is otherwise]in [favour ][of ][the ][Revenue ][for ][initiation ][of ][fresh]protocted proceedings [from ][the disposal ][of ][these ][matters ][at a ][much later ][stage]which [would be ][advantageous ][and ][beneficial ][to ][the ][Revenue ][and]would [be equally ][disadvantageous and ][detrimental ][so ][far ][as ][interest]of the [assesses ][are ][concerned' ][As ][a ][consequence' the Income ][Tax]Department [gets an extended ][period ][of ][time ][for ][initiation ][of ][fresh]proceedings.12. [The ][alarming trend ][of ][docket explosion ][in ][this ][Court' ][despite]the clear [precedent ][set ][in ][Kanakala Ravindra ][Reddy ][(l ][supra)' is ][a]matter of [grave ][concern' The Income ][Tax ][Department's ][persistent]initiation [of ][fresh proceedings' disregarding the ][established ][judicial]pronouncements, [has ][led ][to ][an ][unprecedented ][surge ][in ][litigation]with over [600-700 petitions ][piling up on ][the ][same ][issue' ][This]deliberate [approach ][not only ][undermines ][the principle ][of ][judicial]precedent [but ][also strains ][the ][judicial ][resources ][unnecessarily' The]Department's [sffategy ][of ][awaiting ][the Supreme Court's decision ][on]SLPs [while ][continuing ][to ][initiate ][fresh ][proceedings]pending to [be ][a ][calculated ][move ][to ][buy time ][and ][circumvent]appears timitation [periods, rather ][than ][adhering ][to ][the ][established ][legal] posltion. Such conduct raises serious questions about the administrativeefficiency and therespect for judicialpronouncements, particularly when this Court has already provideda balanced approach by preserving both the Revenue,s rights andpronouncements, particularly when this Court has already provideda balanced approach by preserving both the Revenue,s rights andassesses interests. 13' Another aspect which needs to be considered is that in fact it should have been realized by the Income Tax Department itself andshould have found out via media in ensuring that proceedingsunder Sections I4g_A and l4g should not have been issued in afaceress manner' at least tilr the Hon'ble Supreme court decide thetwelve hundred (1200) odd SLps which it is already seized ofor, atleast the Income Tax Department should have found out someremedial steps to ensure that wherever the authorities intend toinitiate proceedings under Sections 14g_A and l4g, 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 issue.This again, the Income Tax Department, has not been able to give aconvincing reply, except for the fact that such a decision if at all has to be taken, [has ][to ][be ][taken ][for ][the ][whole ][of ][India' ][and ][which]otherwise has [to ][be ][by way ][of ][a ][policy ][decision ][and ][that ][too ][at ][the]level of [Central ][Board ][of ][Direct ][Taxes' ][Though ][the ][learned]Standing Counsel [for ][the ][Income ][Tax ][Department ][contended that]the Delhi [High ][Court ][dismissed ][a ][writ ][petition ][of ][similar ][nature' ][on]the one [hand ][when ][the ][High ][Court ][is ][struggling ][to ][reduce ][its]such [notices ][which ][are under challenge ][in ][this writ]pendency, are [forcing the ][assessee ][to ][knock the ][doors ][of ][this High]petition Court resulting [in ][filing ][of ][hundreds ][of ][new ][writ ][petitions which ][in]the long [run ][not ][only ][affects the ][disposal ][of ][the ][writ ][petitions but]also consumes [substantial ][time ][of ][the ][Bench ][in ][hearing ][these]matters again [and again ][on daily ][basis' ][Admittedly' ][in ][spite ][of ][the]matterbeforetheHon,bleSupremeCourthavingbeentakenonmany occasions, [the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Court which ][is ][seized ][of ][the]matter has [been ][reluctant ][in ][granting any ][interim ][protection ][to ][the]Income Tax [Department' ][Yet, ][the ][authorities ][concemed ][at ][the]State level [are ][not ][ready ][to ][acc€pt ][the ][verdict ][passed ][by ][a ][majority]of High Courts [of ][different ][States ][on the ][same issue; ][and ][to ][make]further [worse, ][the ][Income ][Tax ][Department ][is ][showing]things audacity by [issuing notices ][continuously ][under Sections 148-A ][and] 148 through the jurisdictional Assessing Officer whereas it oughtto have been only in the faceless manner. 14. In the case of BANK OF INDIA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, INCOME TAXil, on an issue whether it wasjustifiable on the part of the lncome Tax Department in notfollowing an order passed by the adjudicating authority only on theground that the appeals are pending, the Division Bench of theHigh Court of Bombay held at paragraph No.25 as under, viz., :following an order passed by the adjudicating authority only on theground that the appeals are pending, the Division Bench of theHigh Court of Bombay held at paragraph No.25 as under, viz., : "25 Mr. [paridwara ]has righry drawn out attention to thedecision of this Court in Commissioner of lncome Tax vs. Smt.Godavaridevi Sarafr2 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. Kurkarni) was a member, whereinthe court categoricaly 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.14, theCourt observed that the approach of the officials of Revenue oftreating decisions being "not acceptable" was criticized by theSupreme Court. ln such decision, following are the relevantobservations made by the Supreme Court. l] ttto_l:, [t70 ][taxmann.corn ][422 ][(Bombay)l] ',' 11978) I l3 ITR 589 (Bombay) t,j,1ZOZ+1 to 165 taxmann.com 5g l/300 Taxman4L2(Bombay) to 719927 taxmann.com l6155 ELT 4j3 (SC) l] ttto_l:, [t70 ][taxmann.corn ][422 ][(Bombay)l] ',' 11978) I l3 ITR 589 (Bombay) t,j,1ZOZ+1 to 165 taxmann.com 5g l/300 Taxman4L2(Bombay) to 719927 taxmann.com l6155 ELT 4j3 (SC) "6. Sri Reddy is [perhaps ][right ][in ][saying ][that ][the]officers [were ][not ][actuated ][by ][any ][mala ][fides ][in]the [impugned ][orders' ][They ][perhaps]passing genuinely felt [that ][the ][claim ][of ][the ][assessee ][was ][not]tenable [and ][that, ][if ][it ][was ][accepted' ][the ][Revenue]would suffer. [But ][what Sri Reddy overlooks ][is ][that ][we]are not [concerned ][here ][with ][the ][correctness ][or]otherwise [of ][their ][conclusion ][or of ][any ][factual]malafides [but with the ][fact ][that ][the officers' ][in reaching]in their conclusion, [by-passed ][two ][appellate orders ][in]to [the ][same issue which ][were ][placed ][before]regard them, one [of ][the Collector (Appeals) and ][the ][other of]the Tribunal. [The ][High Court ][has' ][in our ][view' ][rightly]criticized [this ][conduct ][of the ][Assistant Collectors ][and]the harassment [to ][the ][assessee caused by the failure]of these [officers ][to ][give ][effect ][to ][the ][orders ][of]authorities [higher ][to them ][h ][the appellate ][hierarctry lt]cannot be [too ][vehemently emphasized ][that ][it ][is ][of]utmost [importance ][that, ][in ][disposing ][of ][the]quasijudicial issues [before ][them' ][revenue officers ][are]bound by [the ][decisions ][of ][the ][appellate ][authorities']The order [of ][the ][Appellte ][Collector ][is ][binding ][on ][the]Assistant [Collectors ][working within ][his ][iurisdiction ][and]the order [of the Tribunal ][is ][binding ][upon ][the Assistant]Collectors [and the Appellate ][Collectors ][who ][funct'lon]under the iurisdiction [of ][the ][Tribunal' ][The principtes ][of]judicial discipline [require that ][the ][orders ][of the ][higher]appellate [authorities should be ][followed ][unreservedly]by the subordinate [authorities' The ][mere ][fact that the]order of the [appellate authority ][is ][not ]["acceptable" ][to]the department - [in ][itself ][an ][objectionable ][phrase ][-]and is the subiect [matter ][of an appeal ][can furnish ][no]ground for not following [it ][unless ][its ][operation ][has]been suspended [by a competent ][court ][lf ][this ][healthy] rule is not followed, the result will only be undueharassment to assesses and chaos in administrationof tax laws. 12. We have dealt with this aspect at some length,because it has been suggested by the leamedAdditional Solicitor General that the observationsmade by the High Court, have been harsh on theofficers. lt is clear that the observations of the HighCourt, seemingly vehement, and apparenflyunpalatable to the Revenue, are only intended to curba tendency in revenue matters which, if allowed tobecome widespread, could result in considerableharassment to the assesses_public without any benefitto the Revenue. We would like to say that 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 lhe need for giving effect to the ordersof the higher appellate authorities which are bindingon them." 15. What is worrying this Bench more is the fact that anendeavour is being made whole heartedly to ensure not to generatefurther litigation on issues which have been laid to rest by a largenumber of High Courts all of rvhom have taken a consistent standthat the action of the Income Tax Department being violative of the 15. What is worrying this Bench more is the fact that anendeavour is being made whole heartedly to ensure not to generatefurther litigation on issues which have been laid to rest by a largenumber of High Courts all of rvhom have taken a consistent standthat the action of the Income Tax Department being violative of the Finance AII,ZOZO [and ][Finance ][Act,Zo}l. ][Now, ][in ][order ][to ][protect]the interest [of ][the ][Revenue ][as ][also ][that ][of the ][assessee' ][it ][would ][be]trite at [this juncture, ][if ][we ][dispose ][of ][the ][writ ][petition ][with ][an]observation/direction [that ][the disposal ][of ][the instant ][writ ][petition ][in]terms of [the ][judgment ][rendered ][by ][this ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]Kankanqla [Ravindra ][Redd'y ][(l ][supra) ][shall ][however ][be ][subject to]the outcome [of ][the ][SLPs ][which ][were ][filed by ][the ][Income Tax]Department [and ][which ][is pending consideration before the ][Hon'ble]Supreme [Court.] 16. In [the ][given ][tacts and ][circumstances' ][this ][Bench ][is ][of ][the]considered [opinion ][that ][unless and ][until ][we ][do ][not ][timely ][dispose]of matters [which ][are ][squarely covered ][by ][the decision ][of ][this ][Court]and which [stands ][fortif,red ][by ][the ][decisions ][of ][the ][various ][other]Courts [on ][the very ][same ][issue' ][the ][pendency ][of ][this ][High]High Court would [further ][be ][burdened ][which ][otherwise ][can be decided]and disposed [of ][as a ][covered ][matter'] 17. So far [as ][the ][interest ][of ][the Revenue ][is ][concerned' we ][are ][of]the considered [opinion ][that ][the interest ][ofthe ][Revenue ][has ][already]been considered [and protected, ][as has ][been ][observed ][in ][paragraphs] 36,37 and38 ofthe order which, for ready reference, is reproducedhereunder: 36. For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned noticesissued and the proceedings drawn by the respondent_Department is neither tenable, nor sustainable.The notices so issued and the procedure adopted beingper se illegal, deserves to be and are accordingly setaside/quashed_ As a consrorders gettins quashed,,n. ;;.";T;;: I:.:::::::by the respondent-Department pursuant to the noticesissued under Section 147 and 14g 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 rirasprocedurally wrong, the sullsequent orders also getsnurified automaticary. 37. The preliminary objection raised by the petitioner issustained and all these writ petitions stands allowed onthis very jurisdictional issue. Since the impugned noticesand orders are getting quashed on the point ofjurisdiction, we are not inclined to proceed further anddecide the other issues raised by the petitioner whichstands reserved to be raisedand contended in anappropriate proceedings. 38Since the Hon,ble Supreme Court had, in the caseof AshishAgarwal, supra, as a one-timemeasureexercisingthe powers under Article 142of theConstitution of lndia, permifted the Revenue to proceedunder the substituted provisions, and this Court allowingthe petitions only on the procedural flaw, the right confer, ed [on ][the ][Revenue ][would remain ][reserved ][to]proceed further [if ][they so ][want ][frorn ][the ][stage ][of ][the]order of [the ][Supreme ][Court ][in ][the ][cas6 ][of ][Ashish]Agarwal, supra. 38Since the Hon,ble Supreme Court had, in the caseof AshishAgarwal, supra, as a one-timemeasureexercisingthe powers under Article 142of theConstitution of lndia, permifted the Revenue to proceedunder the substituted provisions, and this Court allowingthe petitions only on the procedural flaw, the right confer, ed [on ][the ][Revenue ][would remain ][reserved ][to]proceed further [if ][they so ][want ][frorn ][the ][stage ][of ][the]order of [the ][Supreme ][Court ][in ][the ][cas6 ][of ][Ashish]Agarwal, supra. 18. [We would ][only ][further ][like ][to ][make observations ][that ][since]we are inclined [to ][dispose ][of ][the instant ][writ ][petition' ][conscious ][of]the fact [that ][the ][earlier ][order.of this ][High ][Court ][in ][thecase ][of]Kanakala [Ravindra ][Reddy ][(l ][supra) ][is ][subjected ][to ][challenge]before the [Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Court ][in ][SLP No'3574 ][of ][2024']prefen'ed by [the ][[ncome ][Tax ][Department, ][we ][make ][it ][clear ][that]altowing o[ [the ][instant ][writ ][petition ][is ][subject to outcome ][of ][the]aforesaid [SLP preferred by the ][Revenue against the ][decision ][of ][this]HighCourtinthecaseolKanakalaRavindraRefuIy(lsupra).This, in ottrer [words, would ][mean that either ][of ][the ][parties' ][if ][they]so want, [may move ][an appropriate ][petition ][seeking ][revival ][of ][this]writ petition in [the tight ][ol ][the decision ][of ][the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme]Court in [the ][pending ] [on ][the ][very ][same ][issuo'] 19. Accordingty, [the ][instant ][writ ][petition ][stands ][allowed ][in]favour of the [assessee ][so far ][as ][the ][issue ][of ][jurisdiction ][is]concerned. [As ][a ][consequence, ][the ][impugned.notice ][under]challengeunderSectionsl48.Aandl48standssetaside/quashed. II The consequential orders, if any, atso stand set aside/quashed insimilar terms as have been passed by this High court in the case ofKonkanala Ravindra Reddy (l supra). There shall be no order asto costs. Consequently, niscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- T. VIJAY KUMAR//TRUE COPYII{lw REGIsTRARECTION OFFICERECTION OFFICERTo,1. The Deputy Commissioner of lncome TaxCircle(1),Hyderabad, Room004,No.- Telangana.722,7th Floor, lT Towers, AC Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad - 5001. The Deputy Commissioner of lncome TaxCircle(1),Hyderabad, Room004,No.- Telangana.722,7th Floor, lT Towers, AC Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad - 5002. ThePrincipal Chief Commissioner of lncome Tax, Andhra pradesh andTelangana- Room No.- 922, 9th Floor,BBlock, l.T.Towers, 10-2-3, ACGuards, Hyderabad - 500 004. Teta nganaTelangana- Room No.- 922, 9th Floor,BBlock, l.T.Towers, 10-2-3, ACGuards, Hyderabad - 500 004. Teta ngana3. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. Circle1(2), Hyderabad, lTTowers, AC Guards, Masab Tank,Hyderabad - 500 004, TetanganaTowers, AC Guards, Masab Tank,Hyderabad - 500 004, Tetangana4. Assessrnent Unit, lnmme Tax Deparlment. National e-Assessment CenterNew Delhi, Room No.- 4O1,2nd Floor. E-Ramp. Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium,New Delhi - 1,10 003New Delhi, Room No.- 4O1,2nd Floor. E-Ramp. Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium,New Delhi - 1,10 0035. One CC to SRl. A.V .A .SIVA KART|KEyA. Advocare tOpUCl6. One CC to Ms. BOKARO SAPNA REDDY (Jr. SC' FOR ['|NCOME ]TAX)IoPUCI6. One CC to Ms. BOKARO SAPNA REDDY (Jr. SC' FOR ['|NCOME ]TAX)IoPUCI7. Two CD CopiesBMGJPBMGJP HIGH COURT DATED:2810412025 toRTIi)iA,f,22 llUE M/,\1 ORDER WP.No.20 4 of 2025 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS )otr