Wp/2215/2025 Of Mir Ashfaq Zaheer v. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction) I\4ONDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF APRILTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYAND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA WRIT PETITIO N NO: 2215 0F 2025 Between: IVir Ashfaq Zaheer, # Flat No 603, White house Apartments, Road No.13.Banjara Hitts, Hyderabad, Tetangana-SOO 034. (pAN:'hACp2siiszR) [- '" ]['"]Banjara Hitts, Hyderabad, Tetangana-SOO 034. (pAN:'hACp2siiszR) [- '" ]['"] ...PETITIONER AND 1Assessment Unit, lncome Tax Department, National e- Assessment Center,Room No.40'l , 2nd Floor, E-Ramp,'Jawahaltat Neh, SltaOium, New Oef ni-?ifiRoom No.40'l , 2nd Floor, E-Ramp,'Jawahaltat Neh, SltaOium, New Oef ni-?ifi003. 2. Income. Tax_Officer, Wa1^d^ 3-(] ), 7th Flooi, B- Btock, tT Towers, AC Guards,Hyderabad, Telangana-500 028.Hyderabad, Telangana-500 028. 3. Principal chief commissioner of rncome Tax, Andhra pradesh andlglalOana, [Hyderabad ][10-2-.3-, ][Room ][No.922, ][gth ]ftoor, b Afo.k,-tT To*Err,AC Guards. Hyderabad-500 004.lglalOana, [Hyderabad ][10-2-.3-, ][Room ][No.922, ][gth ]ftoor, b Afo.k,-tT To*Err,AC Guards. Hyderabad-500 004. ,..RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 ol rhe constitution of lndia praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may bepleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order ordirectiondirection (a) declaring the notice issued by the 2nd Respondent under Section i48A(b)dated 24.02.2024, bearing DrN- IrBA/AST/F/i 48A(scNy2023-24/'1061463300(1) and order passed by 2nd Respondent under section 14BA(d)dated 1 5. 3.2024, bearing DtN- |rBA/AST tF t 1 48 At 2o23-24r 1 062684076(.r ) andnotice under section 148 of the lncome Tax Act, 196'l , dated 1s.3.2024, bearingDIN- lrBA/ASTlsll48-112023-2411062691377(1), for the assessmen t year 2017- '18 as without jurisdiction and contrary to faceless assessment procedure laiddown in Section 144Bof the lncome TaxAct [1961,] (b) declaring the consequential notice issued by the [1st ][Respondent, ][under]Section 142 [(1) ]of the lncome [Tax Act, ][196 ][1. ][dated ][30.12.2024, ][bearing ] ITBA/AST/S/1 42(1)2024-2511071677784(1), [for ][the assessment ][year ][2017-18 ][as]without Jurisdiction, arbitrary, illegal, bad [in ][law, ][void-ab-initio, ][apart ][from ][being]vioiative of Articles 14, 19(1Xg) and 265 of the [Constitution ][of ][lndia ][and ][contrary]to faceless assessment [procedure laid ][down in Section ][1448 ][oI ][the ][lncome ][Tax]Act 1961 , and consequently sel-aside [the ][same ][in ][the ][interests ][of ][justice.] lA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 ][impugned]notice issued by the Pt Respondent, under Section [142(1) ][of ][the ][lncome ][Tax ][Act,]196'1 , dated 3A12.2024, bearing DIN- [ITBA/AST/S/142(1)12024-]2511071677784(1 ) for the assessment [year ]2017-18 [and the ][order ][passed ][by ][the]2nd Respondent under Section 148-A(d) bearing [lF 1148A.12023-]241 1062684076(1) dated 15.03.2024, [pending disposal ][of the ][Writ Petition ][as]otherwise the Petitioner will be [put ]to severe loss [and ][hardship.] Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI S.VIJAY Counsel for the Respondents: Ms. B.SAPNA REDDY, [Jr. ] The Court made the following: ORDER TI{E HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTIIE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAONANDIKONDAWRIT PETITION No.2215 OF 2025 ORDER, lper Hon'ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy) Heard Mr. S.Vrjay Adithya, Ieamed counsel for the petitioner and Ms. B.Sapna Reddy, learned Junior StandingCounsel for the Income Tax Department for the respondents.Perused the record. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI S.VIJAY Counsel for the Respondents: Ms. B.SAPNA REDDY, [Jr. ] The Court made the following: ORDER TI{E HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTIIE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAONANDIKONDAWRIT PETITION No.2215 OF 2025 ORDER, lper Hon'ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy) Heard Mr. S.Vrjay Adithya, Ieamed counsel for the petitioner and Ms. B.Sapna Reddy, learned Junior StandingCounsel for the Income Tax Department for the respondents.Perused the record. 2. This is a writ petition where the proceedings are eitherchallenged to the notices which were issued under Section l48Aand 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') or theassessment orders those have been passed under Section 147 ofthe Act which have been assailed. 3. This writ petition is being taken up today only on one of thegrounds, that the notices issued under Section 1484. of the Actand the subsequent initiation of proceedings under Section 148 ofthe Act by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, whereas in termsof the amendment that was brought to the Income Tax Act by wayof Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f., 01.04.2021 onwards, proceedings under Section [148.4 ][of ][the ][Act ][as ][also under Section 148 ][of ][the]Act ought to [have also been ][issued ][and ][proceeded ][in ][a ][faceless]manner4. The contention [of ][the ][petitioner ][is ][that ][the ][issue ][of]proceedings [being ][in ][violation ][of ][the Finance Act' ][2021 ][i ][e'' ][the]impugned [notices ][under Section ][148,4. ][and ][Section ][148 ][of ][the ][Act]not being [issued ][in ][a faceless ][manner' ][have already ][been dealt ][with]and decided [by ][this ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ][KANI(ANALA]RAVTNDRA [REDDY vs' ] [decided]on 14.09.2023 [whereby ][a ][batch of ][writ ][petitions ][were ][allowed ][and]the proceedings [initiated under Section ] [as also ][under ][Section]148 of the [Act ][were held ][to be bad ][with ][consequential ][reliefs ][on ][the]ofit [being ][in violation ][ofthe ][provisions ][ofSection ][151A ][of]ground the Act [read ][with ][Notification ][l8lZO22 ][datedzg'}3 ][2022' ][The said]judgment passed by [this Court ][has ][aiso been ][subsequently ][followed]in a large [number ][of ][writ ][petitions ][which ][were allowed on ][similar]terms. 'l(2023) [156 ][taxmann.com ][178 ][(Telangana)l] 5Down the line, we find that the same issue has also beendecided against the Revenue by various High Courts i.e.,by the Bombay High Court in the case of HEXAWARETECHNOLOGIES LTD., vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONERby the Bombay High Court in the case of HEXAWARETECHNOLOGIES LTD., vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX & OTHERS2, Gauhati High Court in the caseof RAM NARAYAN SAII vs. UNION Of,, INDIA3, punjab andHaryana High Court in the case of JATINDER SINGH BANGUvs. UNION OF INDIA4, and Telangana High Court in the case ofSRI VENKATARAMANA SINGH BANGUvs. UNION OF INDIA4, and Telangana High Court in the case ofSRI VENKATARAMANA REDDY PATLOOLA vs. DEPUTYCO.I\{MISSIONER OF INCOME TAX5 where the issue was inCO.I\{MISSIONER OF INCOME TAX5 where the issue was inrespect of international taxation, Bombay High Court in the case ofABHIN ANILKUMAR ABHIN ANILKUMAR SHAH vs. INCoME TAx OFFICER,INTERNATIONAL TAXATION6 which is again on intemationaltaxation and central OFFICER,INTERNATIONAL TAXATION6 which is again on intemationaltaxation and central circle, High Court of Himachat pradesh in thecase of GOVII$D SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERi,OFFICERi,Gujarat High Court in the case of MANSUKHBHAf'yzoz+1464 [rrR ][430 ][(Bom)]'[(2024) 156 taxmann.com 478 (Gauhati)]^ [(2024) I65 taxmann.com I l5 (punjab & Haryana)J'12024) [167 ]taxmaiur.com 411 (Telangana)l" [2024) 166 taxmann.com 679 (Bombay)]'[2024) 165 taxmann.com I 13 (Himachal [pradesh)]]'yzoz+1464 [rrR ][430 ][(Bom)]'[(2024) 156 taxmann.com 478 (Gauhati)]^ [(2024) I65 taxmann.com I l5 (punjab & Haryana)J'12024) [167 ]taxmaiur.com 411 (Telangana)l" [2024) 166 taxmann.com 679 (Bombay)]'[2024) 165 taxmann.com I 13 (Himachal [pradesh)]] DAHYABHAI [vs' INCOME ] [OFFICER']WARD 3(3Xr8, [Jharkand ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ] SUNDAR [vs' ][UNION OF INDIAe' ][Rajasthan ][High ][Court in]the case [of ] [vs' INCOME TAX]OFFICER [& ] [and ][batch ][of ][writ ][petitionsro ][which]stood [decided ][on ][19'03'2024' ][Similar views ][have ][also ][been ][taken]the [Division ][Bench ][of ][Calcutta ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]by GIRDHAR [vs' ] [& ] 1690 [of ][2023), decided ][on25'09'2024'](M.A.T Even though [[the ][same issue ]][[same issue ]][[having ]][[been decided ]][[by ][a ][large]][[a ][large]][[large]] 6. Even though [[the ][same issue ]][[same issue ]][[having ]][[been decided ]][[by ][a ][large]][[a ][large]][[large]]number [of ][High ][Courts, ][we ][are ][still ][conTronted ][with ][large ][frling ][of]identicalmattersondailybasisrangingbetween5tol0writThat [upon ][the ][instructions ][being ][sought ][from ][the]petitions. Department, [they ][have ][been ][taking ][a ][solitary ][ground ][that ][the]decision of [the ][Bombay ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ][Hexawate]Technologies Ltd-, [(2 ][supra) ][as also ][the one which ][has ][been]decided by [this ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ][Kanakala Ravindra ][Reddy] 82024 scc online Guj 4ol2" [2025 ] [Online ][Jhar 287]'o 1zoz3 [: ] [:49 ][84-DBl]" [2025 ] [Online ][Jhar 287]'o 1zoz3 [: ] [:49 ][84-DBl] (l supra) has been subjected to chailenge in a Speciar LeavePetition i.e., SLp No.3574 of 2024 before the Hon,ble SupremeCourt and the Hon,ble Supreme Court is seized of the matter.In addition, there are about 1200 SLps also filed arising out ofthesame 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 6n matter which otherwisehas already been dealt and decided by this very High Court itself.8. Oir the one hand, even though the order of this Court thatwas passed as early as on 14.09.2023 atd, more 16 months haveIapsed, till date, we do not find any remedial steps having beentaken by the Income Tax Department to take appropriate steps toeither hold back issuance of notice under Section l4gA and underSection 148 of the Act by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer,rather the authorities concemed in the teeth of series of decisions the [major ][High ][Courts ][in ][India ][are ][continuously still]by all initiating [proceedings ][under ][Section 148A ][of ][the ][Act ][and ][also]initiating [proceedings ][under ][Section ][148 ][of ][the ][Act ][in]contravention [to ][the amendments ][brought into the Income Tax ][Act]pursuant to the [Finance ][Act,2020 ][as ][also ][the ][Finance ][Act202l'] the [major ][High ][Courts ][in ][India ][are ][continuously still]by all initiating [proceedings ][under ][Section 148A ][of ][the ][Act ][and ][also]initiating [proceedings ][under ][Section ][148 ][of ][the ][Act ][in]contravention [to ][the amendments ][brought into the Income Tax ][Act]pursuant to the [Finance ][Act,2020 ][as ][also ][the ][Finance ][Act202l'] g. Upon a [query ][being ][put ][as ][to ][why ][can't this ][writ ][petition ][be]of [in ][the teeth ][of ][the ][decision ][rendered ][by ][this ][Court in]disposed the case of [Kanakala Ravindra ][Retldy ][(| ][supra), learned Standing]Counsel [for ][the ][Income ][Tax Depaftment ][contends that ][those ][would]unnecessarily [br-lr<ien ][the ][lncome ][Tax ][Department ][where ][they]would be [required ][to ][hle ][equal ][nuriber ][of ][SLPs before ][the]Hon'ble [Supreme ][Corrrt and ][it ][would be ][further ][burdening ][the]exchequer [of ][the ][Union ][cf ][India' ][It ][was ][also ][the contention ][of ][the]learned Standing [Counsel ][that ][no ][prejudice ][would ][be ][caused ][to ][the]interest of [the ][petitioners in ][case ][if ][this ][writ ][petition ][is ][kept ][pending]till the finalization [of ][the ][SI-Ps pending before ][the ][Hon'ble]Court [and ][the ][fact that ][the ][petitioner ][is ][already enjoying]Supreme the benefit [of ][interim ][protection' ][Nonetheless, on the ][earlier query]of this Court [as ][to ][why ][the Income ][Tax ][Department have ][not ][come]out with [a mechanism ][to ][issue ][appropriate instructions ][or ][to ][take] appropriate steps in ensuring that proceedings tinddn.section 14gAof the Act as also the assessment orders under Section l4g of theAct are kept in a hold in the light of the decisions dedcided by thevarious High courts, it was submitted by the learned Standing' Counsel 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. The Income Tax authorities concemed are still even now in2025 also initiating proceedings in contravention to the provisionsof Section l5lA of the Act and as a result by now, more than 600to 700 petitions have been already got piled up before this HighCourt on an issue which otherwise stands squarely covered by thejudgment of this Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy(1 supra). What is also surprising is the fact that though whileallowing the writ petitions in the case of Kanakala RavindraReddy (l supra),.the Division Bench while reserving the right ofthe Revenue, has also protected the interest of the petitioners insofar [as ][the ][liberty which ][was ][granted ][to ][the ][Revenue ][for]initiating [fresh proceedings ][strictly in ][accordance ][with ][the ][amended]of [the ][Act, ][as amended ][by ][the Finance ][Act' ][2020 ][and]provisions the Finance [Act,202l. ][The ][petitioner ][assessee ][would ][be ][entitled ][to]challenge [or ][raise the other ][legal ][objections ][if ][the ][Revenue ][initiates]fresh proceedings. [The ][Department ][has ][made ][no ][endeavour ][in]availing [the ][said ][liberty ][that was reserved ][for the ][Revenue' ][On the]contrary, [they ][have ][been ][still ][sticking on ][to ][the ][stand' ][which ][this]Court [as ][well ][as ][many other ][High ][Courts ][already ][held ][to ][be]High bad. insofar [as ][the ][liberty which ][was ][granted ][to ][the ][Revenue ][for]initiating [fresh proceedings ][strictly in ][accordance ][with ][the ][amended]of [the ][Act, ][as amended ][by ][the Finance ][Act' ][2020 ][and]provisions the Finance [Act,202l. ][The ][petitioner ][assessee ][would ][be ][entitled ][to]challenge [or ][raise the other ][legal ][objections ][if ][the ][Revenue ][initiates]fresh proceedings. [The ][Department ][has ][made ][no ][endeavour ][in]availing [the ][said ][liberty ][that was reserved ][for the ][Revenue' ][On the]contrary, [they ][have ][been ][still ][sticking on ][to ][the ][stand' ][which ][this]Court [as ][well ][as ][many other ][High ][Courts ][already ][held ][to ][be]High bad. 11. It appears [that ][because ][ofthe ][aforbsaid ][liberty ][that ][this High]Court had [granted ][permitting the ][Revenue ][for ][initiating ][fresh]as [a ][one-time ][measure ][in ][a ][faceless ][manner' ][the]proceedings Income Tax [Department wants ][to ][take ][advantage ][of ][the ][same ][by]these [proceedings ][which would ][enable ][them ][to ][meet ][the]protracting limitation that would [otherwise ][come ][in ][the ][way' ][Likewise, ][if ][the]writ petition [is ][kept ][pending ][for ][a ][considerable ][long ][period of ][time]and finally at [a ][later ][stage ][if ][the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Court confirms]the decision takeh by [this ][High ][Court ][as ][also ][by ][the ][other High]Courts in which the [SLPs ][are ][still ][pending, ][the ][Income ][Tax] Depafiment would get the advantage of the liberty that is otherwiseprotected in favour of the Revenue for initiation of freshprotected in favour of the Revenue for initiation of freshproceedings from the disposal ofthese matters at a much later stagewhich would be advantageous and beneficial to the Revenue andwould be equally disadvantageous and detrimental so tar as interestof the assesses are concerned. As a consequence, the Income TaxDepartment gets an extended period of time for initiation of freshproceedings.which would be advantageous and beneficial to the Revenue andwould be equally disadvantageous and detrimental so tar as interestof the assesses are concerned. As a consequence, the Income TaxDepartment gets an extended period of time for initiation of freshproceedings. 12. The alarming trend of docket explosion in this Court, despitethe clear precedent set in Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra), is amatter of grave concem. The Income Tdx Department,s persistentinitiation of fresh proceedings, disregarding the established judicialpronouncements, has led to an unprecedented surge in litigationwith over 600-700 petitions piling up on the same issue. Thisdeliberate approach not only undermines the principle ofjudicialprecedent 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 legal position. Such [conduct ][raises ][serious ][questions ][about ][the]administrative [efhciency ][and ][the ][respect ][for ][judicial]pronouncements, [particularly when this Court ][has ][already ][provided]a balanced [approach ][by ][preserving ][both the ][Revenue's ][rights ][and]assesses [interests.] position. Such [conduct ][raises ][serious ][questions ][about ][the]administrative [efhciency ][and ][the ][respect ][for ][judicial]pronouncements, [particularly when this Court ][has ][already ][provided]a balanced [approach ][by ][preserving ][both the ][Revenue's ][rights ][and]assesses [interests.] 13. Another [aspect ][which ][needs to ][be considered ][is ][that ][in ][fact ][it]should have [been ][realized ][by ][the Income ][Tax ][Department ][itself ][and]should have [found ][out via ][media ][in ][ensuring ][that ][proceedings]under Sections [148-A and 148 ][should ][not ][have ][been ][issued ][in ][a]faceless manner, [at ][least ][tilt ][the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Court ][decide ][the]twelve hundred [(i200) ][odd SLPs ][whichit ][is ][already ][seized ][ofor' ][at]least the Income [Tax ][Department ][should ][have ][found ][out ][some]remedial steps to [ensure ][that ][wherever ][the ][authorities intend ][to]initiate proceedings [under Sections 148-A and ][t48' ][other ][than ][in ][a]faceless manner, [the ][proceedings ][should have been ][deferred]without precipitating [the ][matter ][further intimating ][the ][assessee ][that]they shall [initiate ][appropriate ][proceedings ][only after ][the ][SLP's ][are]decided by [the Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Court ][on ][the ][very ][same ][issue']This again. the [Inbome ][Tax ][Department, ][has ][not been ][able ][to ][give ][a]convincing [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 whichotherwise has to be by wayof a policy decision and, thattoo at thelevel of Central Board of Djrect Taxes. Though the learnedStanding Counsel for the Income Tax Department contended thatthe Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition of similar nafure, onthe one hand when the High Court is struggling to reduce itspendency, such notices which are under challenge in this writpetition are forcing the assessee to knock the doors of this HighCourt resulting in filing of hundreds of new writ petitions which inthe long run not onry affects the disposar of the writ petitions butalso consumes substantial time of the Bench in hearing thesematters again and again on daily basis. Admittedly, in spite of thematter before the Hon,ble Supreme Court having been taken onmany occasions, the Hon,ble Supreme Court which is seized of thematter has been reluctant in granting any interim protection to theIncome Tax Department. yet, the authorities concemed at theState level are not ready to accept the verdict passed by a majorityof High Courts of different States on the same issue; and to makethings further worse, the Income Tax Department is showingaudacity by issuing notices continuously under Sections l4g_A and .i't;,j 1*i. inr,;r,gh [..tie ]'j [. ][risdl;ironal ] [sses:;ing ][Officer ][whereas ][it ][ought]to have [been ][only ][in ][the ][faceless ][manner'] 14. In [the ][case ][of ] [vs' ] COMMISSIONER, [TAXrr' ][on ][an issue ][whether ][it ][was]justifiable on the [part ][of ][the ][Income ][Tax ][Department ][in ][not]following [an ][order ][passed ][by ][the adjudicating authority ][only ][on ][the]that [the ][appeals ][are ][pending' ][the Division ][Bench ][of ][the]ground High Court [of ][Bombay ][held ][at ][paragraph ][No'25 ][as ][under' ][viz'' ][:] .i't;,j 1*i. inr,;r,gh [..tie ]'j [. ][risdl;ironal ] [sses:;ing ][Officer ][whereas ][it ][ought]to have [been ][only ][in ][the ][faceless ][manner'] 14. In [the ][case ][of ] [vs' ] COMMISSIONER, [TAXrr' ][on ][an issue ][whether ][it ][was]justifiable on the [part ][of ][the ][Income ][Tax ][Department ][in ][not]following [an ][order ][passed ][by ][the adjudicating authority ][only ][on ][the]that [the ][appeals ][are ][pending' ][the Division ][Bench ][of ][the]ground High Court [of ][Bombay ][held ][at ][paragraph ][No'25 ][as ][under' ][viz'' ][:] -25. Mr. PariCrvalla has rightly drawn [out ][attention ][to ][the]decision of [this ][Court in ][Commissioner ][of ][lncome ][Tax ][vs' ][Srnt']Godavaridevi [Sarafl2 ][as ][also ][the ][recent ][decision ][of ][the ][co-]ordlnate [Bench of ][this ][Court ][in ][Samp ][Ftirniture ][(P) ][Ltd' ][v' ][lTOl3]of vrhich one [of ][us ][(Justice G ] [Kulkarni) was ][a ][member' wherein]the Court [categoiically observed ][that ][the ][Revenue ][having ][not]"accepted" the iudgment [of ][the ][High Court would ][not ][mean ][that ][till]the same [is ][set aside in a manner known ][to ][law' ][it ][would ][loose ][its]binding [force. ][Referring ][to the ][decision ][of the ][Supreme ][Court ][in]Union of [lndia ][vs' ][Kamlakshi Finance ][Corporation ][Ltd'14' the]Court observed [that ][the ][approach ][of the ][officials ][of ][Revenue of]decisions [being ]["not ][acceptable" ][was ][criticized ][by ][the]treating Supreme Court. [ln ][such ][decision, ][following ][are the ][relevant]observations [made by ][the ][Supreme Court'] tt 71zozs1 [170 ][taxmann.com ][422 ][(Bombay)l]t' 113 ITR 589 (Bombav);t9781 tt 7z02+1165 taxmann.com 581/300 Taxman 452 (Bombay) to l'.9921taxmann.coin | 5/55 ELT 433 (SC) tt 71zozs1 [170 ][taxmann.com ][422 ][(Bombay)l]t' 113 ITR 589 (Bombav);t9781 tt 7z02+1165 taxmann.com 581/300 Taxman 452 (Bombay) to l'.9921taxmann.coin | 5/55 ELT 433 (SC) "6. Sri Reddy is perfiaps right , in . saying that theofficers were not actuated by any mala fides inpassing the impugned orders. They perhapsgenuinely felt that the claim of the assessee was nottenable and that, if it was accepted, the Revenuetenable and that, if it was accepted, the Revenuewould suffer. But what Sri Reddy overlooks is that weare not concerned here with the correcthess orotherwise of their conclusion or of any factualmalafides but with the fact that the officers, in reachingin their conclusion, by-passed two appellate orders inregard to the same issue which were placed beforethem, one of the Collector (Appeals) and the other ofthe Tribunal. The High Court has, in our view, righflycriticized this conduct of the Assistant Collectors andthe harassment lo the assessee caused by the failureare not concerned here with the correcthess orotherwise of their conclusion or of any factualmalafides but with the fact that the officers, in reachingin their conclusion, by-passed two appellate orders inregard to the same issue which were placed beforethem, one of the Collector (Appeals) and the other ofthe Tribunal. The High Court has, in our view, righflycriticized this conduct of the Assistant Collectors andthe harassment lo the assessee caused by the failureof these officers to give effect to the orders ofauthorities higher to.them in the appellate hierarchy. ltcannot be too vehemently empha.sized that it is ofutmost importance that, in disposing of thequasijudicial issues before them, revenue officers areauthorities higher to.them in the appellate hierarchy. ltcannot be too vehemently empha.sized that it is ofutmost importance that, in disposing of thequasijudicial issues before them, revenue officers arebound by the decisions of the appellate authorities.The order of the Appellte Collector is binding on theThe order of the Appellte Collector is binding on theAssistant Collectors working within his jurisdiction andthe order of the Tribunal is binding upon the AssistantCollectors and the Appellate Collectors who functionunder the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The principles ofjudicial discipline require that the orders of the higherappellate authorities should be fo owed unreservedlythe order of the Tribunal is binding upon the AssistantCollectors and the Appellate Collectors who functionunder the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The principles ofjudicial discipline require that the orders of the higherappellate authorities should be fo owed unreservedlyby the subordinate authorities. The mere fact that theorder of the appellate authority is not "acceptable,' toorder of the appellate authority is not "acceptable,' tothe department - in 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 rule is not [followed, ][the ][result ][will ][only ][be ][undue]harassment [to ][assesses ][and ][chaos ][in ][administration]of tax laws. rule is not [followed, ][the ][result ][will ][only ][be ][undue]harassment [to ][assesses ][and ][chaos ][in ][administration]of 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 ][observations]made by the [High Court' ][have ][been ][harsh ][on ][the]officers. lt [is ][clear that ][the ][observalions ][of ][the ][High]Court, seemingly [vehement, ][and ][apparently]unpalatable [to the ][Revenue, are ][only ][intended ][to ][curb]a tendency [in ][revenue matters ][which, ][if ][allowed ][to]become widespread, [could result ][in ][considerable]harassment to the [assesses-public without ][any ][benefit]to the Revenue- [We ][would ][like ][to ][say that ][the]department [should take these ][observations ][in ][the]The [observations ][pf ][the ][High ][Court]proper spirit. should be [kept ][in ][mind ][in ][future ][and ][the ][utmost ][regard]should be [paid ][by ][the ][ad.iudicating ][authorities ][and ][the]appellate authorities [to ][the ][requirements ][of ][iudicial]discipline [and ][the ][need ][for giving effect to ][the ][orders]of the higher [appellate authorities ][which are ][binding]on them." 15. What is [worrying ][this ][Bench ][more ][is ][the ][fact ][that ][an]endeavour is being [made ][whole heartedly ][to ][ensure ][not ][to ][generate]further litigation [on ][issues ][which ][have been ][laid ][to ][rest ][by ][a ][large]number of High [Courts ][all ][of whom ][have ][taken a ][consistent ][stand]that the action [of ][the ][lncome Tax ][Department being ][violative ][of ][the] Finance Act, 2020 and Finance Act,2021. Now, in order to protectthe interest of the Revenue as also that of the assessee, it would betrite at this juncture, if we dispose of the writ petition with anobservation/direction that the disposar of the instant writ petition interms of the judgment rendered by this High Court in the case ofKankunala Ravindra Reddy (l supra) shall however be subject tothe outcome of the SLps which were filed by the Income TaxDepartment and which is pending consideration before the Hon,bleSupreme Court. 16. In the given facts and circumstances, this Bench is of theconsidered opinion that unless and until.we do not timely disposeof matters which are squarely covered by the decision of this Courtand which stands fortified by the decisions of the various otherHigh Courls on the very same issue, the pendency of this HighCourt would further be burdened which otherwise can be decidedand disposed ofas a covered matter. 17. So far as the interest of the Revenue is concemed, we are ofthe considered opinion that the interest of the Revenue has alreadybeen considered and protected, as has been observed in paragraphs 36,3Tand38oftheorderwhich,forreadyreference,isreproduced hereunder: 36. For [all ][the ][aforesaid reasons' ][the ][impugned notices]issued and [the ][proceedings drawn ][by ][the- ][respondent-]Department [is ][neither ][tenable' ][nor ][sustainable']The notices [so ][issued and ][the ][procedure adopted ][being]per se illegal, [deserves ][to ][be ][and ][are ][accordingly ][set]aside/quashed. [As ][a ][consequence' ][all ][the ][impugned]orders [getting quashed, ][the ][consequential orders ][passed]by the respondent-Department [pursuant ][to ][the ][notices]issued [under ][Section ][147 and ][148 ][would ][also ][get]quashed and it [is ][ordered ][accordingly The ][reason ][we]are [quashing ][the ][consequential order ][is ][on ][the ][principles]that when [the ][initiation ][of ][the ][proceedings ][itself ][was]procedurally [wrong, ][the ][subsequent orders ][also ][gets]nullified [automaticallY'] 37. The [preliminary objection raised by ][the ][petitioner ][is]sustained [and ][all ][these ][writ ][petitions stands ][allowed ][on]this [very jurisdictional ][issue' ][Since ][the ][impugned ][notices]and orders [are ][getting ][quashed ][on ][the ][point ][of]jurisdiction, we are not [inclined ][to ][proceed ][further ][and]declde the [other ][issues ][raised by ][the ][petitioner ][which]stands reserved [to ][be ][raised ][and ][contended ][in ][an]appropriate Proceedings. 38. Since [the ][Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the case]of Ashish Agarwal, [supra, ][as ][a ][one-time ][measure]the [powers ][under ][Article ][142 ][of ][the]exercising Constitution of lndia, [permitted the ][Revenue ][to ][proceed]under the substituted [provisions, and ][this ][Court allowing]the [petitions ]only [on ][the ][procedural ][flaw' ][the ][right] .ri conferred on the Revenue would rqTain reseryed toproceed further if they so want from the stage of theorder of the Supreme Court in the case of Ashishorder of the Supreme Court in the case of AshishAganrval, supra. 18. We would only fufther like to make observations that sincewe are inclined to dispose of the instant writ petition, conscious ofthe fact that the earlier order of this High Court in the case ofRanakala Ravintlra Reddy {l supra) is subjected to challengebefore the Hon,ble Supreme 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 outcome of theaforesaid SLp preferred by the Revenue against the decision of thisHigh Courl in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Redcly (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 the Hon,ble SupremeCourt in the pending SLp on the very same issue. 19' Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands ailowed infavour of the assessee so far as the issue of jurisdiction isconcemed. As a consequence, the impugned notice underchallenge under Sections l4g_A and l4g stands set aside/quashed. The consequential [orders, ][if ][any' ][also ][stand set ][aside/quashed ][in] similar [terms ][as ][have ][been passed ][by this ][High court ][in ][the ][case ][of] Kankunala [Ravindra ][Reddy ][(l ][supra)' ][There ][shall be ][no order ][as] to costs. Consequently, [miscellaneous ][petitions pending' ][if ][any' shall] stand closed 335.1#'#:MHi[ /irRUE coPY/' ,Ecr\5N [oFFlcER] To,1The Assessment [Unit, ]-lncome [Tax-Departmelti ]^I:ti"n'l [e- ][Assessment]center. Room [No.401, ]E-n'nip [Jawaharlal ][Nehru ][Stadium' ][New]'no?io'o'" 1The Assessment [Unit, ]-lncome [Tax-Departmelti ]^I:ti"n'l [e- ][Assessment]center. Room [No.401, ]E-n'nip [Jawaharlal ][Nehru ][Stadium' ][New]'no?io'o'" Delhi-1 [10 ][003.] ThelncomeTaxofficer,Ward.3(1),TthFloor'B.Block,lTTowers,ACC'r"rrii., [frvo"tubad ][Telangana-sO0 ][028 ]' 2 3+:t"::H:il,3?:1,3",TIiI'R:il",I,J3?T3'n'?il;"lBTfl "?:i+Ti-31'1n6tiaro., [HYderabad-500 ][004']+:t"::H:il,3?:1,3",TIiI'R:il",I,J3?T3'n'?il;"lBTfl "?:i+Ti-31'1n6tiaro., [HYderabad-500 ][004'] One CC [to ] [S.VIJAY ADITHYA' Advocate ][ ] 4. One CC [tO ][tTiIS. ][B.SAPNA REDDY, ][JT. ] [INCOT\,,IE ] [ ] 6Two CD [CoPies]BSRd,TKSTKS HIGH DATED:2810412025 ORDER WP.No.2215 [of ][2025] a,()$lltF-\.f'!.31tljt [M]/)/*r_::__ ALLOWING [PETITION'] WITHOUT u-\