Wp/26790/2024 Of Smt. Ragha Sudha Bommidi v. The Income Tax Officer

HIGH COURT FOR THE S|TATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MAYTWO THOUSAND AND TWENW FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANb THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICd NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA :2679O OF 2024 WRIT PETITION N Between: Smt. Ragha Sudha Bommidi, Wo B. Sudliakar Reddy, Aged about 39 [years, ]Occ.Private Employee, H.No.16-11-77412Kqndanlal Lane, Malakpet Colony P.OMOSOARAMBAGH, Hyderabad 500036,Tdlanqana, lndia. PAN No. BlDPB6900L. .....PETITIONER AND 1. The lncome Tax Officer, Ward 9 [(1), ]flyderabad, lncome Tax [Towers, ]ACGuards, Masab Tank,Hyderabad-500004.Guards, Masab Tank,Hyderabad-500004. 2. Principal Chief Commissioner of lncome Tax lncome Tax [Towers, AC ]GuardsMasab Tank, Hyderabad-500004.Masab Tank, Hyderabad-500004. 3. The Assessment Unit, lncome Tax Department [National Faceless]Assessment Centre Room No 401 2nd Floor E Ramp Jawaharlal [Nehru]Stadium, Delhi 110003,Assessment Centre Room No 401 2nd Floor E Ramp Jawaharlal [Nehru]Stadium, Delhi 110003, .....RESPONDENTS Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia [praying ]that [in ]thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may [be]pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature ofWrit of Mandamus, declaring the impugned Order d1.22.01.2024 [passed ][uls ][147]R/w Section 144, read with section 1468 of the [lncome ][Tax ][Act, ][vide ] No.ITBtuAST/S I 1 47 12023-241 1059987604(1 ) and also [issued ][Notice ][of ][demand]under section 156 of the lncome-Tax Act,l ['1961 ], dated [22.01 ][.2024. vide DIN ][and]Notice No. ITBA/AST/S/15612023- 2411058987696(1), by [the ][3rd ][Respondent for]A.Y.2015-16, pursuant to the order u/s 148A(d) [dt.21 ][.04.2022 ][and notice ][issued] u/s 148 dt.22.O4.2022 by the JAO instead of FAO, as vcicl, illegal, and contrary tothe Provisions of Income-tax Act and contrary to the Principles of Natural Justice. I.A.NO:1 OF 2024 Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in tlre circumstances stated inthe affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cor.rrt may be pleased to stayall the further proceedings initiated by the 3rd Respondent against the Petitioner,pursuant to the impugned order passed u/s 147 lOh,l Section 1 44, read withsection ['1448 ]of the lncome Tax Act, vide DIN No. TBA/AS f 1S.114il2023-2411059987604(1) and also issued Notice of demand under section 156 of thelncome-Tax Act, 1961, dated 22.O1 .2024, vide DIN and Notice No.ITBA/AST/S/1 5612023-2411059987696(1), by the 3rd Fles;pondenr for A.y. 2015-16, in PAN No.BlDPB6900LF till the final disposal of thi!; \,,/rit petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI VENKATRAM REDDY MANTUR Counsel for the Respondents : SRI K.SUDHAKAR REDDY, LEARNED SENTORSTANDING COUNSEL FOR THE INCOME TAX DEPAR-TMENT The Court made the following ORDER THE IIONOURABLE [JUSTICE P'SAM KOSHY]ANDTHE HoNoTIRABLE [sRr ]Jusrrcr [RAo]NANDIIIONDAWRITPETITIO [No.267][900] [2024] ORDER' [(per ][Hon'ble ][Si ][JtLstice ][P-Ssm Koshv)] Heard Mr. [Venkatram ][Reddy ][Mantur' ][learned counsel ][for] the petitioner [and ][Mr ][K.Sudhakal Reddy' leamed ][Senior Standing]CounselforthelncomeTaxDepartmentfortherespondents.Perused the [record.] This is a is a a [[writ ][petition ]][[petition ]][[wlrere ][the ][proceedings ][are ][either]][[the ][proceedings ][are ][either]][[proceedings ][are ][either]][[are ][either]][[either]] 2. This is a is a a [[writ ][petition ]][[petition ]][[wlrere ][the ][proceedings ][are ][either]][[the ][proceedings ][are ][either]][[proceedings ][are ][either]][[are ][either]][[either]]challenged [to the ][notices ][which ][were ][issued ][under Section ][l48A]andl48oftheIncomeTaxAct,lg6l(forshort.theAct,)ortheassessment [orders ][those have ][bqen ][passed ][under Section ][147 ][of]the Act [which ][have been ][assaile{'] the petitioner [and ][Mr ][K.Sudhakal Reddy' leamed ][Senior Standing]CounselforthelncomeTaxDepartmentfortherespondents.Perused the [record.] This is a is a a [[writ ][petition ]][[petition ]][[wlrere ][the ][proceedings ][are ][either]][[the ][proceedings ][are ][either]][[proceedings ][are ][either]][[are ][either]][[either]] 2. This is a is a a [[writ ][petition ]][[petition ]][[wlrere ][the ][proceedings ][are ][either]][[the ][proceedings ][are ][either]][[proceedings ][are ][either]][[are ][either]][[either]]challenged [to the ][notices ][which ][were ][issued ][under Section ][l48A]andl48oftheIncomeTaxAct,lg6l(forshort.theAct,)ortheassessment [orders ][those have ][bqen ][passed ][under Section ][147 ][of]the Act [which ][have been ][assaile{'] This vrit vrit [[petition ]][[is ][being taken ][up ][today ][only ][on ][one ][of ][the]][[being taken ][up ][today ][only ][on ][one ][of ][the]][[up ][today ][only ][on ][one ][of ][the]][[today ][only ][on ][one ][of ][the]][[only ][on ][one ][of ][the]][[on ][one ][of ][the]][[one ][of ][the]][[of ][the]][[the]] 3. This vrit vrit [[petition ]][[is ][being taken ][up ][today ][only ][on ][one ][of ][the]][[being taken ][up ][today ][only ][on ][one ][of ][the]][[up ][today ][only ][on ][one ][of ][the]][[today ][only ][on ][one ][of ][the]][[only ][on ][one ][of ][the]][[on ][one ][of ][the]][[one ][of ][the]][[of ][the]][[the]]grounds, that [the ][notices ][issued ][under ][Section ][l48A of ][the Act]and the subsequent [initiation ][of ][proceedings under ][Section ][148 ][of]the Act by [the ][jurisdictional ][Assessing ][Officer' ][whereas ][in ][terms]of the amendmeot [that ][was ][brought to the lncorne Tax ][Act ][by ][way]of Finance [Lct, 202l ][w ][e ][t", ][0l'04'2021 ][onwards' ][proceedings] under Section l48A of the Act as also under Siection I4g of theAct ought to have also been issued and pror:er:ded in a facelessmanner.manner. 4. The contention of the petitioner is tlat the issue contention of the petitioner is tlat the issue of the petitioner is tlat the issue the petitioner is tlat the issue petitioner is tlat the issue is tlat the issue tlat the issue the issue issue ofproceedings being in violation of the Financet t\ct, 2021 i.e., theimpugned notices under Section l4gA and Sectirtn l4g of the Actnot being issued in a faceless maDner, have alroa<ly been dealt withand decided by rhis Court in the case of KANKANALARAVINDRA REDDY vs. INCOME_TAX OF.FICERT decidedon 14.09.2023 whereby a batch of writ petitions vrere allowed andthe proceedings initiated under Section l4gA as also under SectionI 48 of the Acr were held to be bad with consequenlial reliefs on theground of it being in violation of the provisions .f Seoion r5 rA orthe Acr read with Notificati on lg/2022 dated, 29.03 2022. The saidj udgment passed by this Court has also been subs,equently lollowedin a large number of writ petitions which were a[cwed on simirartcrms. The contention of the petitioner is tlat the issue contention of the petitioner is tlat the issue of the petitioner is tlat the issue the petitioner is tlat the issue petitioner is tlat the issue is tlat the issue tlat the issue the issue issue of 'l(2023) 156 tarmann.com l7g (Telangana)l The contention of the petitioner is tlat the issue contention of the petitioner is tlat the issue of the petitioner is tlat the issue the petitioner is tlat the issue petitioner is tlat the issue is tlat the issue tlat the issue the issue issue of 'l(2023) 156 tarmann.com l7g (Telangana)l 5. Down the line, we find that the same issue has also beenfind that the same issue has also beenthat the same issue has also beenthe same issue has also beensame issue has also beenissue has also beenhas also beenalso beenbeendecided against the Revenue by various High Courts i.e.,by the Bombay High Court fn the case of HEXAWARETECHNOLOGIES LTD., vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSTONEROF INCOME TAX & OTIIERS2, Gauhati High Court in the caseof RAM NARAYAN SAH vs. UNION OF INDIA3, punjab andHaryana High Court in the case Of JATINDER SINGH BANGUvs. UNION Otr'INDIA4, and Telfngana High Court in the case ofSRI VENKATARAMANA REilDY PATLOOLA VS. DEPUTYCOMMISSIOI\IER OF INCOME TAX5 where the issue was inrespect of intemational taxation, Bombay High Court in the case ofABHIN AMLKUMAR SIIAH vs. INCOME TAx OFFICER,INTERNATIONAL TAXATIOIY6 which is again on inremarionaltaxation and central circle, High Qourt of Himachal pradesh in thecase of GOVIND SINGH vs. TNCOME TAX OFFICERT,Gujarat High Court in the case of MANSUKHBHAI2 1zozt1464 rrR 430 (Bom)' [(2024) 156 taxmann.com 478 (Gauttati)]" tQO24) 165 taxmann.com I l5 (Punj{b & Haryana)l'[2024) [167 ]taxmann.com 411 (Telangana)]" 12024) I 66 taxmann.com 679 (Bombay)l' 12024) 165 taxmann.com I l3 (Himachal Pradesh)l Down the line, we find that the same issue has also beenfind that the same issue has also beenthat the same issue has also beenthe same issue has also beensame issue has also beenissue has also beenhas also beenalso beenbeen DAHYABHAI RADADIYA [VS. ] [OFFICE&]WARD 3(3)(5)t, Jharkand [High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ] SUNDAR SAW [vs. ] [OF INDIAe, ][Rajasthan ][High Court in]the case of SHAR-DA DEVI [vs. ] OFFICER & ANOTHER and [batch ][of ][writ ][petitionsto ][which]stood decided on 19.03.2024. [Similar views have ][also ][been taken]by the Division Bench of [Calcutta ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]GIRDHAR GOPAL DALMIA [vs. ] [OI'INDIA & ] (M.A.T 1690 of 2023), decided on25.09-2024-6. Even though the same [issue ][having ][been decided ][by ][a ][large]number of l{igh Courts. [we ][are ][still ][confronted udth ][large ][fiting ][of]identical matters on daily [basis ranging between ][5 ][to ][l0 ][writ]petitions. That upon the instructions being [sought ][from ][the]Department, they have [been ][taking ][a ][solitary ][p;round ][that ][the]decision o[' the Bombay [High Court ][in ][the ][cast: ][of ][Hexaware]Technologies Ltd., (2 supra) as [also ][the ][one ][which ][has ][been]decided by rhis Court in [the ][case ][of ][Kanakala Ravindra ][Reddy] '202+ [onLine ][Cuj ][4012]'2025 [Online ][Jhar ][287]'o [y2oz3, ] [-.r ] [:49tt,l- ] [l] \ ( (l supra) has been subjected !o challenge in a Special teave Petition i.e., SLp No.3574 of 2QZ4 before the Hon,ble SupremeCourt and the Hon'ble Sunremt Court is seized of the matter.In addition, there are about 1200 ]Stfs aho filed arising out of thesame issue being decided by variotrrs High Courts. 7. To a query being put to the ]learned counsel for the Revenue, they have categorically accepted [te fa"t that there is no interimorder granted by the Hon'ble S]upreme Court in any of thesematters pending before it. Meqnwhile, fresh writ petitions ofidentical nature are being piled up ["fo." this Bench on daily basisand the pendency is gettingsed on matter which otherwisehas already been dealt and decidedthis very High Court itsetf 8. On the one hand, even th the order of this Court that \ ( (l supra) has been subjected !o challenge in a Special teave Petition i.e., SLp No.3574 of 2QZ4 before the Hon,ble SupremeCourt and the Hon'ble Sunremt Court is seized of the matter.In addition, there are about 1200 ]Stfs aho filed arising out of thesame issue being decided by variotrrs High Courts. 7. To a query being put to the ]learned counsel for the Revenue, they have categorically accepted [te fa"t that there is no interimorder granted by the Hon'ble S]upreme Court in any of thesematters pending before it. Meqnwhile, fresh writ petitions ofidentical nature are being piled up ["fo." this Bench on daily basisand the pendency is gettingsed on matter which otherwisehas already been dealt and decidedthis very High Court itsetf 8. On the one hand, even th the order of this Court that was passed as early as on 14.09.2 23 pand more 16 months haveIapsed, titl date, we do not findy remedial steps having beentaken by the lncome Taxt to take appropriate steps toeither hold back issuance of noticeer Section l48A and underSection 148 of the Act by the ju{isdictional Assessing Officer,rather the authorities concerned in fre teeth of series of decisions by all the [major ][High ][Courts ][in ][India ][are ][continuously still]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 Financr: ][Act202l'] g. Upon a [query being ][put ][as ][to why ][can't ][this'lrit ][petition ][be]of [in ][the ][teeth ][of ][the decision ][rendered ][by this Court in]disposed the case of [Kanakala ][Ravindra ][Reddy ][(l ][supra), leamed Standing]Counsel for [the Income ][Tax ][Department ][contends' that those ][would]unnecessarily [burden ][the ][Income ][Tax ][Departrnent ][where ][they]would be [required ][to ][fite ][equal ][number ][of ][SL'Ps ][before ][the]Hon'ble Supreme [Court and ][it ][rvould be further ][burdening ][the]of [the ][Union ][of India. ][It ][was ][also ][the ][contention ][of ][the]exchequer learned Standing [Counsel that no ][prejudice ][woull ][be ][caused ][to ][the]interest of the [petitioncrs ][in ][case ][itthis ][writ ][petition ][is kept ][pending]till the finalization [of' ][the ][SLPs pending ][be'flore ][the ][Hon'ble]Court [and ][the fact that the petitioner ][isi ][already ][enjoying]Supreme the benefit of interirn [protection. ][Nonetheless, ][on ][the ][earlier ][query]of this Court [as ][to ][why the ][lncome ][Tax ][Departm'enl ][have ][not ][come]out with a mechanism [to ][issue ][appropriate ][instruc'tions ][or to ][take] appropnate steps in ensuring that proceedings under Section r4gAofthe Act as also the assessmedt orders under Section l4g oftheAct are kept in a hold in the light of the decisions dedcided by thevarious High Courts, it was submitted by the learned StandingCounsel that the said steps can o0ly be taken at the level of CBDTas any such steps would have to $e taken pan India and cannot belimited to any of these jurisdictionpl High Courts. I0. As a result of which, *t ut fv" are facing is steep increase ofIitigation day in and day out even orders have beenfhough various passed by this High Court allowin$ writ petitions on the very sameissue. The Income Tax authorities ,concerned are still even now in2025 also initiating proceedings in, contravention to the provisionsol Scction l5 lA of the Act and as a result by now, more than 600to 700 petitions have been already got pild up before this HighCourt on an issue which otherwise stands squarely covered by thejudgment of this Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy( I supra). What is also surprisinS is the fact that though whileallowing the writ petitions in the case of Kanakala RavindraReddy (l supra), the Division Ben(h ur*rile 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 ][rvith the ][amended]of [the ][Act, ][as amended ][by ][the ][Finan<;e ][Act' ][2020 and]provisions the Finance [Act,202l ][. ][The ][petitioner ][assessee ][wc'uld ][be ][entitled to]or [raise the ][other legal objections ][if ][the ][Rt:venue ][initiates]challenge fresh [proceedings. ][The ][Department has ][made ][nc' endeavour ][in]the [said ][liberty ][that ][was reserved ][for ][the Rcvenue' On ][the]availing contrary, [they ][have been ][still ][sticking on ][to ][the ][stirnd' ][which ][this]Court [as ][well ][as many ][other ][High ][Courts ][zLlrr:ady ][held ][to ][be]High bad. 11. It appears [that ][because ][of ][the aloresaid ][liberty ][that ][this ][High]Court had [granted ][permitting ][the ][Revenue ][fc'r ][initiating ][fresh]a [one-time ][measure ][in ][a ][faceless ][manner' ][the]proceedings [as ]Income Tax [Department wants ][to ][take ][advanta6;e ][of ][the ][same ][by]these [proceedings ][which would ][enable them ][to ][meet ][the]protracting limitation [that ][would ][otherwise come ][in ][the ][wa1" ][Likewise' ][if ][the]writ petition [is ][kept ][pending for ][a ][considerable ][lcng ][period ][of ][time]and finally [at a ][later ][stage ][il ][the ][Hon'ble ][Suprerne ][Court confirms]the decision [taken ][by ][this ][High Court ][as ][also ][bl ][the ][other ][High]CourtsinwhichtheSLPsarestillpending'lhgflggrngTax Department would get the advantpg€ of the liberty that is otherwiseprotected in favour of the Revenue for initiation of freshproceedings from the disposal of these matters at a much later stagewhich would be advantageous arid beneficial to the Revenue andwould be equalty disadvantageous and detrimental so far as interestof the assesses are concemed. Ap a consequence, the Income Taxproceedings from the disposal of these matters at a much later stagewhich would be advantageous arid beneficial to the Revenue andwould be equalty disadvantageous and detrimental so far as interestof the assesses are concemed. Ap a consequence, the Income TaxDepartment gets an extended period of timp for initiation of freshproceedings.proceedings. 12. The alarming trend of docket explosion in this Court, despitethe clear precedent set in Kanakalg Ravindra Reddy (l supra), is amatter of grave concem. The Inc$me Tax Department's persistentinitiation of lresh proceedings, disregarding the established judicialpronouncements, has led to an uirprecedented surge in litigationwith over 600-700 petitions pili$g up on the same issue. Thisdetiberate approach not only undermines the principle of judicialprecedent but also strains the judiCial resources unnecessarily. TheDepartment's strategy of awaiting the Supreme Court's decision onpending SLPs while conrinuing to initiate fresh proceedingsappears to be a calculated move to buy time and circumventlimitation periods, rather than ad[rering to the established legal position. Such conduct raises serious [quet;tions ][about ][the]administrative efficiency and the [respe()t ][for ][judicial]pronouncements, particularly when this [Court ][has already ][provided]a balanced approach by [preserving ][both ][the ][Re'renue's ][rights ][and]assesses interests. position. Such conduct raises serious [quet;tions ][about ][the]administrative efficiency and the [respe()t ][for ][judicial]pronouncements, particularly when this [Court ][has already ][provided]a balanced approach by [preserving ][both ][the ][Re'renue's ][rights ][and]assesses interests. 13. Another aspect which needs to [be ][considered ][is ][that in fact ][it]should have been realized by the [lncome ][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 till the [Hon'ble ][Supremr: ][(lourt ][decide ][the]twelve hundred (1200) odd SLPs [rvhich ][it ][is ][already'seized ][ofor, ][at]least the lncome Tax Department should [have fcund ][out ][some]remedial steps to ensure that [wherever ][the ][aut ][hc ][rities ][intend ][to]initiate proceedings under Sections [148-A ][and ][148. ][other ][than ][in ][a]faceless manner, the proceedings should [lrave ][been ][defened]without precipitating the matter further [intimating ][the ][assessee ][that]they shall initiate appropriate [proceedings ][only ][aftt:r ][the SLP's ][are]decided by the Hon'ble Supreme [Court ][on ][the ][v,:ry ][same ][issue']This again, the Income Tax Depanment, [has ][not ][tret:n ][able to ][give ][a]convincing reply, except for [the ][lact ][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 way ofa policy decision and that too at thelevel of Central Board of Dirgct Taxes. Though the leamedStanding Counsel for the Incom! Tax Department contended thatthe Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition of similar nahrre, onthe one hand when the High -Court is struggling to reduce itspendency, such notices which ape under challenge in this writpetition are forcing rhe assessee to knock the doors of this HighCourt resulting in filing of hundreds o[ new writ petitions which inthe long run not only affects the of the writ petitions but$isposal also consumes substantial time ff the Bench in hearing thesematters again and again on daily bfisis. Admittedly, in spite of thematter before the Hon'ble Suprerhe Court having been taken onmany occasions, the Hon'ble Suprgme Court which is seized of thematter has been reluctanr in granting any interim protection to theIncome Tax Department. yet, ttie authorities concemed at theState level are not ready to accept lhe verdict passed by a majorityof High Courts of diflerenr Srares Qn the same issue; and to makethings further worse, rhe tn.orn"l Tax Department is showingaudacity by issuing notices continugusly under Sections l4g-A and 148 through the [jurisdictional ][Assessing ][Offrcer ][w:lereas ][it ][ought]to have been only in [the ][faceless ][manner'] 14. In the case of [rs' ] COMI\flSSIONE& [INCOME TAXrr, ][on ][an ][issue ][whether ][it ][was]justifiable on the part of the Income [Tax ][Dr:partment ][in ][not]following an order [passed ][by ][the ][adjudicating ][autlority ][only ][on ][the]ground that the appeals [are ][pending, the ][Divis ][orL ][Bench ][of ][the]High Court of Bombay [held ][at ][paragraph ][No'25 ][as ][under' ][viz'' ][:] 148 through the [jurisdictional ][Assessing ][Offrcer ][w:lereas ][it ][ought]to have been only in [the ][faceless ][manner'] 14. In the case of [rs' ] COMI\flSSIONE& [INCOME TAXrr, ][on ][an ][issue ][whether ][it ][was]justifiable on the part of the Income [Tax ][Dr:partment ][in ][not]following an order [passed ][by ][the ][adjudicating ][autlority ][only ][on ][the]ground that the appeals [are ][pending, the ][Divis ][orL ][Bench ][of ][the]High Court of Bombay [held ][at ][paragraph ][No'25 ][as ][under' ][viz'' ][:] "25. Mr. Paridwalla [has ][rightly drawn ][out ][altention ][to ][the]decision of this [Court in ][Commissioner of lncome ][Tax ][vs' ][Smt']Godavaridevi Sarafl2 as [also ][the ][recent decision ][of ][the ][co-]ordinale Bench of this [Court in ][Samp ][Furniture ][(P') ][l"td ][v' ][lTO13]of which one of [us (Justice G.S. Kulkarni) was ][a ][mom'ler' ][wherein]the Court categorically [observed ][that the ][Revenue having ][not]"accepted" the iudgment of the [High Court ][would ][not rnean ][that ][till]the same is [set ][aside in a manner known ][to ][law, ][it ][wculd loose ][its]binding force. Refening [to the decision ][of ][the ][Suor€me Court ][in]Union of lndia vs' Kamlakshi [Finance ][Corporatiol ][Ltd ]['"' ][the]Court observed that the [approach ][of ][the officials ][of ][Revenue ][of]treating decisions being ["not ][acceptable" ][was ][criticized ][by ][the]Supreme Court. ln such [decision, following ][are ][lhe ][relevant]observations made by the [Supreme ][Court.] " 11202s1170 [taxmann.com ][422 ][(Bombay)l] '' 1t9281 [113 ] [589 ][(Bombay)] " [12OZ+1165 ][taxmann.com 581/300 Taxman ][452 ][(Bornbay)] " ltggzl [traxmanr.com 16155ELT 433 (SC)] " 11202s1170 [taxmann.com ][422 ][(Bombay)l] '' 1t9281 [113 ] [589 ][(Bombay)] " [12OZ+1165 ][taxmann.com 581/300 Taxman ][452 ][(Bornbay)] " ltggzl [traxmanr.com 16155ELT 433 (SC)] '6. Sri Reddy is perhaps right in saying that theofficers were not actuated by any mala fides inpassing the irnpugned orders. They perhapsgenuinely felt that the claim of the assessee was nottenable and that, if it was accepted, the Revenuewould suffer. But what Sri lReddy overlooks is that weare not concernedhere withthe correctness orotheruvise of theirconcl slon i,orof any factualmalafides but with the fact tfrat the officers, in reachingin their conclusion, by-pasled two appellate orders inare not concernedhere withthe correctness orotheruvise of theirconcl slon i,orof any factualmalafides but with the fact tfrat the officers, in reachingin their conclusion, by-pasled two appellate orders inregard to the same issue Which were placed beforethem, one of the Co ector (Appeats) and the other ofthem, one of the Co ector (Appeats) and the other ofthe Tribunal. The High Co rt has, in our view, righflycriticized this mnduct of th6 Assistant Collectors andthe harassment to the asse$see caused by the failureof these officers to give effect to the orders ofauthorities higher to them in the appellate hierarchy. ltcannot be too vehemenfly emphasized that it is ofutmost importance lhat, in disposing of thequasijudicial issues before tfiem, revenue officers areauthorities higher to them in the appellate hierarchy. ltcannot be too vehemenfly emphasized that it is ofutmost importance lhat, in disposing of thequasijudicial issues before tfiem, revenue officers arebound by the decisions of fhe appeflate authorities.The order of the Appe te Cb ector is binding on theAssistant Collectors working [vrthin his jurisdiction andthe order of the Tribunal is binding upon the AssistantAssistant Collectors working [vrthin his jurisdiction andthe order of the Tribunal is binding upon the AssistantCollectors and the Appe ate Co ectors who functionunder the jurisdiction of the Ti.tbunat. The principles ofjudicial discipline require that, the orders of the higherunder the jurisdiction of the Ti.tbunat. The principles ofjudicial discipline require that, the orders of the higherappellate authorities should be followed unreservedlyunreservedlyby the subordinate authoritres. The mere fact that theorder of the appellate aulhorf,y is not [,,acceptabte" ]tothe department - in itself an obiectronable phrase _the department - in itself an obiectronable phrase _and is the subject mafler of ap appeal can furnish noground for not following rl untess its operation hasground for not following rl untess its operation hasbeen suspended by a competent court. lf this healthy rule is not [followed, ][the ][result ][will only ][be ][e ][ndue]harassment to [assesses ][and chaos ][in ][administ'ation]of tax laws. 12. We have dealt [with ][this ][aspect ][at ][some bngth']because it has [been ][suggested ][by the ][learned]Additional Solicitor [General ][that ][the ][observations]made by the High [Court, ][have ][been ][harsl' ][cn ][the]officers. lt [is ][clear that ][the ][observations ][of ][th€' ][High]Court, seemingly [vehement, ][and ][apperrently]to [the ][Revenue. are only intenderl ][t') ][curb]unpalatable a tendency [in ][revenue matters ][which, ][if ][allotared ][to]become widespread, [could ][result ][in ][con:;iderabte]harassment to [the assesses-public without ][any ][benefit]to the Revenue. [We ][would ][like ][to ][say that ][the]department [should ][take these ][observations ][ln ][the]proper spirit. The observations [of ][the ][High ][Court]should [be kept in mind ][in ][future ][and ][the ][utmost ][regard]should be [paid by ][the ][adjudicating authoritieri and ][the]appellate authorities [to ][the ][requirements ][of ][udicial]discipline and [the ][need ][for giving ][effect ][to tlre ][orders]of the higher [appellate ][authorities ][which ][ar3 ][binding]on them." 15. What [is ][worrying ][this ][Bench ][more ][is ][the ][tact ][that ][an]endeavour [is ][being ][made ][whole ][heartedly ][to ][ensllro not ][to ][generate]further litigation [on ][issues ][which ][have ][been laict ][t': ][rest ][by ][a ][large]number of High [Courts ][all of ][whom ][have ][taken ][a consistent ][stand]that the action [of ][the Income ][Tax ][Department ][bein;l vi,llatiYe ][of ][the] Finance Act, 2020 and Finance A!t,2021 . Now, in order to protect the interest of the Revenue as alsg that ofthe assessee, it would betrite at this [juncture, ]if we disp$se of the writ petition with antrite at this [juncture, ]if we disp$se of the writ petition with anobservation/direction that the disp[sal of the instant writ petition inlterms of the [judgment ]rendered bf this High Court in the case ofKankanala Ravindra Reddy (l sr{pra) shall however be subject tolterms of the [judgment ]rendered bf this High Court in the case ofKankanala Ravindra Reddy (l sr{pra) shall however be subject tothe outcome of the SLPs which were filed bv the Income ['l'ax]lDepartment and which is pending [ponsideration ]before the Hon'bleSupreme Court.lDepartment and which is pending [ponsideration ]before the Hon'bleSupreme Court. I16. In the given facts and circiLrmstances, this Bench is of the lconsidered opinion that unless anquntil we do not timely disposeIof matters which are squarely cored by the decision of this Court"4and which stands fortified by th4decisions of the various otherIHigh Courts on the very same iue, the pendency of this HighisICourt would further be burdenedhich otherwise can be decidedPIand disposed ofas a covered mattef 17. So far as the interest of the Revenue is concemed, we are of the considered opinion that the int[rest of the Revenue has already been considered and protected, as fras been observed in [paragraphs] 36, 37 and 38 of the order which, for ready refen:n,:e, is reproduced hereunder 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 ac(Drdingly setaside/quashed. As a consequence, all the impugnedorders gefting quashed, the consequential orders passedby the respondent-Department pursuant to ttre noticesissued under Section 147 and 148 would also getquashed and it is ordered accordingly. The r:ason weare [quashing ]the consequential order is on the [principles]that when the initiation of the proceedings [rtself ]wasprocedurally wrong, the subsequent orders also getsnuilified automatically. 37. The preliminary objection raised by the petitioner issustained and all these writ petitions stands allowed onthis very iurisdictional issue. Since the impugnerd noticesand orders are getting quashed on the point ofiurisdiction, [we ]are not inclined to [proceed further ][and]decide the other issues raised by the petilioner whichstands reserved to be raised and contended in anappropriate proceedings. 38 Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had ir the caseof Ashish Agarwal, supra, as a one-time measureexercising the powers under Article 142 of theConslitution of lndia, permitted the Revenue tc, proceedunder the substituted provisions, and this Couri allowingthe petitions only on the procedural flaur, the right confend on the Revenue [would ][rernain reserved ][to]proceed further if they so want from ttle stage of theorder of the Supreme Court [in ][the ][case ][of ][Ashish]Agarwal, supra. 38 Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had ir the caseof Ashish Agarwal, supra, as a one-time measureexercising the powers under Article 142 of theConslitution of lndia, permitted the Revenue tc, proceedunder the substituted provisions, and this Couri allowingthe petitions only on the procedural flaur, the right confend on the Revenue [would ][rernain reserved ][to]proceed further if they so want from ttle stage of theorder of the Supreme Court [in ][the ][case ][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 ][the ][case ][ol]Kanakala Ravindra Reddy [(l ][suprp) ][is ][subjected ][to ][challenge]before the Hon'bte Supreme [Cour( ][in ] [No.3574 ][of ][2024.]preferred by the Income Tax [Depar$ment, ][we ][make ][it ][clear ][that]altowing of the instant writ [petition]is ][subject ][to ][outcome ][of ][the]aforesaid SLP [preferred ][by ][the Reverlue against the ][decision ][of ][this]High Court in the case of [Kanakals ][Ravindru ][Reddy ][(l ][supra)']This, in other wonds, [would ][mean ][thpt ][either ][of ][the parties, ][il ][they]so want, may move an aPpropriate [petition ][seeking ][revival ][ol ][this]writ petition in the light of the decision [of ][the Hon'ble ][Suprcme]Court in the pending SLP [on the ][very ][same ][issue'] 19. Accordingly, the [instant ][writ ][petition ][stands ][allorved ][in]f'avour of the assessee so far [as the ][issue ][of ][jurisdiction]ISconcemed. As a consequence, [the ][impugned ][notice ][under]challenge under Sections 148-4 [and, ][148 stands set aside/quashed] (( The consequential orders, if any, also stand se1. aside/quashed in similar terms as have been [passed ]by this High CorLrt in [the ][case ]ofKankanala Ravindra Reddy (l supra). There stLall be no order [as]to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions [penriing, ]if any, shall stand closed SD/. A. JAYASREEASSIsTANT REGISTRAR//TRUE COPY//\\ [t-,--_ ]__/I [',,r ] ToI,I1. The lncome Tax Officer, Ward 9 (1), Hyderabad, Ilv/ome Tax Towers, ACGuards, Masab Tank,Hyderabad-500004. 2. The Principal Chief Commissioner of lncome Tax lncome Tax Towers, ACGuards Masab Tank, Hyderabad-500004.Guards Masab Tank, Hyderabad-500004. 3. The Assessment Unit, lncome Tax Departrnent National FacelessAssessment Centre Room No 401 2nd Floor E Ranrp Jawaharlal NehruStadiumAssessment Centre Room No 401 2nd Floor E Ranrp Jawaharlal NehruStadium 4. One CC to SRI VENKATRAM REDDY MANTUR, Arlwcate 5 One CC to SRI K SUDHAKAR REDDY, LEARNED SENTOR STANDTNGCOUNSEL FOR THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENI-, r\dvocate IOPUCICOUNSEL FOR THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENI-, r\dvocate IOPUCI6. Two CD CopiesSAGJP%GJP% HIGH COURT DATED:0210512025 i r:: [Sl4]'(o^ORDERoo3 filJE [20[]?+ WP.No.26790 of 2024 ALLOWING THE W.PWITHOUT COSTS- b3