Wp/27399/2024 Of Sn2 Asymmetrix Pvt. Ltd v. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department

HIGH COURT AT HYDERABAD(Special Original [Jurisdiction)] FRIDAY ,THE TWO THOUSAND PRESENT THE HONOURABLE [JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY] ANDTHE HONOURABLE [JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA] WRIT PETITIO [N NO: 27399 ][0F ][2024] 134471 Between: SN2 Asvmmetrix [Pvt. Ltd, ][having ][its ][offi-ce^ ][at ][Flat ][No'201 ][Siri ][Residency']iiJ6i,Gl'|.lijl riyi;,;i;";,"'r;|;ng:ni- [--500050 Rep. ][by ][its ][Director ][PAN.] ...PETITIONER AND 1Assessment G;"tri"c;;;rt"t [Unit, lncome ][oi ][rnaialla*5rla'rji uer'r' ][Tax ][Department, National Faceless Assessment][tvlarg ][Block ][B' ][Press Enclave']Savitri Nagar [New Delhi ][- ][11OOO2]Savitri Nagar [New Delhi ][- ][11OOO2] 2lncome Tax [officer, ][Ward ][3 ][1 ][Hyderabad Room ][N-o-727 ][7th ][floor Signature ][.]tffi; i; r'il.ii( [i ])'; [K;;;d;;pp ][eotanicat ][Gardens ][serilingampallv ][tr/]R.R.Dist. HYderabadtffi; i; r'il.ii( [i ])'; [K;;;d;;pp ][eotanicat ][Gardens ][serilingampallv ][tr/]R.R.Dist. HYderabad 3. Union [of ][lndia, ][Rep. by its Secretary^Department of Revenue lvlinistry ][of]- Finin"" North Blobk New Delhi-11000'1- Finin"" North Blobk New Delhi-11000'1 ...RESPONDENTS Petition under [Article ][226 ][of ][the Constitution ][of ][lndia ][praying ][that ][in ][the]circumstances [stated ][in ][iftu ]'itiOuuit [filed ][therewith' ][the ][High Court may ][be]pleased to issue [writ ][orolr ][oioiiection ][more ][particularly in ][the ][nature ][of ][writ ][of]lvlandamus declaring [tn" ][irpug;"J ][notice ][daied ][2gt\3t2\24 ][bearing ] [and]Notice No. ITBtuAST/s/1 [4 ][a ][i ][i\zyzq ][10636401 83(1 ][) ][issued ][by.2nd ][respondent],)r.i+a of th" tn"or" [Tax ][Act, ][1961 ][for ][A.y.2O2O-21 ][as ][being ][withoul ][jurisdiction,]arbitrary, illegal, [unjust and vioiative ][of ][Articles ][14, ][19 ][(1) ][g ][and 265 of Constitution]of lndiaand lonsequently [set aside ][the ][same and all consequent proceedings] IA NO:1 OF [2024] PetitionunderSectionlslcPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstatedinthe affidavit [filed ][in ][support of ][the ][petition, ][ift" ][fiigf' ][Court may be pleased ][pleased]to stay all further [proceedings pursuant ][to ][the ][notice ][dated ][2910312024 ][bearing] DIN and Notic: \o ITBA/AST/S/148 1t2O23- 24110636401.33(1) respondent u/s 1z.B of the lncome f", n.f ig"6f ir Ay ZOZO t1 issued by .znd Counsel for th<: F,etitioner: SRl. MOHD MUKHAIRUDDIN INCOME Counsel for TAX ther DEPAII'TMENT Resc,lndent Nos.1&2: Ms. -- B.SApNA -'-..'REDD,/ SFl. SC FOR COUNSCI fOr thc RESTIONdCNI NO.3: SRI B. MUKHERJEE REPRESENTING sRl GADI [pRAVEEN ]huMAR Dy. solicriiii'diiene. oF rNDtAFORsRl GADI [pRAVEEN ]huMAR Dy. solicriiii'diiene. oF rNDtAFOR The Court mader re .cllowing: ORDER -.-. -."raat) I THE HONOTJRABLE [P.SAM ] ANDTHE HONOURABLE NANDIKONDA WRIT PETITTO[N][ No.27399 ] [2024] OR.DER'[(per ][Hon'ble ][Sri ][Justice ][P.Sam ][Koshy)] Heard Mr. Mohd. [Mukhairuddin, ][learned counsel ][for ][the]petitioner, Ms. B.Sapna [Reddy, leamed Senior Standing ][Counsel]for the Income [Tax ][Department ][for ][respondent ][Nos'l ][and ][2 ][and]Mr. B. Mukherjee, [learned ][counsel ][representing ][the ][Union of ][India]for respondent No.3. [Perused ][the ][record.] 2. This is a writ [petition ][where ][the ][proceedings ][are ][either]challenged to the [notices ][which ][were ][issued ][under Section ][148A]and 148 of the [Income ][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.] WRIT PETITTO[N][ No.27399 ] [2024] OR.DER'[(per ][Hon'ble ][Sri ][Justice ][P.Sam ][Koshy)] Heard Mr. Mohd. [Mukhairuddin, ][learned counsel ][for ][the]petitioner, Ms. B.Sapna [Reddy, leamed Senior Standing ][Counsel]for the Income [Tax ][Department ][for ][respondent ][Nos'l ][and ][2 ][and]Mr. B. Mukherjee, [learned ][counsel ][representing ][the ][Union of ][India]for respondent No.3. [Perused ][the ][record.] 2. This is a writ [petition ][where ][the ][proceedings ][are ][either]challenged to the [notices ][which ][were ][issued ][under Section ][148A]and 148 of the [Income ][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.] 3. This writ [petition ][is ][being ][taken up ][today ][only ][on one ][of the]grounds, that the [notices ][issued ][under Section ][148.4 ][of ][the ][Act]andthesubsequentinitiationofproceedingsunderSectionl48oftheActbythejurisdictionalAssessingoffrcer,whereasintermsof the amendment [that ][was ][brought to the lncome Tax ][Act ][by ][way] of Fin;rn:c ilrct, 2021 w.e.f., 0l .04.2021 onu.ards, proreedingsunder lier:rirn 14gA of the Act as also under Sectiln l4g of theAct ou1;hr tc, have also been issued and proceeded irL iL facelessmanner,4. The r: tntention of the petitioner is that the issue oftntention of the petitioner is that the issue ofof the petitioner is that the issue ofthe petitioner is that the issue ofpetitioner is that the issue ofis that the issue ofthat the issue ofthe issue ofissue ofofproceedings t,eing in violation of the Financ e Act, 202 i.e., theimpugne'J rtcltLces under Section I48A and Sectic,n l.1g oflthe Actnot being issut:c in a faceless manner, have already been c errlt withand decided by this Court in the case of KANK.,\NALARAVINDR.{ REDDY vs. INCOME_TAX OFI.ICERT decidedon 14.09.2'.0?3 ,r,hereby a batch of writ petitions were alror.rt:d andthe procee'Ii'gs initiated under Section I4gA as arso under S:ction148 of the {1:f y,6;1e held to be bad with consequential reliefi; on theground of il beirg in violation of the provisions of Section I,i A ofthe Act rea<l r,rir, Notification lg/2022 dated.29.03.2022. ,I,e saidjudgment passed by this Court has also been subsequentl.,r fol lc,wedin a large nrrrbe- of writ petitions which were allov,ed rtn srnrilarterms. The r: tntention of the petitioner is that the issue oftntention of the petitioner is that the issue ofof the petitioner is that the issue ofthe petitioner is that the issue ofpetitioner is that the issue ofis that the issue ofthat the issue ofthe issue ofissue ofof ' tQoZz)t sllexma ln.com I 78 (Tetangana)l I 5. Down [the line, ][we frnd ][that the ][same ][issue ][has also ][been]decided [against ][the ][Revenue ][by ][various ][High ][Courts ][i'e'']the [Bombay ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ] by TECHNOLOGIES [LTD., ][VS. ] oFINCOMETAx&OTHERS2,GauhatiHighCourtinthecaseof RAM [SAH vs' ] [INDIA3' ][Punjab ][and]Haryana [High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ] vs. UNION [INDIA4, ][and Telangana ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]SRI VENKATARAMANA [VS. ] COMMISSIONER [where the ][issue ][was ][in]respect [of ][international ][taxation' ][Bombay ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]ABHIN [VS. ] [OFFICE&]INTERNATIONAL [which ][is ][again on ][intemational]taxation [and ][central ][circle, ][High ][Court ][of ][Himachal ][Pradesh ][in ][the]case of GOVTND [vs' ] [OFFICER?']Gujarat High [Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ] 'lzozql464 [430 ][(Bom)]'l(2024) [156 ][taxmann.com 478 ][(Gauhati)l]'[(2024) [165 ][taxmann.com ][115 ][(Punjab ][& ][Haryana)]]'12024) [167 ][taxmann.com ][41 ][1 ][(Telangana)l]taxmann.com [679 ][(Bombay)l]"12024) [166 ]taxmann.com [113 ][(Himachal ][Pradesh)]]' [2024) [165 ] I I 'lzozql464 [430 ][(Bom)]'l(2024) [156 ][taxmann.com 478 ][(Gauhati)l]'[(2024) [165 ][taxmann.com ][115 ][(Punjab ][& ][Haryana)]]'12024) [167 ][taxmann.com ][41 ][1 ][(Telangana)l]taxmann.com [679 ][(Bombay)l]"12024) [166 ]taxmann.com [113 ][(Himachal ][Pradesh)]]' [2024) [165 ] I I DAIIY{I}HAI RADADIYA vs. INCOME TAIK ()IIFICER,WARD 3(3xo8, Jharkand High court in the cast: of liHyAMSUNDAR SI.\,V vs. UNION OF INDIAe, Rajasthan Hrgrr Court inthe case cf litrIARDA DEVI CIIHAJER vs. INCOIIE TAXOFFICTR & ANOTHER and batch of writ petirion: () whichstood dec,idecl an 19.03.2024. Similar views have als,t be e;r takenby the Divis;,orL Bench of Calcutta High Court in the case ofGIRDHAR CirfpAL DALMIA vs. UNION OF INDIA {: ORS(M.A.T 169(r cr1.-1023), decided on 25.09.2024.6. Even t-rorr6Jh the same issue having been deciriec by a largenumber of Hieh Courts, we are still confronted witb larl;e fiting ofidentical matrer: on daily basis ranging between -5 to I r) writpetitions. J'hiLt u con the instructions being sought fror.l theDepartment, thel. have been taking a solitary grounci thi.Lt thedecision of the l}rmbay High Court in the case ,tf lle.wrutareTechnologie.; Ltat., (2 supra) as also the one which has beendecided by triir f,ourt in the case of Kanakala Ravittdra R,e,ldy 'z0Z+ SCC OnLine, [jur ]4ol2'2025 SCC OrLrne Ihar 287Io12o23: RJ-JD :498r -DBl (1 supra) [has been ][subjected ][to ][challenge ][in ][a ][Special ][Leave]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 ][Coutts']7. To a query [being put ][to ][the ][leamed ][counsel ][for ][the ][Revenue']have [categorically ][accepted ][the ][fact ][that there ][is ][no ][interim]they 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]hasalreadybeendealtanddecidedbythisveryHighCourtitself.8. On the [one ][hand, ][even ][though the order ][of ][this ][Court ][that]was passed [as ][early ][as ][on ][14'09'2023 and ][more ][16 ][months ][have]till [date, ][we ][do ][not ][find ][any ][remedial ][steps ][having ][been]lapsed, taken by [the Income ][Tax ][Department ][to ][take ][appropriate ][steps ][to]either [hold ][back ][issuance ][of ][notice under ][Section ][l48A ][and ][under]Section [148 ][of ][the ][Act ][by ][the ][jurisdictional ][Assessing ][Officer']rather the [authorities ][concerned ][in ][the teeth ][of ][series ][of ][decisions] tt tt by alt thr nrrr;cr Fligh Courts iri India are ,;ontinuc usly stiliinitiating [)ro,]oedings under Section l4gA of rhe Act and alsoinitiating prrrceedings under Section i4g,tf the Act incontraventitn to the amendments brought into the Inconte -lax Actpu-rsuant to tht. Finance Act,2020 as also the Finance Act1i02l.9. Upon a query being put as to vrhy can't this wrLt pe,tition bedisposed of in lhe teeth ofthe decision rendered by this rlourt inthe case cf ,(u,ztkala Ravindra Reddy (l supra), learred l:itandingCounsel fitr the lncome Tax Department contends rhat thos,; wouldunnecessa:il y ;urden the Income Tax Department whe rr: theywould be r,:qrured to file equal number of Sl_ps bef,tr.e theHon'ble Sup,rr:rne Court and it would be further bui.denlrg theexchequer o1 th: Union of India. It was also the contentiorr lf theleamed Stanctinrr Counsel that no prejudiee would be causer.l .o theinterest of the pe titioners in case if this writ petition ls ke:pt p,3ndingtill the firalizarJcn of the SLps pending beforr: rhe Hon,bleSupreme Crturt ru.Ld the fact that the petitioner is alread.y en jc,yingthe benefit of int:rjm protection. Nonetheless, on the earlier cueryof this Court as tt why the Income Tax Department have not comeout with a rnechtri.rism to issue apprcpriate instructions tr to taket--I 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 ][ofthe ][decisions dedcided ][by ][the]various High [Courts' ][it ][was ][submitted ][by ][the ][leamed ][Standing]counsel [that the ][said ][steps ][can ][only ][be ][taken ][at ][the ][level ][of ] as any such [steps ][would ][have to be taken ][Pan ][India ][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 [151A ][of ][the ][Act ][and ][as ][a ][result ][by now' ][more than ][600]to 700 [petitions ][have been already ][got ][piled up ][before ][this ][High]Court [on ][un ][,,tt'" ][which ][otherwise ][stands ][squarely covered ][by ][the]judgment of this [Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ][Kanakala Ravindra ][Reddy](1 supra). [What ][is ][also surprising ][is ][the fact that ][though ][while]allowing [the ][writ ][petitions ][in ][the ][case ][of ][Kanakala ][Ravindra]Reddy (l [supra), ][the ][Division ][Bench ][while ][reserving ][the ][right ][of]the Revenue, [has also ][protected ][the ][interest ][of ][the ][petitioners]tt insofal a j 1b 3 liberty which was granted to the R<,venue forinitiating rr::rh proceedings strictly in accordance u,ith rh,: amendedprovisicns rri' ihe Act, as amended by the Financ e .\ct, i,020 andthe Finance 1*:t,2021. The petitioner assessee woulc be ,:rrtitled to. challenge itr raise the other legal objections if the Revenue initiatesfresh prrtcr:eci,gs. The Department has made no endi)rvour inavailing tht) siiLi I liberty that was reserved for the Revenu(r. On thecontrary, tt e.y lrave been still sticking on to the stan j, u hich thisHigh Corrrt as rvell as many other High Courts alrea<ly h()ld to bebad. insofal a j 1b 3 liberty which was granted to the R<,venue forinitiating rr::rh proceedings strictly in accordance u,ith rh,: amendedprovisicns rri' ihe Act, as amended by the Financ e .\ct, i,020 andthe Finance 1*:t,2021. The petitioner assessee woulc be ,:rrtitled to. challenge itr raise the other legal objections if the Revenue initiatesfresh prrtcr:eci,gs. The Department has made no endi)rvour inavailing tht) siiLi I liberty that was reserved for the Revenu(r. On thecontrary, tt e.y lrave been still sticking on to the stan j, u hich thisHigh Corrrt as rvell as many other High Courts alrea<ly h()ld to bebad. I L It appear s that because of the aforesaid liberti, that trris HighCourt ha<l tranted permitting the Revenue for initiatilg freshproceedinlls as a one-time measure in a faceless rnan;re rr, theIncome TzL.x I)tpartment wants to Court ha<l tranted permitting the Revenue for initiatilg freshproceedinlls as a one-time measure in a faceless rnan;re rr, theIncome TzL.x I)tpartment wants to take advantage ot.the sarne byprotracting tl esr: proceedings which would enable them to rre,et thelimitation rhar r,'r,uld otherwise come in the way. I_ikewist, ilthewrit petitior is lept pending for a considerable long periorl rl.timeand finally at a ater stage if the Hon,ble Supreme Couft ccnfirmsthe decisiorr tal:t:r.r by this High Court as also by the othe. HighCourts in 'vhicl the SLps are still pending, the Incom,: Taxprotracting tl esr: proceedings which would enable them to rre,et thelimitation rhar r,'r,uld otherwise come in the way. I_ikewist, ilthewrit petitior is lept pending for a considerable long periorl rl.timeand finally at a ater stage if the Hon,ble Supreme Couft ccnfirmsthe decisiorr tal:t:r.r by this High Court as also by the othe. HighCourts in 'vhicl the SLps are still pending, the Incom,: Tax Department [would ][get ][the ][advantage ][of the ][liberty ][that is otherwtse]protected [in ][favour ][of ][the ][Revenue ][for ][initiation ][of ][fresh]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 ][setitt ][Kanakala ][Ravindrs ][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 petidons ][piling up ][ori ][the ][same ][issue' This]deliberate [approach ][not ][only ][undermines ][the ][principle ][of ][judicial]precedent [but ][also strains the ][judicial ][resources ][unnecessarily' The]Department's [strategy ][of ][awaiting ][the ][Supreme ][Court's decision on]pending [SLPs ][while ][continuing ][to ][initiate ][fresh ][proceedings]appears [to ][be ][a ][calculated ][move ][to ][buy time ][and ][circumvent]limitation Wrilds' [rather than ][adhering ][to ][the ][established legal] lt i\I i position. St ch conduct raises serious questiorrs iLtout tbeadminis.ratr,,,: cfficiency and the respe()t ftrr judicialpronouncemen ts, particularly rvhen this Court has alr,:arl) provideda balanced aJ,proach by preserving both the Revenue,s rillhts andassesses interr:sts. lt i\I i position. St ch conduct raises serious questiorrs iLtout tbeadminis.ratr,,,: cfficiency and the respe()t ftrr judicialpronouncemen ts, particularly rvhen this Court has alr,:arl) provideda balanced aJ,proach by preserving both the Revenue,s rillhts andassesses interr:sts. 13. Arothi:r :rspect which needs to be considered is that ir fact itshould havr, b()en realized by the Income Tax Department t:;elf andshould hav,: lound out via media in ensuring rhat proix:edingsunder Se<:ri<tns l.lg-A and 14g should not have lteen issu:d in afaceless rLanrler. at least till the Hon,ble Supreme Cou.t rft,cide thetwelve hundr.ed i i200) odd SLps which it is already seized r lor, atleast the inr:onrt: Tax Deparlment should have tbunri ,,rt someremedtal stel)s tr) ensure that wherever the authonties in,le nd toinitiate proceedings under Sections l4g_A and I4g,other tlar in afaceless marne'. the proceedings shourd have bee.r dr:l.enedwithout precipili,t ng the matter further intimating the assess,er: thatthey shall ilitiatt: appropriate proceedings only after the SLI),s aredecided by the J-l:n'ble Supreme Court on the very same i;sue.This again, ihe. Inc:me Tax Department, has not been abl: to rE;ve accavincir.g i.erri1,:::.cef' rbr th: fbcl that such a de<;isicn 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]theonehandwhentheHighCourtisstrugglingtoreduceitssuch [notices ][which ][are under ][challenge ][in ][this ][writ]pendency, petition are forcing [the ][assessee ][to ][knock the ][doors ][of ][this ][High]Court resulting [in ][fiting ][of ][hundreds ][of ][new ][writ ][petitions ][which ][iir]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 ][concerned ][at ][the]State level [are ][not ready ][to ][accept 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-,{ ][and] 148 th.u,3rr trre jurisdictionar Assessing off,rcer rvtere,s it oughtto have te:n oirly in the faceless manner. 14. In rhr: case of BANK OF INDIA vs. ASI;ISTANTCOMM{SSI()NER, INCOME TAXil, on an issue vyhetlrr:r it wasjustifiable on the part of the Income Tax Dt:parmelt in notfollowin6l an < rler passed by the adjudicating authonty or 1.,, on theground thar 1.lrc appeals are pending, the Divisi,:n Ilench of theHigh Court o1'Bornbay held at paragraph No.25 as under. r ir:.. : 148 th.u,3rr trre jurisdictionar Assessing off,rcer rvtere,s it oughtto have te:n oirly in the faceless manner. 14. In rhr: case of BANK OF INDIA vs. ASI;ISTANTCOMM{SSI()NER, INCOME TAXil, on an issue vyhetlrr:r it wasjustifiable on the part of the Income Tax Dt:parmelt in notfollowin6l an < rler passed by the adjudicating authonty or 1.,, on theground thar 1.lrc appeals are pending, the Divisi,:n Ilench of theHigh Court o1'Bornbay held at paragraph No.25 as under. r ir:.. : "25. Mr. [paridwalla ]has righ y drawn out altention to flredecision of [-is ]Court in Commissioner of lncome Tax,rs. Snrt.Godava.ictovi Sarafl2 as also the recent decision of lhe c,>-ordinete Be tr:h of this Court in Samp Furniture (p) Ltd. v. lTrOr3of whi;h onr: r:f us (Justice G.S. Kulkarni) was a member, wher 3inthe C,)urt calegorically observed that the Revenue havinS, tot"accepted" tlt€r judgment of the High Court would not mear thal tillthe sarne is ;6;1 ss;6" in a manner known to law, it would loose it;bindingr force,. Referring to the decision of the Supreme Oourt inUnion of lnrli,a vs. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd.ra 116,court.bs;eneJ that the approach of the officiars of Rev€,nue o,treating deci;irtns being [,,not ]acceptable,, was criticized by fl.reSuprenre Cou t. ln such decision, following are the releva 1lobservaticns; made by the Supreme Court. " ',) !A, il 9781 23;l .r.', ^o I t_? I ta.\, n -R. 5 r t9 n n. 1Ben.,6ur,1c o m 42 2 1 B o m bay ) j ','.720211165 taxn ann.com 5gl/300 Taxman 452 (Bombay) 'o ]t99Z1taxrnanrr. corn I 6/ 55 ELT433 (SC) "6. Sri ReddYis [perhaps ][right ][in ][saying ][.that ][the]officers [were]not actuated [bY ][anY ][mala ][fides ][in]passing theimpugned [orders. ][TheY ][PerhaPs]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 ][in ][the appellate ][hierarchy ][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 ][jurisdiction ][and]the order [of the Tribunal is ][binding upon ][the Assistant]Collectors [and the ][Appellate Collectors ][who ][function]under the [jurisdiction ][of the ][Tribunal' ][The ][principles ][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 subject [matter of an appeal can ][fumish ][no]ground for not [following ][it ][unless ][its ][operation ][has]been suspended [by ][a ][competent ][court- ][lf ][this ][healthy] \ "ui. is not foli(,lve(.i. t,:1e i, rrarirssment to assesses rro";;;r' r)f Le x laws.""1;::J#: 12 \r'/e have dealt witf) this aspect \ "ui. is not foli(,lve(.i. t,:1e i, rrarirssment to assesses rro";;;r' r)f Le x laws.""1;::J#: 12 \r'/e have dealt witf) this aspect \r'/e have dealt witf) this aspect at som. len lth,boc,a J{ie it has been t"n"tt"o by the learrerJby the learrerJAddit onar soricitor o"r that the observati.ns;oflice mi)de -s ly rt the is crear High *n", "or,'"t"' ,t' n' observations " been harsh on -hecourt of the Highoflice mi)de -s ly rt the is crear High *n", "or,'"t"' ,t' n' observations " been harsh on -hecourt of the Highseemingry ,"rhe and apparenflyapparenflyunoarr tabre ,o ,n" *"r"rr'"'"nt' le' are only intended to curb.r t3ncency in revenue tecome widespread, which' if allowed to"or'uttu" result in considerab eharass nent to the assesse t. ther Frevenue. without any bene,itwe ws-public d,parrn,€nt shourd rake ;::1 [*,:f"Jrl, ,,1]tecome widespread, which' if allowed to"or'uttu" result in considerab eharass nent to the assesse t. ther Frevenue. without any bene,itwe ws-public d,parrn,€nt shourd rake ;::1 [*,:f"Jrl, ,,1]proper spirit. The observof the High courisr-ourd t,e kept in mind,n rr,ut'on" shou,d re paid by the r.,r;:::,r";:lillH:::til:shou,d re paid by the r.,r;:::,r";:lillH:::til:ap:e lakr authorities to thedisciprin€ rnd the need of :he hilher appellate auth;rilT#". ";:::::orities which are bindingon th,lln ' of :he hilher appellate auth;rilT#". ";:::::orities which are bindingon th,lln ' 15. What is w,)lrying this Bench more is the fact thal an endeavour is berng rnade whole heartedly to ensure not to gen()rttefurther litigaticn c,n issues which have been laid to rest b1.a I rrgenumber of Hi5;h Ccurts all of whom have taken a consiste.rt st,lndthat the action cf.thr: [ncome Tax Deparlment being vio]ative of t,e rb-r..d Finance Act,2O20 [and ][Finance'Act,2\2l' ][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]observatior/direction [that ][the disposal ][ofthe ][instant ][writ ][petition in]terms of [the ][judgment ][rendered ][by ][this High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]Kankanala [Ravindra ][Reddy ][(1 ][supra) ][shalt however ][be ][subject to]theoutcomeofthesLPswhichwerefiledbythelncomeTaxDepartment [and ][which ][is ][pending consideration before the ][Hon'ble]Supreme Court. 16. In [the given ][facts 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 ][fortified ][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 ai .]8 of the order which, for ready reference, is rr:producedhereundr:r :i6. l:or all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned loticr)sir;su:d and the proceedings drawn by the respc,nderrt.[)epi]rtment is neither tenable, nor sustatnab 3.The n,:tices so issued and the procedure adopted beir.gpel' ,'e, illegal, deserves to be and are accordingly s;)ta,;ide [./quashed. ]As a consequence, all the impugn€,dofdels getting quashed, the consequential orders passeJby lhe respondent-Department pursuant to the noticesis:;uel under Section 147 and 14g would also gotqt.asfre d and it is ordered accordingly. The reasr,n w )ar': <; t;rshing the consequential order is on the prin ;iple,;that rvlen the initiation of the proceedings itself r,t,a:proceJLrrally wrong, the subsequent orders also getr.'ru Irf e d automatically. :i6. l:or all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned loticr)sir;su:d and the proceedings drawn by the respc,nderrt.[)epi]rtment is neither tenable, nor sustatnab 3.The n,:tices so issued and the procedure adopted beir.gpel' ,'e, illegal, deserves to be and are accordingly s;)ta,;ide [./quashed. ]As a consequence, all the impugn€,dofdels getting quashed, the consequential orders passeJby lhe respondent-Department pursuant to the noticesis:;uel under Section 147 and 14g would also gotqt.asfre d and it is ordered accordingly. The reasr,n w )ar': <; t;rshing the consequential order is on the prin ;iple,;that rvlen the initiation of the proceedings itself r,t,a:proceJLrrally wrong, the subsequent orders also getr.'ru Irf e d automatically. 37 [--h ]e preliminary objection raised by the petitioner isr;ustairred and all these writ petitions stands alloweC onthis verv jurisdictional issue. Since the impugned noticesenc cr.iers are getting quashed on the point cfjuris;dictir>n, we are not inclined to proceed further anddecide the other issues raised by the petitioner wtichslards [,eserved ]to be raised and contended in ana:p ['op 'i:rte ]proceedings. 33tiince the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the caseol Ar;his hAgarwal, supra, as a one{imemeasuree>:er:isi t1ythe powers under Article 142of there>:er:isi t1ythe powers under Article 142of therCon".;titu trrtn of lndia, permitted the Revenue to proceedunder Il-€ substituted provisions, and this Court allow ngtho letitrons only on the procedural flaw, the rir;htunder Il-€ substituted provisions, and this Court allow ngtho letitrons only on the procedural flaw, the rir;ht conferred on the Revenue [would ][remain reserved ][t0]proceed further if they so want [from the ][stage ][of ][the]order of the Supreme [Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ][Ashish]Agarwal, suPra. 18. We would only [fuither like ][to ][make observations ][that ][since]weareinclinedtodisposeoftheinstantwritpetition,consciousofthe fact that the [earlier order ][of ][this ][High Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]Kanakala Ravindra [Reddy ][(l ][supra) ][is ][subjected ][to ][challenge]before the Hon'ble [Supreme ][Court ][in ][SLP No'3574 ][of ][2024']Income [Tax Department, we ][make ][it ][clear ][that]preferred by the allowing of the [instant ][writ ][petition ][is ][subject ][to ][outcome ][of ][the]aforesaid SLP [preferred by the ][Revenue against ][the decision ][ofthis]High Court in [the ][case ][of ][Kanakala Ravindra ][Reddy ][(1 ][stpra)']This, in other [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 ][light ][of ][the ][decision ][of ][the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme]Court in the [pending SLP ][on the ][very ][same issue'] 19. Accordingly, [the ][instant ][writ ][petition ][stands ][allowed ][in]favour of the [assessee ][so ][far ][as ][the ][issue ][of ][jurisdiction]1Sconcemed. As [a][ consequence, ][the ][impugned ][notice ][under]challenge under [Sections ][148-4 ][and ][148 ][stands ][set ][aside/quashed'] {I The conserlu:nl iirl orders, if any, also stand set aside,'quaslLed in similar terrns as have been passed by this High Court in the clse of Kankunala Ruvindra Reddy (l supra). There shall be no (,rrler as to costs. Consecue rlly, miscellaneous petitions pending. if any r;hall stand close,l SD/-P. PIfNNA KRISHNAASSISTANT IIEGISTRAR//TRUE COPY//r\\i'tSECTI()t\I OFFICER To, 1. Assessment Jrit, [ncome ][Tax Department, ][National Faceless ][Asr,;e ][ssment]C;;i* [|"ernrnert [of ][lndia, ][Jawihadal ][Nehru ][lrlarg Blo';k ] [Pres:; Enclave,]Savitri Nagar [N,:Yr ][Delhi ][- ][110002]C;;i* [|"ernrnert [of ][lndia, ][Jawihadal ][Nehru ][lrlarg Blo';k ] [Pres:; Enclave,]Savitri Nagar [N,:Yr ][Delhi ][- ][110002] {I The conserlu:nl iirl orders, if any, also stand set aside,'quaslLed in similar terrns as have been passed by this High Court in the clse of Kankunala Ruvindra Reddy (l supra). There shall be no (,rrler as to costs. Consecue rlly, miscellaneous petitions pending. if any r;hall stand close,l SD/-P. PIfNNA KRISHNAASSISTANT IIEGISTRAR//TRUE COPY//r\\i'tSECTI()t\I OFFICER To, 1. Assessment Jrit, [ncome ][Tax Department, ][National Faceless ][Asr,;e ][ssment]C;;i* [|"ernrnert [of ][lndia, ][Jawihadal ][Nehru ][lrlarg Blo';k ] [Pres:; Enclave,]Savitri Nagar [N,:Yr ][Delhi ][- ][110002]C;;i* [|"ernrnert [of ][lndia, ][Jawihadal ][Nehru ][lrlarg Blo';k ] [Pres:; Enclave,]Savitri Nagar [N,:Yr ][Delhi ][- ][110002] 2. lncome Tax office,r,'iVard [3 ][1 ][Hyderabad ][Room No.727 ][7ti'-fl:or ][l:iirJnature ].- io*"rr Sy N:.fi ti I; )of Kondafur opp Botanical Gardens Serilirgampally MR.R.Dist. HYclerabrrd- io*"rr Sy N:.fi ti I; )of Kondafur opp Botanical Gardens Serilirgampally MR.R.Dist. HYclerabrrd 3. The Secretary [Jni,lrt [of ][lndia, ][Department of ][Revenue ][t\'4inistry ][of Finance]North Block t,le'ry [tte ][lhi-'1 ][1 ][000 ][1]North Block t,le'ry [tte ][lhi-'1 ][1 ][000 ][1] 4. One CC to S R [CrHD ] [Advocate ][toPUCl] 5. One CC to N/s. B [tll\PNA ][REDDY SR. ] [INCOME: ][fA ][(] DEPARTMEI\]T 6 One CC to SRI G,\Dl [PRAVEEN KUMAR Dv. SOLICITOR ] loPUClloPUCl7Two CD Copies;KKSGJP6GJP6 HIGH COUR-r DATED:02l1tit2025 ORDER WP.No.27399 of 2024 [o]nr.ei)[-=::=\](Io[c](1113 ,ltuT il6r)'+* o/ l"t7.,lt l ALLOWING HE WRIT PETITIONWITHOUT CO$.rS O)Lr1o%'{-