Wp/27453/2024 Of Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Limited Sathupally v. The Income Tax Officer Ward 1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STELANGANAAT HYDE JfJE DOF (rpecaal Original Jurisdiction) THU-RSDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF MAYTWO THOUSAND AND IWENTY;IVi PRESENT THE HONOURAAI THE Ho Nou RAB LE s R, ;:lHrl^'.::": "# ::::; - r^WRITPETITIONNO:27431 0F 2024 Between: ffiffis6ffiffiffigrnft tr-fif, '=.ilil.,ffiF...PETITIONER ...PETITIONER AND 'ffi Jt"^"fl?:iiJ,T,Rfl #?:1*,Ti,g[E?.,1ff Jt"^"fl?:iiJ,T,Rfl #?:1*,Ti,g[E?.,1ff 2. principat *,TInofl H;t1i?n,,. 2. principat !_he Chief Cor;31,",,.At#""t'fl [""1""3'X?''3t'*:::il:9fl ]i.'"tl;ff.n:e:Sd5:,!_he Chief Cor;31,",,.At#""t'fl [""1""3'X?''3t'*:::il:9fl ]i.'"tl;ff.n:e:Sd5:, 3. The National Faceless Assessment Center, lncome Tax Department, NewCenter, lncome Tax Department, New 4. T|q Centrat Board of DiR'"["J:ily::;y"f [.iH#ffi ][:IsJ:a"TsHffi ]r#,3l,f ."*?5[fl :iB:i,i,it.l^,R'"["J:ily::;y"f [.iH#ffi ][:IsJ:a"TsHffi ]r#,3l,f ."*?5[fl :iB:i,i,it.l^, '53i,';H*i:lH:1"ff f,",;:#:?8,yll,:ffiift g,,'"offi ,9?[Tffi ",,f,",;:#:?8,yll,:ffiift g,,'"offi ,9?[Tffi ",, ...RESPONDENTS pleased crrcumstances . Petition to issue under stated an appropriate Article in the 226 affidavit *.it, -of oiou.l. the fir"a"ir,"r"*itn, the constitution ji.lJ,i"" of rndia High praylng that court mav in thebeA'y' -2411051868646(1)and narure 201e of writ - 20 of passed Mandamus, decraring uls r+snlol oiih;il;;:'5,N 1," irprg"L notice No. more rrBA/AS particurarry one in dated. o,ioqtzozs TtFt14BN2o23rheto,DrN No. rrBtuAsr/s/14e the conseq.entiar notice ut" ua dau.d osto4r2023 vrderespondent) instead of FA 0(3rd ,^tDo[i-ziliosieZilqr;..r.0 ,G""0""i1"" by the JA0(1stprovisions of lncome-tax Act and contrary to ttre eiincipres "Jo, [iltregal, ]of Natural Justice[and ][contrary ][ro ][rhe] Counsel [for ][the ][Petitioner: ][SRI' ] Counsel [for ][the Respondent Nos'1&2: Ms' ] [SA'PNA ] [(Jr' ] FOR lNcoME [TAX)] Counsel [for ][the Respondent ][Nos'3 ][to 5: ] soiiCnoe [cENERAL ][oF ] The Court [made ][the ][following: ] HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD(bpecaal Original Jurisdiction) THUfi_SDAY, THE FIRSTDAY OF tliIAYTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ivi PRESENT THE HONOURAALE SRI JP.SAM KOSHYANfusTtcE THE HONOURAALE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION NO:27453 0F 2024 Between: Hi:a;i;,Til**i*;i?+ffi ;6y"+;rfi?slt#jtF? AND .....PET|TIoNER 1. The lncome Tax Oificer 2. The Hairv Prrncrpal chow.k. Cnref Near Kinnerasr"i Cor^W_ard [1, ]iduiii",?ilir#"rn [Khammam/ ][Income ], ","ngana [fax ]","ngana [Office. Rajeev ][stare]Gunt Cor, ","ngana [[stare]]*["",,r,,';,.i,il;#3Tts'il"J:::il:gf [?"',?I;11]g?H:trf ]B* 3 The NaircnaJ Faceless Assessment Center, lncome Tax Depadment. Newt I:;9"JXSI sif ;."S1 3:,".qt ra xes, ot _Represented by its chairman,,Buildings Ncw Dethi ,'if$?'o Finance, Government or rnoia, secrerariatt I:;9"JXSI sif ;."S1 3:,".qt ra xes, ot _Represented by its chairman,,Buildings Ncw Dethi ,'if$?'o Finance, Government or rnoia, secrerariat 5. The Unron of lnCra. ReoDup,.t,""nioi'H;J;;::"fi :,ll_";i,:lFi"m:Ky*,?,ffi ,9?1ffi ili,,Dup,.t,""nioi'H;J;;::"fi :,ll_";i,:lFi"m:Ky*,?,ffi ,9?1ffi ili,, ..,..RESPONDENTS Petiticn Under Article 225 of the Constitution oflndia praying that in thecircumstances siated in the affidavit filed therewith,the High Court may bepleased to issue an Writ cf i,/andamus, declaring the order passed by the {ncomeTax Authorities (Natronat FacelessE-Assessment Centre) completed theassess"nent u/s i 47 r w s 144 read with sectiofl 144a of the [ncome-tax Acr Dare 5. The Unron of lnCra. ReoDup,.t,""nioi'H;J;;::"fi :,ll_";i,:lFi"m:Ky*,?,ffi ,9?1ffi ili,,Dup,.t,""nioi'H;J;;::"fi :,ll_";i,:lFi"m:Ky*,?,ffi ,9?1ffi ili,, ..,..RESPONDENTS Petiticn Under Article 225 of the Constitution oflndia praying that in thecircumstances siated in the affidavit filed therewith,the High Court may bepleased to issue an Writ cf i,/andamus, declaring the order passed by the {ncomeTax Authorities (Natronat FacelessE-Assessment Centre) completed theassess"nent u/s i 47 r w s 144 read with sectiofl 144a of the [ncome-tax Acr Dare ot1o.o2.2o24'DINITBA/AS1|sjt14712023.2411060751907(1)fortheAssessmentYear [2018-19 determining the ][total ][income ][of ][Rs ][27 ]['28 ]['2421-as ][arbfirary' illegal']badinlaw,withoutjurisdiction,void-ab-initio'Violativeoftheprinciplesofnaturaljustice apart [from ][being ][violative ][of ][Articles ][r ][+' ][19(1Xg) ][and ][265 ][of ][the]'Constitution of lndia [Sec' ][148A ][of ][the ][lncome ][Tax ][Act' ][1961' ][and]consequently [set ][aside the ][same ][in ][the ][interests ][of justice'] Counsel [for ][the ][Petitioner ][: ] Counsel [for ][the Respondent Nos'1 & ][2 : ][Ms' J'SUNITHA ][(JUNIOR SC ] lNcoME [TAX)] Counsel [for ][the ][Respondent ][No'3 ][: SRI ] [KUMAR' ] SOITCTTON Counsel [for ][the ][Respondent ][Nos'4 ][to ][5 ][: ][SRI P'SHASHIDHAR REDDY] The Court [made ][the ][following ] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYrHE HoNouRABLE rfrYuarr.E NARSTNG RAoNANDIKONDA WRIT PETITIONNo.27453 of 2024 ORDER, bter Hon'ble Sri Justice p.Sam Koshy) Ileard Mr. T.Chaitanya Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.J.Sunitha, leamed Junior Standing Counsel forthe Income Tax Deparlment flor the respondents. perused therecord 2. This is a writ petition where the proceedings are eitherchallenged to rhe norices which were issued under Section l4gAand 148 of rhe Income Tax Act, 196l (for short .the Act,) or theassessrnent orders those have been passod under Section 147 ofthe Act rvhich have been assailed. 3. This rvrit petition is being taken up today only on one of the grounds, rhat the notices issued under Section l4gA of the Actand the subseqr-rent initiation of procredings under Section l4g ofthe Act bv the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, whereas in rermsol- the arlendment thar r.r,as brought to the Income.fax Act. by rvayol Firrance Act, 20ll w.e.t., 01.04.2021 otwards, proceedings under Section 148,4, ol [the ][Act ][as ][also ][under Section ][148 ][of ][the]Act ought to have also [been issued ][and ][proceeded ][in ][a ][faceless]manner.4. 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 l48A and Section [148 ][ofthe ][Act]not being issued in a faceless manner, have already [been ][dealt ][with]and decided by this Courl in the case ol RAVINDRA REDDY vs. INCOME"TAX [decided]on 14.09.2023 whereby a batch of writ [petitions ][were ][allowed ][and]the proceedings initiated under Section t'18A [as also ][under Section]148 of the Act were hetd to be bad [r.vitli ]conseqrtential [reliefs ][on the]ground of it being in violation ol the pro"'isions of Scction [151A ][of]the Act read with Notification 1812022 dated [29.01.2022. The ][said]judgment passed by this Court has atso beetr subsequently followedin a large number of writ petitions which u.'erc allow,ed on similarterms. ' l(2023) [1 ][56 ][taxmann.com ][l ] [(Tclangana) ]l 5. Down the line, we find that the same issue has also been ' l(2023) [1 ][56 ][taxmann.com ][l ] [(Tclangana) ]l 5. Down the line, we find that the same issue has also been decided against the Revenue by various High Courts i.e.,by the Bombay High Court in the case of HEXAWARETECHNOLOGIES LTD., vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX & OTHERS2, Gauhati High Court in rhe caseof RAM NARAYAN SAH vs. UNION OF INDIA3, punjab andHaryana High Court in rhe case of JATINDER SINGH BANGUvs. UNION OF INDIAI, and Telangana High Court in the case ofSRI VENKATARAMANA REDDY PATLOOLA vs. DEPUTYCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX5 where the issue was inrespect of international taxation, Bombay High Court in the case ofABHIN ANILKUMAR SI{AH vs. INCOME TAx OFFICER,INTERNATIONAL TAXATION6 which is again on intemationaltaxation and centr.al circle, High Court of Himachal pradesh in thecase of COVIND SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERT,Gujarat High Courr in rhe case of MANSUKHBHAIt 1zoz1146l I tR J.io (t3orrr)'[(2tlZ+S [56 raxnrann.conr -l7l( (Uauhari)l^ s [(2024) 165 raxrnann.com l l5 (punjab & Ilaryana)][2024) I 67 taxrnann.com .l t t ( 1-clangana)]"_[2024) 166 raxmann.corn 679 (Bombay)]' [2024\ [65 laxrnann.com t lj il{imac(aipraaesh)] DAHYABHAI RADADIYA [VS. ] [OFFTCER']WARD 3(3)(18, Jharkand [High Courl ][in ][the ][case ][of ] SUNDAR SAW [vs. ] [OF INDIAe, ][Rajasthan ][High Courl ][in]the case of SHARDA DEVI [vs. ] OFFICER & ANOTHER [and ][batch ][of writ ][petitionsro ][which]stood decided on 19.03.2024. [Simitar ][views ][have ][also been ][ta-ken]aby the Division Bench of [Calcutta ][High Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]GIRDIIAR GOPAL DALMIA [vs. ] [& ] (M.A.T 1690 of 2023), decided on25.09.2024- 6. Even though the same issue [having ][been ][decided ][by ][a ][large]number of High Courts, we are [sti[[ confronted ][u'ith ][iarge ][filing ][of]identical matters on daily basis [ranging ][bct',veetr ][5 ][to ][[0 ][writ]petitions. That upon the instructions [being ][soLLght ][fiorn ][the]Department, they have been [taking ][a ][solitary ][ground ][that ][the]decision of the Bombay High Court [in ][the ][case ][ol ][Hewrware]Technologies Ltd., (2 supra) as also the one [u'hich ][has ][been]decided by this Court in the case of [Kottttkolo Ravindro ][Redtly] 82024 SCC Online Guj 40 12'2025 [Online ][Jhar 287]'o 12023 [RJ-ID;4984-DB ]l (l supra) has been subjeued to challenge in a Special LeavePetition i.e., SLp No.3574 of 2024 before the Hon,ble Supremecourt and the Hon'bre 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 learned counsel for the Revenue,they have categorically accepted the lact 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 betbre this Bench on daily basisand the pendency is getting increased ol1 matter which otherwisehas already been dealt and decidcd by this very High Court itself.8. On the one hand, even rhoush the order of this Court thatwas passed as earl-y as on 14.09.202i and more 16 months havelapsed, till date. we do not find any rernedial steps having beentaken by the Income Tax Deparlrnent to take appropriate steps toeither hold back issuance o[ notice under Section l4gA and underSection I48 ol the Act by the jurisdictional Assessing Oflioer,rather dre authorities concemed in the teeth ol series of decisions by all the major [High ][Courts ][in ][India ][are ][continuous[5" ][still]initiating [proceedings ][under ][Section ][1484. ][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 ][Act ][202 ][l']g. Upon a [query ][being put ][as ][to why can't ][this ][writ ][petition ][be]disposed of in the [teeth ][of ][the decision ][rendered ][by ][this ][CouIt ][in]the case of Kanakala [Ravindra ][Reddy ][(l ][supra), leamed Standing]Counsel for [the Income Tax Department ][contends ][th21 1fi65s ][rvould]unnecessarily burden the [Income ][Tax ][Departrnent ][u'here ][thcl']would be required to hle [equal number ][of ][S[-Ps ][betbre ][the]Hon'ble Supreme Court [and ][it ][would ][be ][lur-ther ][burderrirrg ][the]exchequeroftheUnionoflndia,Itwasalsothecorrterl|iorrolthclearned Standing Counsel [that no ][prejudice ][would ][be caused ][to ][thc]interest of the petitioners in [case ][if ][this ][writ ][petition ][is ][kept pending]tilt the f,rnaiization of the SLPs [pending before ][the ][Ilon'hle]Supreme Court and the fact [that ][the ][petitioner ][is already ][enjof ][ing]the benefit of interim protection. Nonetheless, [on the ][earlier ][qttclr.]ol this Court as to why the Income [Tax ][Depa(ment ][have not ][corlre]out with a mechanism to issue [appropriate instrttctious ][or ][to ][lake] appropriate steps in ensuring that proceedings under Section 14gAof the Act as also the a55s5sm6nt orders under Section l4g of theAct are kept in a hold in the light of the decisions dedcided by thevarious High courts, it was submitred by the leamed StandingCounsel that the said steps can only be taken ar 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 f.acing 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 concer.ned ar.e still even now in2025 also initiating proceedings in contravention to the provisionsof Section 151A of the Act and as a result by now, more than 600to 700 petitions have been already got piled up befbre this HighCourt on an issue which otherwise stands squarely covered by thejudgment of this Court in the case of Kartakttla Ravirulra Reddy(l supra). What is also surprising is the tact [hat though whileallowing the writ petitions in the case of Ktrnokalcr RavindrttReddy (l supra), the Division Bench while reserving the right ofthe Revenue, has also plotected the interest of the petitioners insofar as the iiberly [which ][was ][granted ][to ][the ][Revenue ][for]fresh [proceedings ][strictly ][in ][accordance ][with ][the ][amended]initiating provisions of the Act, [as amended ][by ][the ][Finance ][Act' ][2020 ][and]the Finance Lct,2O2l. [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 ][iu]availing the said [liberty ][that ][was reserved ][for ][the ][Revenue' ][On ][the]have [been ][still ][sticking ][on ][to ][the ][stand,, ][wl.rich ][this]contrary, they High Court as [well ][as ][many ][other ][High ][Courts ][already ][held ][to ][be]bad. insofar as the iiberly [which ][was ][granted ][to ][the ][Revenue ][for]fresh [proceedings ][strictly ][in ][accordance ][with ][the ][amended]initiating provisions of the Act, [as amended ][by ][the ][Finance ][Act' ][2020 ][and]the Finance Lct,2O2l. [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 ][iu]availing the said [liberty ][that ][was reserved ][for ][the ][Revenue' ][On ][the]have [been ][still ][sticking ][on ][to ][the ][stand,, ][wl.rich ][this]contrary, they High Court as [well ][as ][many ][other ][High ][Courts ][already ][held ][to ][be]bad. t1It appears that [because ][of ][the aforesaid ][tiberty ][that ][this Higli]Court had [granted ][permitting ][the ][Revenue ][for ][initiating ][fi'csh]procceclings as a one-time [measure ][in ][a ][faceless ][tlannet'' ][thc]lncorne Tax Deparlment [wants ][to ][take ][advantage ][ol ][tlie ][san-re ][bv]protracting these proceedings [which would ][enable them to tneet ][the]linritation that [rvould ]otherwise [come ][in ][the ][way. ][Likervise, ][i{'the]rvlit petition is kept pending for a considerable [long ]lleriod [ol ][tirne]and tinatly at a later stage if [the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Coutt ][conf'irurs]thc decision taken by this High Court [as ][also ][by ][the other ][High]Courts in [r.r ]hich the SLPs are still [pending, ][the Incotle ][I'ax] Departrnent would get the advantage of the tiberty that is otherwiseprotected in favour of the Revenue fbr initiation of freshproceedings from the disposal of these matters at a much later stagewhich would be advantageous and beneficial to the Revenue andwould be equally disadvantageous and detrimental so f.ar as interestof the assesses are concerned. As a consequence, the Income Taxproceedings from the disposal of these matters at a much later stagewhich would be advantageous and beneficial to the Revenue andwould be equally disadvantageous and detrimental so f.ar as interestof the assesses are concerned. As a consequence, the Income TaxDepartment gets an extended period of time for initiation of freshproceedings.proceedings. 12. The alarming trend of docket explosion in this Court, despitethe clear precedent setin Kanakala Rovindra Reddy (l supra), is amatter of grave concem. The Income Tax Department,s persistenti nitiation of fresh proceedings, disregard ing rhe esrabl i shed j udic ialpronouncements, has led to an unprecedented surge in litigationwith over 600-700 petitions piling up on the sarne issue. .fhisdeliberate approach not only undermines the principle of judicialprecedent but also strains the judicial resoul.ces unnecessarily. TheDepartment's strat€gy of awaiting the Supreme court,s decision onpending SLPs while continuing to initlate fresh proceeclingsappearc to be a calculated move to buy time and circumventIin-r itation pgriods, rather than adhering ro the established legal 12. The alarming trend of docket explosion in this Court, despitethe clear precedent setin Kanakala Rovindra Reddy (l supra), is amatter of grave concem. The Income Tax Department,s persistenti nitiation of fresh proceedings, disregard ing rhe esrabl i shed j udic ialpronouncements, has led to an unprecedented surge in litigationwith over 600-700 petitions piling up on the sarne issue. .fhisdeliberate approach not only undermines the principle of judicialprecedent but also strains the judicial resoul.ces unnecessarily. TheDepartment's strat€gy of awaiting the Supreme court,s decision onpending SLPs while continuing to initlate fresh proceeclingsappearc to be a calculated move to buy time and circumventIin-r itation pgriods, rather than adhering ro the established legal position. Such conduct [raises ][serious ][questions ][about ][thc]administrative [efficiency ][and the ][respect ][for ][judicial]pronouncetnents, [particularly ][when ][this Court ][has ][already provided]a balanced approach [by ][preserving both ][the ][Revenue's ][rights ][and]asscsscs intercsts.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 lound out [via ][media ][in ][ensuring ][that ][proceedings]under Sections 148-,{ [and ][148 ][should ][not ][have been ][issued ][in ][a]faceless manller, at [least ][till ][the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Court ][decide ][the]trvelve hundred [( ] [200) odd ][SLPs ][which ][it ][is ][alreaciy seized ][o{- ][or'' ][at]least the lncottte Tax [Department ][should have ][found ][out ][sotlrc]renredial stelrs to [ensure ][that ][wherever ][the ][authorities intend ][to]iuitiatc proceedings [under Sections ][148-A ][and ][148, ][other ][than irr ][a]hcclcss nranner. the [proceedings ][should have been ][dclerrcd]rvithout precipitating the matter further intimating [the ][assessee ][that]the1, shall iuitiate appropriate [proceedings ][only ][after the ][SI-P's arc]clecided bi' thc Hon'ble Supreme [Court ][on ][the very ][satne ][issttt']l.his again, the lncome Tax Department, [has ][not ][been ][able to ][give ][a]con"'incing reply. except for the [fact that ][such ][a decision ][if ][at ][arll]r.i 1::iF:1:d{!!-!,.a:i::.4,$rn.{_!: has to be taken has to be taken for the rr,,hole of India, and which .::t"nli+E+'2trE *jF*d')ji:pi'$rsj?&tffi aE#&!{r otherwise has to be by way of a policy decision and that too at thelevel of Central Board of Direct Ta,xes. Though the leamedStanding Counsel for the Income Tax Department contended thatthe Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition of similar nature, 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 only affects the disposal of the writ petitions butalso consumes substantial time of the Bench in hearing thesematters again and again on daily basis. Admitredly, in spite of therxatter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court having been taken ontnany occasions, the Hon,ble Supreme Courl which is seized olthentatter has been reluctant in granting any interim protection to theI ncome Tax Department. yet, the authorities concemed at theState level are not ready to accept the verdict passed b-v a majorit,volHigh Courts of different States on the same issue; and to rnakcthings lurther worse, the Income Tax Department is showingaudacity by issuing notices continuously under Sections l4g_A and 148 through the [jurisdictional ][Assessing ][Officer ][whereas ][it ][ought]to have been only [in ][the ][faceless ][manner.] 148 through the [jurisdictional ][Assessing ][Officer ][whereas ][it ][ought]to have been only [in ][the ][faceless ][manner.] 14. In the case of [vs' ] COMMISSIONER, [INCOME TAXrr, ][on ][an ][issue ][whether ][it ][was]justifiabte on the part of the lncome Tax [Depadment ][in ][not]fotlowing an order [passed ][by the ][adjudicating authority ][only ][on ][the]ground that the appeals [are pending, ][the ][Division ][Bench ][of ][the]High Court of'Bornbay [held ][at ][paragraph ][No.25 ][as ][under, ][viz', ][:] "25. tvlr. Paridwalla has rightly [drawn ][out ][atten-tior ][to ][the]decision of this Court [in ][Commissioner of lncome ][Tax ][vs' ][SmL]Godavaridevi Saraf'2 [as ][also ][the ][recent decision ][of ][the ][co-]ordinate tsench of this [Court ][in ][Samp ][Furniture ][(P) ][Ltd' ][v' ][lTO13]of which one of us [(Justice ][G.S. ][Kulkarni) ][was a ][member, ][wherein]the Court categorically [observed ][that ][the ][Revenue ][having ][not]"accepted the Judgment of the [High Court ][would not ][mean ][that ][till]the same is set aside [in ][a ][manner ][known to ][law, ][it ][would loose ][its]bindrng 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]treating decistons [being ]["not ][acceptable" ][was ][criticized ][by ][the]Supreme Court. [ln ][such ][decision, ][following ][are ][the ][relevant]observatrons made [by ][the ][Supreme ][Court] "I(2025 ) I 70 taxnrarltl.conl 422 (Bombay)lt, It9781 I tl lR [.i1t9 ][(Rornba-v)] '-t I20241 165 ta\rnatu.cotr [581/300'['axman ][452 ][(Bombay)],, I1992] taxrrrann.cortr [[6r'55 ][Ill.T ][433 ][(SC)],, I1992] taxrrrann.cortr [[6r'55 ][Ill.T ][433 ][(SC)] "I(2025 ) I 70 taxnrarltl.conl 422 (Bombay)lt, It9781 I tl lR [.i1t9 ][(Rornba-v)] '-t I20241 165 ta\rnatu.cotr [581/300'['axman ][452 ][(Bombay)],, I1992] taxrrrann.cortr [[6r'55 ][Ill.T ][433 ][(SC)],, I1992] taxrrrann.cortr [[6r'55 ][Ill.T ][433 ][(SC)] "6. Sri Reddy is perhaps right in saying that theofficers were not actuated by any rnala fides inpassing the impugned orders. They perhapspassing the impugned orders. They perhapsgenuinely felt that the claim of the assessee was nottenable and that, if it was accepted, the Revenuewould suffer. But what Sri Reddy overlooks is that weare not concerned here with the correctness orwould suffer. But what Sri Reddy overlooks is that weare not concerned here with the correctness orotherwise of their conclusion or of any fectualmalafides but with the fact that the officers, in reachingin their malafides 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 ofregard 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, righ ycnticized this conduct of the Assistant Collectors aMthe harassment to the assessee caused by the failurethe harassment to the assessee caused by the failureof these officers to give effect to the orders ofauthorities higher to them in the appellate hierarchy. Itcannot be too vehemenfly emphasized that it is ofutmost importancE that, in disposing of theauthorities higher to them in the appellate hierarchy. Itcannot be too vehemenfly emphasized that it is ofutmost importancE that, in disposing of thequasijudicial issues before them, revenue officers arebound by the decisbns of the ippellate authorities.The order of the Appellte CoHector is binding on theAssistant Collectors working within his jurisdiction andthe order of tlrc Tribunal is binding upon the AssistantCollectors and the Appellate Co+lectors who functronunder the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The principles ofjudicial discipline require that the orders of the higherappellate authorities should be followed unreservedlyAssistant Collectors working within his jurisdiction andthe order of tlrc Tribunal is binding upon the AssistantCollectors and the Appellate Co+lectors who functronunder the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The principles ofjudicial discipline require that the orders of the higherappellate authorities should be followed 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 ot{ectkxrable phrase _and is the subject mafter of an appeal can furnish noand is the subject mafter of an appeal can furnish noground for not following it urdess its operation hasbeen suspended by a cornpetent court. lf this healthy rule is not followed, the result will only be undueharassment to assesses and chaos in administrationof tax laws. 12. We have dealt with this aspect at some length,because it has been suggested by the learnedAdditional Solicitor General that the observationsmade by the High Court, have been harsh on theofficers. lt is clear that the observations of the HighCourt, seemrngly vehement, and apparentlyunpalatable to the Revenue, are only intended to curba tendency in revenue mafters which, if allowed tobecome widespread, could result in considerableharassment to the assesses-public without any benefitto the Revenue. We would like to say that thedepartment should take these observations in theproper spirit. The observations of the High Courtshould be kept in mind in future and the utmost regardshould be paid by the adjudicating authorities and theappellate authorities to the requirements of [judicial]discrpline and the need for giving effect to the ordersof the higher appellate authorities which are bindingon thern." 15. What is wonving this Bench more is the fact that anendeavour is being rnade rr.hole heartedly to ensure not to generatefurlher titigation on issucs rvhich have been laid to rest by a largenumber ol High Courts all ol'n,hom have taken a consistent standthat the action olthe lncorne Tax Department being violative of the ,.'\,/, ;\ Finance Act,2020 and Finance Act,2O2l. Now, in order to protectthe interest of the Revenue as also that of the assessee, it would bethe interest of the Revenue as also that of the assessee, it would betrite ar this juncture, if we dispose of the writ petition with anobservation/direction that the disposal of the instant writ petition interms of the judgment rendered by this High Court in the case ofKankanala Ravindra Reddy (l supra) shall however be subject tothe outcome of the SLps which were filed by the Income TaxDepaftmenr and which is pending consideration before the Hon,bleobservation/direction that the disposal of the instant writ petition interms of the judgment rendered by this High Court in the case ofKankanala Ravindra Reddy (l supra) shall however be subject tothe outcome of the SLps which were filed by the Income TaxDepaftmenr and which is pending consideration before the Hon,bleS upreme Cour1. 16. ln the given facts and circumstances, this Bench is of the considered opinion that unless and until we do not timely disposeolnratters rihich are squarely covered by the decision of this Courtaud rvhicrr stands fbrtified by the decisions of the various other.I{igh Cor-rrrs on the very same issue, the pendency of this HighCourt ri.oulcl turther be burdened which otherwise can be decidedand disposed ofas a covered matter. 17. So far as the interest of the Revenue is concerned, we are of thc considered opinion that the interest of the Revenue has alreadybcen considered and protected, as has been observed in paragraphs 36,37 and 38 ofthe order which, for ready reference, is reproducedhereunder: 36. For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned noticesissued and the proceedings drawn by the respondenlDepartment is neither tenable, nor sustainable.The notices so issued and the [procedure ]adopted beingper se illegal, deserves to be and are accordingly setaside/quashed. As a consequence, all the [impugned]orders getting [quashed, ]the consequential orders [passed]by the respondent-Department [pursuant ]to the noticesissued under Section 147 aod 148 would also [get]quashed and it is ordered accordingly. The reason weare quashing the consequential order is on the [principles]that when the initiation of the [proceedings ]itself [was]procedurally wrong, the subsequent orders also getsnullified automatically 37. The preliminary objection raised by the [petttioner ][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 ]ofjurisdiction, we are not inclined to proceed further anddecide 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 ]caseof Ashish Agarwal, supra as a one{ime [measure]exercising the powers under Article 142 of theConstitution of lndia, permitted the Revenue to proceedunder the substituted [provrsions. ]and this Court allowingthe petitions only on the [procedural ]flaw, the [right] conferred proceed further on the if Revenue*o''o remain riserved to,n", ao , order of rhe Supreme .#'J,."#"tT*]'T;j;:;Agarwal, supra. 38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, [in the ]caseof Ashish Agarwal, supra as a one{ime [measure]exercising the powers under Article 142 of theConstitution of lndia, permitted the Revenue to proceedunder the substituted [provrsions. ]and this Court allowingthe petitions only on the [procedural ]flaw, the [right] conferred proceed further on the if Revenue*o''o remain riserved to,n", ao , order of rhe Supreme .#'J,."#"tT*]'T;j;:;Agarwal, supra. 18. We would only tufiher Iike to make observations that sincewe are inclined to dispose of the instant writ petition, conscious ofthe fact that rhe earlier order of this High Court in the case ofKanakala Rovindrt Rertd-y (I supra) is subjected to challengebefore the t{on'ble Supreme Court in SLP No.3574 of 2024,preferred by the Inconrc Tax Department, we make it clear thatallowing oc the instanr rvrir pctition is subject to outcome of theaforesaid SLp prefbrrc<J hv rhe nevenue against the decisi,,on of thisHigh Court in rhe cast: <tl- Kunttkala Ravindra Reddy (l sapra).This' in othe. *'or-crs' rr rLricr rrrca, rhat either of the parties, if thevso want, n1a), ,l()\c irrr : r,1.r r..1l1ix1g petition seeking revival of thiswrit petition i, thc Iig^t ol. rlrc decision of the Hon,ble SuprenreCourt in thc pendinrr SI_[) gn t[c vcrv sarne issue. 19. Accortlingl_v. rlrc insr:rur writ petition stands allowedtnfavour ol lhc asscsscc s() Ihr as the issueof jurisdictionlsconcemecl. r\s ac()llsecluencc, the irnpugned notice underchallenge undcr Sccriorrs l-lg-,.\ errd l4g stands set aside/quashed. The consequential [orders' ][if ][any' ][also ][stand ][set ][asideiquashed ][in] sirnilar [terms ][as ][have been ][passed ][by ][this ][High Court ][in ][the ][case ][ol] Thete [shall ][be ][rro ][order ][as] Kankanala [Ravindra ][Reddy ][( ] [supra)'] to costs. Consequently, [miscellaneous ][petitions pending' ][il ][any' shall] sDI' AHII:3+1?ukttT#[A[ //rRuE [coPY// ]"tHfi/o"'"'*- ^' stand [cloSed'] " ; ii+,*'ti'}''#''1ffi ffi1ffffi$fi,Hffi=.,,;'i1J,ffi ffi1ffffi$fi,Hffi=.,,;'i1J,ffi a +i5ft{'J:"" [Faceless ][Assessment ][center' ][lncome Tax Department' ][Nev]5a- :' [L?';, ][3;?':T ][E:li ][:Ll ]["'l ][3li3;' ][n']5a- :' [L?';, ][3;?':T ][E:li ][:Ll ]["'l ][3li3;' ][n']; [+f; ]*=l: P:{'B::.,.ilx;1,?i?:l l\ilinistry [of Finance']110 001 [. ]r r rnion of lndra. [Deparlment of Revenue']l\ilinistry [of Finance']110 001 [. ]r r rnion of lndra. [Deparlment of Revenue'] Ut.**'#41't [t#flt ][i#f*W*E&1rTir,'ff#""r*]; - Si"r"t I,*,Lor, [qBlyFEN ][KUNTAR, ][DEpurY ][solrcrroR ] " 6iiuorn, Aor."9ti[os?Y3]AR REDD'. Acrvocate (oPUc)[[P'r]]- Si"r"t I,*,Lor, [qBlyFEN ][KUNTAR, ][DEpurY ][solrcrroR ] " 6iiuorn, Aor."9ti[os?Y3]AR REDD'. Acrvocate (oPUc)[[P'r]] 6n" CC [to ] [[P'r]] io T*o [CD CoPies] SAGJP HIGH DATED:0110512025 CRDERWP.No.27453 [of ][2024] ALLOWING [THE W.P]WITHOUT [COSTS.],6t [/3]U/ /_/,4// i rtF- sr4r(je6't1\l21 [205](,t)F5^n-^,,-n