Wp/2768/2025 Of Mr.rajasekhar Jonnavithula v. The Income Tax Officer

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENW EIGHTH DAY OF APRILTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDAWRIT PETITION NO: 2768 OF 2025 Between: Mr.Rajasekhar Jonnavithula, S/o J.V. Sharma , aged about 46 [years, ][Rl/o ]PlotNo 97, Road No 7, Vaidehinagar,Vanasthalipuram Hyderabad , R R Dist [- ][500]0070, Telangana ...PETITtONER AND 1The lncome Tax Officer, - Ward 3(1), Hyderabad, lncome Tax Towers, [C,]Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad - 500 004, TelanganaGuards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad - 500 004, Telangana 2The Principal Chief Commissionerof lncome Tax, Andhra [Pradesh ][and]Tetangana, Room No. 922,9th Floor, B Block, l.T.Towers, 10-2-3, Guards, Hyderabad - 500 004,Tetangana, Room No. 922,9th Floor, B Block, l.T.Towers, 10-2-3, Guards, Hyderabad - 500 004, 3Assessment Unit, lncome Tax Department, National e-Assessment Center,New Delhi Room No. 4O1,2nd Floor Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, [New]Delhi 1 10 003.New Delhi Room No. 4O1,2nd Floor Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, [New]Delhi 1 10 003. 4Dist Registrar Office, Ranga Reddy RO, Moosapeta 5-20311 , Bavani [Nagar]Balanagar Hyderabad - 500 018.Balanagar Hyderabad - 500 018. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 225 of the Constitution of lndia [praying ][that ][in ][the]circumstances stated in the affklavit filed therewith, the [High ][Court ][may ][be]pleased to issue a writ, order or a direction, more particularly one in the nature ofWRIT OF MANDAMUS or afly other appropriate writ, order [or direction, ][declaring]i. The Notice issued by the 1"t Respondent under clause(b) of [Section ][148A ][of ][the]lncome Tax Act, 1961 dated 25.03-2022 bearing DIN and [Notice]No ITBtuAST/F/148A(SCNy2021-2211041511157(1) dated 25-03-2023. [for]Assessment Year 2018-2O19 . ii. The order [passed ]by the [1st ][Respondent under]clause (d) of Section 148A of the lncome Tax Act, 1961 dated [08-04-2022 ][bearing] DIN and Notice No. ITBA/AST/S/1 48N2O22-231 [1 ]0426601 50(1 ) dated [O8.O4.2022,]for Assessment Yeat 2018-2019 iii. The Notice issued by the 1st Respondentunder Section 148 of the lncome Tax Act, 1961 dated 08.04.2022 [- ]bearing and Notice No. ITBA/AST/51148 112022-2311042661723(1) dated [O8.O4.2O22, ]torAssessment Yeat 2018-2019, and iv. The order [passed ]by the 3rd Respondentunder Section 147 r.w.s144 read with Section 1448 of the lncome Tax Act ,1961 ,dated 16-01-2024 bearing DIN ITBA/AST/5114712023-2411059772187(1) dated 16-01-2024, for the Assessment Year 2018-19. As arbitrary, illegal, bad in law, void-ab-initio, violative of the [principles ]of natural [justice, ]apart from being violative ofArticles 1a, 19(1Xg) and 265 of the Constitution of lndia and Section 148A of thelncome Tax Act. 1961 and to consequently setaside the same in the interest ofjustice. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section ['l ]51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated inthe affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be [pleased ]to stayall further proceedings, including any recovery, pursuant to the notice issuedunder Section 148 of the lncome Tax Act, 196'l , dated 25-03-2022 bearing DINand Notice No ITBA/AST/F/I48A(SCN/2021- 2211041511157(1) dated 25-03-2O22, for Assessment Year 2018-2019, dated 08.O4.2022 bearing DIN and NoticeNo. ITBtuASTiF I 1 48 Al2O22-23l1 042660 1 50( 1 ) dated O8-4-2O22, for AssessmentYear 2018-2O19 and Assessment order passed under section 147 r.w.s 144 readwith section ['l ]44B dated 16-01-2024 bearing DlN. ITBA/AST lg147l2O23-2411059772187 (1) dated . 16-01-2024 pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI KAILASH NATH P S S Counsel for the Respondents: MS. BOKARO SAPNA REDDY(Jr. SC FoR INCOME TAX) The Court made the following: ORDER Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI KAILASH NATH P S S Counsel for the Respondents: MS. BOKARO SAPNA REDDY(Jr. SC FoR INCOME TAX) The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOTJRABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SATVI KOSHYANDTHE HONOT]RABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAONAi\tDIKONDAWRIT PETITION No.2768 OF 2025 ORDER: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy) PSS, Heard Mr. Kailash NathPSS,learned counsel forthe petitioner and Ms.B.Sapna Reddy leamed Junior StandingCounsel for the Income Tax Department for the respondents.Perused the record. 2. This is a writ petition where the proceedings are eitherchallenged to the notices which were issued under Section l48Aand 148 of the Income Tax Act, 196l (for short'the Act') or theassessment orders those have been passed under Section 147 ofthe Act which have been assailed. l. This writ petition is being taken up today only on one of the grounds, that the notices issued under Section l48A of the Actand the subsequent initiation of proceedings under Section 148 ofthe Act by the [jurisdictional ]Assessing Officer, whereas in termsof the amendment that was brought to the lncome Tax Act by [way]of Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f., 01.M.2021 onwards, proceedingsand the subsequent initiation of proceedings under Section 148 ofthe Act by the [jurisdictional ]Assessing Officer, whereas in termsof the amendment that was brought to the lncome Tax Act by [way]of Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f., 01.M.2021 onwards, proceedings under Section 148,4. of the Act as also under Section 148 of theAct ought to have also been issued and proceeded in a facelessmanner. 4. The contention of the petitioner is that the issue ofcontention 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 being in violation of the Finance Act,202l i.e., theimpugned notices under Section l48A and Section 148 ofthe Actnot being issued in a faceless manner, have already been dealt withand decided by this Court in the case of KANKANALARAVINDRA REDDY vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER1 decidedon 14.09.2023 whereby a batch of writ petitions were allowed andthe proceedings initiated under Section l48A as also under Section148 of the Act were held to be bad with consequential reliefs on theground of it being in violation ol'the provisions of Section 151A ofthe Act read with Notification 18/2022 dated29.03.2022. The saidjudgment passed by this Court has also been subsequently followedin a large number ol writ petitions which were allowed on similarterrns. The contention of the petitioner is that the issue ofcontention 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 '[(2021) [156 ][taxmann.corn ] [78 ][(Telangana)]] 5. Down the line, we find that the same issue has also beendecided against the Revenue by various High Courts i.e.,by the Bombay High Court in the case of IIEXAWARETECHNOLOGIES LTD., vs. ASSISTANT COMIVtrSSIONEROF INCOME TAX & OTHERS2, Gauhati High Court inthe caseof RAM NARAYAN SAH vs. UNION OF INDIA3, Punjab andHaryana High Court in the case of JATINDER SINGH BANGUvs. UNION OF INDIA4, and Telangana High Court in the case ofSRI VENKATARAMANA REDDY PATLOOLA VS. DEPUTYCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX5 where the issue was inrespect of intemational taxation, Bombay High Court in the case ofABHIN ANII,KUMAR SHAH VS.INCOME TAX OFFICER,INTERNATIONAL TAXATION6 which is again on internationaltaxation and central circle, High Court of Himachal Pradesh in thecase of GOVIND SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERT,Gujarat Fligh Court in the case of MANSTIKHBHAI '7zoz+1464 [430 ][(Bom)]'l(2024) [[ ][56 ][taxmann.com ][478 ][(Gauhati)]]'l(2024) [165 ]taxmann.com [l5 ][(Punjab ]& [Haryana)l]'12024) [167 ][taxmann.com ][4l ] [(Telangana)l]" [2024) [166 ][[axmam.com ][679 ][(Bombay)]]'[20241 [165 ][taxmann.com I ][l3 ][(Himachal ][Pradesh)]] DAITYABIIAI RADADIYA vs. [OFFICE&]WARD 3(3XO8, Jharkand [High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ][SIfYAM]SUNDAR SAW vs. [INDIAe, ][Rajasthan ][High ][Court ][in]the case of SHARDA DEVI CHHAJER [vs. INCOME TAX]OFFICER & ANOTHER and [batch ][of ][writ ][petitionsro ][which]stood decided ot 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. ] [& ] (M.A.T 1690 of 2023), decided on 25.09.2024.6. Even though the same issue [having ][been ][decided ][by ][a large]number of High Courts, we are still [con ][lronted ][with ][large ][hling ][of]identical matters on daily basis [ranging ][between ][5 ][to ][10 writ]petitions. That upon the instructions [be ]ing [sought ][from ][the]Departrnent, they have been [taking ]a [solitary ][ground ][that ][the]decision of the Bombay High [Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ][Hexaware]Technologies Ltd., (2 supra) [as also ][the ][one ][which ][has ][been]decided by this Court in [the ][case ][of ][Kanukala Ravindra ][Reddy] 82024 SCC Online Guj 4012" [2025 SCC ][Online ][Jhar 287]'o 72023 [: ] [:4984-DB ]l" [2025 SCC ][Online ][Jhar 287]'o 72023 [: ] [:4984-DB ]l (1 supra) has been subjected to challenge in a Special LeavePetition i.e., SLP No.3574 of 2024 before the Hon'ble SupremeCourt and the Hon'ble Supreme Court is seized of the matter.In addition, there are about 1200 SLPs also filed arising out oftheCourt and the Hon'ble Supreme Court is seized of the matter.In addition, there are about 1200 SLPs also filed arising out ofthesame issue being decided by various High Courts. 7. To a query being put to the leamed counsel for the Revenue,they have categorically accepted the fact that there is no interimorder granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in any of thesematters pending before it. Meanwhile, fresh writ petitions ofidentical nature are being piled up before this Bench on daily basisand the pendency is getting increased on matter which otherwisehas already been dealt and decided by this very High Court itself. 8. On the one hand, cven though the order of this Court thatwas passed as early as on 14.09.2023 and more 16 months havelapsed, till date, we do not hnd any remedial steps having beentaken by the Income Tax Department to take appropriate steps toeither hold back issuancc of notice under Section l48A and underSection 148 of the Act by the [jurisdictional ]Assessing Officer,rather the authorities concemed in the teeth of series of decisions by all the major High Courts [in ][India ][are ][continuously ][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 ][lncome ][Tax ][Act]pursuant to the Finance Act,,2020 as also the [Finance Act ][2021 ][-] 8. On the one hand, cven though the order of this Court thatwas passed as early as on 14.09.2023 and more 16 months havelapsed, till date, we do not hnd any remedial steps having beentaken by the Income Tax Department to take appropriate steps toeither hold back issuancc of notice under Section l48A and underSection 148 of the Act by the [jurisdictional ]Assessing Officer,rather the authorities concemed in the teeth of series of decisions by all the major High Courts [in ][India ][are ][continuously ][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 ][lncome ][Tax ][Act]pursuant to the Finance Act,,2020 as also the [Finance Act ][2021 ][-] 9. 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 Court ][in]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 [Departme ][nt ][where ][they]would be required to file equal [number ]of [SLPs before ][the]Hon'ble Supreme Court and it would [be ][further ][burdening ][the]exchequer of the Union of India. It [was ][also ][the ][contention ][of ][the]learned Standing Counsel that no [prejudicc would ][bc ][caused ][to ][the]interest of the petitioners in case if this [writ ][petition ][is ][kept pending]till the finalization of the SLPs [pending ][belore ][the ][I{on'ble]Supreme Court and the fact [that ][the petitioner ][is ][already ][enjoying]the benefit of interim [protection. ][Nonetheless, ][on ][the ][earlier query]of this Court as to why the Income Tax [Department ][have ][not ][come]out with a mechanism to issue appropriate tnstructions or to take appropriate steps in ensuring that proceedings under Section l48Aof the Act as also the assessment orders under Section 148 of theAct are kept in a hold in the light ofthe decisions dedcided by thevarious High Courts, it was submitted by the leamed StandingCounsel that the said steps can only be taken at the level of CBDTas any such steps would have to be taken Pan India and cannot belimited to any of these jurisdictional High Courts. 10. As a result of which, what we are facing is steep increase oflitigation day in and day out even though various orders have beenpassed by this High Court allowing writ petitions on the very sameissue. The Income Tax authorities concemed are still even now in2025 also initiating proceedings in contravention to the provisionsof Section l5lA of the Act and as a result by now, more than 600to 700 petitions have been alrcady got piled up before this HighCourt on an issue which otherwise stands squarely covered by thejudgment of this Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy(l supra). What is also surprising is the fact that though whileallowing the writ petitions in the case of Kanakala RavindraReddy (l supra), the Division Bench while reserving the right ofthe Revenue, has also protected the interest of the petitioners insofar as the liberty which [was ][granted ][to ][the ][Revenue ][for]initiating fresh proceedings strictly [in ][accordance ][with ][the ][amended]provisions of the Act, as amended by the [Finance ][Act, ][2020 ][and]the Finance Act,202l. The [petitioner ][assessee ][would ][be ][entitled ][to]challenge or raise the other legal objections [if ][the ][Revenue ][initiates]fresh proceedings. The Department [has made ][no ][endeavour ][in]availing the said liberty that was reserved [for ][the ][Revenue. On ][the]contrary, they have been still sticking on [to ][the ][stand, ][which ][this]High Court as well as many other High Courts [already held ][to ][be]bad. insofar as the liberty which [was ][granted ][to ][the ][Revenue ][for]initiating fresh proceedings strictly [in ][accordance ][with ][the ][amended]provisions of the Act, as amended by the [Finance ][Act, ][2020 ][and]the Finance Act,202l. The [petitioner ][assessee ][would ][be ][entitled ][to]challenge or raise the other legal objections [if ][the ][Revenue ][initiates]fresh proceedings. The Department [has made ][no ][endeavour ][in]availing the said liberty that was reserved [for ][the ][Revenue. On ][the]contrary, they have been still sticking on [to ][the ][stand, ][which ][this]High Court as well as many other High Courts [already held ][to ][be]bad. I l. It appears that because ofthe aforesaid liberty [that this High]Court had granted perrnitting the Revenue for [initiating ][fresh]proceedings as a one-time measure in a faceless [manner, ][the]lncome Tax Department wants to take [advantage ]of [the ][sarne ][by]protracting these proceedings which would enable them to [meet ][the]timitation that would otherwise come in the way. [Likewise, ][if ][the]writ petition is kept pending for a considerable [long ][period ][of ][time]and trnally at a later stage if the Hon'ble Supreme [Court ][confinns]the decision taken by this High Court as [also ][by ][the other ][High]Courts in which the SLPs are still pending, the Income Tax Department would get the advantage of the liberty that is otherwiseprotected in favour of the Revenue for initiation of freshproceedings from the disposal of these rnatters at a much later stagewhich would be advantageous and beneficial to the Revenue andwould be equally disadvantageous and detrimental so far as interestof the assesses are concemed. As a consequence, the lncome TaxDepartment gets an extended period of time for initiation of freshproceedings. 12. The alamring trend of docket explosion in this Court, despitethe clear precedent set in Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra), is amatter of grave concern. The Income Tax Department's persistentinitiation of fresh proceedings, disregarding the established judicialpronouncements, has led to an unprecedented surge in litigationwith over 600-700 petitions piting up on the same issue. Thisdeliberate 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 continuing to initiate lresh proceedingsappears to be a calculated move to buy time and circumventlimitation periods, rather than adhering to the established Iegal position. Such conduct raises serious [questions ]about [the]administrative efficiency and the respect for [judicial]pronouncements, particularly when this Court has already [provided]a balanced approach by preserving both the [Revenue's ][rights ][and]assesses lnterests. 13. Another aspect which needs to be considered [is that ][in fact ][it]should have been realized by the Income Tax Department [itself ][and]should have found out via media in ensuring [that ][proceedings]under Sections 148-A and 148 should not have been [issued ][in ][a]faceless manner, at least till the Hon'ble Supreme Court [decide the]twelve hundred (1200) odd SLPs which it is already [seized ][ofor, ][at]least the [ncome Tax Department should have found out [some]remedial steps to ensure that wherever the authorities intend [to]initiate proceedings under Sections 148-A and 148, other than [in ][a]faceless manner, the proceedings should have been deflerredwithout precipitating the matter further intimating the assessee thatthey shall initiate appropriate proceedings only after the SLP's [are]decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the very same [issue]This again, the Income Tax Department, has not been able [to ][give ][a]convincing reply, except for the fact that such a decision if [at ][att] has to be taken, has to be taken for the whole of India, and whichotherwise has to be by way of a policy decision and that too at thelevel of Central Board of Direct Taxes. Though the leamedStanding Counsel for the Income Tax Department contended thatotherwise has to be by way of a policy decision and that too at thelevel of Central Board of Direct Taxes. 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 itsthe 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 Highpetition 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 thesealso consumes substantial time of the Bench in hearing thesematters again and agair on daily basis. Admittedly, in spite of thematter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court having been taken onmany occasions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court which is seized of thematter has been reluctant in granting any interim protection to thematter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court having been taken onmany occasions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court which is seized of thematter has been reluctant in granting any interim protection to theIncome Tax Deparbnent. Yet, the authorities concemed at theState level are not ready to accept the verdict passed by a majorityof High Courts of different States on the same issue; and to makethings further worse, the Income Tax Depanment is showingaudacity by issuing notices continuously under Sections 148-A andState level are not ready to accept the verdict passed by a majorityof High Courts of different States on the same issue; and to makethings further worse, the Income Tax Depanment is showingaudacity by issuing notices continuously under Sections 148-A and 148 through the [jurisdictional ][Assessing ][Officer ][whereas ][it ][ought]to have been only in the [faceless ][manner.] 14. In the case of BANK OF [vs. ] COMMISSIONER, INCOME [TAXrr, ][on ][an ][issue ][whether ][it ][was]justifiable on the part of the Income Tax Department in notfotlowing an order [passed ]by the adjudicating [authority only ][on ][the]ground that the appeals are pending, the Division [Bench ][of ][the]High Court of Bombay held at [paragraph ][No.25 ][as ][under, ][viz., ][:] "25. Mr. Paridwalla has rightly drawn out attention to thedecision of this Court in Commissioner [of ][lncome ][Tax ][vs. ][Smt.]Godavaridevi Sarafl2 as also the [recent ][decision ][of ][the ][co-]ordinate Bench of this Court [in ]Samp [Furniture ][(P) Ltd. ][v. ][lTOl3]of which one of us [(Justice ]G.S. [Kulkarni) ][was ][a ][member, ][wherein]the Court categorically observed that the Revenue [having ][not]"accepted" the,udgment of the High Court would not mean that tillthe same is set aside [in ]a [manner ][known ][to ][law, ][it ][would loose ][its]binding force. Referring [to ]the [decision ][of the ][Supreme Court ][in]Union of lndia vs. Kamlakshi Finance [Corporation ][Ltd.14, ][the]Court observed that the approach of the officials [of ][Revenue ][of]treating decisions being ["not ]acceptable' [was ][criticized ][by ][the]Supreme Court. ln such decision, [following ][are the ][relevant]observations made [by ][the Supreme ][Court.] ' 11zozs; [170 ][taxmann.com 422 ][(Bombay)l]' 1l9zal [l ][ll ] [589 ][(Bombay)]' 1l9zal [l ][ll ] [589 ][(Bombay)] t IZOZ+1 [65 taxmann.com 581/300 Taxnat 452 (Bombay)IZOZ+1 [65 taxmann.com 581/300 Taxnat 452 (Bombay) IZOZ+1 t ]'9eZltaxmann.corn 16155ELT 433 (SC)]'9eZltaxmann.corn 16155ELT 433 (SC) ' 11zozs; [170 ][taxmann.com 422 ][(Bombay)l]' 1l9zal [l ][ll ] [589 ][(Bombay)]' 1l9zal [l ][ll ] [589 ][(Bombay)] t IZOZ+1 [65 taxmann.com 581/300 Taxnat 452 (Bombay)IZOZ+1 [65 taxmann.com 581/300 Taxnat 452 (Bombay) IZOZ+1 t ]'9eZltaxmann.corn 16155ELT 433 (SC)]'9eZltaxmann.corn 16155ELT 433 (SC) "6. Sri Reddy is perhaps r(,ht in sayirg that theofficers were not actuated by any mala fldes inpassing the impugned orders. They perhapsgenuinely felt that the clairn of the assessee was nottenable and that, if it was accepted, the Revenuewould suffer. But what Sri Reddy overlooks is that weare not concemed here with the correctn€ss orwould suffer. But what Sri Reddy overlooks is that weare not concemed here with the correctn€ss orotherwise of their conclusion or of any factualmalafrdes but with the fact that the offrcers, in reachingin their conclusion, by-passed two appellate orders inregard to the same issue which were placed beforein their conclusion, by-passed two appellate orders inregard to the same issue which were placed beforethem, one of the Collector (Appeals) and the other ofthe Tribunal. The High Court has, in our view, rightlythe Tribunal. The High Court has, in our view, rightlycriticized this conduct of the Assistant Collectors andthe harassment to the assessee caused by the failureof these officers to give effect to the orders ofauthorities higher to them in the appellate hierarchy. ltcannot be too vehemently efiphasized that it is ofutmost importance that, in disposing of thequasijudicial issues before them, revenue officers arebound by the decisions of the appellate authorities.the harassment to the assessee caused by the failureof these officers to give effect to the orders ofauthorities higher to them in the appellate hierarchy. ltcannot be too vehemently efiphasized that it is ofutmost importance that, in disposing of thequasijudicial issues before them, revenue officers arebound by the decisions of the appellate authorities.The order of the Appellte Collector is binding on theAssistant Collectors working within his jurisdiction andthe order of the Tribunal is biMing upon the AssistantAssistant Collectors working within his jurisdiction andthe order of the Tribunal is biMing upon the AssistantCollectors and the Appellate Collectors who functionunder the [jurisdiction ]of the Tribunal. The principles ofunder 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 "acceptabte" tothe department - in kself an objectionable phrase -and is the subject matter of an appeal can fumish noappellate authorities should be followed unreservedlyby the subordinate authorities. The mere fact that theorder of the appellate authority is not "acceptabte" tothe department - in kself an objectionable phrase -and is the subject matter of an appeal can fumish noground for not following it unless its operation hasbeen suspended by a cornpetent court. lf this heatthy rule is not followed, [the ][result ][will ][only ][be ][undue]harassment to assesses [and chaos ][in ][administration]of tax laws. rule is not followed, [the ][result ][will ][only ][be ][undue]harassment to assesses [and chaos ][in ][administration]of tax laws. 12. We have dealt [with this aspect ][at ][some ][length,]because it has been [suggested ][by the ][leamed]Additional Solicitor General [that ][the ][observations]made by the High Court, [have been harsh ][on ][the]officers. lt is clear that [the ][observations ][of ][the ][High]Court, seemingly [vehement, ][and. ][apparently]unpalatable to the [Revenue, are only intended to curb]a tendency in revenue [matters which, ][if ][allowed ][to]become widespread, could [result ][in ][considerable]harassment lo the assesses-publie [without any benefit]to the Revenue. [We ][would ][like ][to ][say that ][the]department should [take these ][observations ][in ][the]proper spirit. The observations [of ][the ][High ][Courl]should be kept [in ][mind ][in ][future ][and ][the utmost ][regard]should be [paid by ]the [adjudicating authorities and the]appellate authorities [to ][the ][requirements ][of ]iudicialdiscipline and the [need ][for ][giving effect ][to the ][orders]of the higher appellate [authorities ][which ][are ][binding]on them." 15. What is worrying [this ][Bench ][more ][is ][the ][fact ][that ][an]endeavour is being [made ][whole ][heartedly ][to ][ensure ][not to ][generate]further litigation on [issues ][which ][have been ][laid ][to ][rest ][by a ][large]number ol High Courts [all ][ol ][whom ][have taken ][a ][consistent ][stand]that the action of the Income [Tax ][Department being ][violative ][of ][the] Finance Act,2020 and Finance Act,202l. Now, in order tb protectthe interest of the Revenue as also that of the assessee, it would betrite at this [juncture, ]if we dispose of the writ petition with anobservation/direction that the disposal of the instant writ petition interms of the [judgment ]rendered by this High Court in the case ofKankunala Ravindra Reddy (1 supra) shall however be subject tothe outcome of the SLPs which were filed by the Income TaxDepartment and which is pending consideration before the Hon'bleSupreme Court. 16. In the given facts and circumstances, this Bench is of theconsidered opinion that unless and until we do not timely disposeof matters which are squarely covered by the decision of this Courtand which stands fortified by the decisions of the various otherHigh Courts on the very same issue, the pendency of this HighCourt would further be burdened which otherwise can be decidedand disposed of as a covered matter. 17 - So far as the interest of the Revenue is concemed, we are of the considered opinion that the interest of the Revenue has alreadybeen considered and protected, as has been observed in paragraphs 36,37 and 38 ofthe order which, for [ready reference, is ][reproduced]hereunder: 36. For all the aforesaid reasons, the [impugned ][notices]issued and the [proceedings ]drawn by the respondent-Department is neither tenable, nor sustainable.The notices so issued and the [procedure ]adopted [being]per se illegal, deserves to be and are accordingly setaside/quashed. As a consequence, all the [impugned]orders [getting quashed, ]the consequential [orders ][passed]by the respondent-Department [pursuant ]to the [notices]issued under Sectron 147 and 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 ]oblection raised by the [petitioner ][is]sustained and all these writ [petitions ]stands [allowed ][on]this very [jurisdictional issue. ]Since the [impugned ][rrctices]and orders are getting [quashed ]on the [point ]ofjurisdiction, we are not inclined to proceed further anddecide the other issues raised by the [petitioner ]whichstands reserved to be raised and contended in anappropriate [proceedings.] 37. The [preliminary ]oblection raised by the [petitioner ][is]sustained and all these writ [petitions ]stands [allowed ][on]this very [jurisdictional issue. ]Since the [impugned ][rrctices]and orders are getting [quashed ]on the [point ]ofjurisdiction, we are not inclined to proceed further anddecide the other issues raised by the [petitioner ]whichstands reserved to be raised and contended in anappropriate [proceedings.] 38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, [in ]the [case]of Ashish Agarwal, supra, as a one-time [measure]exercising the [powers ]under Article 142 of [the]Constitution of lndia, [permitted ]the [Revenue ]to [proceed]under the substituted [provisions, ]and this Court [allowing]the petitions only on the procedural flaw, the right confened on the Revenue would remain fesened toproceed further if they so want from the stage of theorder of the Supreme Court in the case of AshishAgarwal, supra. 18. We would only further like to make observations that sincewe are inclined to dispose of the instant writ petition, conscious ofthe fact that the earlier order of this High Court in the case ofKanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra) is subjected to challengebefore the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No.3574 of 2024,preferred by the Income Tax Department, we make it clear thatallowing of the instant writ petition is subject to outcome of th€aforesaid SLP preferred by the Revenue against the decision ofthisHigh Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra)This, in other words, would mean that either of the parties, if theyso want, may move an appropriate petition seeking revival of thiswrit petition in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble SupremeCourt in the pending SLP on the very same issue. 19. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands allowed in favour of the assessee so far as the issue of [jurisdiction ]isconcerned. As a consequence, the impugned notice underchallenge under Sections 148-A and 148 stands set aside/quashed. The consequential orders, if any, also stand set aside/quashed in similar terms as have been passed by this High Court in the case of Kankanala Ravindra Reddy (I supra). There shall be no order asto costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- A.H.S. GOWRI ASSISSTANT REGISTRAR k1-SEctroN oFFICER //TRUE COPY// HIGH COURT DATED:2810412025 ORDER WP.No.2768 of 2025 4r6'u^('r('lrJFI11AIJE Mca**Sp;',t CHeO ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS(b-1+\'L)