Wp/28675/2024 Of Hyderabad Race Club v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MAYTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURA.BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION NO: 28675 OF 2024 Between: Hyderabad Race Club, Having its Registered [Office ]at [16-10-1/A'l1 ], [Race]C6urse Road, Old lvlalakpet, Hyderabad - 500036, [Rep. by ][its ][Authorised]Signatory ...PETITIONER AND 1Deputy Commissioner of lncome Tax, [Circle ][2(1 ]), [Room ][514, 5th ][Floor]Signature Towers, Sy No. 6(P) of [Kondapur, ][Sy. 37 ][(P) of ][Kothaguda, ][Opp.]Bolanical Gardens, Serlingampally [(M), ]R.R. District, [Hyderabad, Telangana-]50084Signature Towers, Sy No. 6(P) of [Kondapur, ][Sy. 37 ][(P) of ][Kothaguda, ][Opp.]Bolanical Gardens, Serlingampally [(M), ]R.R. District, [Hyderabad, Telangana-]50084 2Union of lndia, lVlinistry of Finance Department of [Revenue ][Rep. ][by ][its]Secretary (Revenue) Room No.46, North Block, [New ][Delhi- ][110001.]Secretary (Revenue) Room No.46, North Block, [New ][Delhi- ][110001.] ..RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of [lndia ][praying ][that ][in ][the]circumstances stated in the affidavit [filed ]therewith, the [High ][Court may ][be]pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Direction or Order, [particularly ]one [in ][the]nature of Certiorari a. Quash and set aside the Order under [Clause (d) ][of ][Section l4BA ][of ][the]lncome Tax Act, 1961 bearing Notice [No. ][ITBfuAST/F/148A12024-2511068-3-]540(1 ) dated 2710812024 enclosed [as Annexure P-1 ][to ][the ][present ][Writ ][Petition.]b. Quash and set aside the consequent [Notice under ][Section ][148 ][of the ][lncome]Tax Act, 1961 bearing Notice No. ITBA/AST/S/148-112024-2511068039053(1)dated 27lOBl2O24 enclosed as Annexure P-2 to the [present ][Writ ][Petition.] lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances statedin the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased toDispense with the requirement of filing the certified copy of the Notice underSection 148 of the lncome Tax Act, 1961 , bearing Notice No.ITBA/AST/S/148_112024-2511068039053(1) dated 2710812024, pending thedisposal of this Writ Petition. lA NO: 2 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances statedin the affidavit filed in suppo( of the petition, the High Court may be pleased toDispense with the requirement of filing the certified copy of the Order underClause (d) of Section 148A of the lncome Tax Act, 1961 bearing Notice No.ITBA/AST/F/148A12024-2511068-3-540(1) dated 27t08t2024 enctosed asAnnexure P-'1 , pending the disposal of this Writ Petition. lA NO: 3 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances statedin the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased toSuspend the operation and validity of the Notice under Section ['148 ]of thelncome Tax Act, ['1961, ]bearing Notice No. ITBA/AST/S/14B 112024-2 5/1 068039053(1 ) dated 2710812024 enclosed as Annexure P-2 and altproceedings arising from and in connection thereto, pending disposal of this WritPetition. lA NO:4 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances statedin the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased toDirect Respondent No.1 not to take any further steps towards conductingreassessment proceedings against the Petitioner, pending disposal of this WritPetition. ,r,:,,,, lA NO: 5 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances statedin the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased toStay the Order under Clause (d) of Section 148A of the lncome Tax Act, '1961bearing Notice No. ITBA/AST/F/148A12024-2511068-3-540(1) dated 2710812024enclosed as Annexure P-1 , pending disposal of this Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI CUDDAPAH NANDA GOPAL lA NO:4 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances statedin the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased toDirect Respondent No.1 not to take any further steps towards conductingreassessment proceedings against the Petitioner, pending disposal of this WritPetition. ,r,:,,,, lA NO: 5 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances statedin the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased toStay the Order under Clause (d) of Section 148A of the lncome Tax Act, '1961bearing Notice No. ITBA/AST/F/148A12024-2511068-3-540(1) dated 2710812024enclosed as Annexure P-1 , pending disposal of this Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI CUDDAPAH NANDA GOPAL Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Ms. J.SUNITHA, Jr. SC FOR INCOME TAX Counsel forthe Respondent No.2: SRI B.MUKHERJEE, SC FOR UNION OF INDIA The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE [P.SAM ] ANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NANDIKONDAWRIT PETITION No.28675 OF [2024] 9BDEB, [(pr:r ][l{on'ble ][Sri ][Justice P.Sam ][Koshy)] Heard Mr. Cuddapah Nanda Gopal, [leamed counsel ][for]the petitioner, Ms. J.Sunitha, leamed [Junior ][Standing ][Counsel]for the Income Tax Department for [respondent ][No.1 ][and]Mr. B. Mukhe{ee, learned counsel representing [the ][Union ][of ][India]for respondent No.2. Perused the record. 2. This is a writ petition where the [proceedings ][are ][either]challenged to the notices which were issued [under Section ][i48A]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 rvrit petition is being taken up today only [on ][one ][ofthe]grounds, that the notices issued under Section 148.4 of the [Act]and the subsequent initiation of [proceedings ][under Section ][148 ][of]the Act by the [jurisdictional ][Assessing ][Officer, ][whereas ][in ][terms]of the amendment that was brought [to the Income ][Tax ][Act ][by way] of Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f., 01.04.2021 onwards, proceedingsunder Section 1484 ofthe Act as aiso under Section l4g oftheAct ought to have also been issued and proceeded in a facelessmanner. 4. The contention of the petitioner is that the issue ofproceedings being in violation of the Finance Act, 2021 i.e., theimpugned notices under Section l48A and Section 14g 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 OFFICERT decidedon 14.09.2023 whereby a batch of writ petitions were allowed andthe proceedings initiated under Section 14gA as arso under Section148 of the Act were held to be bad with consequential reliefs on theground of it being in violation of the provisions ofsection 15lA ofthe Act read with Notification lBlZ022 dated 29.03.2022. The saidjudgment passed by this Court has also been subsequently followedin a large number of writ petitions which were allowed on similarterms. ' [(2023) I 56 taxmann.com 178 (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 HEXAWARETECHNOLOGIFI,S LTD., vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX & OTHERS2, Gauhati High Court in the caseof RAM NARAYAN SAH vs. UNION OF INDIA3, Punjab andHaryana High Courl in the case of JATINDER SINGH BANGUvs. UNION OF INDIA4, and Telangana High Courl 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 ANILKUMAR SHAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,INTERNATTONAL TAXATION6 which is again on intemationaltaxation and central circle, High Court of Himachal Pradesh in thecase of GOVIND SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERT,Gujarat High Courl in the case of MANSUKHBHAI 2 Tzoz+1464 rrR 430 (Bom)'l(2024) [156 ]taxmam.com 478 [(Gauhati)l]^ l(2024) 165 taxmann.com I 15 (Punjab & Haryana)l' 12024) 167 taxmann.com 4l I (Telangana)l" [2024) [166 ]taxmann.com 679 [(Bombay)]]' 12024) [165 ]taxmann.com I 13 [(Himachal ]Pradesh)l'l(2024) [156 ]taxmam.com 478 [(Gauhati)l]^ l(2024) 165 taxmann.com I 15 (Punjab & Haryana)l' 12024) 167 taxmann.com 4l I (Telangana)l" [2024) [166 ]taxmann.com 679 [(Bombay)]]' 12024) [165 ]taxmann.com I 13 [(Himachal ]Pradesh)l DAHYABHAT [VS. ] [OFFICE&]WARD 3(3Xr8, [Jharkand ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ] SUNDAR SAW [vs. ] [INDIAe, ][Rajasthan ][High ][Court in]the case of SHARDA [vs' ] OFFICER & [and ][batch ][of ][writ ][petitionsr0 ][which]stood decided on [19.03.2024. ][Similar views ][have ][also ][been ][taken]the Division [Bench ][of ][Calcutta ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]by GIRDHAR GOPAL [vs. ] [& ] (M.A.T 1690 of 2023),decided [ot25.09'2024']6. Even though the same [issue ][having ][been decided ][by ][a large]number of High [Courts, ][we ][are ][still ][confronted ][with ][large ][hling of]identical matters on [daity ][basis ][ranging ][between ][5 ][to ][10 ][writ]petitions. That upon the [instructions ][being ][sought ][from ][the]Department, 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 ][Kanakala ][Ravindra ][Reddy] rzo2+ SCC online Guj 4012'2025 [Online ][lhar287]'o [yzoz3'. ] [D :49 ][84-DBl] (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 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 fact that there is no interimorder granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in any of thesematters pending before it. Meanwhile, fiesh writ petitions ofidentical nature are being piled up before this Bench on daily basisand the pendency is getting increased on matter which other.wisehas already been dealt and decided by this very High Court itself.8. On the one hand, even 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 frnd any remedial steps having beentaken by the lncome Tax Department to take appropriate steps toeither hold back issuance of notice under Section l4gA and underSection 148 of the Act by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer,rather the authorities concerned in the teeth of series of decisions by ail the maici High Couits in India are continuously stiilinitiating proceedings under Section 148A of the Act and alsoinitiating proceedings under Section 148 of the Act incontravention to the amendments brought into the [ncome Tax Actpursuant to the Finance Act,2020 as also the Finance Act202I9. Upon a query being put as to why can't this writ petition bedisposed of in the teeth of the decision rendered by this Court inthe case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra), leamed StandingCounsel for the Income Tax Department contends that those wouldunnecessarily burden the Income Tax Department where theywould be required to file equal number of SLPs before theHon'ble Supreme Court and it would be further burdening theexchequer of the Union of India. It was also the contention of theleamed Standing Counsel that no prejudice would be caused to theinterest of the petitioners in case ifthis writ petition is kept pendingtill the finalization of the SLPs pending before the Hon'bleSupreme Court and the fact that the petitioner is already enjoyingthe benefit of interim protection. Nonetheless, on the earlier queryof this Court as to why the Income Tax Department have not comeout with a mechanism to issue appropriate instructions or to ltaket appropriate steps in ensuring that.proceedings under Section 148Aof 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 ]I{igh Courts. 10. As a result of which, what we are facing is steep increase oflitigation da1, in and day out even though various orders have beenpassed by this High Courl 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 15lA of the Act and as a result by now, more than 600to 700 petitions have been already got piled up before this HighCourt on an issue which otherwise stands squarely covered by thejudgment of this Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy(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 nany [other ][High ][Courts ][already ][held ][to ][be]bad. I l It appears that because ofthe [aforesaid ][liberty ][that this ][High]Court had [granted ][permitting ][the ][Revenue ][for ][initiating ][fresh]proceedings as a one-time measure [in a ][faceless ][manner, ][the]Income Tax Department [wants ][to ][take ][advantage ][of ][the ][same ][by]protracting these proceedings which [w'ould ][enable ][them ][to ][meet ][the]limitation that would otherwise [come ][in ][the ][way. ][Likewise, ][if ][the]writ petition is kept pending [for ][a ][considerable ][long period of ][time]and [.finally ]at a later stage if [the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Court ][confirms]the decision taken by this [High ][Court ][as ][also ][by ][the ][other ][High]Courts in which the SLPs [are ][still ][pending, ][the ][Income ][Tax] ,. I l It appears that because ofthe [aforesaid ][liberty ][that this ][High]Court had [granted ][permitting ][the ][Revenue ][for ][initiating ][fresh]proceedings as a one-time measure [in a ][faceless ][manner, ][the]Income Tax Department [wants ][to ][take ][advantage ][of ][the ][same ][by]protracting these proceedings which [w'ould ][enable ][them ][to ][meet ][the]limitation that would otherwise [come ][in ][the ][way. ][Likewise, ][if ][the]writ petition is kept pending [for ][a ][considerable ][long period of ][time]and [.finally ]at a later stage if [the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Court ][confirms]the decision 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 matters at a much later stagewhich would be advantageous and beneficial to the Revenue andwould be equatly disadvantageous and detrimental so f'ar as interestof the assesses are concerned. As a consequence, the lncome TaxDepartment gets an extended period of time for initiation of fieshproceedings.which would be advantageous and beneficial to the Revenue andwould be equatly disadvantageous and detrimental so f'ar as interestof the assesses are concerned. As a consequence, the lncome TaxDepartment gets an extended period of time for initiation of fieshproceedings. 12. The alarming trend of docket explosion in this Court, despite the clear precedent set io Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra), is amatter of grave concem. 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 piling up on the same issue. Thisdeliberate approach not only undermines the principle ofjudicialprecedent but also strains the judicial resources unnecessarily. TheDepartment's strategy of awaiting the Supreme Court,s decision onpending SLPs white continuing to initiate fresh proceedingsappears to be a calculated move to buy time and circumventlimitation periods, rather than adhering to the established legal position. Such conduct raises serious [questions ][about ][the]administrative 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 interests. 13. Another aspect which [needs ][to ][be considered ][is ][that in fact ][it]should have been realized [by ][the Income ][Tax ][Department ][itself ][and]should have found out [via ][media ][in ][ensuring ][that ][proceedings]under Sections 148-A [and ][148 should ][not ][have been ][issued ][in ][a]faceless manner, at least till [the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Court ][decide ][the]twelve hundred [(1200) ]odd [SLPs ][which ][it ][is ][already ][seized ][ofor, ][at]least the Income Tax [Department ][should ][have found ][out ][some]remedial steps to ensure [that ][wherever ][the ][authorities intend ][to]initiate proceedings under [Sections 148-A and ][148, ][other ][than ][in ][a]faceless manner, the [proceedings ][should have ][been ][deferred]without precipitating the [matter further ][intimating ][the ][assessee ][that]they shall initiate appropriate [proceedings ][only ][after ][the ][SLP's ][are]decided by the Hon'ble Supreme [Court on the very ][same ][issue.]This again, the Income Tax [Department, ][has ][not ][been able ][to ][give ][a]convincing reply, except [for ][the fact ][that ][such ][a decision ][if ][at ][all] \.\ [ \.\ [ has to be taken, has to be taken for the whole of India, and whichotherwise has to be by way ofa policy decision and that too at thelevel of Central Board of Direct Taxes. Though the learnedStanding Counsel for the Income Tax Department contencled 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 lorcing 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. Admittedly, in spite of thematter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court having been taken onmany occasions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court which is seized of thematter has been reluctant in granting any interim protection to theIncome Tax Department. Yet, the authorities concerned at theState level are not ready to accept the verdict passed by a majorityof High Courts of different States on the same issue; and to makethings further worse, the Income Tax Department is showingaudacity by issuing notices continuously under Sections i4g_A and{I 148 through the jurisciict;onai Assessing Officer whereas it oughtto have been only in the faceless manner. 14. In the case of BANK OF INDIA vs. ASSISTANTCOMMISSIONER, INCOME TAXIT, on an issue whether it wasjustifiable on the part of the Income Tax Department in notfollowing an order passed by the adjudicating authority only on theground that the appeals are pending, the Division Bench of theHigh Court of Bombay held at paragraph No.25 as under, viz., : "25. lvlr. Paridwalla has righfly 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. lTO13of which one of us (Justice G.S, Kulkarni) was a member, whereinthe Court categorically observed that the Revenue having not"accepted" the judgment of the High Court would not mean that tillthe same is set aside in a manner known to law, it would loose itsbinding force. Referring to the decision of the Supreme Court inUnion of lndia vs. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd.14, theCourt observed that the aporoach of the officials of Revenue oftreating decisions being "not acceptable,' was criticized by theSupreme Court. ln such decision, following are the relevantobservations made by the Supreme Court. '.ll{ZOzsl [170 ][taxmann.com 422 ][(Bombay)l] " 7t9781 [13 ] [589 ][(Bombay)] " 12OZl1 [65 ][taxmann.com ][5 ][8 ][1 ][/3 ][00 T ]axman 4 52 [(B ]ombay) 'o :l9921taxmann.com [16155E!-T ]433 [(SC)] { { '.ll{ZOzsl [170 ][taxmann.com 422 ][(Bombay)l] " 7t9781 [13 ] [589 ][(Bombay)] " 12OZl1 [65 ][taxmann.com ][5 ][8 ][1 ][/3 ][00 T ]axman 4 52 [(B ]ombay) 'o :l9921taxmann.com [16155E!-T ]433 [(SC)] { { "6. Sri Reddy is perhaps right in saying [that ][the]officers were not actuated by [any mala ][fides ][in]passing the impugned 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 ][correotness ][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]regard to the same issue which [were ][placed ][before]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 vehemenlly emphasized [that ][it is ][of]utmost importance that, in [disposing ][of ][the]quasijudicial issues before them, revenue offlcers [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]ludicial [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 aulhority is not ["acceptable" ][to]the department - in itself an objectionable [phrase ]-and is the subject matter of an appeal can [furnish no]ground for not following it unless its operation hasbeen suspended by a competent court. [lf ][this ][healthS] 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 thb learnedAdditional Solicitor General that the observationsmade by the High Court, have been harsh on theofficers. lt is clear that the observations of the HighCourt, seemingly vehement, and apparen yunpalatable to the Revenue, are only intended to curba tendency in revenue matters 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 lhese observations in theproper spirit. The observalions 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 judicialdiscipline and the need for giving effect to the ordersof the higher appellate authorities which are bindingon them." 1 5. What is worrying this Bench more is the fact that anendeavour is being made whole heartedly to ensure not to generatefurther litigation on issues which have been laid to rest by a largenumber of High Courts all of whom have taken a consistent standendeavour is being made whole heartedly to ensure not to generatefurther litigation on issues which have been laid to rest by a largenumber of High Courts all of whom have taken a consistent standthat the action of the Income Tax Department being violative of the \ .\ --ffi 1 5. What is worrying this Bench more is the fact that anendeavour is being made whole heartedly to ensure not to generatefurther litigation on issues which have been laid to rest by a largenumber of High Courts all of whom have taken a consistent standendeavour is being made whole heartedly to ensure not to generatefurther litigation on issues which have been laid to rest by a largenumber of High Courts all of whom have taken a consistent standthat the action of the Income Tax Department being violative of the \ .\ --ffi Finance Act,2020 and Finance Act, 2021r . Now, in order to protectthe interest of the Revenue as also that of the assessee, it would betrite at this [juncture, ]if we dispose of the writ petition with anobservation/direction that the disposal of the instant writ petition interms of the [judgment ]rendered by this High Court in the case ofKankanala 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 Cour1. 16. In the given facts and circumstances, this Bench is of theconsidered opinion that unless and until we do not timely disposeof matters u,hich are squarely covered by the decision of this Courtand which stands fortihed 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 fal as the interest of the Revenue is concemed, we are of the considered opinion that the interest ofthe Revenue has aireadybeen considered and protected, as has been observed in paragraphsl. "-.- "-.- 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 Section 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 [gets]nullified automatically. 37. The [preliminary ]objection [raised by ]the [petitioner ][is]sustained and all these writ [petitions stands ][allowed ][on]this very [jurisdictional ]issue. Since the [impugned notices]and orders are getting [quashed ]on the [point ][of]jurisdiction, we are not inclined to proceed further 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 ][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] conferred on the Revenue would remain reserved toproceed further if they so want from the stage of theorder of the Supreme Court in the case of AshishAganaral, supra.order of the Supreme Court in the case of AshishAganaral, supra. 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] conferred on the Revenue would remain reserved toproceed further if they so want from the stage of theorder of the Supreme Court in the case of AshishAganaral, supra.order of the Supreme Court in the case of AshishAganaral, supra. 18. We would only fufther like to make observations that sincewe are inclined to dispose of the instant writ petition, conscious ofthe fact that the earlier order of this High Court in the case ofKanakala Rovindra Reddy (l supra) is subjected to challengebefore the Hon'bie Supreme Court in SLP No.3574 of 2024,preferred by the Income Tax Department, we make it clear thatallowing of the instant writ petition is subject to outcome of theaforesaid SLP preferred by the Revenue against the decision of thisHigh Court itr the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (l slpra).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 infavour of the assessee so far as the issue of jurisdictionISconcemed. 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 Kankanula Ravindra Reddy (l supra). There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/.A. PRATHIMAEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY//SECTION OFFICERSECTION OFFICER1. The Deputy Commissioner of lncome TaxCirc(1), Room 514, sth FloorSignature Towers,SyNo. 6(P) of Kondapur, Sy.37 (P) of Kothaguda, OppBotanical Gardens,Serlingampally (M), R.R. DistncHyderabad, Telangana-50084Signature Towers,SyNo. 6(P) of Kondapur, Sy.37 (P) of Kothaguda, OppBotanical Gardens,Serlingampally (M), R.R. DistncHyderabad, Telangana-50084 To, 2The Secretary (Revenue), Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, RoomNo.46, North Block, New Delhi, Union of lndia- 1i 0001.No.46, North Block, New Delhi, Union of lndia- 1i 0001. 3One CC to SRI CUDDAPAH NANDA GOPAL, Advocate 4One CC to SRI B.MUKHERJEE, SC FOR UNTON OF tND|A 5One CC to tVIs. J.SUNITHA, Jr. SC FOR INCOME TAX f)Two CD Copies BSRGJPWGJPW II HIGH COURT DATED:0210512025 ORDERWP.No.28675 of 2024 '1 r.tE Si..r\:O\-/, c::)ri31 J|JI [zffi]iltiO5'SF,,i f Cvr€o ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION,WITHOUT COSTS 4h,b\t] T: