Wp/28747/2024 Of Mr. Srikanth D Reddy v. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 7(1)

HIGH COURT FOR AT HYDERABAD(SPecial Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY ,THE TWO THOUSAND PRESENT THE HONOURABLE [JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY]ANDTHE HONOURABLE [JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANOIKONDA] WRIT PETI [NO:28][747 ][0F ][2024] Between: Mr. Srikanth D [Reddy, ][S/o. ][Mr. ][Narshima Reddy, ][aged ][44 ][y^ears,.occ..]iirri*is, nyo [Ftat ][N-d.'102, ][Saphirre ][tsta ][Apartmenls,.Laksh3,Prigj\f$f ][r]6"id;"vl nrr"ir""J, [vifiug"l'nuj5ndra ][Nagar Mandal' Hvderabad ][- ][500 ][083']Telangana. ...PETITIONER AND 1The lncome Tax [Officer, Ward 7(1), Hyderabad, Signature ][Towers' ][S-y ][ryo]oii;ltii,jLirprr, [5v. ][lio.. szle) ][o'f ][xrithasuda, opposite ][Botanical Gardens']sEriri^bl'rnpJt!'iilaniat, [Ranga ][heddv ][Dislrict, Hvderabad - ][500 ][084']Telanganaoii;ltii,jLirprr, [5v. ][lio.. szle) ][o'f ][xrithasuda, opposite ][Botanical Gardens']sEriri^bl'rnpJt!'iilaniat, [Ranga ][heddv ][Dislrict, Hvderabad - ][500 ][084']Telangana 2The Princioal Commissioner [of lncome ][Tax ]['1 ][Hyderabad' ] [T Towers ] Guards Hyderabad - [500 ][004, Telangana]Guards Hyderabad - [500 ][004, Telangana] Assessment [Unit lncome Tax Department National ][e ][Assessment Center ][New]iOi [2norroo|. ][e ][h.rrp ][Jawahartat ][Nehru Stadium New ][Delhi]iOi [2norroo|. ][e ][h.rrp ][Jawahartat ][Nehru Stadium New ][Delhi]ijiir.,"iliiij""i [No ]- [110 ][003]- [110 ][003] ...RESPONDENTS Petition under [Article ][226 ][of ][lhe ][Constitution ][of ][lndia praying ][that ][in ][the]circumstancesstatedintheaffidavitfiledtherewith'theHighCourtmaybepi"ri"O to issue a [Writ ][of ][Mandamus ][or ][any other ][appropriate ][Writ' ][Ord^er.or]Direction,declaringthat.a-theorderpassedbythelstRespondent'u/s148A(d)of in" tn"or" Tai [Act, ][1961, dated 27to3l2d24, bearing ][DIN and ]ry9ti9" [N:]neA/nsrlslt+8At2023-24t1oasqzefiq()'fortheAssessmentYear2o2o-21andb.thenoticeissuedbythelstRespondent'u/sl48ofthelncomeTaxAct'ig6r, Ort"O 2gl}3t2o24, [bearing DIN ][and ][N9t1c-e ]!o [112023-]24t1}635g02g1(1), [for tne ][Asses]smen ][t ][Yeat ][2O2O ][- ][21 ][' ][as ][arbitrary' illegal' ][bad ][in]Lw, void-aO-iniiio, [violative ][of the ][principles ][of ][natural ][justice' ][apart ]Jrgm le.ilSviotative of Articles [14. ][19(ixg) ][and ][265 ][of the constitution ][of ][lndia and Sec ][148A]of the lncome [Tax ][Act. ][r ][sdi. ][ano ][to ][consequently ][set aside ][the ][same ][in ][the]interests of [justice.] IA NO:1OF [2024] Petition under [Section ][151 ][CPC praying ][that ][in ][the ][circumstances stated ][in]the affidavit [filed in suppori'of ][[.,," ][p"tition,in""ffign ][Court ][may ][be ][pleased ][to ][stay]all further [proceedings, including ][any recovery' ][pursuant ][to ][the ][notice issued ][by]the 1st Respondent' [,/t i'fi";i ][fttJ ][rntorn"'fjx-Act' ][1961 ][' ][dated ][2910312024']bearing [DtN ][and ][Notice Nol" ][tieA/ASiAlr+8 ][1t2023-24t1\)63590291(1), ][for ][the]Assessment [Yeat ][2O2O ][- ][zt-, ][pending ][disposal ][of ][the ][above'Nr ][t ][Petition-] Counsel [for the Petitioner: ][SRI' ] Counsel [for the Respondents: Ms' ] [(Jr' ] INCOME [TAX)] The Court [made the ][following: ] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAONANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION No.2 8747 of2024 ORDER: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.Som Koshy) Heard Mr. A.V.A.Siva Kartikeya, leamed counsel for thepetitioner and Ms. B.Sapna.Reddy, learned Junior StandingCounsel for the Income Tax Department for the respondents.Perused the record. This is a writ petition is a writ petition writ petition petition where the proceedings the proceedings proceedings are eithereither Counsel [for the Petitioner: ][SRI' ] Counsel [for the Respondents: Ms' ] [(Jr' ] INCOME [TAX)] The Court [made the ][following: ] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAONANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION No.2 8747 of2024 ORDER: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.Som Koshy) Heard Mr. A.V.A.Siva Kartikeya, leamed counsel for thepetitioner and Ms. B.Sapna.Reddy, learned Junior StandingCounsel for the Income Tax Department for the respondents.Perused the record. This is a writ petition is a writ petition writ petition petition where the proceedings the proceedings proceedings are eithereither 2This is a writ petition is a writ petition writ petition petition where the proceedings the proceedings proceedings are eithereitherchallenged to the notices which were issued under Section I4gAand 148 of the Income Tax Act, 196l (for short [.the ]Act') or thechallenged to the notices which were issued under Section I4gAand 148 of the Income Tax Act, 196l (for short [.the ]Act') or theassessment orders those have been passed under Section 147 ofthe Act which havc been assailed.3. This writ petiiion writ petiiion petiiion is being taken up today being taken up today only on one of theon one of theof thethethe Act which havc been assailed.3. This writ petiiion writ petiiion petiiion is being taken up today being taken up today only on one of theon one of theof thethe This writ petiiion writ petiiion petiiion is being taken up today being taken up today only on one of theon one of theof thethe 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 arnendment that was brought to the Income Tax Act by wayof Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f., 01.04.2021 onwards, proceedingsof the arnendment that was brought to the Income Tax Act by wayof Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f., 01.04.2021 onwards, proceedings \\ t under Section 1484 of [the ][Act ][as ][also under ][Sectior.r ] [48 ][of ][the]Act ought to have [also been ][issued ][and proceeded ][in a ][laceless]manner. The contention of the contention of the of the the [[petitioner ]][[is ][that ][the ][issue ][of]][[that ][the ][issue ][of]][[the ][issue ][of]][[issue ][of]][[of]] 4. The contention of the contention of the of the the [[petitioner ]][[is ][that ][the ][issue ][of]][[that ][the ][issue ][of]][[the ][issue ][of]][[issue ][of]][[of]]proceedings being in violation of [the Finance Act, ][2021 ][i.e., ][thc]impugned notices under [Section ][l48A ][and ][Section ][148 ][ol'the ][Act]not being issued in a faceless [manncr, ][have ][already ][been ][dealt ][with]and decided by this Court [in ][the ][case ][of ] RAVINDRA REDDY, [vs. ] [OFFICF'Rr ][decided]on 14.09.2023 whereby [a batch ][ol writ ][petitions were rrllowed ][and]the proceedings initiated [under Section ][148A ][as ][also ][uttder ][Section]148 of the Act were hetd [to ][be bad ][with ][consequential ][reliefs ][on the]ground of it being in [violation ][of ][the ][provisions ][of ][Section ][15lA ][of]the Act read with Notification [l8l2o22 ][dated ][29.03.2022. ][The ][said]judgment passed by this Court has also been [subsequently ][lollowed]in a large number of [writ ][petitions ][which ][were ][allowed on similar]terrns \\ \\ 5. Down the line, we find that the same issue has also beendecided against rhe Revenue by various High Courts i.e.,by the Bombay High Cqurt in the case of HEXAWARETECHNOLOGIES LTD., vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX & OTHERS2, Gauhati High Court in the caseof RAM NARAYAN SAH vs. UNION OF INDIA3, punjab andHaryana High Court in the case of JATINDER SINGH BANGUvs. UNION OF INDIA4, and ['felangana ]High Court in the case ofSRI VBNKATARAMANA.REDDY PATLOOLA vs. DEPUTYCOMMISSIONER Op INCOME TAX5 where the issue was inrespect of international taxation, Bombay High Court in the case ofABHIN ANILKUMAR 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 Hieh Court in the case of MANSUKHBHAI 2 lzoz+1464 ITR 430 (Bom) ' l(2024) 156 taxmann.corn 478 (Gauhati)l " [(2024) 165 taxmann.com I l5 (Punjab & Haryana)]'[2024) [167 ]taxrnann.corn 4l I (Tetangana)]" [2024) [166 ]taxmann.com 679 (Bombay)]'[2024) [167 ]taxrnann.corn 4l I (Tetangana)]" [2024) [166 ]taxmann.com 679 (Bombay)] '[2024) [165 ]taxmann.com I l3 (Flimachal [pradesh)]] o DAHYABHAI RADADIYA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 3(3XO8, Jharkand High Court in the case of SHYAMSUNDAR SAW vs. UNION OF INDIAe, Rajasthan Ftigh Courl inthe case of SHARDA DEVI CHHAJER vs. INCOME TAXOFFICER & ANOTHER and batch'of writ petitionsr0 whichstood decided on 19.03.2024. Similar views have also been takenby the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in the case ofGIRDHAR GOPAL DALMIA vs. UNION OF I\DIA & ORS(M.A.T 1690 of 2023), deiided on25.09.2024 6. Even though the same issue having been decrded by a largenumber of High Courts, we are still confronted with large filing ofidentical matters on daily basis ranging between 5 to l0 writpetitions. That upon the instructions being sought from theDepartment, they have been taking a solitary ground that thedecision of the Bombay High Cout in the case o1' HeraworeTechnologies Lttl., (2 supra) as also the one wirich has beendecided by this Court in the case of Kanakala Rtvindra Reddy r2\2q SCC Online Guj 4012"2025 SCC Online Jhar287' o 12023 [: ] [: ][49 ][84-DB ]l (1 supra) has been subjected [to ][challenge ][in ][a ][Special ][Leave]Petition i.e., SLP [No.3574 ][of ][2024 ][belore the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme]Court and [the Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Court ][is ][seized ][of ][the ][matter']In addition, there are [about ][1200 ][SLPs ][also ][filed ][arising out ][of ][the]same issue being [decided by various ][High ][Courts.] fri To a query being [put to ][the learned counsel ][for ][the ][Revenue,]they have categorically [accepted ][the ][fact ][that ][there ][is ][no ][interim]order granted by [the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Court ][in ][any ][of ][these]matters pending [before ]it,'' [Meanwhile, fresh ][writ ][petitions ][of]identical nature are [beirlg piled up ][before ][this Bench ][on ][daily ][basis]and the pendency [is ][getting ][increased ][on ][matter ][which ][otherwise]has already been [dealt ][and ][decided by ][this ][very ][High ][Court ][itself']8. On the one hand, [even though ][the ][order ][of ][this ][Court ][that]was passed as early [as ][on ][14.09.2023 ][and ][more ][16 ][months ][have]lapsed, titl date, [we do ][not find ][any ][remedial ][steps ][having ][been]taken by the Income [Tax ][Department ][to ][take appropriate ][steps to]either hold back [issuance ][of ][notice under Section ][l48A ][and under]Section 148 of [the ][Act ][by ][the ][jurisdictional ][Assessing ][Officer,]rather the authorities concemed [in ][the teeth ][of ][series ][of ][decisions] by all the major High Courts in [India ][are ][continuouslv still]initiating proceedings under Section l48A of [the ][Act ][and ][also]initiating proceedings under Section [148 ]of [the ][Act ][in]contravention to the amendments brought into the Ircome [Tax ][Act]pursuant to the Finance Act, 2020 as also the Finance z\ct [202 ] [.] by all the major High Courts in [India ][are ][continuouslv still]initiating proceedings under Section l48A of [the ][Act ][and ][also]initiating proceedings under Section [148 ]of [the ][Act ][in]contravention to the amendments brought into the Ircome [Tax ][Act]pursuant to the Finance Act, 2020 as also the Finance z\ct [202 ] [.] 9. Upon a query being put as to [why can't ][this ][rvrLt ][petition ][be]disposed of in the teeth of the decision rendered [by this ][Court ][in]the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra), [Ieanred Standing]Counsel for the Income Tax Department contends [that those ][tvould]unnecessarily burden the Income Tax Department [where ][they]would be required to file equal number of SL I's befbre [the]Hon'ble Supreme Court and it would be further btrrdening [the]exchequer of the Union of India. It was also the cc,nt,:ntion [of ][the]learned Standing Counsel that no prejudice would bc [taused ][to ][the]interest of the petitioners in case if this writ petition is kept [pending]till the finalization of the SLPs pending before the Hon'bleSupreme Court and the fact that the petitioner is already enjoyingthe beneht of interim protection. Nonetheless, on tlre carlier [query]of this Court as to why the Income Tax Department have not comeout with a mechanism to issue appropriate instructiot rs or [to ][take] E appropriate steps [in ][ensuring that ][proceedings under ][Section ][148A]of the Act as [also ][the ][assessment ][orders ][under Section ][148 ][of ][the]Act are kept [in ][a ][hold ][in ][the ][light ][of ][the decisions decided ][by ][the]various High Courts, [it ][was ][submitted ][by ][the ][leamed ][Standing]$ornr"l [that the ][said ][steps ][can ][only ][be ][taken ][at ][the level ][of ] as any such steps [would ][have ][to ][be ][taken ][Pan ][India ][and ][cannot ][be]limited to any [of ][these ][jurisdictiofial ][High Courts']10. As a result [of ][which, ][what we ][are ][facing ][is ][steep ][increase ][of]litigation day [in ][and ][day ][out,even ][though various ][orders have ][been]passed by this High [Cou[ ][allowing ][writ ][petitions ][on the ][very ][same]issue. The Income [Tax ][authorities concemed ][are ][still ][even ][now ][in]2025 atso initiating [proceedings ][in ][contravention ][to ][the provisions]of Section 15lA [of ][the ][Act ][and ][as ][a result ][by ][now, more than ][600]to 700 petitions [have been already ][got ][pited up ][before ][this ][High]Court on an [issue ][which ][otherwise ][stands squarely ][covered ][by ][the]judgment of this Court in [the ][case ][of ][Kanokalu ][Ravindra ][Reddy]( 1 supra). What is [also surprising ][is ][the ][fact ][that ][though while]allowing the [writ ][petitions ][in ][the ][case ][of ][Kanakalu ][Ravindra]Reddy (l supra), [the ][Divisiqn ][Bench ][while ][reserving ][the ][right ][of]the Revenue, has [also ][protected ][the ][i;G ]of the [petitioners] a { insofar as [the ][liberty which ][was ][granted ][to ][the ][Revenue ][lor]initiating [fresh proceedings ][strictly in ][accordance ][witl.r ][the ][amended]of [the ][Act, ][as amended ][by ][thc ][Finance ]['A'c" ][2020 ][and]provisions the Finance [Act,202l. ][The petitioner ][assessee ][woulrl ][b': entitled ][ttr]challenge [or ][raise ][the ][other ][legal ][objeitioris ][if ][the ][Reverrue ][initiatcs]fresh proceedings. [The ][Department ][has ][made ][no ][endeavour ][in]the [said ][liberty ][that ][was reserved ][for ][the ][Revenue ][On ][thc]availing contrary, [they ][have been ][stilt ][sticking on ][to ][the ][stand' ][which ][this]Court [as ][well ][as ][many other ][High ][Courts alread'" held ][to ][be]High bad a { insofar as [the ][liberty which ][was ][granted ][to ][the ][Revenue ][lor]initiating [fresh proceedings ][strictly in ][accordance ][witl.r ][the ][amended]of [the ][Act, ][as amended ][by ][thc ][Finance ]['A'c" ][2020 ][and]provisions the Finance [Act,202l. ][The petitioner ][assessee ][woulrl ][b': entitled ][ttr]challenge [or ][raise ][the ][other ][legal ][objeitioris ][if ][the ][Reverrue ][initiatcs]fresh proceedings. [The ][Department ][has ][made ][no ][endeavour ][in]the [said ][liberty ][that ][was reserved ][for ][the ][Revenue ][On ][thc]availing contrary, [they ][have been ][stilt ][sticking on ][to ][the ][stand' ][which ][this]Court [as ][well ][as ][many other ][High ][Courts alread'" held ][to ][be]High bad 11. It appears [that ][because ][ofthe ][aforesaid ][libertl' ][that ][this ][[{igh]Court had [granted ][permitting ][the ][Revenue ][for ][initiating ][fi'esh]as [a ][one-titne ][measure ][in ][a ][faceless ][manner' ][thc]proceedings Income [Tax ][Department wants ][to ][take ][advantage ][of ][the ][sanre ][by]these [proceedings ][which would ][enable thenl ][to ][meet the]protracting limitation [that would ][otherwise ][come ][in ][the ][way ][l-ikeu'ise' ][if ][the]writ petition is [kept pending ][for ][a ][considerable ][long' ][period ][of tirre]and finally at a [later ][stage ][if ][the ][Hontble ][Supreme ][Court ][confirms]the decision taken [by ][this ][High ][Court ][as ][also ][by thc ][other ][l-ligh]Courts in [which ][the ][SLPs ][are ][still ][pending, ][the ][Incotnc ]['l-ax] Department would get the advantage of the [liberty ][that is otherwise]in favour of the Revenue for initiation of [fresh]protected proceedings from the disposal ofthese matters at a much later [stage]which would be advantageous and beneficial to the [Revenue ][and]rvould be equally disadvantageous and detrimental so lar as [interest]of the assesses are concemed. As a consequence, [the Income Tax]Department gets an extended period of time lor [initiation ]of [fresh]proceedings. 12. The alarming trend of docket explosion in this Court, despitethe clear precedent set in Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (l [supra), ][is ][a]matter of grave concern. The Income Tax Department's [persistent]initiation of fresh proceedings, disregarding the established [judicial]pronouncements, has led to an unprecedented surge in litigationwith over 600-700 petitions piling up on the same [issue. This]deliberate approach not only undermines the [principle of judicial]precedent but also strains the [judicial ]resources unnecessarily. [The]Department's strategy of awaiting the Supreme Court's [decision ][on]pending SLPs while continuing to initiate fresh [proceedings]appears to be a calculated move to buy time [and ][circumvent]limitation periods, rather than adhering'to the established [tegal] I Such [conduct raises ][serious questions ][about ][the]position. administrativeefficiencyandtherespectfor!udicialpronouncements, [particularly ][when ][this Court ][has a:rerrdy ][provided]a balanced [approach ][by ][preserving ][both ][the ][Revettuc-'s ][rights ][and]assesses [interests.] I Such [conduct raises ][serious questions ][about ][the]position. administrativeefficiencyandtherespectfor!udicialpronouncements, [particularly ][when ][this Court ][has a:rerrdy ][provided]a balanced [approach ][by ][preserving ][both ][the ][Revettuc-'s ][rights ][and]assesses [interests.] 13. Another [aspect ][which ][n"td' ][to be considered is ][that ][in ][fact ][it]should [have been ][realized ][by ][the Income ][Tax Department ][itself ][and]should [have found ][out ][vja ][media ][in ][ensuring ][that ][proccedings]under Sections [148-{ ][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 ][of or' ][at]least the [[ncome ][Tax ][Department should ][have ][forrnd ][out ][some]remedial [steps ][to ][ensure ][that ][wherever ][the ][authorjties intend ][to]initiate [proceedings under ][Sections ][148-4 and ][148' ]['lther ][than ][in ][a]faceless [manner, ][the ][proceedings ][should ][hav': ][oeen ][deferred]without [precipitating ][the ][matter ][further intimating ][the ][assessee ][that]shall [initiate ][appropriate ][proceedings ][only ][aliel ][the ][SLP's ][are]they decided [by ][the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Court on the ][very ][same ][issue']This again, [the Income ][Tax Department' ][has ][not ][b'een ][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 of a policy decision and that too at theotherwise 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, onthc one hand when the High Court is struggling to reduce itsthe Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition of similar nature, onthc 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 HighCourl 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 thesethe 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 onmatter 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 thelncome 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 makematter has been reluctant in granting any interim protection to thelncome 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 DepartmentISshowingaudacity by issuing notices continuously under Sections 148-A andaudacity by issuing notices continuously under Sections 148-A and 148 through the [jurisdictional ][Assessing ][Olficer ][w[ereas ][it ][ought]to have been only [in ][the ][faceless ][manner] 14. In the case of BANK OF [INDIA vs. ] 148 through the [jurisdictional ][Assessing ][Olficer ][w[ereas ][it ][ought]to have been only [in ][the ][faceless ][manner] 14. In the case of BANK OF [INDIA vs. ] COMMISSIONER, [INCOME TAXrr, ][on an ][isstte ][whether ][it ][was]justifiable on the part of the Income Tax [D-'prLflrnent ][in ][not]following an order [passed ][by ][the ][adjudicating ][authority only ][on ][the]ground that the appeals are [pending, the ][Divisior ][Bench ][of ][the]High Court of Bombay [hetd ][at ][paragraph ][No.25 ][as ][under, ][viz ][, ][:] "25. I\ilr. Paridwalla has rightly drawn [out ][attention ][to ][the]decision of this Court [in ][Commissioner of lncome Tax ][vs' ][Smt']Godavaridevi Saraf'2 [as ][also ][the ][recent decision ][of ][the ][co-]ordinate Bench 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]binding force. Referring [to the ][decisrdn ][of ][the ][Supreme Court ][in]Union of lndia vs. Kamlakshi [Finance ][Corporation ][Ltd.'4, ][the]Court observed that the [approach ][of the ][officials ][of ][Revenue ][of]treating decisions being ["not ][acceptable" ][was criticzed ][by ][the]Supreme Court. ln such [decision, following ][are ][the ][relevant]observations made [by ][the Supreme Court.] " 11zo2s1 [170 ][taxmann.com ][422 ][(Bombay)l]'' 1t9;s1 [l3 ] [589 ][(Bombay)]" 12Oz+1165 [taxmann.com ][581/300 Taxman ][452 (Bombay)] 'o 1t992ltaxmann.com [16155ELT ][433 ][(SC)] " 11zo2s1 [170 ][taxmann.com ][422 ][(Bombay)l]'' 1t9;s1 [l3 ] [589 ][(Bombay)]" 12Oz+1165 [taxmann.com ][581/300 Taxman ][452 (Bombay)] 'o 1t992ltaxmann.com [16155ELT ][433 ][(SC)] '6. Sri Reddy is perhaps right in saying that theofficers were not actuated by any mala fides inpassing the impugned orders. They perhapsgenuinely felt that the claim of the assessee was nottenable and that, if it was accepted, the Revenuegenuinely 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 orotherwise of their conclusion or. of any factualmalafides but with the fact that the officers, in reachingin their conclusion, by-passed two appellate orders inare not concerned here with the correctness orotherwise of their conclusion or. of any factualmalafides but with the fact that the officers, in reachingin their conclusion, by-passed two appellate orders inregard lo the same issue which were placed beforethem, one of the Collector (Appeals) and the other ofthe 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. ltthem, one of the Collector (Appeals) and the other ofthe 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 emphasized that it is ofutmost importance that, in disposing of thequasijudicial issues before them, revenue officers areutmost 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 binding upon the AssistantAssistant Collectors working within his jurisdiction andthe order of the Tribunal is binding upon the AssistantCollectors and the Appellate Collectors who functionunder the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The principles ofjudicial discipline require that the orders of the higherappellate authorities should be followed unreservedlyjudicial 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" tothe department - in itself an objectionable phrase -and rs the subject matter of an appeal can furnish noground for not following it unless its operation hasand rs the subject matter of an appeal can furnish noground for not following it unless its operation hasbeen suspended by a competent court. lf this healthy I "b rule is not followed, the result will only be [undue]harassment to assesses and chaos in [administratton]of tax laws. 12. We have dealt with this aspect at some length,because it has been suggested by the [learned]Additional Solicitor General that ['the ]observatrc nsmade 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 widesprepd, could result in considerableharassment to the assesses-public without any benr:fitto the Revende. 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 [regard]should be paid by the ad.judicating authorities [and the]appellate authorities to the requirements of [jtrdic.ral]discipline and the need for giving effect to the [orders]of the higher appellate authorities which are bindingon them." 15. What is worrying this Bench more is the lact that [ar.t]endeavour 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 Finance Act,202O and Finance [Act,202l. ][Now, ][in ][order ][to protect]the interest of the Revenue as also [that of the ][assessee, ][it ][would ][be]trite at this [juncture, ]if [we ][dispose ][of ][the ][writ ][petition ][with ][an]observation/direction that [the disposal ][of the ][instant ][writ ][petition ][in]terms of the [judgment ][rendered ][by ][this ][tligh ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]Kankanala Ravindra Reddy (l [supra) ][shall however be ][subject ][to]the outcome of the SLPs [which ][were ][filed by ][the ][Income ][Tax]Department and which is [pending consideration before ][the ][Hon'ble]Supreme Court. 16. In the given facts [and ][circumstances, ][this ][Bench ][is ][of ][the]considered opinion that [unless and ][until ][we ][do ][not ][timely ][dispose]of matters which are squarely [covered by ][the ][decision ][of ][this Court]and which stands forlified by [the ][decisions ][of ][the ][various ][other]High Courts on the [very ][same ][issue, ][the ][pendency ][of ][this High]Court would further be [burdened ][which ][otherwise ][can ][be ][decided]and disposed of as [a ]covered [matter.] 17 . So far as the interest of the Revenue [is ][concemed, ][we ][are ][of]the considered opinion that the interest [of ][the ][Revenue ][has ][already]been considered and protected, as has been [observed ][in ][paragraphs] 36,37 and,3 8 of the order which, for ready reference, ;s reproducedhereunder: 36. For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned noticesissued and the proceedings drawn by the respoldent-Department is neither tenable, nor sustainable.The notices so issued and the proledure adopted beingper se illegal, deserves to be and are accordingly setaside/quashed. As a donsequence, all the impugnedorders getting quashed, the consequential orders passedby the respondenLDepartment pursuant to the noticesissued under Section 147 and 148 would also getquashed and it is,brdered accordingly. The reason weare quashing the consequential order is on the principlesthat when th6 initiation of the proceedings ilself wasprocedurally wrong, the subsequent orders alsc getsnullified automatically. 37. The preliminary objection raised by the petitioner issustained and all these writ petitions stands allowed onthis very [jurisdictional ]issue. Since the impugned noticesand 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 caseof Ashish Agarual, supra, as a one-time measureexercising the powers und6r Article 142 ot theConstitution of lndia, permitted the Revenue to [proceed]under the substituted provisions, and this Court allowingthe petitions only on the procedural flaw, lhe 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 AshishAgarwal, supra. 38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the caseof Ashish Agarual, supra, as a one-time measureexercising the powers und6r Article 142 ot theConstitution of lndia, permitted the Revenue to [proceed]under the substituted provisions, and this Court allowingthe petitions only on the procedural flaw, lhe 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 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 theaforesaid SLP preferred by the Revenue against the decision of thisHigh 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 infavour of the assessee so far as the issue of jurisdictionlsconcemed. As a consequence, the impugned notice underchallenge under Sections 148-4 and 148 stands set aside/quashed I It The consequential [orders, ][if ][any, ][also ][stand set ][aside/quashed in] similar terms [as ][have ][been passed ][by this ][High ][Court in ][the ][case ][ol] Kunkanala [Ravindra ][Reddy ][(l ][supra)' ][There shall be no order ][as] to costs Consequently, [miscellaneous ][petitions pending' ][i1' ][any' shall] stand closed. sD/- P [P#DJtN^BREt,EiRRI] //TRUE SECTIOFFICER To, 1ThelncomeTaxofiicer,WardT(1)'HyderaPad,-S,ignRl'reTowers,Sy.oooo[H:,R,"JJ*rffi [H[td#?ri'1FL"JxR51','Bt.,g;1';5""'B$31ifl ]084, Telangana084, Telangana 084, Telangana1 H vd [e ][ra ][b ][a ][d' ] [r ][rowe ][rs ][Ac]1 H vd [e ][ra ][b ][a ][d' ] [r ][rowe ][rs ][Ac]11"" Irilfi f.*S [:I1T6"r"Sff ][: ][+ffi ][ru", ][Is', ] 2 ft ::f B'Ji.::*:li'R"jro",l'*P8B?EHI;I1l"Jfl [iCIii'?iT"d:3:$"']::f B'Ji.::*:li'R"jro",l'*P8B?EHI;I1l"Jfl [iCIii'?iT"d:3:$"']New Delni - [1 ][10 003] 3 4. One [to ] [A SIVA KARTIKEYA Advocate IOPUCI] 5. One [to ] [(Jr' ] [FOR INCOME TAX)]loPUClloPUCl 6. Two [CD CoPies] KKSGJPtw HIGH COURT DATED:2910412025 ORDER WP.No.28747 of 2024 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITIONWITHOUT COSTSlt- De[]-tt /