Wp/29102/2024 Of Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Pedabeeravalli v. The Income Tax Officer Ward 1

t34471 HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF APRILTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENTTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION NO:29102 OF 2024 Between: PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETYREplpFErycvALll, [Rep ][By ][trs ][secretary ][nsHox ][DARELLT;'sro ]vESbluIT-+LI [uccupatron.tsugilels,.Aged about ][31 ][years, R/O Erative ]CreditS.gre-ry 507204, [pedabeeravaili ]Terangana, rndia. Vi pAN , , pedabeeravaili po Assessment Bbnkar Mandar year 2018-19Khammam ...PETITIONER AND 1The lncome tax officer ward 'r, Khammam/ rncome Tax office. Raieev Gunt.--".'Rayiv Chowk, Near Kinnerasani Theatre, fframmam ielan;;;; ilrt": Rayiv Chowk, Near Kinnerasani Theatre, fframmam ielan;;;; ilrt": 2Hyderabad, IlgIl'l,9ip1l_Cjief il Iowers, [Commissioner of income ]AC Guards, Masab Tank, Hyder;bad_soo [Tax_Tetangana and ][A.p,]029,Telangana.Hyderabad, IlgIl'l,9ip1l_Cjief il Iowers, [Commissioner of income ]AC Guards, Masab Tank, Hyder;bad_soo [Tax_Tetangana and ][A.p,]029,Telangana..)The National Faceless Assessment Center, lncome Tax Department, NewDelhi.The National Faceless Assessment Center, lncome Tax Department, NewDelhi.4The Central Board of Direct Taxes, Represented by its Chairman. Departmentof Revenue, Ministry of Finance, oovei.nment oir"tii, S"trtiiiiii B;i'6;;;!,"'New Delhi - 1 10 00i.of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, oovei.nment oir"tii, S"trtiiiiii B;i'6;;;!,"'New Delhi - 1 10 00i.5Ilg_Ul"l [of ][lndia, ][Represented ][by ][rts ][Secretary to the Government,]uepanment ot Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Nejw Delhi _ 110 001uepanment ot Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Nejw Delhi _ 110 001 ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Articre 226 of the constitution of rndia praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High coirt hiy be preasedto issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particriarry one in ihe nature ofwrit of Mandamus decraring the order passed by the Income Tax Authorities(National Faceless E-Assessment centre) compleied the assessment U/s 147to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particriarry one in ihe nature ofwrit of Mandamus decraring the order passed by the Income Tax Authorities(National Faceless E-Assessment centre) compleied the assessment U/s 147r.w s 144 read with section 1448 of the lncome-tax Act Date of 12-03-2o24,DlNlrBA/AST/s/14712023-241106244s004(1) for the Assessment year 201b-i9determining the total income of Rs. 4,.27,01,18g/_ as arbitrary, illegal, bad in law,without jurisdiction, void-ab-initio, viorative of the principres of natuiar justice apartwithout jurisdiction, void-ab-initio, viorative of the principres of natuiar justice apart from being violative of [Articles ][14, ][1S(1)(g) ][and 265 ][of ][the ][constitution of ][lndia ][and]Sec. i48A of the [lncome Tax ][Act, ][tSOl ][, ][anO ][consequently ][set ][aside ][the ][same ][in]the interests of [justice] lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under section [151 CPC praying ][that in the ][circumstances stated ][in]the affidavit filed [in ][support ][of the writ ][petition, ][the ][High Court ][may ][be pleased ][to]other [proceedings ][in the order ][passed under ][section ][147 ][r'w ][s ][144 ][read]Stay att *itn section 1448 of the [lncome_tax ][Act ][Dared.12-03-2024, ][DlN.]TTBAJAST/S/147t2}23-24t1062445004 [(1) ][for ][the ][Assessment ][Year ][2018-19]the [total ][income ][of ][Rs. ][4,77,01,'189/- ][and ][Demand ][notice u/s ][',l56 ][of the]determining tncome T-ax Act 1961, [vide DIN ][& ][Notice ][No: ] [5612023-]24t1062445181 [(1) ]Dt: [12-03-2024 ][fot ][the ][assessment ][year ][2018'19 ][pending]disposal of the above [Writ ][Petition] Counsel for the Petitioner: [SRl. THANNERU ] Counsel for the Petitioner: [SRl. THANNERU ] Counsel forthe Respondent [Nos.1 ][to ][4: ][Ms. BOKARO SAPNA ] [(Jr' ] FOR rNcoME TAX) Counsel for the Respondent [NO.S: ][SRI B. MUKHERJEE] The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE [P.SAM ][KOStry]ANDTHF], HONOURABLE SRI JUSTTCE NARSING RAONANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION No.29102 OF 2024 ORDER, [(per ]Hon'ble [Sri ][Justice ][Narsing ][Rao ][Nandikonda)] Heard Mr.Thanneru Chaitanya Kumar, [learned ][counsel] for the petitioner, Ms.B.Sapna Reddy, [Ieamed ][Junior ][Standing]Counsel for the Income Tax [Department ][for ][respondent ][Nos.1 to ][4]and Mr. B. Mukherjee, learned [counsel ][representing ][the ][Union ][of]India for respondent No.5. Perused the [record.] 2. This is a writ petition where the [proceedings ][are ][either]challenged to the notices [which ][were ][issued ][under Section ][148A]and 148 of the Income Tax [Act, ][1961 ][(for ][short 'the ][Act') ][or ][the]assessment orders those have been [passed ][under ][Section ][147 ][of]the Act which have been assailed 3. This writ petition is being taken up [today ][only on ][one ][of ][the]grounds, that the notices issued under Section [148,4. ]of [the ][Act]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, ][proceedings]under Section 148.4 of the Act as [also under ][Section ][148 ][of ][the]Act ought to have also been [issued ][and ][proceeded ][in ][a ][faceless]manner.4. The contention of the petitioner contention of the petitioner of the petitioner the petitioner petitioner [[is ][that ][the ][issue ][of]][[that ][the ][issue ][of]][[the ][issue ][of]][[issue ][of]][[of]]proceedings being in violation of the [Finance ][Act,202l i'e', ][the]impugned notices under Section 148,4 [and Section ][148 ][of ][the ][Act]not being issued in a faceless manner, [have ][already ][been ][dealt ][with]and deckled by this Court in the [case ][of ] RAVINDRA REDDY vs. INCOME-TAX [decided]on 14.09.2023 whereby a batch of [writ ][petitions were ][allowed ][and]the proceedings initiated under Section [l48A ][as also ][under ][Section]148 of the Act were held to be bad [with ][consequential ][reliefs ][on ][the]ground of it being in violation of the [provisions ][of ][Section ] [1A ][of]the Act read with Notification 1812022 [dated ][29.03.2022. The ][said]judgment passed by this Court has also been subsequently [followed]in a large number of writ petitions which [were allowed on ][similar]terms The contention of the petitioner contention of the petitioner of the petitioner the petitioner petitioner [[is ][that ][the ][issue ][of]][[that ][the ][issue ][of]][[the ][issue ][of]][[issue ][of]][[of]] 'l(2023) [156 ]taxmann.com [178 ][(Telangana)l] 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 HEXAWARETECHNOLOGIES LTD., vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX & OTHERS2, Gauhati High Court in the caseof RAM NARAYAN SAH vs. UNION OF INDIAT, 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 international taxation, Bombay High Court in the case ofABHIN ANILKUMAR SHAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,INTERNATIONAL 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 Court in the case of MANSUKHBHAI ' Tzoz+1 [464 ] [430 ][(Bom)]'l(2024) [156 ][taxmann.com ][478 ][(Gauhati)l]" l(2024) 165 taxmann.com I I 5 [(Punjab ]& Haryana)l'12024) [167 ][taxmann.com 411 ][(Telangana)l ]t" [2024) [166 ][tExrnann.com ]679 [(Bombay)]]'12024) [165 ]taxmann.com [113 ][(Himachal ]Pradesh)l DAHYABTIAI [VS. ] [OFFICER,]WARD 3(3)(5)8, [Jharkand ][High Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ] SUNDAR [vs. ] [INDIAe, ][Rajasthan ][High ][Court ][in]the case of [CHHAJER vs. ] OFFICER & [and ][batch ][of ][writ ][petitionsro ][which]stood decided [on ][19.03.2024. ][Similar views ][have ][also been taken]by the Division [Bench ][of ][Calcutta ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]GIRDHAR [vs. ] [& ] (M.A.T 1690 of [2023), decided ][on25.09.2024.]6. Even though [the ][same ][issue ][having ][been decided ][by ][a ][large]number of [High ][Courts, we ][are ][still ][confionted ][with ][large ][filing ][of]identicat matters [on ][daily ][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 beendecided by this Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy t2024 SCC Online Guj 4012'2025 SCC Online Jhar287u ' 12023, [: ][49 ][84-DB ]l (l supra) [has been ][subjected ][to ][challenge ][in:ar,Sperial ][Leave]Petition [i.e., ][SLP No.3574 ][of ][2024 before ][the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme]Court and [the Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Court ][is ][seized ][of ][the ][matter.]In addition, [there are ][about ][1200 SLPs also ][filed ][arising out ][ofthe]same issue [being decided by ][various High ][Courts.]7. To a [query being ][put ][to ][the leamed counsel ][for ][the ][Revenue,]have [categoically ][accepted ][the fact ][that there ][is ][no ][interim]they order [granted ][by ][the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Court ][in ][any ][of ][these]matters [pending ][before ][it. ][Meanwhile, fresh ][writ ][petitions ][of]identical nature [are ][being ][piled ][up ][before this ][Bench ][on ][daily ][basis]and the [pendency ][is ][getting ][increased ][on ][matter ][which ][otherwise]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]till [date, ][we do not ][find ][any remedial ][steps ][having ][been]Iapsed, 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 Offrcer,]rather the authorities [concemed ][in ][th6 teeth ][of ][series ][of ][decisions] \ \ by ali the majcr, iiigir Ccui:;s in india are icnti,ilucuslyinitiating proceedings under Section l4gA of the Act and alsoinitiating proceedings under Section l4g of the Act ininitiating proceedings under Section l4gA of the Act and alsoinitiating proceedings under Section l4g of the Act incontravention to the amendments brought into the Income Tax Actpursuant to the Finance Act,2020 as also the Finance Act202l .9. Upon a query being put as to why can,t this writ petition bepursuant to the Finance Act,2020 as also the Finance Act202l .9. Upon a query being put as to why can,t this writ petition bedisposed ol in the teeth of the decision rendered by this Court inthe case of Kanakala Ravindru Reddy (l supra), learned Standingthe case of Kanakala Ravindru Reddy (l supra), learned StandingCounsel for the lncoile Tax Departrnent contends that those wouidunnecessarily burden the lncome Tax Department where theywould be required to file equal number of SLps before theHon'ble Supreme Court and it would be further burdening thewould 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 thelearned Standing Counsel that no prejudiee would be caused to theinterest of the petitioners in case if this writ petition is kept pendingtill the finalizaticrr of the SLps pending before the Hon,bleinterest of the petitioners in case if this writ petition is kept pendingtill the finalizaticrr 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 corneout ',vith a mschanism to issue apprcpriate instructions or to takethe benefit of interim protection. Nonetheless, on the earlier queryof this Court as to why the Income Tax Department have not corneout ',vith a mschanism to issue apprcpriate instructions or to take appropriate steps in ensuring t[atproceedingq [under ][Sec&ion ][148,{]of the Act as also the assessment orders under Section [148 ][of ][the]Act are kept in a hold in the light ofthe decisions dedcided by [the]various High Courts, it was submitted by the [leamed ]StandingCounsel that the said steps can only be taken [at ][the ][level ][of ] as any such steps would have to be taken Pan [India ][and ][cannot ][be]limited to any of these [jurisdictional ]High Courts. 10. As a result of which, what we are facing is steep [increase ]oflitigation day in and day out even though various orders [have ][been]passed by this High Court allowing writ petitions on the [very ]sameissue. The Income Tax authorities concerned are still [even ][now in]2025 also 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 ][piled ]up before [this ][High]Court on an issue which otherwise stands squarely [covered ][by ][the]judgment of this Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy(1 supra). What is also surprising is the fact that though whileallowing the writ [petitions ]in [the ][case ]of [Kanakala ][Ravindra]Reddy (l supra), the Division [Bench ][while ][reserving ][the right ]ofthe Revenue, has also protected the interest of the petitioners insofar as the liberly which was granted to the Revenue forinitiating fi'esh proceedings strictly in accordance with the amendedinitiating fi'esh proceedings strictly in accordance with the amendedprovisions ol the Aot, as amended by the Finance Act, 2020 andthe Finance Act, 2021 . The petitioner assessee would be entitled tothe Finance Act, 2021 . The petitioner assessee would be entitled tochallenge or raise the other legal objections if the Revenue initiatesfresh proceedings. The Department has made no endeavour inavailing the said Iiberty that was reserved for the Revenue. On theavailing the said Iiberty that was reserved for the Revenue. On thecontrary, they have been still sticking on to the stand, which thisHigh Court as well as many other High Courts already held to bebadHigh Court as well as many other High Courts already held to bebad 11. It appears thar because ofthe aforesaid liberty that this HighCourt had granted permitting the Revenue for initiating freshproceedings as a one-time measure in a faceless manner, theIncome Tax Department wants to take advantage of the same byprotracting these proceedings which would enable them to meet thelimitation that would otherwise come in the way. Likewise, if thewrit petition is kept pending for a considerable long period of timeand frnally at a later stage if the Hon,ble Supreme Court confirmsthe decision taken by this High Court as also by the other HighCourts in which the SLps are still pending, the Income Tax "l - would [get ][the advantage ][of ][the ][liberty ][that is ][otherwise]Deparlment in favour of the [Revenue ][for ][initiation ][of ][fiesh]protected proceedings from the disposal [of ][these matters at ][a ][much ][later ][stage]which would be [advantageous ][and ][beneficial ][to ][the ][Revenue ][and]would be equally [disadvantageous ][and ][detrimental ][so ][far ][as ][interest]of the assesses [are ][concemed. As ][a ][consequence, ][the Income Tax]Department [gets an extended ][period ][of ][time ][for ][initiation ][of ][fresh]proceedings. 12. The alarming [trend ][of ][docket explosion ][in ][this ][Court, ][despite]the clear precedent [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]to [an ][unprecedented ][surge ][in ][litigation]pronouncements, has [1ed ]with over 600-700 [petitions ][piling up ][on the ][same ][issue' ][This]detiberate 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]to be a [calculated ][move ][to ][buy time ][and ][circumvent]appears limitation periods, [rather thal^ adhering ][to ][the ][established ][legal] \ irLi [ti,^ ][Su.--i ][,' ]-,r,.-,jr als.s serious questicns abcut lceadministrative efficiency and the respect for judicialpronouncements, particularly when this Court has already provideda balanced approach by presen,ing both the Revenue's rights andassesses lnterests \ irLi [ti,^ ][Su.--i ][,' ]-,r,.-,jr als.s serious questicns abcut lceadministrative efficiency and the respect for judicialpronouncements, particularly when this Court has already provideda balanced approach by presen,ing both the Revenue's rights andassesses lnterests 13. Another aspect which needs to be considered is that in fact itshould have been realized by the Income Tax Department itself andshould have found out via media in ensuring that proceedingsunder Sections 148-4 and 148 should not have been issued in afaceless manner, at least till the Hon,ble Supreme Court decide thetwelve hundred ( 1200) odd SLps which it is already seized of or, atleast the Income Tax Department should have found out someremedial steps to ensure that wherever the authorities intend toinitiate proceedings under Sections l4g_A and 14g, other than in afaceless manner, the proceedings should have been deferredwithout precipitating the matter further intimating the assessee thatthey shall initiate appropriate proceedings only after the SLp,s aredecided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the very same issue.This again, the Income Tax Deparlment, has not been able to give aconvincing reply, except for the fact that such a decision if at all has to be taken, has [to ][be ][taken ]for [the ][wbo.le ][of ]IndiA [alld whiph]otherwise has to be by [way ][of ][a ][policy ][decision ][and ][that too ][at ][the]level of Central [Board ]of [Direct ][Taxes. ][Though ][the ][learned]Standing Counsel [for ][the ][Income ][Tax ][Department contended ][that]the Delhi High Court [dismissed ][a ][writ ][petition ][of ][similar ][nature, ][on]the one hand when [the ][High ][Court ][is ][struggling ][to ][reduce ][its]pendency, such notices [which ][are under ][challenge ][in ][this ][writ]petition are lorcing the assessee [to ][knock the ][doors ][of ][this ][High]in [filing ][of ][hundreds ][of ][new ][writ ][petitions ][which ][in]Court resulting the long run not only [affects ][the ][disposal ][of ][the ][writ ][petitions ][but]also consumes substantial [time ][of ][the ][Bench ][in ][hearing ][these]matters again and again [on ][daily ][basis. ][Admittedly, ][in ][spite ][of ][the]matter before the [Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Court ][having ][been taken ][on]many occasions, the [Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Court ][which ][is ][seized ][of ][the]matter has been reluctant [in ][granting any ][interim ][protection ][to ][the]Income Tax Department. [Yet, the ][authorities ][concemed ][at ][the]State level are [not ][ready ][to ][accept ][the verdict ][passed ][by ][a ][majority]of High Courts [of ][different ][States ][on the ][same ][issue; and ][to ][make]things further [worse, ][the ][Income ][Tax ][Department ][is ][showing]audacity by [issuing ][notices ][continuously ][under ][Sections ][148-4 ][and] 148 through the jurisdictional Assessing Officer whereas it oughtto have been only in the laceless manner. 14. In the case of BANK OF INDIA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, INCOME TAX' [r, ]on an issue whether it wasjustifiable on the part of the lncome 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., : 148 through the jurisdictional Assessing Officer whereas it oughtto have been only in the laceless manner. 14. In the case of BANK OF INDIA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, INCOME TAX' [r, ]on an issue whether it wasjustifiable on the part of the lncome 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. Mr. Paridwalla has !.ightiy 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 asicie in a manner known to law, it lvould loose itsbinding force. Referring to the decision of the Supreme Court inUnion of lndia vs. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd.14, theGourt observed that the approach 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. I I - [(2025 ) I 70 taxmann.com 422 ( Bombay)]| 19781 I l3 ITR 589 (Bombay)- [(2025 ) I 70 taxmann.com 422 ( Bombay)]| 19781 I l3 ITR 589 (Bombay) ,'rl?9r01165 [taxmam.com ][581/300 Taxman 452 ][(Bombay)]I [i ][992 ]| taxmann.corn I 6/55 ELT 43 j (SC)I [i ][992 ]| taxmann.corn I 6/55 ELT 43 j (SC) "6. Sri Reddy is [perhaps ][right ][in ][saying]that thefides inofficers were [not ][actuated ][by ][any ][mala]passing the [imPugned ][orders. ][TheY]perhapsgenuinely felt that the [claim ][of ][the ][assessee ][was ][not]tenable and [that, ][if ][it ][was ][accepted, ][the ][Revenue]would suffer. [But ][what ][Sri Reddy overlooks ][is ][that we]are not concerned [here ][with ][the ][correctness ][or]otherwise of [their ][conclusion ][or ][bf ][any ][factual]malafides but [with the fact that the ][officers' ][in reaching]in their conclusion, [by-passed ][two appellate ][orders ][in]regard to lhe [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' righlly]criticized this [conduct of ][the ][Assistant ][Collectors and]the harassment [to ][the ][assessee caused by the failure]of these officers [to ][give effect ][to ][the ][orders ][of]authorities [higher ][to ][them ][in ][the ][appellate ][hierarchy ][lt]cannot be [too ][vehemently emphasized ][that ][it ][is ][of]utmost importance [that, ][in ][disposing ][of ][the]quasijudicial issues [before ][them, ][revenue ][officers ][are]bound by the [decisions ][of ][the ][appellale ][authorities']The order of [the ][Appellte Collector ][is ][binding on the]Assistant [Collectors working ][within ][his jurisdiction and]the order of [the Tribunal ][is ][binding upon the Assistant]Collectors and [the ][Appellate Collectors ][who ][function]under the [jurisdiction of ][the ][Tribunal' ][The principles ][of]judicial discipline require [that the orders of the ][higher]authorities [should be followed ][unreservedly]appellate by the subordinate [authorities ][The mere ][fact ][that the]order of the [appellate authority ][is ][not "acceptable' ][to]the department - [in ][itself ][an ][obiectionable phrase ][-]and is the subiect [matter ][of an ][appeal ][can ][furnish ][no]ground for not following [it ][unless ][its ][operation ][has]been suspended [by ][a ][competent ][court ][lf ][this ][healthy] rule is not followed, the result will only be undueharassment to assesses and chaos in administrationof tax laws.of tax laws. rule is not followed, the result will only be undueharassment to assesses and chaos in administrationof tax laws.of tax laws. 12. We have dealt with this aspect at some length,because it has been suggested by the learnedAdditional Solicitor General that the observationsmade by the High Court, have been harsh on theofficers. lt is clear that the observations of the HighCourt, seemingly vehement, and apparentlyunpalatable to the Revenue, are only intended to curba tendency in revenue matters which, if allowed tobecome widespread, could result in considerabteharassment to the assesses-pubtic without any benefitto the Revenue.. We would like to say that thedepartment should take these observations in theproper spirit. The observations of the High Courtshould be kept in mind in future and the utmost regardshould be paid by the adjudicating authorilies 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." 15. What is worrying this Bench more is the fact that an 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,2020 and [Finance ][Act,202l: ][Now;irfofddr,tti ][protect]the interest of the [Revenue ][as ][also that ][of ][the ][assessee, ][it ][would ][be]trite at this [junchrre, ]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 ][High ][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]and [which ][is pending consideration before ][the ][Hon'ble]Department Supreme Court. 16. In the [given ]facti [and ][circumstances, ][this ][Bench ][is ][of ][the]considered opinion [that ][unless and ][until ][we ][do ][not ][timely ][dispose]of matters which [are ][squarely covered by ][the ][decision ][of ][this Court]and which stands [fortified ][by ][the ][decisions ][of ][the various ][other]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, )7 ana 38 of the ordcr which, for ready reference, is reprod,rce,ihereunder: 36. For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned noticesissued and the proceedings drawn by the respondent_Department is neither tenable, nor sustainable.The notices so issued and the procedure adopted beingper se illegal, deserves to be and are accordingly setaside/quashed. As a consequence, all the impugnedorders getting quashed, the consequential orders passedby the respondent-Department pursuant to the noticesissued under Section 147 and 1 48 would also getquashed and it is ordered accordingly. The reason weare quashing the consequential order is on the principlesthat when the. initiation of the proceedings itsetf wasprocedurally wrong, the subsequent orders also 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. 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 Agarwal, supra, as a onetime measureexercising the powers under Article 142 of theConstitution of lndia, permifted the Revenue to proceedunder the substituted provisions, and this Court allowingthe petitions only on the procedural flaw, the right conferred [on the ][Revenue ][would ][remain ][reserved ][to]proceed further if they [so ][want from ][the ][stage ][of ][the]order of [the ][Supreme ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ][Ashish]Agarwal, supra. 18. We would [only ][further ][like to ][make ][observations ][that ][since]we are inclined [to ][dispose ][of ][the instant ][writ ][petition' ][conscious ][of]the fact that [the ][earlier order ][of ][this High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]Kanakala [Ravindra Reddy ][(l ][supra) ][is ][subjected ][to ][challenge]before the Hon'ble [Supreme ][Court ][in ][SLP No'3574 ][of ][2024']the [Income ][Tax ][Department, we ][make ][it ][clear ][that]preferred by of [the ][instant ][writ ][petition ][is ][subject ][to ][outcome ][of ][the]allowing aforesaidSLPpreferredbytheRevenueagainstthedecisionofthisHigh Court in [the ][case ][of ][Kanakala Ravindra ][Reddy ][(l ][supra)']This,inotherwords,wouldmeanthateitheroftheparties'iftheyso want, [may move ][an appropriate ][petition ][seeking ][revival of ][this]writ [petition ][in ][the ][light ][of ][the ][decision ][of ][the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme]Court in the [pending SLP on the ][very ][same issue'] 19. Accordingly, [the ][instant ][writ ][petition ][stands ][allowed ][in]favour of the assessee [so far ][as the ][issue ][of ][jurisdiction ][is]concemed. As a [consequence, ][the ][impugned ][notice ][under]under [Sections ][148-4 and ][148 ][stands ][set ][aside/quashed']challenge \ I The consequential orders, if any, also stand set aside/quashed in similar terms as have been passed by this High Courl in the case of Kankanala Ravindra Reddy (l supra). There shall be no order asto costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shail stand closed. /.L. VIJAYA LAXMIASTANT REGISTRAR\ SECTION OFFICER\ SECTION OFFICERlOffice, Rajeev Gunt,Rajeev Gunt,Gunt,Office, Rajeev Gunt,Rajeev Gunt,Gunt, //TRUE COPY// To, 1The lncome tax officer ward ['1 ], Khammam/ lncome Tax Office, Rajeev Gunt,Rajeev Gunt,Gunt,Rajiv Chowk, Near Kinnerasani Theatre, Khammam Telangana Sfate.Rajiv Chowk, Near Kinnerasani Theatre, Khammam Telangana Sfate. 2The Principal Chief Commissioner of lncome Tax-Telangana and A.p,Hyderabad, lT Towers, AC Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad-sOO 028,Telangana.Hyderabad, lT Towers, AC Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad-sOO 028,Telangana. aThe National Faceless Assessment Center, lncome Tax Department, NewDelhi.Delhi. 4The Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes, Department of Revenue,Yjlir-try [of Finance, Government of ][India, ][Secretariat Buildings, New Delhi ][-]1 10 00'1 .Yjlir-try [of Finance, Government of ][India, ][Secretariat Buildings, New Delhi ][-]1 10 00'1 . (The Secretary to the Government, Union of [.lndia, ]Department of Revenue,Ministry of Finance, New Delhi - 1 10 001Ministry of Finance, New Delhi - 1 10 001 One CC to SRl. THANNERU CHAITANYA KUMAR Advocate 7One CC to tt/ls. BOKARO SAPNA REDDY (Jr. SC FOR INCOIME TAX)[oPUC][oPUC] One CC to Sri B.MUKHERJEE Advocate qTwo CD Copies KKS N/ bs HIGH COURT DATED:2810412025 1HE /.co[e]ei[()][c]21 [206],4,,i'- r" 1gr,1f ORDER WP.No.29102 ot 2024 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITIONWITHOUT COSTS /1i4r\