Wp/29105/2024 Of Mohd Noorul Huda v. > The Contention Contention Of The Petitioner The Petitioner Petitioner Is That The Issue Ofthat The Issue Ofthe Issue Ofissue Ofof

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MAYTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDAWRIT PETITION NO: 29105 OF 2024 Between: Mohd Noorul Huda, S/o Mohd Nayeem, Aged about ssyears, Occupation-Business, Ryo-18-7-198ifu12141A \Aurad Mahal, Talab Katta 500053,Telangana, lndia. PAN- Assessment ,0, U...'=TITIONER""rt- ,. ANO '1. The lncome Tax Officer, Ward 9(1), Hyderabad, lT Tower, AC Guards, [VlasabTank, Telangana State.Tank, Telangana State. 2. The Principal Chief Commissioner of lncome Tax, Telangana and A.P,Hyderabad. lT Towers, AC Guards, [Vlasab Tank. Hyderabad [- ]500 028,TelanganaHyderabad. lT Towers, AC Guards, [Vlasab Tank. Hyderabad [- ]500 028,Telangana 3. The Central Board of Direct Taxes, Represented by its Chairman. Departmentof Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of lndia, Secretariat Buildings,New Delhi - 110 001.of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of lndia, Secretariat Buildings,New Delhi - 110 001. 4. The National Faceless Assessment Center, lncome Tax Department, NewDelhi.Delhi. 5. The Union of lndia, Represented by its Secretary to the Government,Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi - 110 [001 ][.]Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi - 110 [001 ][.] ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 oI the Constitution of lndia [praying ]that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court [may ]bepleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in thenature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the order [passed ]by the 4th respondent(National Facetess E-Assessment Centre) completed the assessment U/S ['147]r.w.s 144 read with section 1448 of the lncome-tax Act Date of Otdet [29-02]2024,D1N ITBfuAST/S/14712023-2411061741475(1) for the Assessment [Year]2018-19 determining the total income of Rs. 24,23,4001-as arbitrary, illegal, bad [in]law, without [jurisdiction, ]void-ab-initio, violative of the [principles ]of natural [justice]apart from being violative of Articles 1a, 19(1Xg) and 265 of the Constitution [of] "/' 1961 , [and consequently set aside ][the] lndia [and Sec- ][148A of ][the ][lncome Tax Act']same [in ][the ][interests ][of ][iustice'] 8:xH:l[:Iffi [R::x:ffi ][:":T,'J"liJ:1s."'Hit]lifHHiB"'','sENroR]counser [for ][the Respondent ][No.5: ][sRl ][B.MUKHE!JLL1't" ][FoR ][.ENTRAL] The Court [made the ][following: ] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSIIYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAONANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION No.29105 OF 2024 ORDER, [(per ]Hon'ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy) Heard Mr. Thanneru Chaitanya Kumar, learned counsel forthe petitioner, Mr. K.Sudhakar Reddy, learned Senior StandingCounsel for the Income Tax Department for respondent [Nos.1 ][to ][4]and Mr. B.Mukherjee, learned counsel representing [the ][Union ]ofIndia 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 ][l48A]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 l48A 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] 2. This is a writ petition where the [proceedings ]are [either]challenged to the notices which [were ][issued ][under Section ][l48A]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 l48A 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 theAct ought to have also been issued and proceeded in a facelessmanner4. The contention contention of the petitioner the petitioner petitioner is that the issue ofthat the issue ofthe issue ofissue ofofproceedings being in violation of the Finance Act, 2021 i.e., theimpugned notices under Section l48A and Section 148 ofthe Actnot being issued in a faceless manner, have already been dealt withand decided by this Court in the case of KANKANALARAVINDRA REDDY vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICERT decidedon 14.09.2023 whereby a batch of writ petitions were allowed andthe proceedings initiated under Section 148,{ as also under SectionI48 of the Act were held to be bad with consequential reliefs on theground olit being in violation of the provisions of Section l5lA ofthe Act read with Notification 1812022 dated29.03.2022. The saidjudgment passed by this Court has also been subsequently followedin a large number of writ petitions which were allowed on similarterms. The contention contention of the petitioner the petitioner petitioner is that the issue ofthat the issue ofthe issue ofissue ofof '[(2023) [156 ][taxmann.com ][178 ][(Telangana)]] 'n 5. Down the line, we find that [the ][same ][issue has also ][been]decided against the Revenue by various High Courts [i.e.,]by the Bombay High Court in the [case ]of TECHNOLOGIES LTD., [VS. ] OF INCOME TAX & [OTHERS2, ][Gauhati ][High ][Court in ][the ][case]of RAM NARAYAN SAH [vs. ]UNION [OF INDIA3, ][Punjab ][and]Haryana High Court in the case [of ] vs. [INION OF INDIA4, and Telangana [High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]SRI VENKATARAMANA [VS. ] COMMISSIONER OF INCOME [where the issue was ][in]respect of intemational taxation, [Bombay ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]ABHTN ANILKUMAR STIAH [VS. ] [OFFICER']INTERNATIONAL TAXATION6 [which ][is again ][on ][intemational]taxation and central circle, [High ][Court ][of ][Himachal ][Pradesh ][in ][the]case of GOVIND SINGH [vs. ] [OFFICERT,]Gujarat High Court in the [case ][of ] ' Tzoz+1464 [430 ][(Bom)]'l(2024) [156 ][taxmann.com 478 ][(Gauhati)l]" l(2024) [165 ][taxmann.com ][115 ][(Punjab ][& ][Haryana)l] '12024) [167 ][taxmann.com ][41 1 ][(Telangana)l] " [2024) [166 ][taxmann.com 679 ][(Bombay)]] ' 12024) [165 ][taxmann.com ][113 ][(Himachal ][Pradesh)l] DAIIYABHAI RADI'DIYA vs. 1NCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 3(3X5)8, Jharkand High Court in the case of SHYAMSUNDAR SAW vs. UNION OF INDIAe, Rajasthan High Court inthe case of SHAR-DA DEVI CHHAJER vs. INCOME TAXOFFICER & ANOTHER and batch of writ petitionsro 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 INDIA & ORS(M.A.T 1690 of 2023), decided on25.09.2024. '12024) [167 ][taxmann.com ][41 1 ][(Telangana)l] " [2024) [166 ][taxmann.com 679 ][(Bombay)]] ' 12024) [165 ][taxmann.com ][113 ][(Himachal ][Pradesh)l] DAIIYABHAI RADI'DIYA vs. 1NCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 3(3X5)8, Jharkand High Court in the case of SHYAMSUNDAR SAW vs. UNION OF INDIAe, Rajasthan High Court inthe case of SHAR-DA DEVI CHHAJER vs. INCOME TAXOFFICER & ANOTHER and batch of writ petitionsro 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 INDIA & ORS(M.A.T 1690 of 2023), decided on25.09.2024. 6. Even though the same issue having been decided by a largenumber of High Courts, we are still confronted with large filing ofidentical matters on daily basis ranging between 5 to 10 writpetitions. That upon the instructions being sought from theDepartment, they have been taking a.solitary ground that thedecision of the Bombay High Court in the case of HexawareTechnologies 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 Online Jhar287o ' 72023 [: ] [: ][49 ][84-DB ]l (l:supra) has been subjected. [to ][challenge ][in ][a ][Special ][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 ][hled ][arising out ][ofthe]same 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 ][interim]order [granted ]by [the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Court ][in ][any ][of ][these]matters pending [before ][it.' ][Meanwhile, fresh ][writ ][petitions ][of]identical nahrre [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]lapsed, till 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 ][ofnotice ][under Section ][148,{ ][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 continuously stillinitiating proceedings under Section 1484. of the Act and alsoinitiating proceedings under Section 148 o1- the Act incontravention to the amendments brought into the lncome Tax Actpursuant to the Finance Act,2020 as also the Finance Act20219. 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), learned StandingCounsel for the Income Tax Deparhnent 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 oL the Union of India. It was also the contention of theleamed StanCing Counsel that no prejudice would be caused to theinterest of the petitioners in case if this 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 take 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 of the decisions dedcided by thevarious High Courts, it was submitted by the leamed StandingCounsel that the said steps can only be taken at the level of CBDTas any such steps would have to be taken Pan India and cannot belimited to any of these [jurisdictional ]High Courts 10. As a result of which, what we are facing is steep increase oflitigation day in and day out even though various orders have beenpassed by this High Court allowing writ petitions on the very sameissue. The Income Tax authorities concerned are still even now in2025 also initiating proceedings in contravention to the [provisions]of Section I 5 1A 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 ][Ravindra]Reddy (l supra), the Division Bench while [reserving ][the ][right ][of]the Revenue, has also protected the interest of the [petitioners] insofar as the liberty which was granted to the Revenue ibrinitiating fiesh proceedings strictly in accordance with the amendedprovisions of the Act, as amended by the Finance Act, 2020 andthe Finance Act,202l. 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 liberty 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 bebad I 1. It appears that because of the aforesaid liberty that this HighCourt had granted permitting the Revenue for initiating freshproceedings as a one-time measure in a faceless manner, theIncome Tax Depatment 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 finally at a later stage if the Hon'ble Supreme Court confirmsthe decision taken by this High Court as atso by the other HighCourts in u,hich 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 benef,rcial to the Revenue andwould be equally disadvantageous and detrimental so far as interestof the assesses are concemed. As a consequence, the Income [Tax]Department gets an extended period of time for initiation of fieshproceedings. 12. The alarming trend of docket explosion in this Court, despitethe clear precedent setin Kanakala Ruvindra Reddy (l supra), [is ][a]matter of grave concem. The Income Tax Department's persistentinitiation 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. Thisdeliberate approach not only undermines the [principle ]of [judicial]precedent but also strains the [judicial ]resources unnecessarily. TheDepartment's strategy of awaiting the Supreme Court's decision onpending SLPs while continuing to initiate fresh proceedingsappears to be a calculatedmove to buy time and circumventlimitation periods, rather than adhering to the established [legal] 12. The alarming trend of docket explosion in this Court, despitethe clear precedent setin Kanakala Ruvindra Reddy (l supra), [is ][a]matter of grave concem. The Income Tax Department's persistentinitiation 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. Thisdeliberate approach not only undermines the [principle ]of [judicial]precedent but also strains the [judicial ]resources unnecessarily. TheDepartment's strategy of awaiting the Supreme Court's decision onpending SLPs while continuing to initiate fresh proceedingsappears to be a calculatedmove to buy time and circumventlimitation periods, rather than adhering to the established [legal] position. Such conduct raises serious questions about theadministrative efficiency and the resoect for judicialpronouncements, particularly when this Court has already provideda balanced approach by preserving both the Revenue's nghts andassesses rnterestsa balanced approach by preserving both the Revenue's nghts andassesses rnterests 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 [,l48-,A. ]and 148 should not have been issued in afaceless manner, at Ieast till the Hon'ble Supreme Court decicie thetrvelve hundred (1200) odd SLPs which it is already seized ofor, atleast the Income Tax Department should have found out someremedial steps to ensure that wherever the authorities intend toinitiate proceedings under Sections 148-A and 148, other than in afaceless manner, the proceedings should have been deferredwithout precipitating the matter f.rrther 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 lncome Tax Department, 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 whole of lndia, and whichotherwise has to be by way of a policy decision and that too at thelevel of Central Board of Direct Taxes. Though the learnedStanding Counsel for the Income Tax Department contended thatthe Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition of similar nature, onthe one hand when the High Court is struggling to reduce itspendency, such notices which are under challenge in this writpetition are forcing the assessee to knock the doors of this HighCourt resulting in filing of hundreds of new writ petitions which inthe long run not only affects the disposal of the writ petitions butalso consumes substantial time of the Bench in hearing thesematters again and again on daity 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 concemed at theState 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 showingaudacity by issuing notices continuously [under ]Sections [148-A ][and] t 4E through the [jurisdicticnai ]Assessing Ofhcer [-lvhele3s ][it ][cugiri]to have been only in the faceless manner. 14. In the case of BANK OF INDIA vs. COMMISSIONER, INCOME TAXIr, on an issue [wliether ][it ][was]justifiable on the part of the Income Tax Depaftment in notfollowing an order passed by the adjudicating authority only on [the]ground that the appeals are pending, the Division Bench of theHigh Court of Bombay held at paragraph No.25 as under, [viz., ][:] t 4E through the [jurisdicticnai ]Assessing Ofhcer [-lvhele3s ][it ][cugiri]to have been only in the faceless manner. 14. In the case of BANK OF INDIA vs. COMMISSIONER, INCOME TAXIr, on an issue [wliether ][it ][was]justifiable on the part of the Income Tax Depaftment in notfollowing an order passed by the adjudicating authority only on [the]ground 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 rightly drawn out attention to thedecision of this Court in Commissioner of lncome Tax vs. Smt.Godavaridevi Saraflz 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 tillthe same is set aside in a manner known to law, it would [loose ][its]binding force. Referring to the decision of the Supreme Court inUnion of lndia vs. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd.r', theCourt 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 [relevant]observations made by the Supreme Court. tt 11zozs\ 170 taxmann.com 422 (Bombay)l '' 1t9za1 [t3 ] [589 ][(Bombay)] " TzOz+7I65 [taxmann.com ][58I/300 Taxmar452 ][(Bombay)] to Ttgezltaxnlann.com 16155ELT 433 (SC) .-Ttgezltaxnlann.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 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 reaching]in their conclusion, by-passed two appellate orders inregard 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 lhe 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 arebound 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 ]lhe [Asststant]Collectors and the Appellate Collectors who [function]under the [jurisdiction ]of the Tribunal. [The principles of]judicial discipline require that the orders of the higherappellate authorities should be followed [unreservedly]by the subordinate authorities. The [mere ]fact [that the]order of the appellate authority [is ][not ]["acceptable" to]the department - in itself an [ob.iectionable ][phrase ]-and is the subject [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. rule is not followed, the result will only be undueharassment to assesses and chaos in administrationof tax laws. 12 We have dealt with this aspect at some length,because it has been suggested by the learnedAdditional Solicitor General that the observationsmade by the High Court, have been harsh on theofficers. lt is clear that the observations of the HighCourt, seemingly vehement, and apparentlyunoalatable 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 thedeparlment should take these observations in theproper spirit. The observations of the High Courtshould be kept in mind in future and the utmost regardshould be paid by the adjudicating authorities and theapoeilate authorities to the requirements of [judicial]discipline 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 anendeavour is being made whole heartedly to ensure not to generatefurther titigation on issues which have been laid to rest by a largenumber ol High Courts all of whom have taken a consistent standthat the action of,the Income Tax Department being violative of the .l Finance Act,2020 [and ][Finance ][Act,202l. ][Now; ][irr ][btdbr. ][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 ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]Kankunala [Ravindra ][Reddy ][(1 ][supra) ][shall however be subject ][to]theoutcomeofthesLPswhichwerefiledbythelncomeTaxDeparlment [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 ][fortified ][by ][the ][decisions ][of ][the various ][other]Courts [on ][the ][very ][same ][issue, ][thd ][pendency ][of ][this ][High]High Court [would further ][be burdened ][which ][otherwise ][can ][be ][decided]and disposed [ofas ][a ][covered matter'] 17. So [far ][as ][the ][interest ][of ][the Revenue ][is ][concerned' ][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 z,r-.d 3 8 of trre c.Cei whic.r, ;'i;i ieady reference, is r-eproci-"cedhereunder: 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 148 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 itself 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 one{ime measureexercising the powers under Article 142 of theConstitution of lndia, permitted the Revenue to proceedunder the substituted provisions, and this Court allowingthe petitions only on the procedural flaw, the right I l \\ conferred on the Revenue [would ][remain ][reserved ][to]proceed furlher if they so want from the stage of [the]order of the Supreme Court [in ][the ][case ][of ][Ashish]Agarwal, supra. t8. We would onty [further ][like to ][make ][observations ][that ][since]we are inclined to dispose of [the ][instant ][writ ][petition, ][conscious ][ol]the l-act that the earlier [order ][ol ][this High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]Kanakala Ravindra [Reddy ][(l ][supra) ][is ][subjected ][to ][challenge]bclore the Hon'ble [Supreme ][Court ][in ][SLP No'3574 ][of ][2024,]pref'erred by the Income [Tax Department, ][we ][make ][it ][clear ][that]allowing of the instant, [writ ][petition ][is ][subject ][to ][outcome ][of ][the]aloresaid SLP [preferred by ][the ][Revenue ][against ][the ][decision ][of ][this]High Court in the [case ][of ][Kanakala Ravindra ][Reddy ][(l ][supra)']This, in other [words, ][would ][mean ][that either ][of ][the ][parties, ][if ][they]so 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]ISf'avour of the assessee [so far ][as ][the ][issue ][of ][jurisdiction]concemed. As a [consequence, ][the ][impugned ][notice ][under]under Sections [148-A ][and ][148 ][stands set aside/quashed']challenge \t The consequential [orders, ][if'any, ][also ][stand set ][aside/quashed in] similar terms [as ][have becn ][passed ][by ][this High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of] Kankanala Ravin(lra [Reddy ][(l ][supra). ][There shall ][be ][no order ][as] to costs. Consequently, [miscellaneous ][petitions pending, ][if ][any, shall] stand closed //TRUE SD/. M. NAGAMANI To1 . The [lncom e ][Tax Officer, Ward ][9(1),][ Hyderabad, ][I]IMasab Tank,[HYDERABAD Telang][ana ][State]2. The [PrinciP][al Chief Commisstoner ][o][f ][lncome ][Tax, ][Telangana and ][A.P,]Hyderabad[lT ][Towers, AC ][Guards,][ Masab Tank. ][HYdera][ bad ][- ][500 ][028']? +f;ft%TA, Board of [Dr!.ect ][Taxes, ][Represented.by ][.its ][chairman. ][Department]of Revenue. [Ministry o, ][,,n,n36]6o;;l;;;i'"i ][ln'dia' ][Secretariat Buildings']4.|frI$"11i|,;ll:"0"%., [Assessment ][center' ][lncome ][rax ][Department' New]5PPIL^^..,,* to the Government, [Union ][of ][lndia' ][Department of Revenue']rvi,i'i.j* lj'Fiirn.", [ru"* ][Dorhi ][- ]['l ][1o ][001 ][.]6one cC to SRI [THANNE#J'innrr"n"r'rVA KUMARAdvocate ][[oPUC]]7B, 3ffi 33 S [3El ][5,#,ffitsl*z%3zERill?sJ'H"rro'u"r]o. Two CD [CoPies]PSK. HIGH COURT DATED:0210512025 ORDERWP.No.29105 of 2024 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITIONWITHOUT COSTS 0 t IA-( o,.la0 4 [AUc ][20u5]\,,\.'\^/,;?,