Wp/29364/2024 Of Krishna Reddy Roopireddy v. Income Tax Officer Ward 1

13447 1 HIGH COURT AT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY TWO THOUSAND PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI [JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY]ANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI WRIT PETITION NO:[29364 ][0F ][2024] Between Krishna Reddy Roopireddy, [S/o ][Pratap ]$gOOy, fg-e{ [about ]-50,years'Occupation BuLiness. [H.No. ][1 ][1-'14, ][Thorrur. ][Warangal, ] [elangana-5uo1bJ] ...PETITIONER AND '1 . lncome Tax Officer Ward 1, Warangal, # lncome tax office, ['1-8-610, ][3'd ][Floor']ivl;il;i comprei, opp ['rsrupotL ][Bhawan, ][Nakkalagutta' ][warangal']Telanoana-50600'1ivl;il;i comprei, opp ['rsrupotL ][Bhawan, ][Nakkalagutta' ][warangal']Telanoana-50600'1 Telanoana-50600'1, il! - Block, l.T. P?ffi;liLrr,ir Towers, 10-2-3, [commissioner ]A.C. Guards, Hyderabad-500004[of ][lncome Tax ]- [and ][rs, ][1Oth ][Floor, ][c-]g. " ir',e ['a"sesimeni ]Unit, lncome Tax Department, National, Facelegsnr."t..eni Centie, oeirri, Mrnrstry of Financd, Room No 401 , 2"o Floor' E-Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, [Delhi-1 ][10003 ]...RES'ONDENTSg. " ir',e ['a"sesimeni ]Unit, lncome Tax Department, National, Facelegsnr."t..eni Centie, oeirri, Mrnrstry of Financd, Room No 401 , 2"o Floor' E-Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, [Delhi-1 ][10003 ]...RES'ONDENTS Petitron under Article [226 ][of ][the ][constitution ][of lndia ][praying ][that ][in ][the]circumstances stated in [the ][affidavit ][filed ][therewith, ][the ][High ][court ][may ][be]pleased to issue an appropriate writ [order or direction more particularly one ][in ][the]nature of writ of Mandamus, [declaring ][the ][Assessment ][order ][dt. ][23.01 ][.2024]passed by the 3d respondent u/s [147 ][r.w.s ][144t1448 ][of ][the ][lncometax ][Act for]A.Y. 2015-16 vide DIN [No. ][ITBA/AST/5,1147t2023-24/1060009570(1), ][consequent]to the notice issued u/s [148A(b) ][d1.26.03.2022, ][order ][passed ][u/s ][la8A(d) ][dt.]27.04.2022 vide DIN No. [ITBA/ASTlFt148At2O22-2311042880626(1) ][and ][the]notice u/s 148 dt [28.04.2022 ][vide ] [No. ][ITBA/AST/Si14B-112022']23t1o428g3g83(.1), issued by [the JAO('1't ][respondent) instead ][of ][FAo(3'd]respondent), and consequential [penalty ][orders ][passed ][vide orders uls ][271F,]271(1)(b) and 271(1)(c) [of the ][Act, ][as ][void' ][illegal, and contrary ][to the ][provisions] of lncome{ax Act and contrary to the Principles [of ][Natural Justice, apart ][from]being barred by limitation as [per ][provisions ]of Sec. [149 ][of the ][Act] lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC [praying ]that [in ][the ][circumstances stated ][in]the affidavit filed in support of the [petition, ]the [High Court may be pleased ][to ][stay]all further proceedings [pursuant ]to the Assessment [Order ][dt ][23.01.2024 ][passed]by the 3'd respondent uls 147 r.w.s 14411448 [of ][the ][lncome-tax ][Act ][for ] [Y]2015-16 vide DIN No ITBA/ASTtsl147t2O23-24/1060009570(1), [and may ][pass]such other order(s) as the Hon'ble court [deems ][fit ][and ][proper ][in ][the ][interests of]substantial [justice, ]as otherwise the [Petitioner would ][be ][put ][to ][irreparable ][loss]and severe inju ry. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. DUNDU MANMOHAN Counsel for the Respondents: Ms. BOKARO SAPNA (Jr. SC FOR INCOME TAX) The Court made the following: ORDER trry*' THE I{ONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOUIT.ABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSTNG RAONANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION No.29364 of 2024 ORDER, (per Hon'ble Sri .Iu"'tice P.Sam Koshy) I{eard Mr. Manmohan Dundu, leamed counsel for thepetitioner and Ms. B.Sapna Reddy, leamed Junior StandingCounsel for the Income Tax Department for the respondentsPcrused thc record. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. DUNDU MANMOHAN Counsel for the Respondents: Ms. BOKARO SAPNA (Jr. SC FOR INCOME TAX) The Court made the following: ORDER trry*' THE I{ONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOUIT.ABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSTNG RAONANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION No.29364 of 2024 ORDER, (per Hon'ble Sri .Iu"'tice P.Sam Koshy) I{eard Mr. Manmohan Dundu, leamed counsel for thepetitioner and Ms. B.Sapna Reddy, leamed Junior StandingCounsel for the Income Tax Department for the respondentsPcrused thc record. 2. 'this is a writ petition where the proceedings are eitherchallenged to the notices whioh were issr-red under Section 148Aand 148 of the L.rcorne Tax Act, 1961 (for short'the Act') or theassessment orders those have been passed under Section 147 ofthe Act which have been assailed 3. This rvrit petition is being taken up today only on one of thegrounds, that the notices issued under Section 1484 of the Actand the subsequent initiation of proccedings under Section i48 olthe Act by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, whereas in temsof the amendment that was brought to the Income Tax Act by rvayol Irinance Act, 2021 w.e.f., 01.04.2021 onwards, proceedir.rgs under Section 148u\ of the Act as also under Section [148 ][of ][the]Act ought to have also been issued [and proceeded ][in a ][facelcss]lranner4. The contet.rtion ol the [petitioner ]is that [the ][issuc ][of]proceedings being in violation of the Finance Act,202I [i.e., ][the]impugned notices under Section [148A ][and ][Section ][1'18 ][of ][the ][Act]not being issued in a faceless [manner, ][have already ][been ][dealt ][n'ith]and decided by this Court in the [case ]of RAVINDRA IIEDDY [vs. INCOIVIE-TAX ] [decided]on 14.09.2023 whereby [a ][batch ][of ][writ ][petitions were allowed ][and]the proceedings initiated [under Section 148A ][as ][also ][under ][Section]148 of the Act were [l.reld ]to be bad [with ][consequential ][reliefs ][on ][the]ground of it being in violation of the [provisions ][o1 ][Section ][151 ] [of]the Act read with Notification 1812022 [dated ][29.03.2022. ][The ][said]judgment passed by this Court has also been subsequer.rtly followedin a large number of writ [petitions ][which ][were ][allowcd on ][similar]terms 'l(2023) [156 ][taxmann.corn ] [(Telangana)l] 5. Down the line, we find that the same issue has also beendecided against the Revenue byvarl0us High Courts i.e.,by the Bombay High Courl in the case of HEXAWARETECHNOLOGIES LTD., vs. ASSISTANT COIVIMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX & OTHERS2, Gauhati High Court in the caseof RAM NARAYAN SAH vs. UNION OF INDIA3, Punjab andHaryana High Cout in the case of JATINDER SINGH BANGUvs. UNION OF INDIAI, and Telangana High Court in the case olSRI VENKATARAMANA REDDY PATLOOLA vs. DEPUTYCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX5 where the issue was inlespect of intemational taxation, Bombay High Court in the case ofABHTN ANILKUMAR SHAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,IN'I'ERNATIONAL 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 ' lzoz+1464 [430 ][(Bom)]'L(.2024) [[56 ][taxmann.com 478 ][(Gauhati)]]^ l(2024) 165 taxmann.com 115 (Punjab & Haryana)l ' 12024) [167 ][taxrnairn.com ][41 ] [(Telangana)l] " 12024) 166 taxmann.com 679 [(Bombay)l] ' 12024) [165 ]taxmann.com [1 ][13 ][(Himachal ][Pradesh)l] ' lzoz+1464 [430 ][(Bom)]'L(.2024) [[56 ][taxmann.com 478 ][(Gauhati)]]^ l(2024) 165 taxmann.com 115 (Punjab & Haryana)l ' 12024) [167 ][taxrnairn.com ][41 ] [(Telangana)l] " 12024) 166 taxmann.com 679 [(Bombay)l] ' 12024) [165 ]taxmann.com [1 ][13 ][(Himachal ][Pradesh)l] DAHYABHAI RADADIYA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICEIi,WARD 3(3X5)8, Jharkand High Court in the case of SHYAMSUNDAR SAW vs. UNION OF INDIAe, Rajasthan High Court inthe case of SHARDA DEVI CHHAJER vs. INCOME TAXOFFICER & ANOTHER and batch of writ petitionsro whichstood decided on 19.03.2024. Similar views have also been takcnby the Division Bencl.r of Calcutta I{igh Court ir.r the case ofGIRDHAR GOPAL DALMIA vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS(M.A.T 1690 of 2023), decidcd on25.09.2024.6. Even though the same issue having been decided by a largenumber of High Courls, we are still confronted with largc filing ofidentical matters on daily basis ranging between 5 to i 0 wlitpetitions. That upon the instructions being sought from theDepartment, they have been taking a solitary grotrnd that thedecision of the Bombay High Courl in the case of HexawtreTechnologies Ltd., (2 supra) as also the one whicl.r has beendecided by this Courl in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Retldy rzo24 sCC onlinc Gu.i 4o 12'2025 Online [Jhar 287]'o 12023, [:4984-DBl] ;.;:j_:'' I (l supra) has been subjected to challenge in a Special LeavePetition i.e., SLP No.3574 ol 2024 before the Hon'ble SupremeCourt and the Hon'ble Suprerne Court is seized of the matter.In addition, there are about 1200 SLPs also filed arising out of thesame issue being decided by various High Courts. 7. To a qucry being put to the lean-red counsel for the Revenue,thcir have categorically accepted the fact that there is no interinrordcr granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in any of thesenratters pending belole it. Mcanwhile, fresh writ petitions ofidentical nature arc bcing piled up betbre this Bench on daily basisand the pendency is getting increased on matter which otherwiselras already been dealt and decided by this very High Court itsetf.8. On thc onc hand, even though the order of this Court thatwas passed as early as on 14.09.2023 and more 16 months havetapscd, till date, we do not find any lemedial steps having beentaken by the Income Tax Departrnent to take appropriate steps toeither hold back issuance of notice under Section 148A and underSection 148 of the Act by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer,rather the authorities concerned in the teeth of series of decisions by ati the major High Courts in India arc continuously stillinitiating proceedings under Section i48A of the ,\ct and [also]initiating proceedings under Section 148 of the Act incontravention to thc arnendments brought into thc I ncome Tax r\ctpursuar.)t to the Finance AcL,2020 as also the Financc Act 20219. Upon a query being put as to why can't this writ petition bedisposed of in thc teeth ol thc decision rendered t-.1 this Coult inthe case of Ktnakala Ravindro Reddy (l supra), lealned StandingCounsel for the Incorne Tax Department contencls tltat those [rvould]unnecessarilv burden the Income Tax Departrncnt where thcywould be requilcd to file equal number of SL.Ps before theHon'ble Suplerne Court and it would be furlher burdening theexchequer o1'the Ur-rion of India. It was also the conlention of thelearned Standing Counsel that no prejudice woukl bc caused to theinterest of the petitioners in case if this writ petition is kept pendingtill the finalization of the SLPs pending beforc the Hon'bleSupreme Cor-rrt and the fact that the [petitioner ]is already enjoi,ingthe benefit of interim protection. Nonetheless, on the earlier queryof this Courl as to why the Lrcome Tax Department have not colneout with a mechan ism to issue appropriate instructions or to takc a::**:{.':.,: a::**:{.':.,: 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 decided by thevarious High Coufts, it was submitted by the learned StandingCounsel that the said steps can only be taken at the level of CBDTas any such steps would have to be taken Pan lndia and cannot belin.rited to any of these jurisdictional High Courts. 10. As a result of which, what we are facing is steep increase oftitigation day in and day out even though various orders have beenpassed by this High Courl allowing writ petitions on the very sameissue. The Income Tax authorities concemed are still even now in2025 also initiating proceedings in contravention to the provisionsof Section 15lA of the Act and as a result by now, more than 600to 700 petitions have been already got piled up before this HighCourl on an issue which otherw,ise stands squarely covered by thejudgment o1 this Court in the case of Ksnakala Ravindra Reddy(1 supra). What is also surprising is the fact that though whiteallowing the writ petitions in the case of Kanakala RavindraReddy (l supra),'the Division Bench while reserving the right ofthe Revenue, has also protected the interest of the petitioners l \ insofar as the liberty which was granted to tl.re Revenue [for]initiating fresh proceedings strictly in accordance with the amendedprovisions o1'the Act, as arnended by the Finarrce Act. 2020 andthe Finarrce Act, 2021. The petitionel assessee would [be ][entitled ][to]challenge or raise the other legal objections if the Reverrue initiatesfi'esh proceedings. The Department has made no [endeavour ][itt]availing the said liberty that was reserved for the Revenue. On [thc]contrary, they have been still sticking on to the starrd, [rvhich ]thisIligh Court as well as many other High Courls alreadv l.reld to bebad 11. It appears that because ofthe aforesaid liberty' that this IlighCourt had granted pennitting the Revenue for initiating ficshproceedings as a cne-time measure in a faceless tlannet, theIncome Tax Department wants to take advantage of the same byprotracting these proceedings which would enable them to mcet 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 Coutl confirmsthe decision taken by this Fligh Courl as also by tl.re other HighCourts in which the SLPs are still pending, the lncome Tax Department would get the advantage of the liberty that is otherwiseprotected in favour of the Revenue for initiation of freshproceedings from the disposal of these matters at a much later stagewhich would be advantageous and beneficial to the Revenue andwould be equally disadvantageous and detrimental so far as interestof the assesses are concemed. As a consequence, the Income TaxDepartment gets an extended period of time for initiation of freshproceedings. 12. The alarming trend of docket explosion in this Court, despitethe clear precedent setin Kantktla Rtvindra Reddy (l supra), is amatter of grave concern. The Income Tax Department's persistentinitiation of fresh proceedings, disregarding the established judicialpronouncements, has led to an unprecedented surge in litigationwith over 600-700 petitions piling up on the same issue. Thisdeliberate approach not only undermines the principle ofjudicialprecedent but also strains the judicial lesources unnecessarily. TheDepartment's strategy of awaiting the Supreme Court's decision onpending SLPs while continuing to initiate fresh proceedingsappears to be a' calculated move to buy time and circumventlimitation periods, rather than adhering to the established legal \\ position. Such conduct raises serious questions about theadministrative efficiency and the respect for .judicialpronounccments, parlicularly when this Court has already provideda balanced approach by preserving both the Revenue's rigl.rts andassesses lnterests \\ position. Such conduct raises serious questions about theadministrative efficiency and the respect for .judicialpronounccments, parlicularly when this Court has already provideda balanced approach by preserving both the Revenue's rigl.rts andassesses lnterests 13. Another aspect which needs to be considered is that in lact itshould have been realized by the Income Tax Department itsclf 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, alleast the Income Tax Department should have ibund out sonteremedial stel)s 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 defer.r.edwithout 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. sarne issue.This again, the Income Tax Department, has not been able to give aconvincing reply, except for the fact that such a clecision if at all ir&&.r. . [,] has to be taken, has to be taken lor the whole of India, and whichotherwise has to be by way of a policy decision and that too at thelevel of Central Board of Direct Taxes. Though the leamedStanding Counsel for the Income Tax Department contended thatthe Delhi High Court disrnissed 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 l{ighCourt resulting in fiting of hur.rdrcds of nerv writ petitions which inthe long run not only affects the disposal of the writ petitions butalso consumes substantial time of the Bench in hearing thesematters again and again on daily basis. Admittedly, ir.r spite of thernatter before the Hon'ble Suplerne Court having been taken onrnany occasions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court which is seized of thematter has been reluctant in granting any interim protection to theIncome Tax Department. Yet, the authorities concerned at theState level are not ready to accept the verdict passed by a majorityof High Courts of different States on the same issue; and to makethings further worse, the Incorne Tax Depaftmentls showingaudacity by issuing notices continuously under Sections 148-A and 148 through the jurisdictional Assessing Olficer u,hereas it oughtto have been only in the faceless manner.to have been only in the faceless manner. 14. In the case of BANK OF INDIA vs. ASSISTANTCOMMISSIONEIT, INCOME TAXr'. o, un issue rrhcrher ir rvas.justifiable [on ][the part ]of the lncome Tax Departrnent ln noflollowing an ordel passed b1,the adjudicating authoritv only on theground that the appeals are pending, the Division Ilench of tlretligh Court of Bornbay held at paragraph No.25 as undcr, viz., : "25. l\/r. Paridwalla has rightly drawn out attention to thedecision of this Court in Commissioner of lncome Tax vs. Smt.Godavaridevi Sarafl2 as also the recent decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Samp Furniture (p) Ltd. v. ITO13of which one of us (Justice G.S. Kulkarni) was a member whereinthe Court categorically observed that the Revenue having not"accepted" the judgment of the High Court would not mean that tillthe same is set aside in a manner known to law, it would loose itsbindrng force. Referring to the decision of the Supreme Court inUnion of lndia vs. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd.ri, 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 relevantobservations made by the Supreme Court. 'l ttzOzsl [170 ]raxmann.com 422 (Bombay)l'' 1tezs1 [l3 ][tTR ][589 ][(Bombay)]tt IZOZ+1 [165 ][taxmann.com ]58 l/300 Taxrnan 452 (Bornbay )' ' [1 ] [oo2 ]; [raxn ][rann.corn ] 6/55 ELT 433 [(SC)] :l I "6. Sri Reddy is perhaps right in saying that theofficers were not actuated by any mala fides inpassing the impugned orders. They perhapsofficers 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 Revenuetenable and that, if it was accepted, the Revenuewould suffer. But what Sri Reddy overlooks is that weare not concerned here with the correctness orare 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 inmalafides but with the fact that the officers, in reachingin their conclusion, by-passed two appellate orders inregard to the same issue which were placed beforethem, one of the Collector (Appeals) and the other ofthe Tribunal. The High Court has, in our view, 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 AssistantCollectors and the Appellate Collectors who functionunder the [jurisdiction ]of the Tribunal. The principles ofThe order of the Appellte Collector is binding on theAssistant 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 unreservedlyby the subordinate authorities. The mere fact that theorder of the appellate authority is not ["acceptable" ]toby the subordinate authorities. The mere fact that theorder of the appellate authority is not ["acceptable" ]tothe department - in itself an objectionable phrase -and is the subject matter of an appeal can furnish noand is 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\ \\ \ 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, seerningly vehement, and apparentlyunpalatable 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 ihe Revenue. We would like to say that thedepartment should take these observations in theproper spirit. The observatrons of the High Courtshould be kept in mind in future and the utmost regardshould be [paid ]by the adjudicating authorities and theappellate authorities to the requirements of [judrcial]discipline and the need for giving effect to the ordersof the higher appellate authorities which are bindingon them." 1 5. What is worrying this Bench more is the fact that anendeavour is being made whole heartedly to ensure not to generatefurther litigation on issues which have been laid to rcst by a largenulnber of High Courts all of whom have taken a consistent standthat the actiorl of the Income Tax Depaftment being violative of the Finance Act,2020 and Finance Act, 2021. Now, in order to protectthe interest of the Revenue as also that of the assessee, it would betrite at this [juncture, ]if we dispose of the writ petition with anobservation/d irection that the disposal of the instant wlit petition intcrrns of the [judgment ]rendered by this High Courl in the case olKonkansla Ravindra Reddy (l supra) shall however be subject tothe outcome of the SLPs which were filed by thc Income TaxDepafiment and which is pending consideration before the [Ion'bleSupreme Coutt t6. ln the given facts and circumstances, this Bench is of theconsidered opinion that unless and until we do not tirnely disposeol- matters which are squarely covered by the decision of this Courland ivhich stands fortified by the decisions of the various otherHigh Courts on the very same issue, the pendency of this HighCourl would further be burdened which otherwise can be decidcdand disposed of as a covered matter. 17. So far as the interest of the Revenue is concemed, we are ofthe considered opinion that the interest of the Revenue has alreadybeen considered and protected, as has been observed in paragraphs 36,37 and 3ii ofthe order which, for ready referencc, is reproducedhercunder: 36 For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned noticesrssued and the proceedings drawn by the respondent-Department rs neirher tenable, nor sustainab e.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 1 47 and 148 would also getquashed and it is ordered accordingly. The reason weare [quashrng ]the consequential order is on the [principles]that when the initiation of the proceedings itself wasprocedurally wrong, the subsequent orders also getsnullified automatically. 37 The preliminary objection raised by the petitroner issustained and all these writ petitions stands allowed onthis very [jurisdictional ]issue. Since the impugned noticesand orders are getting quashed on the point of.lurisdiction, [we ][are ][not ][inclined ][to ][proceed further ][and]decrde 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-time 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 (q., ,#;',,'&\ ::t I\ 37 The preliminary objection raised by the petitroner issustained and all these writ petitions stands allowed onthis very [jurisdictional ]issue. Since the impugned noticesand orders are getting quashed on the point of.lurisdiction, [we ][are ][not ][inclined ][to ][proceed further ][and]decrde 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-time 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 (q., ,#;',,'&\ ::t I\ 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 sir.rcewc arc inclined to dispose of the instant writ petition, conscious ofthe lact that the earlier order of this High Court in the case ofKsnakslo Ravindra Reddy (l supra) is subjected to challengebefble the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No.3574 of 2024,plet-en'ed by the lncorne Tax Department, we make it clear thatallorving of the instant writ petition is subject to outcome of theatbresaid SLP preferred by the Revenue against the decision of thisHigh Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra).l-his, in other words, would mean that either of the parties, if theyso want, rnay lnove an appropriate petition seeking revival of thisrvrit petition in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble SupremeCourt in the pending SLP on the very same issue I9. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands allowed inf-avour of the assessee so far as the issue of jurisdictionISconcemed. As a consequence, the impugned notice underchallenge under Sections 148-A and 148 stands set aside/quashed II The consequential orders, il- any, also stand set aside/quashed in sirrilar terms as have becn passed by this High Court in the case of Konkanala Ravindrt Rettd.s' (l supra). There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellancous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed SD/-K.BHAVANI SWAMYASSISTANT REGISTRAR,TRUE COPY//\Y\)SECTIbili OFFICER To, 1. The lncome Tax Officer Ward ['1 ], Warangal, # lncome tax office, 1-8-6'10, 3'dFloor, Mayuri Complex, Opp TSNPDCL Bhawan, Nakkalagutta, Warangal,Tela nga na-506001Floor, Mayuri Complex, Opp TSNPDCL Bhawan, Nakkalagutta, Warangal,Tela nga na-506001 2. The Principal Chief Commissioner of lncome Tax AP and TS, ['lOth ]Floor, C-Block, l.T. Towers, 10-2-3, A.C. Guards, Hyderabad-500004Block, l.T. Towers, 10-2-3, A.C. Guards, Hyderabad-500004 3. The Assessment Unit, lncome Tax Department, National . FacelessAssessment Centre, Delhi, Ministry of Finance, Room No. 401 , 2no Floor, E-Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, Delhi-110003Assessment Centre, Delhi, Ministry of Finance, Room No. 401 , 2no Floor, E-Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, Delhi-110003 4. One CC to SRI DUNDU MANMOHAN, Advocate IOPUC] One CC to SRI DUNDU MANMOHAN, Advocate IOPUC]CC to SRI DUNDU MANMOHAN, Advocate IOPUC]to SRI DUNDU MANMOHAN, Advocate IOPUC]SRI DUNDU MANMOHAN, Advocate IOPUC]DUNDU MANMOHAN, Advocate IOPUC]5 One CC to lt/s. BOKARO SAPNA REDDY (Jr SC FOR INCOME TAX)loPUClloPUCl6. Two CD Copies BruBSBS I HIGH COURT DATED:2510412025 ORDER WP.No.29364 of 2024 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITIONWITHOUT COSTS v IiiL n i4]..-I).0 [4 ] [zl[i].J.'-t,\:t-ro