Wp/29746/2024 Of Anil Kumar Kasaraneni v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax

HiGH [couRr'?T ]I+ED8ItIis: :':^oo*oi'oii [ginil ][J u ][risdiction)](sPeci FRIDAY, i.i5?uoubnND [rwENrY ][FrvE] PRESENT P'SAM THE [sRl ]t'srlcE THE [JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA] wRlT [ 2974][60F][ 2024] Between: tl+,fi 11: [[1i3i313 ][li;,'''3;,5"i1]'B?Jix"3",,*J,TlnY,ritij'S:xj',3:,1,1"'*i$?foi;sOOOAZ, [Telangana, ][lnora'] .....PETITIONER AND erabadssistant [[Co]][[mmlsslo]][[ner ][of lnco][me Tax,][ Circle ][8][ 1t ][Ll]][[of lnco][me Tax,][ Circle ][8][ 1t ][Ll]][[me Tax,][ Circle ][8][ 1t ][Ll]][[ Circle ][8][ 1t ][Ll]][[8][ 1t ][Ll]][[ 1t ][Ll]][[Ll]] 1.Assistant [[Co]][[mmlsslo]][[ner ][of lnco][me Tax,][ Circle ][8][ 1t ][Ll]][[of lnco][me Tax,][ Circle ][8][ 1t ][Ll]][[me Tax,][ Circle ][8][ 1t ][Ll]][[ Circle ][8][ 1t ][Ll]][[8][ 1t ][Ll]][[ 1t ][Ll]][[Ll]]2. Assistant [Director ][of lncom][e ][Tax, ][lnvestigation' ] [Hyd ][2(a)']HYderabad'2. Assistant [Director ][of lncom][e ][Tax, ][lnvestigation' ] [Hyd ][2(a)']HYderabad' 3. Deputy [Director of lncome ][Tax' lnvestigation' ] [Hyd ][2(a)']HYderabad.HYderabad. 4. Assistant [Commissioner of lncome ][Tax' ][Central Circle ][2(4)' ][Hyderabad'] 5- National [Faceless Assessment ][Center' ][lncome-tax Department' New Delhi']lndia.lndia. .....RESPONDENTS Petition [Under ][Article ][226 ][ot ][lhe ][Constitution ][of ][lndia ][praying ][that in ][the]circumstances [dtated ][in ][the ][affidavit ][filed ][therewith' ][the ][High ][Court may ][be]pleased to issue [a ][writ, order, or direction more particularly ][in ][the ][nature of a writ]of mandamus [declaring ][the ][Order under ][Section ][14BA(d) ][daled ][3010812O24]bearing [lFl17t2)24-25t1068178997(1) ][and ][a ][consequent ][Notice]underSectionl48dated3oto}t2o24bearingDlNlTBA/CoMlFl1712024-25t1OG8184373('1) [issued ][by ][the ][Respondent ][No' ][1 ][as ][being ][void' ][arbitrary']ittesat, and withotit application of [mind and without ]iurisdiCtion [and ][Violative ][Of] same. Articles 14 and 265 of the Constitution of India ,,,urcr and.rno consequenfly set aside the I.A.N O:1 OF 2024 the affidavit petition fired Under section 1 51 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated inin support of a' proc.eedings pursuant to the the petition, the High issuance of the Notice under court may section be preased to stay3O1O8t2024 14g datedbearing DtN |TBA/COM tFt.i/2024_25t1Respondent No. i issued bythe Respondent No..r . 068184373(1) issued by the Counsel for the petitioner : SRI M.NAGA DEEPAK Counsel for the RespondecouNsEai6H LEARNED JUNToR sTANDTNG;i;ffiii"ilf ;HJ;ti,ill[TA, couNsEai6H LEARNED JUNToR sTANDTNG;i;ffiii"ilf ;HJ;ti,ill[TA, The Court made the following ORDER THE HONOURABLE [JUSTICE P'SAM ] ANDTHE [Sru ]'IUSTTCB NANDIKONDA WRTT [ No.29746][ o] ORDER, [(per ][Hon'ble ][Sri ][Justice ] [Sam ][Koshy)] Heard [Mr']M.Naga [Deepak, ][leamed counsel ][for ][the]J.Sunitha, [learned ][junior ][Standing Counsel ][for]petitioner [and ][Ms']for the [resPondents' ][Perused ][the]the Income [Tax ][DePartment]record. This is is [[a ][writ ][petition ]][[writ ][petition ]][[petition ]][[where ][the ][proceedings ]][[the ][proceedings ]][[proceedings ]][[are ][either]][[either]] 2. This is is [[a ][writ ][petition ]][[writ ][petition ]][[petition ]][[where ][the ][proceedings ]][[the ][proceedings ]][[proceedings ]][[are ][either]][[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'] Heard [Mr']M.Naga [Deepak, ][leamed counsel ][for ][the]J.Sunitha, [learned ][junior ][Standing Counsel ][for]petitioner [and ][Ms']for the [resPondents' ][Perused ][the]the Income [Tax ][DePartment]record. This is is [[a ][writ ][petition ]][[writ ][petition ]][[petition ]][[where ][the ][proceedings ]][[the ][proceedings ]][[proceedings ]][[are ][either]][[either]] 2. This is is [[a ][writ ][petition ]][[writ ][petition ]][[petition ]][[where ][the ][proceedings ]][[the ][proceedings ]][[proceedings ]][[are ][either]][[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'] This [[writ ][petition ]][[petition ]][[is ][being taken up today ][only ][on ][one ][of ][the]][[being taken up today ][only ][on ][one ][of ][the]][[only ][on ][one ][of ][the]][[on ][one ][of ][the]][[one ][of ][the]][[of ][the]][[the]] 3. This [[writ ][petition ]][[petition ]][[is ][being taken up today ][only ][on ][one ][of ][the]][[being taken up today ][only ][on ][one ][of ][the]][[only ][on ][one ][of ][the]][[on ][one ][of ][the]][[one ][of ][the]][[of ][the]][[the]]grounds, [that the ][notices ][issued ][under ][Section 148A ][of ][the Act]and the [subsequent ][initiation ][ofproceedings under Section ][148 ][of]the Act [by ][the ][jurisdictional ][Assessing ][Officer' ][whereas ][in ][terms]of the amendment [that ][was ][brought ][to ][the ][Incori-eTax Act ][by way]of Finance [Lct, ][2021 ][w'e'f', ][01'04'2021 onwards' ][proceedings] under section l48A of the Act as arso under section l4g of theAct ought to have also been issued and proceeded in a facelessmanner.4. The contention contention of the petitioner the petitioner petitioner is that the issue that the issue the issue issue ofproceedings being in violation of the Finance Act,202l i.e., theimpugned notices under Section r4gA and Section r4g ofthe Actnot being issued in a faceless manner, have already been dealt withand decided by this Court in the case of KANKANALARAVINDRA REDDY vs. INCOME_TAX OFFICERT decidedon 14.09.2023 whereby a batch of writ petitions were allowed andthe proceedings initiated under Section 14gA as also under sectionr48 of the Acr were herd to be bad with consequential reliefs on theground of it being in violation of the provisions of Section 15lA ofthe Act read with Notificarion 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 that the issue the issue issue of 'l(2023) [156 ][taxmann.com ][178 ][(Telangana)l] The contention contention of the petitioner the petitioner petitioner is that the issue that the issue the issue issue of 'l(2023) [156 ][taxmann.com ][178 ][(Telangana)l] 5. Down [the line, we ][hnd ][that the ][same ][issriei ][has also ][been]decided [against ][the ][Revenue ][by ][various ][High ][Courts ][i'e'']the [Bombay ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ] by TECHNOLOGIES [LTD'' ][vs' ] oF INCOME [TAx & ][OTHERS2, ][Gauhati ][High ][Court in ][the ][case]of RAM [SAH vs' ] [INDIAT' ][Punjab ][and]Haryana [High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of JATINDER SINGH ] vs. UNtoN [oF ][INDIA4, ][and Telangana ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]SRI [VS. ] COMMISSIONER [Of'' ] [where ][the ][issue ][was in]respect [of ][international ][taxation, ][Bombay ][High ][court in ][the ][case ][of]ABHIN [SHAH vs' ] [OFFICER']INTERNATIONAL [which ][is ][again ][on ][international]taxation [and ][central ][circle' High ][Court ][of ][Himachal ][Pradesh ][in ][the]case of [vs' ] [OFFICERT']Gujarat High [Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ] 2 t2o241464 ITR 430 (Bom)' itiozil [1 ][56 ][taxmann.com ][478 ][(Cauhati)l]"iizozoj [165 ][taxmann.com ][115 ][(Punjab ][& ][Haryana)l]'izozl) [1 ][67 ][taxmann.com ][41 1 ][(Telangana)l]" [2024) [166 ][taxmann.com ][679 ][(Bombay)l]'ii6qi 1i5 [,u**uorr."om ] [l3 ][(Himachal ][Pradesh)l] DAHYABHAIT RADADIY.d vs. TNCOME TAX OFFIC.Ifl,WARD 3(3X5)8, Jharkand High Court in the case of SHyAMWARD 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 whichOFFICER & 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 ofby the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in the case ofGTRDHAR GOPAL DALMIA vs. UNION OF TNDIA & ORS(M.A.T 1690 of 2023), decided on25.09.2024.6. Even thotrgh the same issue having been decided by alargenumber of High Courts, we are still confronted with large filing ofidentical matters on daily basis ranging between 5 to l0 writpetitions. That upon the instnrctions 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 been(M.A.T 1690 of 2023), decided on25.09.2024.6. Even thotrgh the same issue having been decided by alargenumber of High Courts, we are still confronted with large filing ofidentical matters on daily basis ranging between 5 to l0 writpetitions. That upon the instnrctions 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 Kanakara Ravindra Reddy 8zo2q scc online Guj 4012" [2025 ] Online [Jhar ]287'o [y2023, ] [:4984-DBl] .l 8zo2q scc online Guj 4012" [2025 ] Online [Jhar ]287'o [y2023, ] [:4984-DBl] .l (1 supra)' [has been ][subjected ][to ][challenge ][in ][a ][Special ][Leave]Petition [i.e', ] [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']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 ][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 ][flnd ][any remedial ][steps ][having ][been]lapsed, taken by [the Income ]['fax ][Department ][to ][take appropriate ][steps to]either hold [back ][issuance ][of ][notice under Section 148A ][and under]Section l48 [of ][the ][Act ][by ][the ][jurisdictional ][Assessing ][Ofhcer']rather the [authorities ][concerned ][in ][the teeth ][of ][series ][of ][decisions] by all the major High Courrs inIndia are continuously stillinitiating proceedings under Sectionl48A of rhe Act and alsornttrating 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 rvr-it petition bedisposed of in the teeth of the decision rendered by this Court inthe case of Kanakala Ravindro Reddy (l supra), leamed StandingCounsel for the Income Tax Department contends that those wouldunnecessarily burden the Income Tax Departmenl where theywould be required to fire 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 theIeamed Standing counsel that no prejudice would be caused to theinterest ofthe 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 taker--...\ 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 ][ofthe ][decisions dedcided ][by ][the]various [High ][Courts, ][it ][was ][submitted ][by ][the ][leamed ][Standing]Counsel [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']l0.Asaresultofwhich,whatwearefacingissteepincreaseoflitigation [day ][in ][and day ][out ][even ][though various ][orders have ][been]passed by [this High Court ][allowing ][writ ][petitions ][on the ][very ][same]issue. The [Income ][Tax ][authorities concemed ][are ][still ][even ][now ][in]2025 also [initiating ][proceedings ][in ][contravention ][to ][the provisions]ofSectionl5lAoftheActandasaresultbynow,morethan600to 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](l supra). [What ][is ][also surprising ][is ][the fact that ][though ][while]allowing the [writ ][petitions ][in ][the ][case ][of ][Kanakala ][Ravindru]the [Division ][Bench ][while ][reserving ][the ][right ][of]Reddy (l supra), the Revenue, has [also ][protected ][the ][interest ][of ][the ][petitioners]\GA insofar irs the liberty which vzas granted to the R.evenue tbrinitiating fresh proceedings strictly in accordance with the amendedinitiating fresh proceedings strictly in accordance with the amendedprovisions of the Act, as amended by the Financ e Act, 2020 and,. the Finance Act,2021. The petitioner assessee would be entitled to. the Finance Act,2021. The petitioner assessee would be entitled tochallenge or raise the other legal objections if the Revenue initiatesfresh proceedings. The 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 Couris already held to bebad.availing 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 Couris already held to bebad. It appears appears that because ofthe because ofthe ofthe aforesaid liberty that this High 11.It appears appears that because ofthe because ofthe ofthe aforesaid liberty that this Highcourt had granted permitting the Revenue for initiating freshproceedings as a one_time measure in a faceless manner, thecourt 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 wourd enabre them to meet thelimitation that would otherwise come in the way. Likewise, if thewrit petition is kept pending for a considerable long period of timeprotracting these proceedings which wourd enabre 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 also by the other Highthe decision taken by this High Court as also by the other HighCourts in which the SLps are still pending, the Income Tax Department [would ][get ][the ][advantage ][of ][the ][liberty ][that ][is otherwise]protected [in ][favour ][of ][the ][Revenue ][for ][initiation ][of ][ftesh]proceedings [from the ][disposal ][ofthese ][matters ][at ][a ][much later ][stage]which [would ][be ][advantageous ][and beneficial ][to ][the Revenue ][and]would [be ][equally ][disadvantageous ][and ][derimental ][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 ][ftesh]proceedings' t2.The alarming [trend ][of ][docket ][explosion in this ][Court' ][desptte]edent [set ][\rr ][Kanakala Ravindra ][Reddy ][(l ][supra)' ][is ][a]the clear Precmatter [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 ][litigation]with 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 ][t'nnecessarily' ][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 ][legal] -!t.^|\ position. Such conduct raises serious questions about theadministrative efficiencyand therespect for judicialpronouncements, particularly when this Court has already provideda balanced approach by preserving both the Revenue,s rights andassesses interests. 13. Another aspect which needs to be considered is that in fact itshould have been realized by the Income Tax Department itselfandshould have found out via media in ensuring that proceedingsunder Sections l4g-A and l4g should not have been issued in afaceless manner, at least till the Hon,bte Supreme Court decide thetwelve hundred (1200) odd SLps which it is alreadv seized ofor, atleast the Income Tax Department should have found out someremedial steps to ensure that wherever the authorities intend toinitiate proceedings under sections r4g-A and l4g, 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 ][lncome Tax Department' ][has ][not been ][able ][to give ][a]convincing [reply, ][except ][for ][the fact ][that ][such ][a decision ][if ][at ][all] ( Y \ ( Y \ has to [be taken, ][has ][to ][be ][taken ][for ][the whole ][of ][India' ][and ][which]otherwise [has ][to ][be ][by ][way ][ofa ][poticy ][decision ][and ][that too ][at ][the]level of [Central Board ][of ][Direct ][Taxes' ][Though ][the ][leamed]Standing [Counsel ][for ][the ][lncome ][Tax ][Department ][contended that]the Delhi [High ][Court ][dismissed ][a ][writ ][petition ][of ][similar ][nature' on]theonehandwhentheHighCourtisstrugglingtoreduceitspendency, [such notices ][which ][are ][under challenge ][in ][this writ]are [forcing the ][assessee ][to knock ][the ][doors' ][of ][this ][High]petition Court [resulting ][in hling ][of ][hundreds ][of ][new ][writ ][petitions ][which ][in]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]matterbeforetheHon'blesupremeCourthavingbeentakenonmany 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 ][concerned ][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 ][lncome ][Tax ][Department ][is ][showing]audacity by [issuing notices ][continuously ][under Sections ][148-A ][and] \ IiiIIItii 148 thrcugh the jurisdrctior:al Assessing Officer whereas it oughtto have been only in the faceless manner. 14. [n rhe case of BANK OF INDIA vs. ASSISTANTCOMMISSIONER, INCOME TAX1r, on an issue whether ir wasjustifiable on the part of the Income Tax Department in notfollowing an order passed by the adjudicating authority only on theground that the appeals are pending, the Division Bench of theHigh court of Bombay herd at paragraph No.25 as under, viz.. : "25. Mr. paridwalla ha hadecision of this court ,n "o't mmissioner ''nnt', [drawn ]of rncome [out ][attention ]Tar vs. [to ]smt.theordinate Godavaridevi sarafl2 Bench of this cour as the recent decision of the co-of which oneof us (.,,,,,." i.:.?:;ffi:::J::il1,lrJl,the Court categorically observed that the Revenue having not"accepted', the judgment of the High Cou( would not mean that tiltthe same is set aside in a manner known to law, it would loose itsbinding force. Referring to the decision of the Supreme Court inUnion of lndia vs. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd.r4, lhecou( observed that the approach of the officiars 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, 1t111:,.,.10 [glmann.com ][422 ][(Bombay)l]ll978l I I3 ITR 589 (Bombay)ll978l I I3 ITR 589 (Bombay) ','.120241 I 65 taxmann.com 58 l/300 Taxman 452 (Bombay) 'o 1t9921taxmann.com t6/55 ELT433 (SC) \ ' l, 1t111:,.,.10 [glmann.com ][422 ][(Bombay)l]ll978l I I3 ITR 589 (Bombay)ll978l I I3 ITR 589 (Bombay) ','.120241 I 65 taxmann.com 58 l/300 Taxman 452 (Bombay) 'o 1t9921taxmann.com t6/55 ELT433 (SC) \ "6. Sri [Reddy ][is ][perhapg ][riqht ][in- ][*Ving ][fr"t-tnl];;;";, [;"r; ][not ][actuated ][bY ][any ][mara ][rides ][tn]impugned [orders ][They ][perhaps]Orrr'"n "" n""r,""', [felt ][that the claim of the ][assessee ][was not]LnaOte [anO ][that' ][if ][it ][was ][accepted' ][the ][Revenue]*"r" ,rn"' [But ][what ][Sri Reddy overlooks ][is ][that we]are [not ][concerned ][here ][with ][the ][correctness. or]otherwise [of ][their ][conclusion ][or of ][any ][{actual]*r*r,0"" [but with the ][fact ][that ][the ][ofiicers' ][in reaching]in their [conclusion' ][by-passed ][tlvo appellate ][orders ][in]regard [to the ][same issue which ][were ][placed ][before]of the [Collector (Appeals) ][and the ][other ][of];;;;' """ tne triOunat [The High ][Court ][has' in our ][view' ][rightly]criticizea [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]autnorities [higher ][to ][them ][in ][the ][appellate ][hierarchy ][lt]cannot [be ][too ][vehemently emphasized ][that ][it ][is ][of]utmost [importance ][that' ][in ][disposing ][of ][the]quasiiudicial [issues ][before ][them' ][revenue ][officers ][are]bound [by the ][decisions ][of ][the ][appellate ][authorities-]The order [of ][the Appellte Collector ][is ][binding ][on ][the]Assistant [Collectors working within his iurisdiction 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]appellate [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 ][objectionable 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 re*"' only be undueharassment to assesses unot''t chaos in administrationof tax laws. only be undueharassment to assesses unot''t chaos in administrationof tax laws. 12. We have dealt with II with IIaspect at some length,because it has been sthis ggested by the learnedAdditionar Soricitor Gene made by rhe High officers. lt is clear that "*-,'i:r:":";"r::T::,,il:thtoo"u-'t'ons court, seemingry ,"n.' of the Highunparatabre to the Revenue [' ][and ][apparenfly]a rendency in revenue ;,:::ililt:iTil:j,fbecome widespread, could result in consiOerabteharassment to the assesses_public without any benefitto the Revenue. We would like to say that thedepa(ment should take these observations in theproper spirit. The observations of the High Courtshould be kept in mind in futushoutd be paid by the "o,ro,.'rl,lr1llil,f.'::?n:appellate authorities to the requirements of judiciatdiscipline 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 ! 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,2020and ][Finance ][Lct'2021' ][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 ][0f the ][instant ][writ ][petition ][in]terms [of ][the ][judgment ][rendered ][by ][this ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]Kankanala [Ravindra ][Redd.y ][(r ][supra) ][sha, ][however be ][subject ][to]the [outcome ][of ][the ][SLPs ][which were ][fited ][by ][the ][Income ][Tax]Department [and ][which ][is ][pending consideration before ][the ][Hon'ble]SuPreme [Court'] 16. [ln ][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]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'] So far as far as as [[the ][interest ]][[interest ]][[of ][the Revenue ][is concemed' ][we are ][of]][[the Revenue ][is concemed' ][we are ][of]][[is concemed' ][we are ][of]][[we are ][of]] 1'7 . So far as far as as [[the ][interest ]][[interest ]][[of ][the Revenue ][is concemed' ][we are ][of]][[the Revenue ][is concemed' ][we are ][of]][[is concemed' ][we are ][of]][[we are ][of]]the considered [opinion ][that ][the interest ][of ][the ][Revenue ][has ][already]been [considered ][and ][protected, ][as ][has been ][observed ][in ][paragraphs] I 36,37 and 3g of the order which, for ready reference ts reproduced hereunder: 36. For all the aforesaid r(issuedandtnep,oceeoins:a:::; jiJTJi::il:::":Department is neithernor sustainabre.The notices so issued ,no ,t"nuo'u' the Procedure adopted beingper se iflegar, deserves ,o be and are accordingly setaside/quashed. As a cons all the impugnedorders getting quashed, ,nu lo'"n""' by th e responde*-o"0"", ;:l';;:,:I,"JT: :il:::issued under Section 141and 148 would also getquashed and it is ordered a are quashins rhe consequenti;""'#l JTJffi ;:that when the initiation of the proceedings itself wasprocedurally wrong, the subsequent orders also getsnu[ified automaticaly. 37. The preliminary objection raised by the petitioner issustained and all these writ petitions slands allowed onthis very jurisdictional issue. Since the impugned noticesand orders are getting quashed on the point ofjurisdiction, \4/e are not inclined to proceed further anddecide the other issues raised by the petitioner whichstands reserved to be raisedand 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, permifted the Revenue to proceedunder the substituted provisions, and this Court alowingthe petitions only on the procedural flaw, the right(' .t -l4r conferred [on the ][Revenue ][would ][remain ][reserved ][to]pro"""U [further ][if ][they so want ][from the ][stage ][of ][the]"* ", [the ][Supreme ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ][Ashish]Agarwal, [suPra-] 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, permifted the Revenue to proceedunder the substituted provisions, and this Court alowingthe petitions only on the procedural flaw, the right(' .t -l4r conferred [on the ][Revenue ][would ][remain ][reserved ][to]pro"""U [further ][if ][they so want ][from the ][stage ][of ][the]"* ", [the ][Supreme ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ][Ashish]Agarwal, [suPra-] 18. [We ][would only ][further ][like ][to ][make observations ][that ][stnce]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 ][chatlenge]before [the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Court ][in ] [No'3574 ][of ][2024']preferred [by ][the lncome ][Tax Department' we ][make ][it ][clear ][that]atlowing [of ][the ][instant ][writ ][petition ][is ][subj ][ect ][to ][outcome ][of ][the]aforesaid [SLP preferred ][by ][the Revenue against the decision ][of ][this]High [Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ][Kanakala Ravindra ][Red'dy ][(1 ][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]wtit [petition ][in ][the ][light ][of ][the ][decision ][of ][the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme]Court [in ][the pending SLP ][on ][the ][very ][same ][issue'] ln19. [Accordingly, ][the ][instant ][writ ][petition ][stands ][allowed]ISlavour of [the ][assessee ][so ][far ][as ][the ][issue ][of ][jurisdiction]concemed. [As ][a ][consequence' ][the ][impugned ][notice ][under]challenge [under Sections ][148-4 ][and ][148 ][stands set aside/quashed'] II The consequential orders, if any, also stand set aside/quashed insimilar terms as have been passed by this High Court in the case ofKankanula Ravindra Reddy (1 supra). There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed SD/- N, CHANDRA SEKHAR RAODEPUry REISTRAR//TRUE COPY// SECTIN OFFICERDEPUry REISTRAR//TRUE COPY// SECTIN OFFICER \ToSECTIN OFFICER' 1 . Il:i=:Tnt The Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax, Circle Director or tncome iax, il"".i""ffiloDADrrS( 1 ). Hyderabad.INV Hyd 2(a),' 1 . Il:i=:Tnt The Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax, Circle Director or tncome iax, il"".i""ffiloDADrrS( 1 ). Hyderabad.INV Hyd 2(a),' Iffi"?:i::I Director of lncome rax, Investisation, DD/ADrr rNV Hyd 2(a),rNV Hyd 2(a),,,;nllh:;::ffi 4. The Assistant Commiss.:i:::::",lHi&XL?;?"#;1,,.i,8:#lhIIf ,"^[f "^[f 6. One CC to SRt [\4.NAGA,?EF|AI, Advocate 7. one cc to Ms. J.suNtrHA, LEARNi;iuN;d;.slon,Nc tOpUClcouNsEL FoR7. one cc to Ms. J.suNtrHA, LEARNi;iuN;d;.slon,Nc tOpUClcouNsEL FoRB. . [INcoME ]Two CD Copies[TAX DEPARTMer.rr ]ropuiiSAGJ6GJ6 HIGH COURT DATED:02 tOSt2O2S ORDER WP.No.29746 of 202i ALLOWING THE W.PWITHOUT COSTS. \(.OB [Iffi ]I;ir'ijf S.,.,-1\E(')