Wp/31430/2024 Of Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Limited Nyalkal v. The Income Tax Officer Ward 1

HrGH couRr [.?+ ]oF TELANGANAITEDSIIIE (Special Original [Jurisdiction)] THURSDAY ,THE rWO THOUSNND PRESENT THE HONOURABLE [SRt:lusTlcE ][P'SAM ] ANDTHE HONOURABLE [IUST1aET'TINSING ] WRIT P [ NO: 3143][0][ oF ][2024] Between: PRIIMARY AGRICULTURAL [COOPERATIVE C-RE-qlr ][soclETY ] NYALKAL. Rep. [bv ]t" FnonKANTl [S/o ] ""i"i"'o"bibwnnnL H[thH\"*"Btl;"#[it' [jid^d;s'f'e"dt,zu'1"??,#&'[lo''ff'l]Assessment [Year ][2018-19; ]...PETITiONER ...PETITiONER AND l.ThelncomeTaxOfficerWardl'.SangarcddvlncomeTaxOffice'Veerabhadra [rtrug,',-i'jJ; ][e'.l'J ][stan'd' ][Ve6rabhadra ][Nagar' ][sangareddy]+i'S'1B?'l3ior,l [cffj. ][commissioner ][or ][rncome ][rax ]"?tr8'rE;Veerabhadra [rtrug,',-i'jJ; ][e'.l'J ][stan'd' ][Ve6rabhadra ][Nagar' ][sangareddy]+i'S'1B?'l3ior,l [cffj. ][commissioner ][or ][rncome ][rax ]"?tr8'rE;, ' Hfi;rdA:-lr Towers, AC Guards' [lvlasab]l1)33?ii3. . If; 5 t%il3,' [o a ][rd ][or ] [ke ][ct ][r ][a ][xe ][s' ][R.ePf ]:':Pl.b,v" :ti" "13 Ifl *,? ["J,lilHEl']of Revenue, [Ministry ][;i' ][F;;""*:t";Srnment ][of-india' ][Secretariat Buildings']. If; 5 t%il3,' [o a ][rd ][or ] [ke ][ct ][r ][a ][xe ][s' ][R.ePf ]:':Pl.b,v" :ti" "13 Ifl *,? ["J,lilHEl']of Revenue, [Ministry ][;i' ][F;;""*:t";Srnment ][of-india' ][Secretariat Buildings']* +fryR:lll;;itPr?t"iess [Assessment ][center' ][lncome ][rax ][Department' ][New]u. ?f;I''rn'on [of ][lndia, ][Represented-.by ][its ][Secretary ][to ][the ][Government']Department [ot ][nevenli[fi]'iJi-i'Jiri"'""de' ][t'lew oet6i - ][1 ][10 ][00'1 ][']u. ?f;I''rn'on [of ][lndia, ][Represented-.by ][its ][Secretary ][to ][the ][Government']Department [ot ][nevenli[fi]'iJi-i'Jiri"'""de' ][t'lew oet6i - ][1 ][10 ][00'1 ]['] ...RESPONDENTS Petition [under ][Article ][226 ][ol ][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 order ][passed by ][the ][lncome ][Tax]Authorities [(National Faceless E-Assessment ][centre) ][completed ][the ][assessment]U/S 147 [r.w.s ][144 ][Date ][of ][18-03-2024' ] [ITBtuAST/ ][5,114712023-]24t1062884061(1 ) [for ][the Assessment Year ][2018-1 ][9 determining ][the ][total ][income]of Rs. [1,80,20,695/ ][-. ][as ][arbitrary' illegal' bad ][in ][law' ][without ][jurisdiction' ][void-ab-]initio, viorative [of ][the ][principres ][of ][naturar ][justice ][apart ][from ][being violative of] :4 Articles 14, 1g(l )(g) and 265 of the Constitution of lndia ,& Src. 14BA of thelncome Tax A't 1g€ 1 , and consequen y set aside the same in the interests ofjustice lA NO: 1 oF 2A24 Petition rr dr:r Section 151 cpc praying that in the circJms:ances stated inthe affidavit firr"c rr :;upport of the petition, the High court may be preased tosuspend the orrjr:- Jnder section 147 r.w.s 144 Dale ,of 18-03_2024, DIN|rBA/AST/S/147r2023'24119u2884061(1) for the Assessm,:nt year 2018-19determining th€ tlrit ncome of Rs. 1,g0,20,6g5/- and Demarrd nr:tice u/s .156 ofthe lncome Tax ,ct 1961, vide DIN and Notice No ITBA/.A{:,T/S/15 6t2O23_2411062884091 (1) ct 1B-03-2o24 for the assessment year 2.019-20 pendingdisposal of the abo ve /yrit petition Counsel for the pet,tioner: SRl. THANNERU CHAITANYA KUMARSRl. THANNERU CHAITANYA KUMAR Counsel for the ResF,ondents: Ms. J. SUNITHA (JUNIOR SC FOR TNCOME TAX)The Court made, thr-. iollowing: ORDERThe Court made, thr-. iollowing: ORDER TTIE HONOURABLE [JUSTICE P'SAM ] ANDTHE HONOURABLE NANDIKONDA WRIT PETI [No.31430][ of2024] SBDEB' [@er ][Ilon'ble ][Sri 'JusLice ][P.Sam ][Koshy)] Counsel for the pet,tioner: SRl. THANNERU CHAITANYA KUMARSRl. THANNERU CHAITANYA KUMAR Counsel for the ResF,ondents: Ms. J. SUNITHA (JUNIOR SC FOR TNCOME TAX)The Court made, thr-. iollowing: ORDERThe Court made, thr-. iollowing: ORDER TTIE HONOURABLE [JUSTICE P'SAM ] ANDTHE HONOURABLE NANDIKONDA WRIT PETI [No.31430][ of2024] SBDEB' [@er ][Ilon'ble ][Sri 'JusLice ][P.Sam ][Koshy)] Heard Mr. [T.Chaitanya ][Kumar' ][leamed counsel ][for ][the]and [Ms.J.Sunitha, ][leamed Junior Standing Counsel ][for]petitioner the Income [Tax ][Depadment ][for ][the respondents ][Perused the]record 2. This is a [writ ][petition ][where ][the ][proceedings ][are ][either]challenged [to ][the notices ][which wele ][issued ][under Section ][148,4.]an<I 148 [of ][the ][Income.]'ax ][Act, ][1961 ][(for ][short.the ][Act,) orthe]assessmcnt [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]that [the ][notices ][issued ][under Section 148,{ ][of ][the ][Act]grounds, and the [subsequent ][lnitiation ][of ][proceedings ][under Section ][148 ][of]the Act [by ][the ][jurisdictional ][Assessing ][Ofhcer' ][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] unde [. ]iicr:ior) 14gA of the Act as also under Seclion l4g of theAct oLl [,,11 ]'o irave also heen issued and f roct,cc[..] in a hcelcssmann 3r 4. ['l'h: ]:ontention of the petitioner. isthat tJt r issue ofprocee cl nrl: being in violation of the Finance Actl0 ll i.e., theimpug.rcd ncticcs under Section l4gA and Secriou14ll of the Actnot bei15:rs tred in a faceless manner, have alrcaclt. t,ee.n dealt withand dec cr:rl by, this Court in the case ofK{NI,i:\NALARAVINIDRI. REDDY vs. INCOME_TAX OI.FICtrR decidedon 14.0,). )()23 rvhereby a batch of writ petitions ."vcnr allou,,gd sndthc proceedinrs initiated under Section l4gA as also tu.rcle . Section148 of tl.Lc .t,:, were held to be bad with consequential rc.lje l.s on theground of t h,:lnq in violation of the provisions of Sec ion l5lA ofthe Act r,rad ,ritlr Notification Lg/2l22dated 29.03.20.2. . .he saidjudgment p r:rr;rril b1, this Court has also bcen subsequcn:lv irllowedin a large nu l ler of rvr.it petitions which were allori.erl orr siurilar tenns. '[(2023) l -5rj 1a <nrrr,n.co,1 178 (Telangana)l ) 5. Down [the ][line, we ][find ][that ][the ][same ][issue has ][also ][been]decided [against ][the ][ltevenue ][by ][various ][High ][Courts ][i'e'']the [Bombay ][I{igh ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ] by TECHNOLOGIES [LTD., ][VS' ] oFINCoMETAx&OTHERS?,GauhatiHighCourtinthecaseof RAM [SAH vs' ] [INDIA3' ][Punjab ][and]Haryarra [High ][Court ][in ][the case ][of ] vs. UNION [OF INDIA4, ][and ][Telangana ][High Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]SRI VENKATARAMANA [VS. ] COMMISSIONER [where the ][issue was ][in]respect [of intemational taxation' Bombay ][High ][Court in the ][case ][of]ABHIN [vs' ] [OFFICER']INTERNATIONAL [which ][is ][again on ][international]Exation [and ][central ][circle' ][High ][Court ][of ][Himachal ][Pradesh in ][the]case of [vs' ] [OFFICERT']Gujarat [High ][Courl ][in ][the ][case ][of ] 'lzoz+1464 [430 ][(Bom)]'i1toz$ [156 ][taxmann.com 478 ][(Gauhati)l]^l(2024)165 [taxmann.com ][115 ][(Punjab ][& ][Ilaryana)l]'i).oro|' [,0, ][taxmann.com ][411 ][(Telangana)l]:1,rozo t I66 taxrnann.com 679 [(Bombay)l ]-\zoz+'t [165 ][taxmann ][com ][Ill ][(tlimachal ][Pradcsh)l] DAHId\EIIAI RADADIYA vs. INCOME Tu\X OFFICER,WAI{IN :},:tX5)8, Jharkand High Court in rh-. case r,f.SHyAMSUNI)Aiil SAW vs. UNION OF lNDIAe, Rajastharr rtigh Courr inthe ciLs.r rl SHARDA DEVI CHHAJER vs. IN(.(],ME TAXOFFI(:)IDFl ,& ANOTHER and batch of rvrir petiriorrsr0 whichstood rjec,J:l on 19.03.2024. Similar views hai,e ralso ;een takenby thc I).,sion Bench of Calcutta I{igh Cor_rt ir rhe case ofGIRI)IL\fii GOPAL DALMIA vs. UNION OF INI)t,\ & ORS(M.A.'f 1 6)( )t- )023),decided on 25.09.2024.6. Ev.rn ttcugh the same issue having been decideci f v a largenurnber ol'l ljpli Courls, we are still confi.onted u,ith lu.gc filing ofidentical tn tr ()rs on daily basis ranging betwc.11 -. rg l0 writpetrtions. [-l ]lrrrtupon the instructionsbeing soLrgl t Ii onr theDepaftntcr-r,. the_r, have been taking asolitary lSround hat thedecision o1'rhe Bornbay High Courr in the casr: o1 lleuoworeTechnolo;7i,::; Ltd., (2 supra) as also theotre utic.lr .tr s beendecided bytjr i:r Clourt in the case of Kanakola Rrtvittdro Redcllt*202,1 SCt ( ) rr i r-. ( iui l0l2'^2025 S( ( o rr i r.. .thar 287''[2023: R.t-Jl r:] qti4_DBl ..1-: has [been ][subjected ][to ][challenge ][in ][a ][Special ][Leave](1 supra) 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 atso ][fiied ][arising ][out ][ofthe]same issue [being ][decided ][by various ][[{igh ][Coutts'] 7T",_t g-Y-:1b:ing [put ][to the ][learned ][counse-l ][f911h9r,!r3g..B'=*=.]have [categorically ][accepted ][the ][fact ][that lhere ][is ][no ][interim]they ordel [granted ][by ][the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Court ][in ][any ][of ][these]malters [pending ][betbre ][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]lrasalreadybeendealtanddecidedbythisveryHighCourtitself.8. On the [one hand, even though ][th" ][o"let of ][this ][Court ][that]was passed [as ][early ][as ][on ][14 ][09'2023 ][and ][more ][1 ][6 ][months ][have]till [date, ][we do not ][find ][any ][remedial ][steps ][having ][been]lapsed, taken by [the ][Income ][Tax ][Deparlment ][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 ][Ofhcer']rather the [authorities ][concerned ][in ][the ][teeth ][of ][series ][of ][decisions] by iLll tlc nrajor High Courls in Indiaafe crnt r; ruously stillrnitiati.rg ;roceedings under Section 14gA of tlre l,ct and alsoinitiatinl. oroceedings under Section l4E ol. rirc Act inconlrirve.tt;on to the amendrnents brought into the , ncoire .l_ax Actpursuirnt tc :hc Finance Act,2020 as also the Fi tanr e ,\ :t 202 I .9' IJpc'tL a query being put as to why can't rhis rvrit petition bedispos,:c [.: ]I ;n the teeth of the decision renderrd bv rhrs Couft inthe casc ol (anokola Rovindra Retldy (l supra r. ]eiturc( I StandingClounse I ii,.. I te Incorne Tax Department contends thrtt th,tse woulclunnecetisill il.r burdsn the lncome Tax Dcpartrnent rvhere theyu,ould br, .c,1uired to file equal number of SLIjs b::fbre theHon'b le lirur:rre Court and it would be furthert ut dr ling theexchequ:r ol11L- IJnion of India. It was also thc conler; Li ru of. theleamed litrtl"i rtq counsel that no prejudice would be ,:aris.rc1 to thetnterest c 1- l-t:Fcritioners in case if this w rit petiriorr is r,r.1,r p,rrldingtill the!lrri:liz,rtronof the SLps pending befbre rhe i{on,bleSupreme Crirr. 316 the fact that the petitioner is alr.calr.er.joyingthe beneflt o1 ir:erirn protection. Nonetheless, on ttte c:rrJrcr.quen,of this Co_rr.r ts ro why the Income Tax Department have ltct colneout uith a rr,. rrnisnr to issue appropriatc instru..trarri .r) r) trkc .:.) .:.) 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 ][ofCBDT]as any [such ][steps ][would ][have ][to ][be ][taken ][Pan ][India ][and cannot ][be]Iirnited [to ][any ][of ][these ][jurisdictional High ][Coutls']10. As [a ][result ][of which, ][what we ][are ][facing ][is ][steep increase ][of]titigation [day ][in ][and ][day ][out even ][though various ][orders have ][been]passed by [this High Courl allowing ][writ ][petitions ][on ][the ][very ][same]issue. [The Income ][Iax ][authorities ][concemed are ][srill ][even ][now ][in]2025 also [initiating ][proceedings ][in ][contravention to ][the ][provisions]of Section [151A ][of ][the ][Act ][and ][as ][a ][result by ][now' ][more than 600]to 700 [petitions ][have ][been ][already ][got ][pited up ][before ][this ][ltigh]Cour.t [on ][an ][issue ][which ][otherwise ][stands ][squarely ][covered ][by ][the]judgment of this [Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ][Kanakula ][Ruvindra ][Reddy](l supra). [What ][is ][also ][surprising ][is.the ][fact ][that..though ][*njl"- ]W6Piallowing [the ][writ ][petitions ][in ][the ][case ][of ][Kanakala ][Ravindra]Reddy (l [supra), ]['the ][Division ][Bench ][while ][reserving ][the ][dght ][of]the Revenue' [has ][also ][protected ][the ][interest ][of ][the ][petitioners] insolar :L: t1,re liberty which was granted i.o the Ilevenue lorinitia-ir16 ir:sh proceedings strictly in accordauce rr itrr r.rre arnendedpror.iriion; of the Act, as amended by the Finrnce .z\c.,2020 andthe Fin: r_.co Act, 2021 . Thepetitioner assessee .,vou Lci ir,r snlillgd 16challe rg e cr. r.aise the other legal objections if thc ll,:r,,__r ue initiatesfresh ltrl,:eedings. The Department has macl: nc cn:ieavour inavailirrc rlr,-.:ricl Iibeny rhat was reserved lor tht. Rcvcrrrrc. On thecontrar!. 1hr:r. hs1,s been still sticking on to the sta td. r,hich th.isHigh Corrrr rr rvell as lnany other High Courls rrlreiLdr ,reld to bebadI l. It a rpcars that because of the aforesaid Iiberrv that rhis HighClourt hac 1:.trnted permitting the Revenue for initiati,tg tr.eshproceedi tg s lLs a one_time measure in a facel,:ssn-rirr: ner. theIncome [--ar ]I),rpartment wants to take advantage ot. Jtc : ame b1,proh.actirg tlr:;.: ltroceedings which would enabie thet.t_ to r.rcet thcIimitation tlti r r.,,.6Llld otherwise come in the way. Like,u,is,:, il thewrit petiti tr .:; kept pending for a considerable long period;rl.timeand finail1 irt ,r laler stage if the Hon,ble Supreme ,llou r.r cr,nfir.rnsthe decisic'n t:l.t'n by this High court as also by rhe othe..HighCourls in uhj:h the SLps are still pending, the lrr,:o r.r r 1_ar would [get ][the ][advantage ][of the ][liberty ][that ][is ][otherwise]Department in favour of [the ][Revenue ][for ][initiation ][of ][fresh]protected proceedings from the disposal [of ][these ][matters ][at ][a ][much ][later ][stage]wl-rich would be advantageous [and ][beneficial ][to ][the ][Revenue ][and]would be equalty disadvantageous [and ][detrimental ][so ][lar ][as ][interest]of the assesses are concemed. [As ][a ][consequence, ][the Income Tax]an [extended ][period ][of ][time ][for ][initiation ][of ][fresh]Department [gets ]proceedings.12. The alarming [trend ][of ][docket ][explosion ][in ][this ][Cour1, despite]the clear precedent [set ][in ][Kanukala Ravindro ][Reddy ]ll [supra)' ][is ][a]matter of grave concern. [The Income ][Tax ][Department's persistent]initiation of fresh proceedings, [disregarding the established ][judicial]pronouncements, has led to [an ][unprecedented ][surge ][in ][litigation]rvith 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 ][judiciat ][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 timitation [periods, rather ][than ][adhering ][to ][the ][established ][legal] posrtion. Suclr conduct raises serious quest or]s about theadminisrlt tive efficiency. and the respect fr_r1j udicialpron()un jerrents, particularly when this Court ras irlreiLdy provideda bal rnc:rapproach by preserving both the Revenue,. r.ights andaSSeS:;Cii I I t,)reStS13. .4ro lrer.aspect which needs to be consid,:red is tlrat in fact itshoul<l lra.',,: been realizecl by the Income Tax D:partme,t itself anclshoulc rrr e lbund out via media in ensurinq that J,roccedingsunder S,r(.r ions l4g_A and l4g should not have bt.er ssued in afaceless -,,rer! at reast till the Hon'ble 'ri, Suprerne aourt decide thetwelvc hrrcred (1200) odd SLps which it is alreacry serz.:cl oror, atleast tlre t:otne Tax Deparlment should havr: lb,utcl out someremedial slcf,s to ensure that wherever the aulltor.ities intend toinitiate pr c<:t:r:di,gs under Sections 14g_A and 1,1g. .thei tha, i, afaceless , il r'er, the proceedings should har e L,een defenedwithout p.e c:rpitati,g the rnatter further intimatin.t thc ass,:ssec thatthey sirall iri,iare appropriate proceedings only afier;hr: liI_p,s aredecided b,, 111,1 ]len,6le Suprerne Couft on the r erl sar.re issue.This again. .r.r: Income Tax Department, has not bt:en lrbie to eive aconvincirre :r11,, except for the fact that such a decision if at all has to be taken, has [to ][be ][taken ][for ][the ][whole ][of ][India, ][and ][which]otherwise has to [be ][by way ][of ][a ][poticy ][decision ][and that ][too ][at the]level of Central [Board ][of ][Direct ][Taxes. ][Though ][the ][leamed]Standing Counsel [fbr ][the ][Income ][Tax ][Department ][contended that]the Delhi High Courl [dismissed ][a ][writ ][petition ][of ][similar ][nature, ][on]the one hand [when ][the ][High ][Courl ][is ][struggling ][to ][reduce ][its]pendency, such notices [which ][are under ][challenge ][in ][this ][writ]petition are forcing 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 Flon'ble ][Supreme ][Court ][having ][been ][taken ][on]many ocoasions, [thc ][Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Coufi ][which ][is seized ][of ][the]matter has been reluctant [in ][granting any ][interim protection ][to ][thc]Income Tax Deparlment. [Yet, ][the ][authorities concemed ][at ][the]State levcl are not [ready ][to ][accept ][the ][verdict ][passed ][by ][a ][majority]ol High Coufts [of ][diflerent ][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-A ][and] 14ll thuruph thc jurisdictional Assessing Officerto havc hc.en only in the faceless manner. ,r,hc'eas it ought 14. In _he case of BANK OF INDIA vs vsASSISTANTCOMNTISS IONER, INCOME TAXI t, on an sslrc r,,,h ethcr it wasjustifi at l,: ol the part of the Income1 ax [)e| rr1 ,r cnt in notfollouirg an order passed by the adjudicating ar.rtho"itv i)nly on thegrounrl Iat the follouirg an order passed by the adjudicating ar.rtho"itv i)nly on thegrounrl Iat the appeals are pending, the Divisiol Ilerch of theHigh ('o-r:-. cf Bornbay held at paragraph lrlo.25 ,rs urrcler. viz.. :High ('o-r:-. cf Bornbay held at paragraph lrlo.25 ,rs urrcler. viz.. : "2t; i\,4 r [paridwalla ]ha''nnt'' [drawn ][out ][attentior ][ro ]theGod;rl,ar,idevi de:is,i.rr c,f this court ,n "o't mmissioner of rncome Ta.{ vs, smt.of vvhicr- orcinrt€, Bench rre of saraf,2 us (Justice of this "oi."'to as f in samp the recent Furniture decis (P) on Lkl' of v' thr: 116r:co-the c or ri caresorica,y ;:":'ffi:"li:1"1;.:';:Ji.'I;the "acce )t€ sarrr: c [, ]ir; the set aside judgment of ,n , ,,'" flHigh court wourd nct mean that tibincin; ron;e R"ru,,.,ns,o Union of lndia vs. Kamlaks;l;:j:::"":,^i-;l;::: :::.: l,'cou 1 rrr s -. ved,nr,,n" H:f T::: treat nr7 rier:isions being ,,not ";o;:";':ffi acceptable,, was criticize(j by ":,,:;theSupr:r.t( : ourt ln such dare the reie\,antobsev;,ro,)s; made or,n".r;:;::"t;1"*''n [70 r r r rra,n.comr rra,n.comrra,n.comr r [70 r in'ss',i'lil}o'fr',,'",,0,r,1 t,'[t2o25l r r [70 r r r rra,n.comr rra,n.comrra,n.coml] ',', ll::lt in'ss',i'lil}o'fr',,'",,0,r,1[20241 ] ,5-( tr r I nann.com .'o [yroo2j,,,,,,,,,. ]i"- ,:,;;L'l'r9fr"[8. [or, ][(Bomi,ay)] l. [70 r r r rra,n.comr rra,n.comrra,n.comr r [70 r in'ss',i'lil}o'fr',,'",,0,r,1 t,'[t2o25l r r [70 r r r rra,n.comr rra,n.comrra,n.coml] ',', ll::lt in'ss',i'lil}o'fr',,'",,0,r,1[20241 ] ,5-( tr r I nann.com .'o [yroo2j,,,,,,,,,. ]i"- ,:,;;L'l'r9fr"[8. [or, ][(Bomi,ay)] l. "6. Sri Reddy is perhaps right in saying [that ][the]officers were not [actuated ][by ][any ][mala ][fides ][in]passing the impugned orders. [They ][perhaps]genuinely 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 ][of ][any ][factual]malafides but [with ][the ][fact that the officers, in reaching]in their conclusion, [by-passed ][two ][appellate ][orders ][in]regard 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 ][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 ][appellate ][authorities']The order of the Appellte [Collector ][is ][binding on ][the]Assistant Collectors [working within ][his ][jurisdiction ][and]the order of the [Trlbunal is binding upon the Assistant]Collectors and the [Appellate Collectors who ][function]under the .jurisdiction [of ][the ][Trrbunal. ][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 sub.iect [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 rs not followed, the result will only be und( teI e rassment to assesses and chaos in adminrstretir ncf tax laws. 12We have dealt with this aspect at some l:nq r,l:lause it has been suggested bythe le arne l,\lCitional Solicitor General that theobsgly31;. a -l:lause it has been suggested bythe le arne l,\lCitional Solicitor General that theobsgly31;. a -rrade by the High Court, have been harsh on th:)officersIt is clear that the observations cf the Hig r(l I rr rt,seemingly vehement, and apparenfl,/apparenfl,/L r 6ralatable to the Revenue, are only intended tc curll: t,:ndency in revenue matters which, if allow,:d t(,:ecome widespread, could result in considerable.raritssntent to the assesses_public without any br;nefiic: ihe Revenue. We would Iike to say tha. tr€d:cartment should take these observations ir flre: t,:ndency in revenue matters which, if allow,:d t(,:ecome widespread, could result in considerable.raritssntent to the assesses_public without any br;nefiic: ihe Revenue. We would Iike to say tha. tr€d:cartment should take these observations ir flrep trprer spirit. The observations of the Hlgh Oolrrts,hoLrld be kept in mind in future and the utmost regardsirotrld be paid by the adjudicating authorities an(j theaJrpr:llate authorities to the requirements cf jLoicialdi:;r;lpllns and the need for giving effect to the orJersor lhe higher appellate authorities which arer binJingor) them."or lhe higher appellate authorities which arer binJingor) them." 15 \\'hlr ir; \!orrying this Bench more is trrc jhcr trrat anendeavoLrl i: b,eing made whole heartedly to ensu.e not to generatefurther I itig rt ot.t on issues which have becn laid :o r( st b ), a largenumber tf Iiish Courts all of whom have taken a corsist,)rt standthat the aclion ,rf the Income Tax Department beinr vrolati,,.e of the Finance Act,2020 and Finance Act,202l . [Now, ][in ][order to protect]the interest of the Revenue [as ][also that ][ol ][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]Kankanala Ravindru [Reddy ][(l ][supra) ][shall however ][be ][subject ][to]the outcome of the SLPs [which ][were ][filed by ][the ][Income ][Tax]Department and which is [pending consideration before the ][Hon'ble]Supreme Court. i6. In the given lacts [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 ][Coutt]and which stands tbrtifled [by ][the ][decisions ][of ][the ][various ][other]High Courls on the [very ][same issue, ][the ][pendency ][of ][this ][High]Court would further [be ][burdened ][which ][other-wise ][can ][be ][decided]and disposed of as [a ]covered [matter.] fl . So lar 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 atrl38 of the order which, for ready refbrencc. is reproducedhere rn dt r : 36For all the aforesaid reasons, the imougred n,rticesrsisued and the proceedings drawnby the respor dent_: epartment is neither tenablenor sr sta ir ableIhe notices so issued and the procedure adofteolrelngIhe notices so issued and the procedure adofteolrelng,)r?r se illegal, deserves to be andareaccorJingl,/ set:rr;ide/quashed. As a consequence,allthe rnpu(lnedorders getting quashed, the consequential orde.s par;sedi,! the respondent-Department pursuant -o th: no..icesir;t;ued under Section 142 and 14g wou d ;rlso getorders getting quashed, the consequential orde.s par;sedi,! the respondent-Department pursuant -o th: no..icesir;t;ued under Section 142 and 14g wou d ;rlso getcLashed and it is ordered accordingly. The reasor wear,> quashing the consequential order is on the ltrinctclesllrat when the initiation of the proceedingsrtself ,vaslr)cedurally wrong, the subsequent ordersa lsc, Ietsar,> quashing the consequential order is on the ltrinctclesllrat when the initiation of the proceedingsrtself ,vaslr)cedurally wrong, the subsequent ordersa lsc, Ietsrr r lified automatically. 37 The preliminary objection raised by tht: pet trone:r issiustained and all these writ petitions stands allowed ont''r s very jurisdictional issue. Since the impugnec noti tes:rc orders are getting quashed on the f,oint ofuris;diction, we are not inclined to proceec fudrer .,nclrjecide the other issues raised by the petitioner wh chr;:z rrds reserved to be raised and contendec in ana r :'opriate proceedings. :l3 Since the Hon,ble Supreme Court had in :lre ,32 sgcf r\ shish Agarwal, supra, as a one{ims measLrree>.e rcising the powers under Article 142 r:f t reC r>rl;titution of lndia, permitted the Revenue to p -oc:ecdu,rcer the substituted provisions, and this CoJrt arlowir gtl- () setitions only on the Procedural flaw.- ths rig r11 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. :l3 Since the Hon,ble Supreme Court had in :lre ,32 sgcf r\ shish Agarwal, supra, as a one{ims measLrree>.e rcising the powers under Article 142 r:f t reC r>rl;titution of lndia, permitted the Revenue to p -oc:ecdu,rcer the substituted provisions, and this CoJrt arlowir gtl- () setitions only on the Procedural flaw.- ths rig r11 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 sincewe are inclined to dispose of the instant writ petition, conscious ofthe fact that the earlier order of this High Court in the case ofI{anakula Rayindra.-Reddy (l supra) is subjected to challenge*before the Hon'ble Supreme Courl in SLP No.3574 of 2024,\(plelerred by the Income Tax Deparlment, we make it clear thatallowing of the instant writ petition is subject to outcome of theaforesaifl SLP preferred by the Revenue against the decision of thisHigh Court in the case of Kanukala Ravindrs Reddy (1 supra).This, in other words, would mean that either of the parties, if theyso want, may move an appropriate petition seeking revival of thiswrit petition in the light of the decision of the I{on'ble SupremeCourt in the pending SLP on the very same issue 19. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands allowed infavour of the assessee so lar as the issue of [jurisdiction]ISconcemed. As . a consequence, the impugned notice underchallenge under Sections 148-A and 148 stands set aside/quashed. Thc :c ns c iJuential orders, if any, also stancl ;et irsick,,/quashed insimiltr t,rrtrs as have been passed by this High Coru.t irt the case ofKnnAuttutt Ravindra Reddy (l supra). Thcr.c shall he no order as " [-to'cor ]ts C ottr;t:quently, miscellaneous petitions pendir g. il an1., shall stand cl lr:J. SD/-K.AMMAJIDEPU \ry REGISTRARI.I SE(::TION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To IThe lncorns Tax Officer Ward 1, Sangareddy lrrcon.e Tax Office,Veerabhro.;r lJaoar. New Bus stand, vedraoniira r.rogai, singareodj;TelangarraVeerabhro.;r lJaoar. New Bus stand, vedraoniira r.rogai, singareodj;Telangarra2The Princ perl_ Ctrief Commissioner of lncome Tax-Telanr;ana and A.p,Hyderab,ld, l-T Towers, AC Guards, lVlasab Tank, fiVO"tfaOrO_-SOOb)'A,Telangarra3The Cen'.ra,i Ei,r;rrd of Direct Taxes, Represented by irs Chairnran, Departmentof Reveru,:. Nrinistry of Finance, covernmeniot-tirJL. s,ecii ta;irliir]rdi'is!,New Dellri [. ]11(r OOi.4The Naticr al Faceless Assessment Center, lncomr-. Tax D,,:partment, NewDelhi.5The Sec'etary :o the Government,. Union of lndia. I)epirrtme.rnt of Revenue,N/inistry ('f [:irr.ltce, ]New Delhi - [.l ]1O 001Hyderab,ld, l-T Towers, AC Guards, lVlasab Tank, fiVO"tfaOrO_-SOOb)'A,Telangarra3The Cen'.ra,i Ei,r;rrd of Direct Taxes, Represented by irs Chairnran, Departmentof Reveru,:. Nrinistry of Finance, covernmeniot-tirJL. s,ecii ta;irliir]rdi'is!,New Dellri [. ]11(r OOi.4The Naticr al Faceless Assessment Center, lncomr-. Tax D,,:partment, NewDelhi.5The Sec'etary :o the Government,. Union of lndia. I)epirrtme.rnt of Revenue,N/inistry ('f [:irr.ltce, ]New Delhi - [.l ]1O 001oOne CC ro {ic L THANNERU CHAITANYA KUMAR, ,\dvc,care, IOpUct7one CC ro tVtr; J SUNITHA (JUNtoR SC FoR iNCbME [.li) ]BTwo CD [(lc ]pissiopir6iBTwo CD [(lc ]pissiopir6i B /W" B M /BSh. I_ r:,=--/.:i{.| .i-; [:] od'(? 7 ',lll'i [20m]\'..)\.+.'\--i\.[)l: ].,, re ",(.::-_ . HIGH COUR:'t DATED:01 lAt!i12025 ORDERWP.No.31430 of 2024ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION \1 -1,il\)iL1 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS