Wp/3169/2025 Of Srikanth Panthulu v. Income Tax Officer

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD(Special Originat Jurisdiction)MONDAY, THE TWENry EIGHTH DAY OF APRILTWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURAELE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDAWRIT PETITION NO: 3169 OF 2o25 Between: Qltanlh [Panthulu, ][S/O. ][PanthuluChennaiah ][Aged ][About ][41 years, ][Occ.Business,]E/O [No ][.l0-107, ][Brahmanwadi ][Street, Shamshabad, Ranga ]Reddy, Hyderabad,Telangana 501218, Pan ...PETITIONER AND 1. lncome Tax Officer, Ward 17(1), Hyderabad Signature Towers, Kondapur,KothqBuda. Opp Botanical Gardens, Serlingampally, R.R District, Hyderabad500084KothqBuda. Opp Botanical Gardens, Serlingampally, R.R District, Hyderabad500084 2. The ['Principal ]Commissioner of lncome Tax - 2, Hyderabad, SignatureTowers, _ [Kondapur. ][Ko-thaguda, ][Opp. ][Botanical ][Gardensj ][Serlingampaiiy, ][R.R]Towers, _ [Kondapur. ][Ko-thaguda, ][Opp. ][Botanical ][Gardensj ][Serlingampaiiy, ][R.R]Drstnd{, Hyderabad 500084. 3. The National Faceless Assessment Centre, lncome Tax Department, Ministryof Finance. Govt. of lndia. New Delhi.of Finance. Govt. of lndia. New Delhi. 4. Union of lndia, Ministry of Finance Rep. by its Secretary, 166-8 No(h Block,New Delhi - 110 001.New Delhi - 110 001. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may bepleased to i. lssue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly, one, in the natureof Wnt of Mandamus, declaring the order passed by the RespoMent No.2 inpassing the Order dated O7lO4l2O22 uls. 14BA(d) and Notice issued by theRespondent No.2 under Section 148 of the lncome Tax Act, 1961dated0810412022 as illegal, arbitrary, bad in law, void ab initio, violative of the principlesof natural justice and being violative of Articles 14,19 and 265 of the Constitutionof lndia and consequently, i. Set aside the Order dated 0710412022 u/s. i4BA(d) and Notice issued Act' 196 r dated 08to4r2022 by the Respondent No.2 under sectior .r4g of the rncome TaxAY 2018-19and ca*ing for the return of inc.me of the petitioner foraside the notices any consequent proceedings as racking in jurisdiction, ii. setissued uls 226 dated 22111-2024 attacring the bank accounts,deposits maintained with (6f2t1 Mahindra Bank and HI)FC Bank Ltd as beingillegal, arbitrary and contrary to law. IA NO: 10F 2025 Petition under Serthe affidav t r .d .,;::; " ::l,],T:l:Hi direct the Department to lift the attachment and;,T;ffiJ,fi]"::};pursuanr to the Assessnre"; ;;::^":":::l :"o ['", ][the ][recoverv ][or ][demand]section 1 47 r twsection ;.. ;n:f ::",X f ; :::[,,:";;T:,:T;; :::T1110312024 for Assessment year 201g-1g and direct the [)epartment to not takeany coercive steps for recovery of demand Counset for the petitioner : SRt POLKAMPALLY PAVAN KUMAR RAO: SRt POLKAMPALLY PAVAN KUMAR RAO counser for the Respondents No'1to3: Ms.J-suNrrHA (Jr,SC FOR rNcoME TAX) Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : SRI MUKHERJEE, rep., SRI GADI PRAVEEN KIINAAR, DY.SO.GENKIINAAR, DY.SO.GEN The Court made the foltowing: ORDER TIIE HONOURABLE [JUSTICE P'SAM KOSITY]ANDTHE TIONOURABLE NANDIKONDA WRIT [ No.3l6][90F][ 2025] @er [Hon'ble ][sri ][Justice ][P Sam Koshy)]@EB' Heard [Mr. ][Polkampalty ][Pavan ][Kumar ][Rao' ][leamed ][counsel]for the [petitioner, ][Ms' ][J'sunitha' ][learned ][Junior ][Standing ][Counsel]for the [Income ][Tax ][Department ][for ][respondent ][Nos'l to 3 ][and]Mr. B. [Mukherjee, ][learned counsel representing the ][Union ][of ][India]for respondent [No ][4' ][Perused ][the record'] counser for the Respondents No'1to3: Ms.J-suNrrHA (Jr,SC FOR rNcoME TAX) Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : SRI MUKHERJEE, rep., SRI GADI PRAVEEN KIINAAR, DY.SO.GENKIINAAR, DY.SO.GEN The Court made the foltowing: ORDER TIIE HONOURABLE [JUSTICE P'SAM KOSITY]ANDTHE TIONOURABLE NANDIKONDA WRIT [ No.3l6][90F][ 2025] @er [Hon'ble ][sri ][Justice ][P Sam Koshy)]@EB' Heard [Mr. ][Polkampalty ][Pavan ][Kumar ][Rao' ][leamed ][counsel]for the [petitioner, ][Ms' ][J'sunitha' ][learned ][Junior ][Standing ][Counsel]for the [Income ][Tax ][Department ][for ][respondent ][Nos'l to 3 ][and]Mr. B. [Mukherjee, ][learned counsel representing the ][Union ][of ][India]for respondent [No ][4' ][Perused ][the record'] 2.Thisisawritpetitionwheretheproceedingsareeitherchallenged [to ][the ][notices ][which ][were ][issued ][under Section ][148,4]andl48ofthelncome-I'axAct'1961(forshort'theAct')ortheassessmentordersthosehavebeenpassedunderSectionl4Tofthe Act [which ][have been assailed'] This [[writ ][petition ][is being taken ]][[petition ][is being taken ]][[is being taken ]][[up ][today ]][[today ]][[only ][on ][one ][of ][the]][[on ][one ][of ][the]][[one ][of ][the]][[of ][the]][[the]] 3. This [[writ ][petition ][is being taken ]][[petition ][is being taken ]][[is being taken ]][[up ][today ]][[today ]][[only ][on ][one ][of ][the]][[on ][one ][of ][the]][[one ][of ][the]][[of ][the]][[the]]grounds, [that ][the notices ][issued ][under Section ][i48A of ][the ][Act]and the [subsequent ][initiation ][ol ][proceedings ][under Section ][148 ][of]the Act [by ][the ][jurisdictional ][Assessing ][Offrcer' ][whereas ][in ][terms]of the [arnendment ][that ][was ][brought ][to ][the ][Income Tax Act ][by ][way] ,, ,/ of Finance Act, 20ZI w.e.f., 01.04.2021 onwards, proceedingsunder Section l4gA of the Act as also under Scctron 14g of theAct ought to have also been issued and proceeded in a facelessmanner. 4. Ihe contention of the petitioner contention of the petitioner of the petitioner the petitioner petitioner is thi t thi t t the issue issue ofproceedings being in violation of the Financ e Att,202l i.e., theimpugned notices under Section l4gA and Sectior. l4g of the Actnot being issued in a faceless manner, have alreadt,been dealt withand decided by this Court in the case ol I(ANKANALARAVTNDRA REDDY vs. INCOME_TAX OFI._ICERr rtecidedon i4.09.2023 whereby a batch of writ petitions w.cr.e allow,ed andthe proceedings initiated under Section l4gA as also under Section148 of the Act were held to be bad with consequentlal reliefis on theground of it being in violation of the provisions of Sccrion l5lA ofthe Acr read wirh Notification lB/2022 dated 29.03)t)22. The saidjudgment passed by this Court has also been subsequcnrly followedin a large number of writ petitions w,hich were allow ctj on similarterms. Ihe contention of the petitioner contention of the petitioner of the petitioner the petitioner petitioner is thi t thi t t the issue issue of '[(2023) 156 taxmann.com I 78 (Telangana),1 Ihe contention of the petitioner contention of the petitioner of the petitioner the petitioner petitioner is thi t thi t t the issue issue of '[(2023) 156 taxmann.com I 78 (Telangana),1 5. Down the [line, we find ][that ][the ][same ][issue ][has ][also ][been]decided against [the ][Revenue ][by ][various ][High ][Courts ][i'e'']by the Bombay [High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ] TECHNOLOGIES [LTD., ][VS. ] OF INCOME [& ][OTHERS2, ][Gauhati ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case]of RAM NARAYAN [vs' ][UNION OF INDIA3' ][Punjab ][and]Haryana High [Court ][in ][the ][case ][of JATINDER ] vs. UNION OF [INDIA4, ][and Telangana ][High Court ][in the ][case ][of]SRIVENKATARAMANA [VS. ] COMVISSIONER [where ][the ][issue was ][in]respect of intemational [taxation, Bornbay ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]ABHIN ANILKUMAR [VS. ] [OFFTCER,]INTERNATIONAL [which ][is again on ][intemational]taxation and [central ][circle, High Court ][of ][Himachal ][Pradesh ][in ][the]case of GOVIND [vs' ] [OFFICER?']Gujarat High [Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ] 2 ITR 430 (Bom)lzoz+l464 ' llzOzi'1 [156 ][taxmann.com 478 ][(Gauhati)l]' l(2024) [165 ][taxmann.com ] [5 ][(Punjab ][& ][Haryana)l]'12024) [167 ][taxmann.com ][4l I ][(Telangana)l]" 12024) [166 ][taxmann.com ][679 ][(Bombay)l]'iZOZqi [165 ][taxmann.com I ] [3 ][(Himachal ][Pradesh)l]lzoz+l464 ' llzOzi'1 [156 ][taxmann.com 478 ][(Gauhati)l]' l(2024) [165 ][taxmann.com ] [5 ][(Punjab ][& ][Haryana)l]'12024) [167 ][taxmann.com ][4l I ][(Telangana)l]" 12024) [166 ][taxmann.com ][679 ][(Bombay)l]'iZOZqi [165 ][taxmann.com I ] [3 ][(Himachal ][Pradesh)l] ,/ ,/ DAHYABHAI RADADIYA vs. INCOME I./,,X OFFICER,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 CIIHAJER vs. litCOME TAXOFFICER & ANOTHER and batch of writ petirionsro whichstood decided on 19.03.2024. Similar views have i,lso been takenby the Division Bench of Calcutta High Cout n the case olGIRDHAR GOPAL DALMIA vs. UNION OF I\|)IA & ORS(M.A.T 1690 of 2023),decided on25.09.2024. 6. Even though the same issue having been dccirled by a largenumber of High Courts, we are still confronted with large filing ofidentical matters on daily basis ranging betweerr 5 to I0 writpetitions. That upon the instructions beiog sourrhr liom theDepartment, they have been taking a solitary ground that thedecision of the Bombay High court in the case ot Hexau,areTechnologies Ltd., (2 supra) as arso the one which has beendecided by this Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy sz\z+ SCcOnLine Guj 4012'2025 SCC Online Jhar2BT' o y2o 23, RJ-JD:4984-DBl \E/-Y (1 supra) has been subjected to challenge in a Special LeavePetition i.e., SLP No.3574 of 2024 before rhe Hon,ble SupremeCourt and the Hon'ble Supreme Court is seized of the matter.In addition, there are about 1200 SLps also filed arising out ofthesame issue being decided by various High Courts. 7. To a query being put to the learned counsel lor the Revenue,they have categorically accepted the fact that there is no interimorder granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in any of thesematters pending before it. Meanwhile, fresh writ petitions ofidentical nature are being pited up before this Bench on daily basisand the pendency is getting increased on matter which otherwisehas already been dealt and decided by this very High Court itself.8. On the one hand, even though the order of this Court thatwas passed as early as on 14.09.2023 and more [6 months havelapsed, till date, we do not find any remedial steps having beentaken by the Income Tax Department to take appropriate steps toeither hold back issuance d[ notice under Section l48A and underSection 148 of the Act by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer,rather the authorities concemed in the teeth of series of decisions by all the major High Courts in India are conlinuously stillinitiating proceedings under Section 148A of the Act and alsoinitiating proceedings under Section 148 of the Act incontravention 1o the amendments brought into the Inr:ome lax Actpursuant to the Finance Act,2020 as also the Financc Act202l.9. Upon a query being put as to why can't this r..rit petition bedisposed of in the teeth of the decision rendered by, this Court inthe case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra), learxed StandingCounsel lor the Income Tax Department contends tlrat rhose wouldunnecessarily burden the Income Tax Departmerrt wherc theywould be required to file equal number of S[-['s belore theHon'ble Supreme Court and it would be further rurdening theexchcquer of the Union of India. It was also the corrtention of thelearned Standing Counsel that no prejudice would bc caused to theinterest of the petitioners in case ifthis writ petition i:; kept pendingtill the linalization of the SLPs pending before the l{on'bleSupreme Court and the fact that the petitioner is alr.cady enjoyingthe benefit of interim protection. Nonetheless, on th: earlier queryof this Court as to why the Income Tax Department have not comeout with a mechanism to issue appropriate instructions or to take appropriate steps in ensuring that proceedings under Section l4gAof the Act as also the assessment orders under Section l4g of theAct are kept in a hold in the light ofthe decisions dedcided by thevarious High Courts, it was submitted by the learned StandingCounsel that the said steps can only be taken at the level ofCBDTas any such steps would have to be taken pan India and cannot belimited to any of these jurisdictional High Courts. 10. As a result of which, what we are facing is steep increase oftitigation day in and day out even though various orders have beenpassed by this High Court allowing writ petitions on the very sameissue. The Income Tax authorities concerned are still even now in2025 also initiating proceedings in contravention to the provisionsof Section 15lA of the Act and as a result by now, more than 600to 700 petitions have been already got piled up before rhis HighCourt on an issue which otherwise stands squarely covered by thejudgment of this Court in the case of Kuakala Ravindra Reddy(1 supra). What is also surprising is the fact that though whileallowing the writ petitions in the case of Kanakala RavindraReddy (l supra), the Division Bench while reserving the righr ofthe Rqvenue, has also protected the interest of the petitioners./ ,// insofar as the liberty whichwas granted to the Revenue forinitiating fresh proceedings strictly in accordance with the amendedprovisions of the Act, as amended by the Finance .a.ct, 2020 andthe Finance Act,202l. The petitioner assessee would be entitled tochallenge or raise the other legal objections if the R*enue initiatesfresh proceedings. The Department has made no endeavour inavailing the said tiberty that was reserved for the Revenue. On thecontrary, they have been still sticking on to the star.d. which thisHigh Court as well as many other High Courts already held to bebad. I 1. It appears that because of the aforesaid libertt, that this HighCourt had granted permitting the Revenue for initiating lreshproceedings as a one-time measure in a faceless rnanner, thelncome Tax Department wants to take advantage o['lhe same byprotracting these proceedings which would enable tht:m to meet thelimitation that would otherwise come in the wav. I-ikewise. if thewrit petition is kept pending for a considerable long period of timeand finally at a later stage if the Hon'ble Supreme [(lourt ]confirmsthe decision taken by this High Court as also by lhe other HighCourts in wh ich the SLPs are still pending, the lncome Tax \ I 1. It appears that because of the aforesaid libertt, that this HighCourt had granted permitting the Revenue for initiating lreshproceedings as a one-time measure in a faceless rnanner, thelncome Tax Department wants to take advantage o['lhe same byprotracting these proceedings which would enable tht:m to meet thelimitation that would otherwise come in the wav. I-ikewise. if thewrit petition is kept pending for a considerable long period of timeand finally at a later stage if the Hon'ble Supreme [(lourt ]confirmsthe decision taken by this High Court as also by lhe other HighCourts in wh ich 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 concerned. As a consequence, the Income Taxwhich would be advantageous and beneficial to the Revenue andwould be equally disadvantageous and detrimental so far as interestof the assesses are concerned. As a consequence, the Income TaxDepartment gets an extended period of time for initiation of fieshproceedings.12. The alarming trend of docket explosion in this Court, despiteproceedings.12. The alarming trend of docket explosion in this Court, despitethe clear precedent setirl Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (I 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. Thiswith over 600-700 petitions piling up on the same issue. Thisdeliberate approach not only undermines the principle of judiciatprecedent but also strains the judicial resources unnecessarily. Theprecedent but also strains the judicial resources unnecessarily. TheDepartment's strategy of awaiting the Supreme Court's decision onpending SLPs while continuing to initiate fresh proceedingsappears to be a calculated move to buy time and circumventlimitation periods, rather than adhering to the established legallimitation periods, rather than adhering to the established legal _a position. Such conduct raises serious question:r about theadministrative efficiency and the respect lor [judicial]pronouncements, particularly when this Court has alrt:ady provideda balanced approach by preserving both the Revenue's rights andassesses lnterests. i3. Another aspect which needs to be considered is that in fact itshould have been realized by the Income Tax Departnrent itself andshould have found out via media in ensuring tha': proceedingsunder Sections 148-.4 and 148 should not have bee,n issued in afaceless manner, at least till the Hon'ble Supreme Court decide thetwelve hundred (1200) odd SLPs which it is already -.eized of or, atleast the Income [-Iax ]Department should have found out someremedial steps to ensure that wherever the authorities intend toinitiate proceedings under Sections 148-A and 148. other than in afaceless manner, the proceedings should have been deferredwithout precipitating the matter further intimating th,: assessee thatthey shall initiate appropriate proceedings only after the SLP's aredecided by the Ilon'ble Supreme Court on the very same issue.This again, the Income Tax Department, has not beerr able to give aconvincing reply, except for the fact that such a decision if at all has to be taken, has to be taken for the whole of 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 dismissed a writ petition of similar nature, onthe one hand when the High Court is struggling to reduce itspendency, such notices which are under challenge in this writpetition are forcing the assessee to knock the doors of this HighCourt resulting in hling of hundreds of new writ petitions which inthe long run not only affects the disposal of the writ petitions butalso consumes substantial time of the Bench in hearing thesematters again and again on daily basis. Admittedly, in spite of thematter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court having been taken onmany occasions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court which is seized of thematter has been reluctant in granting any interim protection to theIncome Tax Department. Yet, the authorities 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 Income Tax Department is showingaudacity by issuing notices continuously under Sections 148-A and 148 through the jurisdictional Assessing Offrcer whr:reas it oughtto have been only in the faceless manner. 14. In the case of BANK OF INDIA vs. ASSISTANTCOMMISSIONER, INCOME TAX1r, on an issue rvhether it wasjustifiableon the part of the Income Tax Departnlent in notfollowing an order passed by the adludicating authonty only on theground that the appeals are pending, the Division Bench of theHigh Court of Bombay held at paragraph No.25 as under, viz., : "25. Mr. Paridwalla has rightly drawn out attention to thedecision of this Court in Commissioner of lncome Tai( vs. Smt.Godavaridevi Sarafl2 as also the recent decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this Courl in Samp Furniture (P) Lt,J. v. tTO13of which one of us (Justice G.S. Kulkarni)was a member, whereinthe Court categorically observed that the Revenue having not"accepted" the.iudgment of the High Court would not mr:an that tillthe same is set aside in a manner known to iaw, it wou d loose itsbinding force. Referring to the decision of the Suprenre Court inUnion of lndia vs. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd.14, theCour-t observed that the approach of the officials of Flevenue oftreating decisions being "not acceptable" was criticized by theSupreme Court. ln such decision, following are the relevantobservations made by the Supreme Court. 'r 112025; [170 ][taxmann.com 422 ][(Bombay)l]'' 119281 l3 589 [(Bombay)]t'7202+1 165 taxmann.com 581/300 Taxman 452 (Bombry) 'o 1l99z1rax-mann.com [l6155 ] [433 ][(SC)] 'r 112025; [170 ][taxmann.com 422 ][(Bombay)l]'' 119281 l3 589 [(Bombay)]t'7202+1 165 taxmann.com 581/300 Taxman 452 (Bombry) 'o 1l99z1rax-mann.com [l6155 ] [433 ][(SC)] '6. Sri Reddy is perhaps right in salng that theofficers were not actuated by any mala fides inpassing the impugned orders. They perhapsgenuinely felt that the claim of the assessee was nottenable and that, if it was accepted, the Revenuewould suffer. But what Sri Reddy overlooks is that weare not concerned here with the correctness 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, righflythem, one of the Collector (Appeals) and the other ofthe Tribunal. The High Court has, in our view, righflycriticized 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. ltthe 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 vehemenfly emphasized that it is ofutmost importance that, in disposing of theutmost importance that, in disposing of thequasiiudicial issues before them, revenue officers arebound by the decisions of the appellate authorities.The order of the Appellte Collector is binding on theThe 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 iurisdiction of the Tribunal. The principles ofjudicial discipline require that the orders of the higherjudicial 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" tothe department - in itself an objectbnable phrase _and is the subject matter of an appeal can furnish noorder of the appellate authority is not "acceptable" tothe department - in itself an objectbnable phrase _and 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 [unCue]harassment 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 ][leatned]Additional Solicitor General that the observat [ons]made by the High Court, have been harsh on theofficers. lt is clear that the observations of the llighCourt, seemingly vehement, and apparontlyunpalatable to the Revenue, are only [intended ]to :urba tendency in revenue matters which, if alloweC tobecome widespread, could result in considerableharassment to the assesses-public without any [benefit]to the Revenue. We would like to say that thedepartment should take these observations rn theproper spirit. The observations of the iiigh i)ourtshould be kept in mind in future and the utmost [regard]should be paid by the adiudicating authorities and [the]appellate authorities to the requirements of [jtrCicial]discipline and the need for giving effect to the ordersof the higher appellate authorities which are b [nding]on them." I 5. What is worry.ing this Bench more is the fact that anendeavour is being made whole heartedly to ensure tlot to [generate]further litigation on issues which have been laid to rest by a largenumber of High Courts all of whom have taken a c()nsistent standthat the action of the Income Tax Department being [,ziolative ]of the r( I 5. What is worry.ing this Bench more is the fact that anendeavour is being made whole heartedly to ensure tlot to [generate]further litigation on issues which have been laid to rest by a largenumber of High Courts all of whom have taken a c()nsistent standthat the action of the Income Tax Department being [,ziolative ]of the r( Finance Act,2020 and Finance Act,202l. Now, in orderto 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/direction that the disposal of the instant writ petition interms of the [judgment ]rendered by this High Court in the case ofKankanala Ravindra Reddy (l supra) shall however be subject tothe outcome of the SLPs which were filed by the Income TaxDepartment and which is pending consideration before the Hon'bleSupreme Court 16. In the given facts and circumstances, this Bench is of theconsidered opinion that unless and until we do not timely disposeof matters which are squarely covered by the decision of this Courtand which stands fortified by the decisions of the various otherHigh Courts on the very same issue, the pendency of this HighCourt would further be burdened which otherwise can be decidedand disposed ofas a covered matter. 17. So far as the interest of the Revenue is concemed, we are of the considered opinion that the interest of the Revenue has alreadybeen considered and protected, as has been observed in paragraphsbeen considered and protected, as has been observed in paragraphs 36,37 and 38 ofthe order which, for ready reference. is reproduced hereunder: 36. For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugneo noticesissued and the proceedings drawn by the respondent-Department is neither tenable, nor sustrinable.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 orde,-s passedby the respondent-Department pursuant to the noticesissued under Section 147 and 148 would i:ll;o getquashed and it is ordered accordingly. The reason weare [quashing ]the consequential order is on the principlesthat when the initiation of the proceedings itself wasprocedurally wrong, the subsequent orders also getsnullified automaiically. 37. The preliminary ob.iection raised by the peti ioner issustained and all these writ petitions stands allowed onthis very iurisdictional issue. Since the impugned noticesand orders are getting quashed on the poir.rt ofjurisdiction, we are not inclined to proceed further anddecide the other issues raised by the petitioner whichstands reserved to be raised and contendec in anappropriate proceedings. 38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in t1e caseof Ashish Agarwal, supra, as a one{ime n)easureexercising the powers under Article 142 of theConstitution of lndia, permitted the Revenue to proceedunder the substituted provisions, and this Court allowingthe petitions only on the procedural flaw, tf e right ( ( \\ tI conferred on the Revenu€ \rrould remain reserved toproceed further if they so want from tfrc stage of theorder of the Supreme Court in the case of AshishAganrral, supra.order of the Supreme Court in the case of AshishAganrral, supra. 38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in t1e caseof Ashish Agarwal, supra, as a one{ime n)easureexercising the powers under Article 142 of theConstitution of lndia, permitted the Revenue to proceedunder the substituted provisions, and this Court allowingthe petitions only on the procedural flaw, tf e right ( ( \\ tI conferred on the Revenu€ \rrould remain reserved toproceed further if they so want from tfrc stage of theorder of the Supreme Court in the case of AshishAganrral, supra.order of the Supreme Court in the case of AshishAganrral, supra. 18. we would onry 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 ofKanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra) is subjected to challengebefore the Hon'bte Suprerne Court in SLp No.3574 of 2024,preferred by the Income Tax Department, we make it clear thatallowing of the instant writ petition is subject to outcome of theaforesaid SLP preferred by the Revenue against the decision ofthisHigh Court in the case of Kqnakala Ravindra Reddy (l 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 Hon,ble SupremeCourt in the pending SLp on the very same issue. 19. Accordingly, the instant writ pctition stands allowed infavour of the assessee so far as the issue of jurisdiction isconcemed. As a consequence, the impugned notice underchallenge under Sections [48-A and 148 stands set asidey'quashed. I I \ \ The consequential' [orders, ][if ][any, ][atso stand ][set ][asid':/quashed ][in] similar terms [as ][have ][been ][passed ][by this High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of] Kankanaln Ravindra [Reddy ][(I ][supra)' ][There ][shall bt: ][no ][order ][as] to costs. Consequently, [miscellaneous ][petitions pending, ][if ][any' ][shall] stand closed. SD/.V.KAVITHAr''pREGISTRAR,/TRUE COPYII' \EcrloN oFFlcER To, 1 The lncome Tax Officer, Ward 17(1), Hyderabad Sigrtature Towers,Kondapur,.Kothaguda, Opp. Botanical Gardens, Se"Airrg a,npalty.-R. it Oistrict,Hyderabad 500084Kondapur,.Kothaguda, Opp. Botanical Gardens, Se"Airrg a,npalty.-R. it Oistrict,Hyderabad 500084 2 The Principal-commissioner of rncome Tax - 2. Hyderarrad, signature Towers, [Kondapur,_[qtlraguda, ]opp. Botanicat Gardens,'Seaing";aritt, i{ R oiJin=ct,Hyderabad 500084.The Principal-commissioner of rncome Tax - 2. Hyderarrad, signature Towers, [Kondapur,_[qtlraguda, ]opp. Botanicat Gardens,'Seaing";aritt, i{ R oiJin=ct,Hyderabad 500084. 3. The National Faceless Ass-essment cenke, rncome Ta>r Department, Ministryof Finance, Govt. of lndia, New Delhi.of Finance, Govt. of lndia, New Delhi. 4 The Secre^tary, Union of lndia, Ministry of Finance 166_8 North Block, NewDelhi - 110001Delhi - 110001 5 One CC to SRI POLKAMPALLY PAVAN KUMAR RAO, Advocate tOpUCItOpUCI 6. one CC to Ms.J SUN|THA, (JUNIOR SC FOR TNCOME TAX) tOpUCl 7 . Two CD Copies. BSK GJP HIGH COURT DATED:28104t2025 ORDERWP.No.3169 of 2OZs ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITIONWITHOUT COSTS 1[p{]I ,-_: -1: [i- ]-. -z!,...- 1ii- -', -.')\,.t,+!, :)'t:ail3 \-:srp &f\')\\i