Wp/32028/2024 Of Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Limited Chandampet v. The Income Tax Officer Ward 4(1)

HIGH COURT FOR AT HYDERABAD(SPecial Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FIRST DAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE [P.SAM KOSHY]AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE WRIT PETITION NO: 32028 [2024] Between: PRI[/ARY AGRICULTURAL CHnNOnUpff, Rep. by the [Secretary ] [PASHA, ][S/o ] HASAN ALt, RgeO about [years, Occupation Business, ][F/o ][PACS CANDAMPET']cHANDAIMPEi SHANKARAMPET, [502248, ][Telangana, lndia.] .....PETITIONER AND 1. The lncome Tax Officer Ward [4(1), Hyderabad ] [T Towers, AC ][Guards,]IVlasab Tank, Hyderabad, [Hyderabad ][500004, Telangana.,]IVlasab Tank, Hyderabad, [Hyderabad ][500004, Telangana.,] 2. The Principal Chief [Commissioner of lncome ][Tax Telangana. ][and ] Hyderabad, lT Towers, AC Guards, [Masab ][Tank, Hyderabad 500028']Telangana.Hyderabad, lT Towers, AC Guards, [Masab ][Tank, Hyderabad 500028']Telangana. 3. The Central Board of Direct [Taxes, Represented by its Chairman, Department]of Revenue, Ministry of [Finance, ][Government of lndia, Secretariat Buildings']New Delhi - 1 10 001.of Revenue, Ministry of [Finance, ][Government of lndia, Secretariat Buildings']New Delhi - 1 10 001. 4. The National Faceless Assessment [Center, lncome Tax Department, ][New]Delhi.Delhi. 5- The Union of lndia, Represented [by its ][Secretary to the ][Government,]Department of Revenue, Ministry [of Finance, ][New ][Delhi ][- 110 ][00'l ][.]Department of Revenue, Ministry [of Finance, ][New ][Delhi ][- 110 ][00'l ][.] .,...RESPONDENTS Petition Under Article 226 of the [Constitution ][of ][lndia ][praying ][that ][in ][the]circumstances stated in the affidavit [filed ][therewith, ][the ][High ][Court may ][be]pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction [more particularly ][one ][in]the nature of writ of Mandamus, [declaring the order ][passed ][by ][the ][income ][tax]authorities National Facetess E-Assessment [Centre completed ][the ][assessment] tr.!* U/S 147 r.w.s 144 read with section [144B ][of ][the ][lncome-tax ][Act ][Date ][of ][21-03-]2024, DIN ITBA/ AST tsl147l2o23-24l1063095901('1 ) [for ][the ][Assessment Year]20'18-19 determining the total [income ][of ][Rs. ][2,34,00 ],O22 [- ][as ][arbitrary, ][illegal,]bad in law, without [jurisdiction, void-ab-initio, violative of ][the ][principles ][of ][natural]justice apart from being violative of Articles 1a, 19(1)(g) [and ][265 ][of ][the]Constitution of lndia and Sec. [148A ][of ][the ][lncome ][Tax ][Act, ][1961, ][and]consequently set aside the same [in ][the ][interests of ][justice.] l.A.NO:1 OF 2024 Petition Under section 151 CPC [praying that in ][the ][circumstances ][stated ][in]the affidavit filed in support [of the ][petition, ][the High ][Court may ][be ][pleased ][to]suspend the order Under [section ][147 ][r.w.s ][144 read ][with ][section ][1448 ][of ][the]lncome-tax Act Date of 21'03-2024, [ITBA/ASTiS/14712023']2411063095901(1 ) for the Assessment [Year 2018-19 determining ][the ][total ][income]of Rs. 2,34,00, O22l- and Demand [notice ][u/s ][156 ][of ][the ][lncome ][Tax ][act ][1961 ][, ][vide]DIN & Notice No: ITBA/ASTlsl156t2O23-24/ [106 ][3096 ][147(1) ][Dt: ][21-O3-2024 ][for]the assessment [year ]2018-19 [pending disposal ][of ][the ][above ][writ ][petltion.] Counsel for the Petitioner : SRt Counsel forthe Respondent [Nos.1 ][& ][2 : ][Ms. BOKARO SAPNA ] [(Jr' ] FOR INCOME TAX) Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 to [5 ][: SRt GADI PRAVEEN ][KUMAR' ][DEPUry]SOLICITOR GENERAL OF The Court made the following ORDER THE TIONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTIIE TIONOURABLE SRT JUSTICE NARSING RAONANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION No.32028 of 2024 ORDER, (per Hon'ble Sri.Iusrice P.Sant Koshy) Counsel for the Petitioner : SRt Counsel forthe Respondent [Nos.1 ][& ][2 : ][Ms. BOKARO SAPNA ] [(Jr' ] FOR INCOME TAX) Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 to [5 ][: SRt GADI PRAVEEN ][KUMAR' ][DEPUry]SOLICITOR GENERAL OF The Court made the following ORDER THE TIONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTIIE TIONOURABLE SRT JUSTICE NARSING RAONANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION No.32028 of 2024 ORDER, (per Hon'ble Sri.Iusrice P.Sant Koshy) Heard Mr. T.Chaitanya Kumar, leamed counsel for thepetitioner and Ms. B.Sapna Reddy, learned Junior StandingCounsel for the lncome Tax Depaftment for the respondentsPerused the record 2. This is a writ petition where the proceedings are eitherchallenged to the notices which were issued under Section 148,4.and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short'the Act') ortheassessment orders those have been passed under Section 147 ofthe Act which have been assailed. 3. This writ petition is being taken up today only on one of thegrounds, that the notices issued under Section l48A of the Actand the subsequent initiation of proceedings under Section 148 ofthe Act by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, whereas in termsof the amendment that was brought to the Income Tax Act by wayof Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f., 01.04.2021 onwards, proceedings ) ) *.s#ifiilg$i' under Section l48A of the Act as also under Section 148 of theAct ought to have also been issued and proceeded in a facelessmannerAct ought to have also been issued and proceeded in a facelessmanner 4. The contention of the petitioner is that the issue olcontention of the petitioner is that the issue olof the petitioner is that the issue olthe petitioner is that the issue olpetitioner is that the issue olis that the issue olthat the issue olthe issue olissue ololproceedings being in violation of the Finance Act, 2021 i.e., theimpugned notices under Section l48A and Section 148 of the Actnot being issued in a laceless maruter, have alreadv been dealt withand decided by this Court in the case ol KANKANALARAVINDRA REDDY vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICERT decidedot 14.09.2023 whereby a batch of writ petitions were allowed andthe proceedings initiated under Section I48A as also under Section148 of the Act were held to be bad with consequential reliels on theground of it being in violation ofthe provisions of Section l5lA ofthe Act read rvith Notification 1812022 dated.29.03.2022. The saidjudgment passed by this Court has also been subsequentty followedin a large number of wlit petitions which were allowed on sirnilarterm s. The contention of the petitioner is that the issue olcontention of the petitioner is that the issue olof the petitioner is that the issue olthe petitioner is that the issue olpetitioner is that the issue olis that the issue olthat the issue olthe issue olissue olol '[(2023) [156 ]taxrnann.corn 178 [(Telangana)]] 5. Down the line, we find that the same issue has also beendecided against the Revenue by various High Courts i.e.,by the Bombay High Court in the case of HEXAWARETECHNOLOGIES LTD., vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONBROF INCOME TAX & OTHERS2, Gauhati High Court in the caseof RAM NARAYAN SAH vs. UNION OF INDIAs, Punjab andHaryana High Courr in the case oIJATINDER SINGH BANGUvs. UNION OF INDIA4, and Telangana High Court in the case ofSRI VENKATARAMANA REDDY PATLOOLA vs. DEPUTYCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX5 where the issue was inrespect ol international taxation, Bombay High Court in the case ofABHIN ANILKUMAR SHAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,INTERNATIONAL TAXATION6 which is again on inter-nationaltaxation and central circle, High Court of Himachal Pradesh in thecase of GOVIND SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERT,Gujarat High Courl in the case of MANSUKHBHAI'7zoz+1464 [430 ][(Bom)]'[(2024) [156 ][taxmann.com ]478 (Gauhati)]" [(2024) 165 taxmann.com I l5 (Punjab & Haryana)]'[2024) [167 ][taxmahn.com ]4l I [(Telangana)]]" [2024) [166 ]taxmann.com 679 (Bombay)]' [2024) 165 taxmann.corn I 1 3 [(l{imachal ]Pradesh)] DAITYABIIAI RADADIYA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 3(3X5)8, Jharkand High Court in the case of SHYAMSUNDAR SAW vs. UNION OF INDIAe, Rajasthan High Court inthe case of SHARDA DEVI CHHAJER vs. INCOME TAXOFFICER & ANOTHER and batch of writ petitionsro rvhichstood decicted on 19.03.2024. Similar views have also been takenby the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in the case ofGIRDIIAR GOPAL DALMIA vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS(M.A.T 1690 of 2023), decided on25.09.2024.6. Even though the same issue having been decided by a largenumber of High Courts, we are still confronted '"vith large filing ofidentical matters on daily basis ranging between 5 to l0 writpetitions. That upon the instructions being sought from theDepartment, they have been taking a solitary ground that thedecision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Hatax,areTechnologies Lld., (2 supra) as also the one which has beendecided by this Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy *2024 SCC onl.ine Guj 4012'2025 [Online ][Jhar ][287]o ' 12023, [: ][4984-DBl]'2025 [Online ][Jhar ][287]o ' 12023, [: ][4984-DBl] (l supra) has been subjected to challenge in a Special LeavePetition i.e., SLP No.3574 of 2024 before the 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 of thesame issue being decided by various High Courts. 7. To a query being put to the learned counsel for the Revenue,they have categorically accepted the lact that there is no interimordel granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in any of thesematters pending before it. Meanwhile, fi'csh writ petitions ofidentical nature are being piled up before this Bench on daily basisand the pendency is getting increased on matter which otherwisehas already been dealt and decided by this very lJigh 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 16 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 of notice under Section 1484. and underSection 148 of the Act by the jurisdictional Assessing Offlrcer,rather the authorities concemed in the teeth of series of decisions by all the major High Courts in India are continuously stillinitiating proceedings under Section 148.4 of the Act and alsoinitiating proceedings under Section 148 ol the Act incontravention to the amendments brought into thc Income Tax Actpursuant to the Finance Act,2020 as also the Finance Act 20Zl9. Upon a query being put as to why can't tl.ris r.vrit petition bedisposed of in the teeth of the decision rendered bv this Court inthe case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra), leamed StandingCounsel for the Income Tax Department contends that tl-rose wouldunnecessarilv burden the Income Tax Department where theywould be required to flle 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 thelearned Standing Counsel that no prejudice would bc caused to theinterest of the petitionels in case if this writ petition is kept pendingtitl the finalization of the SLPs pending before the Hon'bleSupreme Court and the fact that the petitioner is already enioyingthe 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 instructiqgg or to take appropriate steps in ensuring that proceedings under Section 148,4.of the Act as also the assessment orders under Section 148 of theAct are kept in a hold in the light of the decisions dedcided by theof the Act as also the assessment orders under Section 148 of theAct are kept in a hold in the light of the decisions dedcided by thevarious High Courts, it was submitted by the learned StandingCounsel that the said steps can only be taken at the level of CBDTCounsel that the said steps can only be taken at the level of CBDTas any such steps would have to be taken Pan lndia and cannot belimited to any of these jurisdictional High Courts.limited to any of these jurisdictional High Courts. 10. As a result of which, what we are l-acing is steep increase oflitigation day in and day out even though various orders have beenpassed by this High Court allowing writ petitions on the very samelssue The Income Tax authorities concemed are still even now in2025 also initiating proceedings in contravention to the provisionsof Section l51A of the Act and as a result by now, more than 600to 700 petitions have been already got piled up before this HighCourt on an issue which otherwise stands squarely covered by thejudgment of this Court in the case of Kanakalu Ravindra Redtly(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 right ofthe Revenue, has also protected the interest of the petitioners insofar as the liberty which was granted to tl.re Revenue forinitiating fi'esh proceedings strictly in accordance u'ith the amendedprovisions of the Act, as amended by the Finance Act, 2020 andthe Financc Act, 2021. The petitioner assessee would be entitled tochallenge or raise the other legal objections if the Revenue initiatesfresh proceedings. The Department has made no endeavour inavailing the said liberty that was reserved for the Rcvenue. On thecontrary, they have been still sticking on to the stand, which thisHigh Court as well as many other High Courts ah'cady held to bebad I 1. It appears that because of the aforesaid liberty that this HighCourt had granted permitting the Revenue for initiating lreshproceedings as a one-time measure in a faceless manner, theIncome Tax I)epartment wants to take advantage of the same byprotracting these proceedings which would enable them to meet thelimitation that would otherwise come in the way. Likewise, if thewrit petition is kept pending for a considerable long period of timeand finally at a later stage if the Hon'ble Supreme Court conltrmsthe 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 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 interestol the assesses are concemed. As a consequence, the Income TaxDepartment gets an extended period of tirne for initiation of freshprocecdings. 12. The alarming trend of docket explosion in this Court, despitethe clear precedent set in Kanokula Ravindra Rettdy (l supra), is amatter of grave concern. The Income Tax Department's persistentinitiation of lresh proceedings, disregarding the established judicialpronouncements, has led to an unprecedented surge in litigationwith over 600-700 petitions piling up on the same issue. Thisdeliberate approach not only undermines the principle of judiciatprecedent 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 legal 12. The alarming trend of docket explosion in this Court, despitethe clear precedent set in Kanokula Ravindra Rettdy (l supra), is amatter of grave concern. The Income Tax Department's persistentinitiation of lresh proceedings, disregarding the established judicialpronouncements, has led to an unprecedented surge in litigationwith over 600-700 petitions piling up on the same issue. Thisdeliberate approach not only undermines the principle of judiciatprecedent 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 legal position. Such conduct raises serious questions about theadministrative efficiency and the respect for [judicial]pronouncern ents, parlicularly 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 lact itshould have been realized by the Income Tax Deparlrnent itself andshould have found out via media in ensuring that [proceedings]undel Sections 148-,{ and 148 should not have been issued in [a]faceless manner, at least till the Hon'ble Supreme Court decide thetwelve hundred (1200) odd SLPs which it is already seized ofor, atIeast the Income Tax Deparlment should have found out someremedial steps to ensure that wherever the authorities intend toinitiate proceedings under Sections 148-A and 148, other than in alaceless mauner, the proceedings should have been deferredwithout precipitating the matter further intimating the assessee thatthey shatt initiate appropriate proceedings only after the SLP's [are]decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the very same issue.This again, the Income Tax Department, has not been able to give aconvincing reply, except for the fact that such a decision if at all has to be taken, has to be taken for the whole of India, and whichotherwise has to be by way ofa 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 HighCouft resulting in filing of hundreds of new writ petitions which inthe long run not only affects the disposal of the writ petitions butalso consumes substantial time of the Bench in hearing thesematters again and again on daily basis. Admittedly, in spite of themattel 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 Depaftment. Yet, the authorities concemed 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 II 148 through the jurisdictional Assessing Olficer whereas it oughtto have becn only in the faceless manner. 14. In thc case of BANK OF INDIA vs. ASSISTANTCOMMISSIONEII, INCOME TAXIr, on an issue whether it wasjustifiable on the part of the Income Tax Department in notfollowing an order passed by the adjudicating authority only on theground that the appeals arc pending, the Division Bench of theHigh Court ol Bombay held at paragraph No.25 as under, viz., : II 148 through the jurisdictional Assessing Olficer whereas it oughtto have becn only in the faceless manner. 14. In thc case of BANK OF INDIA vs. ASSISTANTCOMMISSIONEII, INCOME TAXIr, on an issue whether it wasjustifiable on the part of the Income Tax Department in notfollowing an order passed by the adjudicating authority only on theground that the appeals arc pending, the Division Bench of theHigh Court ol Bombay held at paragraph No.25 as under, viz., : "25. l\,4r. Paridwalla has righfly drawn out attention to thedecision of this Court in Commissioner of lncome Tax vs. Smt.Godavaridevi Sarafl2 as also the recent decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Samp Furniture (p) Ltd. v. lTO13of which one of us (Justice G.S. Kulkarni) was a member, whereinthe Court categorically observed that the Revenue having not"accepted" the judgment of the High Court would not mean that tillthe same is set aside in a manner known to law, it would loose itsbinding force. Referring to the decision of the Supreme Court inUnion of lndia vs. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd.14, theCourt observed that the approach of the officials of Revenue oftreating decisions being "nol acceptable" was criticized by theSupreme Court. ln such decision, following are the relevantobservations made by the Supreme Court. " ;{20251 [170 ][rrxrnann.corn ][422 ]tBombay)j'' il9781 ll3 ll R 589 (Uombay) t3 1ZO2+1 [165 ][taxrnann.com ]58 ti300 Taxman 452 (Bombay)1ZO2+1 [165 ][taxrnann.com ]58 ti300 Taxman 452 (Bombay) 'o TtOOZltaxmann.com t6/55F.L'f 433 (SC) \ " ;{20251 [170 ][rrxrnann.corn ][422 ]tBombay)j'' il9781 ll3 ll R 589 (Uombay) t3 1ZO2+1 [165 ][taxrnann.com ]58 ti300 Taxman 452 (Bombay)1ZO2+1 [165 ][taxrnann.com ]58 ti300 Taxman 452 (Bombay) 'o TtOOZltaxmann.com t6/55F.L'f 433 (SC) \ "6. Sri Reddy is perhaps right in saying that theofficers were not actuated by any mala fides inpassing the impugned orders. They perhapsofficers were not actuated by any mala fides inpassing the impugned orders. They perhapsgenuinely felt that the claim of the assessee was nottenable and that, if it was accepted, the Revenuewould suffer. But what Sri Reddy overlooks is that weare not concerned here with the correctness orotherwise of their conclusion or of any factualmalafides but with the fact that the officers, in reachingtenable and that, if it was accepted, the Revenuewould suffer. But what Sri Reddy overlooks is that weare not concerned here with the correctness orotherwise of their conclusion or of any factualmalafides but with the fact that the officers, in reachingin their conclusion, by-passed two appellate orders inregard to the same issue which were placed beforethem, one of the Collector (Appeals) and the other ofthe Tribunal. The High Court has, in our view, rightlycriticized this conduct of the Assistant Collectors andthe harassment to the assessee caused by the failureof these officers to give effect to the orders ofthem, one of the Collector (Appeals) and the other ofthe Tribunal. The High Court has, in our view, rightlycriticized this conduct of the Assistant Collectors andthe harassment to the assessee caused by the failureof these officers to give effect to the orders ofauthorities higher to them in the appellate hlerarchy. ltcannot be too vehemently emphasized that it is ofutmost importance that, in disposing of theutmost importance that, in disposing of thequasijudicial issues before them, revenue officers arebound by the decisions of the appellate authorities.The order of the Appellte Collector is binding on theAssistant Collectors working within his jurisdiction andthe order of the Tribunal is binding upon the AssistantCollectors and the Appellate Collectors who functionunder the [jurisdiction ]of the Tribunal. The principles ofjudicial discipline require that the orders of the higherappellate authorities should be followed unreservedlybound by the decisions of the appellate authorities.The order of the Appellte Collector is binding on theAssistant Collectors working within his jurisdiction andthe order of the Tribunal is binding upon the AssistantCollectors and the Appellate Collectors who functionunder the [jurisdiction ]of the Tribunal. The principles ofjudicial discipline require that the orders of the higherappellate authorities should be followed unreservedlyby the subordinate authorities. The mere fact that theorder of the appellate authority is not 'acceptable' toorder of the appellate authority is not 'acceptable' tothe department - in itself an objectionable [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 healthybeen suspended by a competent court. lf this healthy rule is not followed, the result will only be undueharassment to assesses and chaos in administrationof tax laws. rule is not followed, the result will only be undueharassment to assesses and chaos in administrationof tax laws. 12 We have dealt with this aspect at some length,because it has been suggested by the learnedAdditional Solicitor General that the observationsmade by the High Court, have been harsh on theofficers. lt is clear that the observations of the HighCourt, seemingly vehement, and apparentlyunpalatable to the Revenue, are only intended to curba tendency in revenue matters which, if allowed tobecome widespread, could result in considerableharassment to the assesses-public without any benefitto the Revenue. We would like to say that thedepartment should take these observations in theproper spirit. The observations of the High Courtshould be kept in mind rn future and the utmost regardshould be paid by the adjudicating authorities and theappellate authorities to the requirements of [judicial]discipline and the need for giving effect to the ordersof the higher appellate authorities which are bindingon them." 15. What is worrying this Bench more is the lact that anendeavour 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,2020 and Finance Act, 2021. Now, in order to protectthe intcrest of the Revenue as also that of the assessee, it would betrite at this [juncture, ]if we dispose of the writ petition with anobservation/dilection 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 SI-Ps which were filed by the Income TaxDepanment and which is pending consideration before the Hon'bleSupreme Court. 16. In the given f-acts 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 HighCoun would further be burdened which otherwise can be decidedand disposed of as a covered matter. 17 . So fal as the interest of the Revenue is concemed, we are ofthe considered opinion that the interest of the Revenue has alreadybeen considered and protected, as has been observed in paragraphsbeen considered and protected, as has been observed in paragraphs 36,37 and 38 of the order which, for ready reference, is reproducedhereunder 35. For all the aforesaid reasons, the tmpugned noticesissued and the proceedtngs drawn by the respondent-Department is neither tenable, nor sustalnable.The notrces so issued and the procedure adopted beingper se illegal, deserves to be and are accordingly setaside/quashed. As a consequence, all the impugnedorders getting quashed, the consequential orders passedby the respondent-Department pursuant to the noticesissued under Section 147 and 148 would also getquashed and it is ordered accordingly. The reason weare quashing the consequential order is on the principlesthat when the initiation of the proceedings itself wasprocedurally wrong, the subsequent orders also getsnullified automatically. 37. The preliminary objection raised by the petitioner issustained and all these writ petitions stands allowed onthis very [jurisdictional ]issue. Since the rmpugned noticesand orders are getting quashed on the point ofjurisdiction, we are not inclined to proceed further anddecide the other issues raised by the petitioner whichstands reserved to be raised and contended rn 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, permlfted the Revenue to proceedunder the substituted provisions, and this Court allowingthe petitions only on the procedural flaw, the right .i \ 37. The preliminary objection raised by the petitioner issustained and all these writ petitions stands allowed onthis very [jurisdictional ]issue. Since the rmpugned noticesand orders are getting quashed on the point ofjurisdiction, we are not inclined to proceed further anddecide the other issues raised by the petitioner whichstands reserved to be raised and contended rn 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, permlfted the Revenue to proceedunder the substituted provisions, and this Court allowingthe petitions only on the procedural flaw, the right .i \ conferred on the Revenue [would ][remain ][reserved ][to]proceed further if they so want from the stage [of ][the]order of the Supreme Court in the case [of ][Ashish]Agarwal, supra. 18. We would only further like [to ][make ][observations that ][since]we are inclined to dispose of the instant wlit [petition, ][conscious ]ofthe fact that the earlier order of this High Court in [the ][case ]ofKanakah Rqvindra Reddy (l supra) is subjected to challengebefore the Hon'ble Supreme Courl 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 of thisHigh Court in the case of Kunakala 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 petition stands allowed infavour of the assessee so far as the issue of jurisdictionISconcerned. As a consequence, the irnpugned notice underchallenge under Sections 148-A and 148 stands set aside/quashed \ The consequential orders, if any, also stand set aside/quashed insimilar terms as have been passed by this High Court in the case of Kankanala Ravindro Reddy (l supra). There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shal stand closed. SD/. AHME.D ABDULLAH ASSISTANT //rRUE COPY// l\ ,'.. ]Iiseclot'toFFlcER__\, To1 . The lncome Tax [Off ][icer ][Ward ][4( ][1 ]), [Hyderabad ][t ][t ][tlwers, ] [Guards,]tr/asab Tank, Hyderabad, Hyderabad [500004, Telangana']2. The Principai [C'niet ][Commissioner of lncome ][Tax ][Telangana ]1lq &i'Hyderabail, lT Towers, AC [Guards, ][Masab ][Tank, Hyderabad ][500028,]Telangana.3. The Ciairman, Central Board [of ][Direct ][Taxes, Department of ][Revenue,]IVinistry of Finance, Government [of ][lndia, Secretariat Buildings, ][New ][Delhi ][-]110001.4. The National Faceless Assessment [Center, lncome ][Tax ][Department, New]Delhi.5. The Secretary to the Government, [Union ][of ][lndia, Department of ][Revenue,]Ivlinistry of Finance, New Delhi [- ][1 ][10 ][001 ][.]6. one cb to sRt THANNERU [KUIVAR, ][Advocate ][oPUC]7. One CC to Ms. BOKARO SAPNA [REDDY (Jr. ] TAX) Advocate 8. ONE,CC tO SRI bADI [dRRVCEU KUMAR, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL]OF lNDlA, Advocate [(OPUC)]9. Two CD CopiesSAGGJ t HIGH COURT DATED:01 [10512025] ORDER WP.No.32028 [of ][2024] ALLOWING [THE W.P] WITHOUT [COSTS.] -iliE s T4lo[8.]co()11 JUL zffiJ.I{-Lr,^4..Cr{