Wp/32146/2024 Of Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Limited Tekmal v. The Income Tax Officer

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF MAYTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE [P.SAM KOSHY]ANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING WRIT PETITION NO: 32146 OF [2024] Between: PRIIVARY AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVE TEKIVAL, Rep. by the Secretary [VENUGOPAL, ][S/o. ] LINGAI\4AIAH, Ageil about 56 [years, Occupation. Business, R/o. TEK[/AL,]MEDAK 502302,"Telangana, [lndia. ][PAN. ][ , ][Assessment ][Year.]2019-20 ...PETITIONER AND 1The lncome Tax Officer, Ward 1, Sangareddy [lncome Tax ][Office,]Veerabhadra Nagar, New Bus Stand, [Veefabhadra ][Nagar, ][Sangareddy]502001 , Telangana.Veerabhadra Nagar, New Bus Stand, [Veefabhadra ][Nagar, ][Sangareddy]502001 , Telangana. 2The Principal Chief Commissioner [of lncome Tax, AC Guards, ][IVasab Tank,]HyderabadHyderabad 3. The Central Board of Direct [Taxes, Government ][of ][lndia, ][Secretariat]Buildings, New DelhiBuildings, New Delhi 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]Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, [New ][Delhi] ...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 [Faceless ][E-Assessment ][Centre completed ][the ][assessment]U/S 147 r.w.s 144 [Date ][of ][06-03-2024, ] 2411062130769(1) [for ][the Assessment Year ][2O19-2O ][determining ][the ][total ][income]of Rs. 4,52,35,3031 [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(1Xg) [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 lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under section [151 ][CPC praying that ][in ][the circumstances stated ][in]the affidavit filed [in ][support ][of ][the ][petition, ][the High ][Court may ][be ][pleased ][to]suspend the order Under [section ][147 ][r.w.s ][144 ][Date ][of ][06-03-2024, ] ITBA/AST/S/147nAn-2411062130769(1) [for ][the ][Assessment ][Year ][2019-20]determining the total [income ][of ][Rs. ][4,52,35,3031 ][and ][Demand notice ][u/s ][156 ][of]the tncome Tax act [1961, ][vide DIN ][and ][Notice ][No. ITBA/AST/S/15612023-2411062]130 871(1) Dt. 06-03-2024 [for ][the ][assessment ][year ][2019-20 pending disposal ][of]the above Writ Petition Counsel for the Petitioner: [SRl. THANNERU CHAITANYA KUMAR] Counset for the Respondent [Nos.1 ][to 4: ] [SUNITHA (JUNIOR SC FOR ] rAx) Counsel forthe Respondent [NO.5: ] SOLICITOR GENERAL The Court made the [following: ] .Y 1 THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE NARSING RAONANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION No.32146 of 2024 ORDER: (per Hon'ble Sri,Iustice P.Sam Koshy) Heard Mr. T.Chaitanya Kumar, learned counsel for thepetitioner and Ms.J.Sunitha, learned Junior Standing Counsel forthe Income Tax Departrnent for the respondents. Perused therecord. 2. This is a writ petition where the proceedings are eitherchallenged to the notices which were issued under Section 148Aand 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') or theassessment orders those have been passed under Section 147 ofthe Act which have been assailed. Counsel forthe Respondent [NO.5: ] SOLICITOR GENERAL The Court made the [following: ] .Y 1 THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE NARSING RAONANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION No.32146 of 2024 ORDER: (per Hon'ble Sri,Iustice P.Sam Koshy) Heard Mr. T.Chaitanya Kumar, learned counsel for thepetitioner and Ms.J.Sunitha, learned Junior Standing Counsel forthe Income Tax Departrnent for the respondents. Perused therecord. 2. This is a writ petition where the proceedings are eitherchallenged to the notices which were issued under Section 148Aand 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') or theassessment orders those have been passed under Section 147 ofthe Act which have been assailed. 3. This writ petition is being taken up today only on one of thegrounds, that the notices issued under Section 1484 of the Actand the subsequent initiation of 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.L, 01.04.2021 onwards, proceedings under Section [148,{ of ][the ][Act ][as ][also under Section ][148 ][of ][the]Act ought [to ][have ][also ][been ][issued and ][proceeded ][in ][a ][faceless]manner. The contention contention of [[the ][petitioner ][is ][that ][the ][issue of]][[petitioner ][is ][that ][the ][issue of]][[is ][that ][the ][issue of]][[that ][the ][issue of]][[the ][issue of]][[issue of]] 4. The contention contention of [[the ][petitioner ][is ][that ][the ][issue of]][[petitioner ][is ][that ][the ][issue of]][[is ][that ][the ][issue of]][[that ][the ][issue of]][[the ][issue of]][[issue of]]proceedings being [in ][violation ][of ][the Finance ][Act,2O2l ][ie, ][the]impugned [notices under Section 148A ][and ][Section ][148 ][of ][the ][Act]issued [in ][a ][faceless ][manner, ][have ][already ][been ][dealt ][with]not being and decided by [this ][Court ][in ][the ][casc ][ol ] RAVINDRA REDDY [vs. INCOME-TAX ] [decided]on 14.09.2023 [whereby ][a ][batch ][ol'writ ][petitions were allowed ][and]the proceedings [initiated ][under ][Section ][148A ][as ][also ][under ][Section]148 olthe Act [were ][held ][to ][be ][bad ][with ][consequential ][reliefs ][on ][the]ground of it being [in ][violation of ][the ][provisions ][of ][Section ][l51A ][of]the Act read [with ][Notification ][l8l2o22 ][dated ][29 ][03'2022 ][The ][said]judgment passed by this Court [has ][also been ][subsequently ][followed]in a large number [of ][writ ][petitions ][which ][were ][allowed ][on similar]telms '[(2023) [156 ][taxmann.com ][178 ][(Telangana)]] 1 5. Down the line, we find that the same issue has also beendecided against the Revenue byvarlous High Courts i.e.,by the Bombay High Court in the case of HEXAWARETECHNOLOGIES LTD., vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX & OTHERS2, Gauhati High Court in the caseof RAM NARAYAN SAII vs. UNION OF INDIA3, Punjab andHaryana High Courl in the case of JATINDER SINGH BANGUvs. UNION OF INDIA4, and Telangana I{igh Court in the case ofSRI VENKATARAMANA REDDY PATLOOLA vs. DEPUTYCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX5 where the issue was inrespect of intemational taxation, Bombay High Court in the case ofABHIN ANILKUMAR SHAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,INTERNATIONAL TAXATION6 rvhich is again on intemationaltaxation and central circle, High Court of Himachal Pradesh in thecase of GOVIND SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERT,Gujarat High Court in the case of MANSUKHBHAI '7zoz+1464 [rrR ][430 ][(Bom)]'[(2024) [156 ][taxmann.com ]478 [(Gauhati)]]^ [(2024) [165 ][taxmann.com ] [l5 ][(Punjab ]& Haryana)]'12024) [167 ][taxmann.com ][41i ][(Telangana)l]"[2024) [166 ][taxmann.com ][679 ][(Bombay)]] '12024) [165 ][taxmann.com ] [13 ][(Himachal ][Pradesh)l] '7zoz+1464 [rrR ][430 ][(Bom)]'[(2024) [156 ][taxmann.com ]478 [(Gauhati)]]^ [(2024) [165 ][taxmann.com ] [l5 ][(Punjab ]& Haryana)]'12024) [167 ][taxmann.com ][41i ][(Telangana)l]"[2024) [166 ][taxmann.com ][679 ][(Bombay)]] '12024) [165 ][taxmann.com ] [13 ][(Himachal ][Pradesh)l] DAHYABHAI RADADIYA [VS. ]INCOME TAX [OFFICER,]WARD 3(3X5)8, Jharkand [High Court ][in ][the ][case ][ol ] SUNDAR SAW vs. UNION OF INDIAe, [Rajasthan ][High ][Court ][in]the case of SHARDA DEVI CHHAJBR vs. INCOMB TAXOFFICER & ANOTHER and batch of writ [petitionsro ][which]stood decided on 19.03.2024. Similar views have [also ][been ][taken]by the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in [tl.re ][case ]ofGIRDHAR GOPAL DALMIA vs. UNION INDIA [& ] (M.A.T 1690 of 2023), decided on25.09.2024.6. Even though the same issue having been deoided by a largenumber of High Courts, we are sti1l confronted with 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 thc Bombay High Court in the case of He:cawareTechnologies Ltd., (2 supra) as also the one which has beendecided by this Court in the case of Kmakala Ravindra Reddlt 8z0zq SCC online Guj 4012'2025 Online [Jhar287]'o 12023, [:4984-DBl]'2025 Online [Jhar287]'o 12023, [:4984-DBl] ;1 (1 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 Courl 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.Petition i.e., SLP No.3574 of 2024 before the Hon'ble SupremeCourt and the Hon'ble Supreme Courl 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 fact that there is no interimorder granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in any of thesematters pending before it. Meanwhile, fiesh 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 High Court itself. 8. On the one hand, even though the order of this Cout thatwas passed as early as on 14.09.2023 and more I 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 of notice under Section 148A and underSection 148 of the Act by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer,rather the authorities concemed in the teeth of series of decisions 8. On the one hand, even though the order of this Cout thatwas passed as early as on 14.09.2023 and more I 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 of notice under Section 148A and underSection 148 of the Act by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer,rather the authorities concemed in the teeth of series of decisions by atl the major High Courts in India are continuously stillinitiating proceedings under Section 148.4 of the Act and alsoinitiating proceedings under Section 148 of the Act incontravention to the amendments brought into the lncome Tax Actpursuant to the Finance Act,2020 as also the Finance Act 20219. Upon a query being put as to why can't this writ perition bedisposed of in the teeth of the decision rendered by this Court intlre case of Kanakalo Rsvindra Reddy (l supra), learr-rcd StandingCounsel for the Income Tax Department contends that those wouldunnecessarily burden the Income Tax Department where theywould be required to file equal number of SLPs belore theHon'ble Suprerne Couft and it would be furlher burdening tl.reexchequer of the Union of India. It was also the contention of thelearned Standing Counsel that no prejudice would be caused to theinterest of the petitioners in case if this writ petition is kept pendingtill the finalization of the SLPs pending before the Ilon'bleSupreme Court and the fact that the petitioner is already enjoyingthe benefit of interim protection. Nonetheless, on the earlier queryof this Courl as to why the Income Tax Department have not comeout with a mechanism to issue appropriate instructions orJo take ; ') appropriate steps in ensuring that proceedings under Section 148Aof the Act as also the assessment orders under Section 148 of theAct are kept in a hold in the light of the decisions dedcided by thevarious High Courts, it was submitted by the leamed StandingCounsel that the said steps can only be taken at the level of CBDTas 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 ollitigation day in and day out even though various orders have beenpassed by this High Court allowing writ petitions on the very sameISSUC The Income Tax authorities conceryred are still even now ln2025 also initiating proceedings in contravention to the provisionsof Section 1 5 1A of the Act and as a result by now, more than 600to 700 petitions have been already got piled up before this HighCouft on an issue which otherwise stands squarely covered by thejudgment of this Court in the case of Kanakala 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 right ofthe Revenue, 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 Act, 2020 andthe Finance Ac:,2021 . The petitioner assessee would be entitled tochallenge or raise the other legal objections if the Revenue initiatesfresh proceedings. The Depar.tment has made no endeavour inavailing the said tiberty that was reserved for the Rcvenue. On thccontrary, they have been still sticking on to the stand, whicl.r tl.risHigh Court as weli as many other High Courts already held to bcbad. 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 Act, 2020 andthe Finance Ac:,2021 . The petitioner assessee would be entitled tochallenge or raise the other legal objections if the Revenue initiatesfresh proceedings. The Depar.tment has made no endeavour inavailing the said tiberty that was reserved for the Rcvenue. On thccontrary, they have been still sticking on to the stand, whicl.r tl.risHigh Court as weli as many other High Courts already held to bcbad. 1 1. It appears that because of the aforlsaid liber:ty that this HigtrCourl had granted permitting the Revenue for initiating freshproceedings as a one-time measure in a faceless manner, theIncome ['fax ]Department 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 tirneand finally at a later stage if the Hon,ble Supreme Court confirmsthe decision taken by this High Couft 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 freshprotected 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 lar as interestol the assesses are concemed. As a consequence, the Income Taxwhich would be advantageous and beneficial to the Revenue andwould be equally disadvantageous and detrimental so lar as interestol the assesses are concemed. As a consequence, the Income TaxDepartment gets an extended period of time for initiation of freshproceedingsproceedings 12. The alarming trend of docket explosion in this Court, despitethe clear precedent set in Kanakala Ravindru Reddy (1 supra), is amatter of grave concern. The Income Tax Deparlment'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. lhisdeliberate approach not only undermines the principle of judicialprecedent but also strains the judicial resources unnecessarily. TheDepartment's strategy of awaiting the Supreme Court's decision onpending SLPs white 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 ][the]administrative efficiency and [the ][respect ][fbr ][judicial]pronouncements, [particularly ][when this ][Courl ][has ][already ][provided]a balanced approach [by ][preser-ving ][both ][the ][Revenue's ][rights ][and]assesses interests. position. Such conduct raises [serious questions ][about ][the]administrative efficiency and [the ][respect ][fbr ][judicial]pronouncements, [particularly ][when this ][Courl ][has ][already ][provided]a balanced approach [by ][preser-ving ][both ][the ][Revenue's ][rights ][and]assesses interests. 13. Another aspect [which ][needs ][to be considered ][is ][that ][in ][fact ][it]should have been reaiized [by ][the ][Income ][Tax Depafttnent itself ][and]should have found [out ][via ][media ][in ][ensuring ][that ][proceedings]under Sections 148-4 and [148 should ][not ][have been ][issued ][in ][a]faceless manner, at least [titl ][the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Court ][decide the]twelve hundred [( ]1200) odd [SLPs ][which ][il ][is ][already seized ][of ][or, at]least the Income Tax Depaltment [should ][l-rave ][found ][out ][some]remedial steps to ensure [that ][whet'ever ][the ][authorities intend ][to]initiate proceedings under Sections [148-A ][and ][148, ][other ][than ][in ][a]faceless mannel', the [proceedings ][should have ][been ][deferred]without precipitating the [matter further ][intimating ][the ][assessee ][that]they shall 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 Deparlment. [has ][not ][been ][able to ][give ][a]convincing 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 Dethi High Court dismissed a writ petition of similar [nature, ][on]the one hand when the High Court 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 HighCourt resulting in filing of hundreds of new writ [petitions ][which ][in]the 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 daity basis. Admittedly, in spite of thematter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court having been taken [on]many occasions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court which is seized [of ]thematter has been reluctant in granting any interim protection to theIncome Tax Deparlment. Yet, the authorities concemed at theState level are not ready to accept the [verdict ][passed ]by [a ][majority]of High Cou(s of different States on the same issue; and [to ][make]things further worse, the Income Tax DepartmentIS showingaudacity by issuing notices continuously under Sections 148-4 and 148 through the jurisdictional Assessing Officer whereas it oughtto have been only in the faceless manner. 14. In thc case of BANK OF INDIA vs. ASSISTANTCOMMISSIONER, INCOME TAXrr, on an.issue whether it wasjustifiable on the part of the Income Tax Deparlment in notfollowing an order passed by the adjudicating authority only on theground that the appeals are pending, the Division Bench of theHigh Court of Bombay held at paragraph No.25 as under, viz., : "25. I\/r. 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. lTOr3of 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 ttllthe 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, theICourt observed thai the approach of the officials of Revenue oftreating decisions being,,not acceptable,, was criticized by theSupreme Court. ln such decision, following are the relevantobservations made by the Supreme Court. ',t.,lQO2sl [1 ][70 raxmann.corn ]422 rBombay)l '' I [t978] ]I t3 ITR 589 lBornbay)lBornbay) '.'.1202+1165 [raxrnann.com ]581/300 Taxman 452 @ombay) 'a ltggzltaxmann.com 16/55 ELT433 (SC) 1 :i......1,, :t "6. Sri Reddy is perhaps right in saying that theofficers were not actuated by any mala fides inpassing the impugned orders. They perhapsgenuinely felt that the claim of the assessee was notgenuinely 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 reachingare 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, righflythem, one of the Collector (Appeals) and the other ofthe Tribunal. The High Court has, in our view, righflycritrcized 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 jn the appellate hrerarchy. Itcannot be too cannot be too vehemenfly emphasized that it is ofutmost importance that, in disposing of thequasijudicial issues before them, revenue officers areutmost importance that, in disposing of thequasijudicial issues before them, revenue officers arebound by the decisions of the appellate authorities.The order of the Appellte Collector is binding on theAssistant 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 unreservedlythe 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 hasand 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 ][undue]harassment to assesses [and ][chaos ][in ][administration]of tax laws. rule is not followed, [the ][result ][will ][only ][be ][undue]harassment to assesses [and ][chaos ][in ][administration]of tax laws. 12. \Ne have dealt [with this ][aspect ][at ][some. length,]because it has [been ][suggested ][by the ][learned]Additional Solicitor [General ][that ][the ][observations]made by the High [Court, have been harsh ][on ][the]officers. lt is clear [that ][the ][observattons ][of ][the ][High]Court, seemingly [vehement, ][and ][apparently]unpalatable to the [Revenue, are ][only ][intended ][to ][curb]a tendency in revenue [matters ][which. ][if ][allowed ][to]become widespread, [could result ][in ][considerable]harassment to the [assesses-public without ][any ][benefit]to the Revenue. [We ][would ][like ][to ][say that ][the]department should [take ][these ][observations ][in ][the]proper spirit. The observations [of ][the ][High ][Court]should be kept [in ][mind in future and the utmost ][regard]should be [paid ][by ][the ][ad.iudicating ][authorities and the]authorities [to ][the ][requirements ][of ][judicial]appellate discipline and the [need ][for ][giving ][effect ][to the ][orders]of the higher appellate [authorities which ][are ][binding]on them." 15. What is woffying [this ][Bench ][more ][is ][the ][fact ][that ][an]endeavour is being [made ][whole heartedly ][to ensure ][not ][to ][generate]further litigation [on ][issues ][which ][have ][been ][laid to ][rest ][by ][a ][large]number of High [Courts ][all ][of ][whom ][have ][taken a ][consistent ][stand]that the action of the [Income ][Tax ][Department being ][violative ][of ][the] ('t- Finance Acr,2020 and Finance Act, 2021 . Now, in order to protectthe interest of the Revenue as also that of the assessee, it would betrite at this juncture, if we dispose of the writ petition with anobservation/direction that the disposal of the instant writ petition interms of the [judgment ]rendered by this High Court in the case ofKankanala Ravindrs 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 Courl 16. In the given facts and circumstances, this Bench is of theconsidered opinion that unless and until we do not timely disposeof mattem which are squarely covered by the decision of this Courland which stands fortified by the decisions of the various otherHigh Courts on the very same issue, the pendency of this HighCourl would further be burdened which otherwise can be decidedand disposed of as a covered matter. 17. So far as the interest of the Revenue is concemed, we are ofthe considered opinion that the interest of the Revenue has alreadybeen considered and protected, as has been observed in paragraphs !IIIIaIIII 36,37 and 38 of the order [which, for ][ready reference, ][is ][reproduced]hereunder: 36. For all the aforesaid [reasons, ][the ][impugned notices]issued and the proceedings drawn by the [respondent-]Department is neither tenable, nor [sustainabte.]The notices so issued and the [procedure ]adopted [being]per se illegal, deserves to be and are accordingly setaside/quashed. As a consequence, all the [impugned]orders [getting quashed, ]the [consequential orders passed]by the respondent-Department [pursuant ][to the ][notices]issued under Section 147 and [148 ]would also [get]quashed and it is ordered accordingly. The reason weare quashing the consequential order [is on ]the [principles]that when the initiation of the [proceedings ][itself ][was]procedurally wrong, the subsequent orders also [gets]nullified automatically. 37. The [preliminary ]objection raised [by ]the [petitioner ][is]sustained and all these writ [petitions ]stands [allowed on]this very [jurisdictional ]issue. Since the [impugned notices]and orders are [getting ][quashed ]on the [point ][of]jurisdrction, we are not inclined to proceed further anddecide the other issues raised by the [petitioner ][which]stands reserved to be raised and [contended ][in ][an]appropriate [proceedings.] 37. The [preliminary ]objection raised [by ]the [petitioner ][is]sustained and all these writ [petitions ]stands [allowed on]this very [jurisdictional ]issue. Since the [impugned notices]and orders are [getting ][quashed ]on the [point ][of]jurisdrction, we are not inclined to proceed further anddecide the other issues raised by the [petitioner ][which]stands reserved to be raised and [contended ][in ][an]appropriate [proceedings.] 38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme [Court had, in ][the ][case]of Ashish Agarwal, supra, as a [onetime ][measure]exercising the. [powers ][under ][Article ][142 ][of ][the]Constitution of lndia, [permitted ][the ][Revenue ][to ][proceed]under the substituted [provisions, and ][this Court ][allowing]the petitions only on the [procedural ][flaw, ][the ][right]/./ \ \ conferred on the Revenue would remain [reserved ][to]proceed further if they so want from the stage of theorder of the Supreme Court in the case of AshishAgawal, supra. 18. We would only fufther like to make [observations ][that ][since]we are inclined to dispose of the instant writ [petition, ][conscious ][of]the fact that the earlier order of [this ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]Kanakalu Ravindra Reddy (l [supra) ][is ][subjected ][to ][challenge]before the Hon'ble Supreme Courl in [No.3574 ][of ][2024,]preferred by the Income Tax Department, [we make ][it ][clear ][that]allowing of the instant writ [petition ][is ][subject ][to ][outcome ][of ][the]aforesaid SLP prefened by the Revenue against [the decision ][of ][this]High Court in the case of Kan&kula [Ravindra ][Reddy ][(l ][supra)]This, in other words, would mean that either of [the ][parties, ][if ][they]so want, may move an appropriate petition seeking [revival ][of ][this]writ petition in the light of the decision of [the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme]Court in the pending SLP on [the ][very ][same ][issue] 19. Accordingly, the instant writ [petition ][stands ][allowed ][in]favour of the assessee so far as the [issue ][of ][jurisdiction]1Sconcemed. As . a consequence, the [impugned ][notice ][under]challenge under Sections 148-A and [148 stands set ][aside/quashed.] tI The consequential orders, if any, also stand set aside/quashed insimilar terms as have been passed by this High Court in the case of Ktnkanala Ravindra Reddy (l supra). There shall be no order asto costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending. if any, shallstand closed SDi- B. REKHA RANIASSISTANT secffiftorrrcen //TRUE COPY// To, 1The v;;#h;a;" lncome Tax Nisri,N"* [Officer, ][Ward ][Bus ][siand,Veera6hadra ][1, ][Sangareddy lncome ][Nagar, ][Tax ][Office'][sangareddv]5O20O1 , Telangana.5O20O1 , Telangana. 2The Principal Chief [Commissioner of lncome ][Tax, ] [Guards, ][Masab ][Tank']HyderabadHyderabad JThe Central Board [of ][Direct ][Taxes' ][Government of lndia, Secretariat]Buildings, New [Delhi]Buildings, New [Delhi] 4TheNationalFacelessAssessmentCenter,lncomeTaxDepartment'NewDelhi.Delhi. The Secretary to [the Government, Department of Revenue, ][tVinistry ][of]Finance, New [Delhi]Finance, New [Delhi] 5 One CC to SRI [Advocate ][ ] 6 7One CC to [tVls. ] [SUNITHA (JUNIOR ] [INCOME TAX) Advocate]loPUClloPUCl 8onecctosriGadiPraveenKumar,DeputySolicitorGeneraloflndia[oPUC] Two CD CoPies KKSooGJP GJP HIGH COURT DATED:01 10512025 ORDER WP.No.32146 ol 2024 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITIONWITHOUT COSTS \\o oRI. -\--.\\)ii10 sEP 20a^/oi',,,- ll'q { ,,-' _---:?'