Wp/32190/2024 Of Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Limited Madur v. The Income Tax Officer Ward 1

HIGH COURT FOR THE AT HYDERABAD(SPecial Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FIRST TWO THOUSAND AND PRESENT THE HONOURABLE [JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY]AND THE HONOURABLE [JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA]WRIT PETITION N[O: ][32190 ] [2024] Between: PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL [COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY ] [MADUR,]nLJ. uv'in" s"ii"iiry [KRISHNA' ][Sic) ][VENKATESHAY.'.{qg!];ffi.'si- t;;*; ['occupition. ][Business, ][R/o ] [IVIADUR' ] sirnrlrXnnnrriFEi, [rvreOA'( ][SOZZas, ][Telangana, ][lndia ][PAN. ][ ,]Assessment Year. 2018-19. .....PETITIONER AND l.ThelncomeTaxOfficerWardl,siddipetlncomeTaxOffice'8-1-22'151Floor, Subhash Road, [Siddipet 502103' Telangana']Floor, Subhash Road, [Siddipet 502103' Telangana'] 2. The Principal Chief [Commissioner ][of ][lncome ][Tax ][-, ][Teiangana ]9!9^4I'- ifi;r;6;4, rr r.*"o, AC Guards, ttlasab Tank' Hvderabad - 500028'Telangana.- ifi;r;6;4, rr r.*"o, AC Guards, ttlasab Tank' Hvderabad - 500028'Telangana. 3. The CentralBoard [of ][Direct Taxes, ][Represented ][by ][rts ][Chairman' ][Department]of RevenG, Ministry [of Finance, Government ][of lndia, secretartat ][Bullolngs,]NewDelhi.of RevenG, Ministry [of Finance, Government ][of lndia, secretartat ][Bullolngs,]NewDelhi. 4. The National Faceless [Assessment ][center, ][lncome ][TaK ][Department, ][New]Delhi.Delhi. 5. The Union of lrdia, Represented [by its ][Secretary ][to the ][Government']Department of Revenub, [Ministry ][of ][Finance, ][New ][Delhi ][- i ][10 001 ][']Department of Revenub, [Ministry ][of ][Finance, ][New ][Delhi ][- i ][10 001 ]['] .....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 Mandamus, [declaring ][the ][order ][passed ][by the ][income ][tax] authorities Nationar Faceress E-Assessment centre completed the assessmentU/S 147 r.w.s 144 read with section 1448 Date of 06/03/2024,D|NITBA/AST/S/147r2023-24t1062078656(1) for the Assessment year 2018-19U/S 147 r.w.s 144 read with section 1448 Date of 06/03/2024,D|NITBA/AST/S/147r2023-24t1062078656(1) for the Assessment year 2018-19determining the totat income of Rs. 50,26,931/_ as arbitrary, illegal, bad in law,without jurisdiction. void-ab-initio, viorative of t'ire principres of naturar justice apartfrom being viorative of Articres 1a, 19(1xg) and 265 of the constitution of rndiaarbitrary, illegal, bad in law,without jurisdiction. void-ab-initio, viorative of t'ire principres of naturar justice apartfrom being viorative of Articres 1a, 19(1xg) and 265 of the constitution of rndiaand Sec_ 14BA of the lncome Tax Act, 1g61, and consequen,y set aside thesame in the interests of justice.same in the interests of justice. |.A.NO:1 OF 2024 Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated inthe affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be preased tosuspend the order under section 147 r.w.s 144 read with section .1448 Date ofOGlO3l2O24, Dt N tTBA/AST t S I 1 47 t2O23_Z4t 10620T 8656(1 ) for the AssessmenrYear 2019-1g determining the totar income of Rs. 50,26,g 31t- and Demand noticeu/s 156 of the tncome Tax act 1961 , vide DIN and Notice No. ITBA/ASTrsr15612023-2411062078905(1) Dt. 06/03/2024 for the assessment year 2018-19pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the petitioner : SRI THANNERU CHAITANYA KUMAR Counsel for rNcoME TAX)the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : Ms. J.SUNITHA (JUNIOR SC FORrNcoME TAX)the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : Ms. J.SUNITHA (JUNIOR SC FOR 9gy59]l-* [the ][Responcient No.3 : ][SRt ][GAD| ]PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEpUTySOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 to 5 : SRt P.SHASHIDHAR REDDY Counsel for the petitioner : SRI THANNERU CHAITANYA KUMAR Counsel for rNcoME TAX)the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : Ms. J.SUNITHA (JUNIOR SC FORrNcoME TAX)the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : Ms. J.SUNITHA (JUNIOR SC FOR 9gy59]l-* [the ][Responcient No.3 : ][SRt ][GAD| ]PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEpUTySOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 to 5 : SRt P.SHASHIDHAR REDDY The Court made the following ORDER THE TIONOURABLE [P.SAM ] ANDTHE HONOURABLE NANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION[No.32 l9O ][of ][2024] ORDER: [(per ][Hon'ble ][Sri ][Justice P'Sam Koshy)] Heard Mr. [T.Chaitanya ][Kumar' ][leamed counsel ][for ][the]and [Ms.J.Sunitha, ][leamed ][Junior Standing ][Counse[ ][for]petitioner the lncome [Tax ][Department ][for ][the ][respondents' ][Perused ][the]record This is a writ is a writ [[petition ]][[where ][the ][proceedings ]][[the ][proceedings ]][[proceedings ]][[are ][either]][[either]] 2. This is a writ is a writ [[petition ]][[where ][the ][proceedings ]][[the ][proceedings ]][[proceedings ]][[are ][either]][[either]]challenged [to ][the notices ][which ][were ][issued ][utrder ][Section ][148A]and l48 [of ][the ][Income ][Tax ][Act, ][lg6l ][(for ][short ]['the ][Act') ][o| ][the]assessment [orders ][those ][have ][been ][passed ][under ][Section ][147 ][of]the Act [which ][have been assailed'] This writ writ [[petition ]][[is ][being taken ]][[being taken ]][[up ][today ]][[today ]][[only ][on ][one ][ol ][the]][[on ][one ][ol ][the]][[one ][ol ][the]][[ol ][the]][[the]] i. This writ writ [[petition ]][[is ][being taken ]][[being taken ]][[up ][today ]][[today ]][[only ][on ][one ][ol ][the]][[on ][one ][ol ][the]][[one ][ol ][the]][[ol ][the]][[the]]grounds, that [the ][notices ][issued ][under ][Section ][1484 ][of ][the ][Act]and the subsequent [initiation ][ofproceedings ][under ][Section ][[48 ][of]the Act by [the ][jurisdictional ][Assessing ][Officer' ][rvhereas ][in ][tenns]ol tlre amendment [that ][was ][brought ][to ][the ][Incorne ][Tax ][Act ][by ][r,vay]of Finance [Act, ][2021 ][w'e'f', ][01'04'2021 onwards' ][proceedings] under Section l4gA of the Act as also under Section l4g oi theAct ought to have also been issued and proceeded in a facelessmanner.4. The contention of the petitioner is that the issue contention of the petitioner is that the issue of the petitioner is that the issue the petitioner is that the issue petitioner is that the issue is that the issue that the issue the issue issue ofproceedings being in vioration of the Financ e Act, 202r i.e., theimpugned notices under Section r4gA and Secticn t4g of the Actnot being issued in a faceless anner, have aheady been dealt withand decided by rhis Court in the case of KAI.IKANALARAVINDRA REDDY vs. INCOI,,IE_TAX OFFICERT decidedon l4-09.2023 whereby a batch of writ petitions were allowed andthe proceedi'gs initiated under Section r4gA as arso under Section148 of the Acr rvere held to be bad with consequential reliefs on thcground ol- it being in vioration of the provisions of Section l5lA ot.the Act read u,ith Notification lg/2022 dated,29.03.2022. The saidjudgrnent passed by this court has also been subsequently follorr,.edin a large nurntrer ol writ petitions which were allowed on similar.tenns. The contention of the petitioner is that the issue contention of the petitioner is that the issue of the petitioner is that the issue the petitioner is that the issue petitioner is that the issue is that the issue that the issue the issue issue of ' [(2023 ) I 56 raxnrann.corn I 7g (Telangana)] Down the [[line, we ][find ][that ][the ][same ][issue has also ][been]][[find ][that ][the ][same ][issue has also ][been]][[that ][the ][same ][issue has also ][been]][[the ][same ][issue has also ][been]][[same ][issue has also ][been]][[issue has also ][been]][[been]] The contention of the petitioner is that the issue contention of the petitioner is that the issue of the petitioner is that the issue the petitioner is that the issue petitioner is that the issue is that the issue that the issue the issue issue of ' [(2023 ) I 56 raxnrann.corn I 7g (Telangana)] Down the [[line, we ][find ][that ][the ][same ][issue has also ][been]][[find ][that ][the ][same ][issue has also ][been]][[that ][the ][same ][issue has also ][been]][[the ][same ][issue has also ][been]][[same ][issue has also ][been]][[issue has also ][been]][[been]] 5. Down the [[line, we ][find ][that ][the ][same ][issue has also ][been]][[find ][that ][the ][same ][issue has also ][been]][[that ][the ][same ][issue has also ][been]][[the ][same ][issue has also ][been]][[same ][issue has also ][been]][[issue has also ][been]][[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 [TAx & ][OTIIERS2, ][Gauhati ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case]ol RAM NARAYAN [vs' ] [INDIAs' ][Punjab ][and]f'laryana [High ][Court in ][the ][qase ][of ] vs. UNION [OF INDIA4, ][and ][Telangana ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]SRI VENKATARAMANA [VS. ] COMMISSIONER [where ][the ][issue ][was ][in]of [intemational ][taxation, ][Bombay ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]respect ANTLKUMAR [vs' ] [OFFICER'];\BHIN INTERNATIONAL [TAXATIOIf ][which ][is ][again ][on ][intemational]taxatiotl [and central ][circte, ][High ][Court ][of Himachal ][Pradesh ][in ][the]case of GOVIND [vs' ] [OFFICERT']Gujarat High [Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ] ' 1z0u+1 [464 ] [430 ][(Bom)]'l(2024) [[ ][56 ][taxmann.com 478 ][(Gauhati)]]" t(2024) 165 taxmann.com [115 ][(Punjab ][& ][Haryana)l]taxmann.com [411 (Telangana)]]'l(2024) [[ ][56 ][taxmann.com 478 ][(Gauhati)]]" t(2024) 165 taxmann.com [115 ][(Punjab ][& ][Haryana)l]taxmann.com [411 (Telangana)]]'[2024) [67 '12024) 166 taxmann.com [679 ][(Bombay)l-] ' 1ZO:+') [taxnrann.com ][113 ][(tlimachal ][Pradesh)l] DAHYABHAI RADADTYA vs. INCOME TAx OFFICER,WARD 3(3)(18, 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 whichstood decided on 19.03.2024. Similar views have also been takenby the Division Bench of Calcutta f{igh Court in the case ofGIRDHAR GOPAL DALMIA vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS(M.A.T 1690 of 2023), decided on 25.09.2024.6. Even thougl.r the sarne issue having been decided by a largenumber of High Coufls, rve are still confronted with large filing ofidentical matters on daily basis ranging between 5 to I 0 writpetrtions. That rrpon the instructions being sought from theDepartment,thcy have been taking a solitary ground that thedecision of thc Bonrbay tligh court in the case of HexawareTechnologies Lt(t., (2 supra) as atso the one which has beendecided by this Court in rtre case of Kanakalo Ravindra Recldy 82024 SCC C)nLine Gu.i .10 t 2'2025 SCC OnI.ine .thar 2g7I o 72023, RI-J D :4984 - DI) l 82024 SCC C)nLine Gu.i .10 t 2'2025 SCC OnI.ine .thar 2g7I o 72023, RI-J D :4984 - DI) l (L supra) [has ][been subjected ][to ][challenge ][in ][a ][Special ][Leave]Petition [i.e., ] [No'3574 ][of ][2024 ][before ][the Hon'ble ][Supreme]Court [and the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Court ][is ][seized ][of ][the ][matter']In addition, [there are ][about ][1200 ][SLPs ][also ][filed ][arising out ][ofthe]same [issue ][being ][decided ][by various ][High Courts']1. To a [query being put ][to ][the leamed counsel ][for ][the ][Revenue']they [have categorically ][accepted ][the fact that there ][is ][no ][interim]order [granted ][by ][the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Court ][in ][any ][of ][these]matters [pending before ][it' ][Meanwhile' fresh ][writ ][petitions ][of]identicat [nature ][are ][being ][pited up before ][this Bench ][on ][daity ][basis]and the [pendency ][is ][getting ][increased ][on matter ][which ][otherwise]lias alrcady [been ][dealt ][and decided ][by this ][very ][High ][Court ][itsett"]8. On the [one hand' ][even ][though ][the order ][of ][this ][Court ][that]u,as passed [as ][early ][as ][on ][14'09'2023 and ][more ][16 months ][have]lapsed, [tilt ][clate, ][we do not ][find ][any remedial ][steps ][having ][been]taken [by ][the ][lncome ][Tax ][Department ][to ][take appropriate ][steps to]either [hotd ][back ][issuance ][of ][notice ][under ][Section 148A ][and ][under]Section [148 ][ol ][the ][Act ][by ][the jurisdictional ][Assessing ][Officer']rather [the authorities ][concemed ][in ][the ][teeth ][of ][series ][of ][decisions] by all the ma;or High Courts in India are continuously still initiating proceedings under SecrionI48A of rhe Act and alsoinitiating proceedings under Section l4g of the Act incontravention to the amendments brought into the Income Tax Actpursuant to the Finance Act,2020 as also the Finance Act 2021.9. Upon a query being put as [o why can,t this writ petition bedisposed of in the teeth of the decision rendered by this Court inthe case of Kanokala Rn,indra Rettdy (l supra), leamed StandingCounsel for the Income Tax Department contends that those wouldunnecessarily burden the incomc Tax Department where theywould be required to tirc cclLrar nur,ber of sLps before theHon'ble Supreme Court and it u,or-rld be further burdening theexchequer of the Union of India. [t was also the contention of thelearned Standing Counsel that no prejudice would be caused to theinterest of the petitioners in casc ii.rhis writ petition is kept pendingtill the finalization ol. the SLps pending before the Hon,bleSupreme Courl and the fact that the peritioner is already enjoyingthe benefit of interirn protection. Nonetheless, on the earlier queryof this court as to why the Income Tax Departrnent have not comeout with a ntechanisrn to issue appropriatc instructions or to take appropriate [steps ][in ][ensuring that proceedings under ][Section ][148A]of the Act [as ][also ][the ][assessment ][orders ][under Section ][148 ][of ][the]Act are [kept ][in ][a ][hotd ][in ][the ][light ][of ][the decisions dedcided ][by ][the]various [High ][Courrs, ][it ][was ][submitted ][by ][the ][leamed ][Standing]Counsel [that ][the said ][steps ][can ][only ][be taken ][at ][the ][level ][of ] as any [such ][steps ][would ][have ][to ][be ][taken Pan ][India ][and ][cannot ][be]limited [to any ][of ][these ][jurisdictional High ][Courts']10. As [a result ][of ][which' ][what ][we ][are ][facing is ][steep increase ][of]litigation [day ][in ][and ][day ][out ][even ][though ][various ][orders ][have ][been]passed [by this ][I{igh ][Court allowing ][writ ][petitions ][on ][the ][very ][same]issue. [The ][lncolne ][-I'ax ][authorities ][concemed are ][still ][even ][now ][in]2025 [also ][initiatrng ][proceedings ][in ][contravention ][to ][the ][provisions]of Section [l5lA ][olthe ][Act ][and ][as ][a ][resultby now' ][more than 600]ro 700 [pctitions ][have ][been already ][got ][piled ][up ][before ][this ][High]Cou( [on ][an issuc ][rvhich ][otherwise ][stands ][squarely covered ][by ][the]of [thl5 ][Ciourt ][in ][the ][case ][of ][Kanukala Ravindra ][Reddy]judgment (l supra). [What ][is ][also ][surprising ][is the fact that ][though ][while]allorving [the ][writ ][petitions ][in ][the ][case ][of ][Kanakala ][Rsvindra]Rerttll' ll [supra)' ][the ][Division ][Bench ][while ][reserving ][the ][right ][of]the Revenue, [has also ][protected ][the ][interest ][of ][the ][petitioners] insofar as the liberty which was granted to the Revenue lorinitiating fresh proceedings strictry in accordance with the amendedprovisions of the Act, as amended by the Financ e Act, 2020 arul,the Finance Act, 2021. The petitioner assessee rvould be entitled tochallenge or raise the other legar objections if the Revenue initiatesfresh proceedings. The Department has made no endeavour inavailing the said liberty that was reserved for the ltevenue. On thecontrary, they have been still sticking on to [he stand, which thisHigh Court as well as many other i{igh Courts already held to bebad. It appears that because of rhe afbr.csaid appears that because of rhe afbr.csaid that because of rhe afbr.csaid because of rhe afbr.csaid of rhe afbr.csaid rhe afbr.csaid afbr.csaid Iiberty rhat this Highthis HighHigh 11.It appears that because of rhe afbr.csaid appears that because of rhe afbr.csaid that because of rhe afbr.csaid because of rhe afbr.csaid of rhe afbr.csaid rhe afbr.csaid afbr.csaid Iiberty rhat this Highthis HighHighCourt had granted permrttrng rhe Revenue lbr initiating freshProceedings as a one_time measurc rn a faceless manner, theCourt had granted permrttrng rhe Revenue lbr initiating freshProceedings as a one_time measurc rn a faceless manner, theIncome Tax Department wants to take aclvantage of the same byprotracting these proceedings which wourd enable rhern to meet thelimitation that would orherwise come in rhe rvay. Likewise, if thewrit petition is kept pending fbr a consider.able long period of timesame byprotracting these proceedings which wourd enable rhern to meet thelimitation that would orherwise come in rhe rvay. Likewise, if thewrit petition is kept pending fbr a consider.able long period of timeand finally at a later stage if the Hon,ble Suprerne Court confirmsthe decision taken by this High Court as also by the other HighC [-"-ts ]in which the SLps are still pcnding, the Incorne TaxC [-"-ts ]in which the SLps are still pcnding, the Incorne Tax Department [would ][get ][the ][advantage ][o][f ][the ][liberty that ][is otherwrse]protected[in ][favour ][of ][the ][Revenue ][for ][initiation ][of ][fresh]proceedings [from ][the disposat of ][these matters at ][a ][much later ][stage]which [would ][be ][advantageous and ][beneficial ][to ][the ][Revenue ][and ][']would [be ][equally ][disadvantageous ][and ][detrimental ][so ][far ][as ][interest]of the [assesses ][are ][concemed' As ][a consequence' ][the ][Income Tax]Depaftment [gets an extended ][period ][of ][time ][for ][initiation ][of ][fresh]proceedings.12. [The alarming ][trend ][of ][docket explosion ][in this ][Court' ][despite]the clear [precedent setin Kunakala Ravindra ][Reddy ][(l ][supra)' is ][a]matter [of ][grave ][concern The ][lncome ][Tax ][Department's persistent]initiation [of ][fresh proceedings, disregarding the ][established ][judicial]pronouncements, [has ][led ][to ][an ][unprecedented ][surge ][in ][titigation]with [over ][600_700 ][petitions ][piring ][up ][on the ][same ][issue' ][This]deliberate [approach ][not only ][undermines ][the ][principle ][of ][judicial]precedent [but ][also strains ][the ][judicial ][resources ][unnecessarily' The]Depaftment's [strate ][gy ][of ][arvaiting ][the ][Supreme ][Court's ][decision on]pending [SLPs ][while ][continuing ][to ][initiate fresh ][proceedings]appears [to ][be ][a ][calculated ][tnove ][to ][buy ][time ][and ][circumvent]limitation [periods, rather ][than ][adhering ][to ][the ][established ][legal] position. Such conduct raises serious questions about the administrative efficiency and the respect fbr judicialpronouncements, particularly when this Court has already pr.ovideda balanced approach by preserving both the Re,renue,s rights andassesses interests. 13' Another aspect which needs to be considered is that i. fact itshould have been realized by the Incorne Tax Deparrment itself andshould have found out via media in ensuring that pr.oceedingsunder Sections 14g_A and I4g should not have been issued in afaceless manner, at least till the Hon,ble Suprcrne .ourt decide thetrvelve hundred(1200) odd slps which it is arreadl.scized of or, arleast the Income Tax Department should havc tbund out someremedial steps to ensure that wherever the authorities intend toinitiate proceedings under Sections l4g_A and I,lg, othcr tha, in afaceless manner, the proceedings should ha,".e been deferredwithout precipitating the matter further intimati.g rrre assessee thatthey shall initiate appropriate proceedings only aftcr rhe SLp,s ar.edecided by the Hon,ble Supreme Couft on the verv sar.ne issue.This again, the Income Tax Department, has not been ablc to give aconvinsing reply' except for the fact that such a dccision it.ar arl has to be [taken, ][has ][to ][be taken ][for ][the ][whole ][of ][lndia' ][and ][which]otherwise [has ][to ][be ][by ][way ][of ][a ][poticy ][decision ][and ][that ][too ][at the]level of [Central ][Board ][of ][Direct ][Taxes' ][Though ][the ][leamed]Standing [Counsel ][for ][the ][Income ][Tax ][Department contended ][that]the Delhi [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 ][High]Court [resulting ][in ][filing ][of ][hundreds ][ol ][new ][writ ][petitions ][which in]the long [run ][not ][only ][affects ][the disposal ][of ][the ][writ ][petitions but]Bench [in ][hearing ][these]also [consumes ][substantial ][time ][of ][the]AdmittedlY, [in ][sPite ][of ][the]matters [again and again on ][daily ][basis']matter [before ][the Hon'ble ][Suprerne ][Court ][having ][been ][taken ][on]many [occasions, the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Court which ][is ][seized ][of ][the]matter [has been reructant ][in ][granting any ][interim ][protection ][to ][the]Income [Tax Department' ][Yet' ][the ][authorities ][concemed ][at ][the]State level [are ][not ][ready ][to ][accept ][rhe ][verdict ][passed ][by ][a ][majority]of High [Courts ][of ][dift'erent ][States ][ot't ][the ][same ][issue; and ][to ][make]further [worse, ][the ][Income ]['fax ][Department ][is ][showing]things audacity [by ][issuing ][notices ][continuously ][under Sections 148-A ][and] 148 through the jurisdictional Assessing Officer whereas it oughtto have been only in the faceless manner 14. In the case of BANK OF INDIA vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, INCOME TAXU, on an issue wherher ir wasjustifiable on the part of the Income Tax Department in notfollowing an order passed by the adjudicating authority only on rheglound thar the appeals are pending, the Division Bench of theHigh Court of Bombay held at paragraph No.25 as under, viz.. : "25 Mr. paridwara has righry drawn out attention to thedecision thedecision of this Court in Commissioner of lncome Tax vs. Smt.ordinate Bench Godavaridevi Sarafl2 of this Cas also the recent decision of the co_orwhich one or us,r,",,""J[ ! ?il1.ffi::J:i:::11 _^i1]"the Court categorically observed that the Revenue havtng notthe same is set aside "accepted,, the judgment in :of the High Court would not mean that trb nd ns force *",".n.n 1J;:T:illJ""i,ii-;l;::: :ffi :Union of lndia vs. Kamlakshi Finance Co.por"tion Ltd.,. theCourt observed that the approach of the officials of Revenue oftreating decisions being ,,not acceptable,, was criticized by theSupreme Court. ln such decision, fo cwing are the relevantobservations made by the Supreme Court. " ft:o: [j) ][ 7o raxmann.con7o raxmann.conraxmann.con [ 7o raxmann.con7o raxmann.conraxmann.conl, il [r?s ][r ] [l:",i,i'rri'iil,l ]ffr@onbattl r65 raxmann.com ;; '' I:::11 I le92 | raxrnann.corn I6155 :8_1/300 ELT 433 (SC)[raxman ][452 (Bombay ][)]I le92 | raxrnann.corn I6155 :8_1/300 ELT 433 (SC)[raxman ][452 (Bombay ][)] " ft:o: [j) ][ 7o raxmann.con7o raxmann.conraxmann.con [ 7o raxmann.con7o raxmann.conraxmann.conl, il [r?s ][r ] [l:",i,i'rri'iil,l ]ffr@onbattl r65 raxmann.com ;; '' I:::11 I le92 | raxrnann.corn I6155 :8_1/300 ELT 433 (SC)[raxman ][452 (Bombay ][)]I le92 | raxrnann.corn I6155 :8_1/300 ELT 433 (SC)[raxman ][452 (Bombay ][)] "6. Sri Reddy [is ][perhaps ][right ][in ][saying ][that ][the]officers [were ][not ][actuated ][by ][any ][mala ][fides ][in]the [impugned ][orders ][They ][perhaps]passing genuinely [felt that the ][claim ][of the ][assessee ][was ][not]tenable [and that, ][if ][it ][was ][accepted' ][the ][Revenue]would suffer. [But ][what Sri Reddy overlooks ][is ][that ][we]are not [concerned ][here with ][the ][correctness ][or]otherwise [of ][their ][conclusion ][or ][of ][any ][factual]malafides [but ][with the ][fact that ][the ][officers' ][in reaching]in their [conclusion, by-passed ][two ][appellate orders ][in]regard [to the ][same issue which ][were ][placed ][before]them, [one ][of ][the ][Collector (Appeals) ][and ][the other of]the Tribunal. [The ][High Court ][has' in ][our ][view' ][rightly]criticized [this ][conduct ][of the ][Assistant Collectors ][and]the harassment [to ][the ][assessee caused by the failure]of these [officers ][to ][give ][effect ][to ][the ][orders ][of]authorities [higher ][to them ][in ][the ][appetlate ][hierarchy- ][lt]cannot [be too ][vehemently emphasized ][that ][it ][is ][of]utmost [importance ][that' ][in ][disposing ][of ][the]quasijudicial [issues before ][them' ][revenue officers ][are]bound [by ][the ][decisions ][of the ][appellate ][authorities']The order [of ][the ][Appellte Collector ][is ][binding on ][the]Assistant [Collectors working ][withrn ][his jurisdiction ][and]the order [of the Tribunal ][is ][binding upon the Assistant]Collectors [and the Appellate ][Collectors ][who ][function]under [the ][jurisdiction ][of ][the ][Tribunal ][The ][principles ][of]judicial discipline [require that ][the ][orders of ][the ][higher]appellate [authorities should ][be followed ][unreservedly]by the [subordinate ][authorities ][The mere fact that ][the]order of [the ][appellate authority ][is not ]["acceptable" to]the department - [in ][itself ][an ][objectionable ][phrase ][-]and is [the ][subject matter ][of ][an appeal can furnish ][no]for [not ][following ][it ][unless ][its ][operation ][has]ground been suspended [by ][a ][competent ][court- ][lf ][this ][healthy] rule is not followed, the result will only be undueharassment to assesses and chaos in administrationof lax lawsof lax laws 12. We have dealt with thir thirbecause it has been .r;I;:";;1",::::IAdditional Solicitor General that the observationsmade by the High Court, have beenharsh on theofficers. lt is clear that the observations of the HighCourt, seemingly vehement, andapparenflyunpalatable to the Revenue, are only intended to curba tendency in revenue matters which, ifallowed tobecome widespread, could result in considerableharassment to the assesses_public without any benefitto the Revenue. We would like to say that thedepartment should tat<e these observations in theproper spjrit. The observations of the High Courtshould be kept tn mind in future and the utmost regardshould be paid by the adjudicating authorities and theappeltate authorities to the requirements of judicialdiscipline and the need for giving effect to the ordersof the hrgher appellate authorities which are binding on them." 15. What is rvorying this Bench more is the fact that arrendeavour is being made whole heartedly to ensure not to geucratcfurther titigation on issues which have been laid to rest b1,a lar_e,t-.number of High Courts all of whom have taken a consistent standthat the action of the Income Tax Department being violative ol.thc on them." 15. What is rvorying this Bench more is the fact that arrendeavour is being made whole heartedly to ensure not to geucratcfurther titigation on issues which have been laid to rest b1,a lar_e,t-.number of High Courts all of whom have taken a consistent standthat the action of the Income Tax Department being violative ol.thc Finance [Hct,ZOZland ][Finance ][Lct'2021' ][Now' ][in order to protect]the interest [of ][the Revenue ][as][ also ][that ][of ][the ][assessee'][ it ][would ][be]trite at [this juncture, ][if ][we ][dispose ][of ][the ][writ ][petition ][with ][an]observation/direction [that the ][disposal ][of ][the instant ][writ ][petition ][in]terms of [the ][judgment ][rendered ][by ][this ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]Kankattala [Ravindra ][Rettdy ][(l ][supra) ][shall however ][be subject ][to]the outcome [of ][the ][SLPs ][which ][were ][filed by ][the ][Income ][Tax]Deparltnent [and ][which ][is pending consideration belore the ][Hon'ble]Suprcme [Court']16. ln [the given ][facts and ][circumstances' ][this ][Bench ][is ][of ][the]considered [opinion ][that ][unless and ][until ][we ][do not ][timely ][dispose]ot'matters [which ][are ][squarely covered by the decision ][of ][this ][Coutt]and [which ][stands ][fortified by ][the ][decisions ][of ][the ][various ][other]Courts [on the very ][same ][issue' ][the ][pendenc"'- ][ol ][this ][High]t{igh Cor.rrt [would further ][be burdened ][which ][otherwise ][can ][be decided]and disposed [of ][as ][a ][covered ][matter'] So far [[as ][the ][interest ][of ][the Revenue is concerned' ]][[the ][interest ][of ][the Revenue is concerned' ]][[interest ][of ][the Revenue is concerned' ]][[of ][the Revenue is concerned' ]][[the Revenue is concerned' ]][[rve are ][of]][[of]] 11 . So far [[as ][the ][interest ][of ][the Revenue is concerned' ]][[the ][interest ][of ][the Revenue is concerned' ]][[interest ][of ][the Revenue is concerned' ]][[of ][the Revenue is concerned' ]][[the Revenue is concerned' ]][[rve are ][of]][[of]]the considered [opinion ][that the interest ][of ][the ][Revenue ][has ][already]been [considered ][and ][protected' ][as ][has been ][observed ][in ][paragraphs] 36,37 and 38 ofthe order which, for ready reference, is reproducedhereunder: 36. For all the aforesaid r( issued and *re proceeoinia:TjTJTJT:il:fi:Department is neithert"n'o'"' nor sustainable.The notices so issued rno proceeoinia:TjTJTJT:il:fi:Department is neithert"n'o'"' nor sustainable.The notices so issued rno Procedure adopted beingper se illega,, deserves be and are accordingry setper se illega,, deserves be and are accordingry setaside/quashed. As a cons 'othe all the impugnedorders getting quashed, ,n" ,"0'"n""' by rhe respond"n.o"o"n*lllffi:T';T: ffi:::issued under Section 141quashed and * is ",0",."0 ";::]fi;H: [,:j::" ][1:]are quashing the consequential order is on the principlesthat when the rnitiation of the proceeding, it""ff ;r,procedurally orders getting quashed, ,n" ,"0'"n""' by rhe respond"n.o"o"n*lllffi:T';T: ffi:::issued under Section 141quashed and * is ",0",."0 ";::]fi;H: [,:j::" ][1:]are quashing the consequential order is on the principlesthat when the rnitiation of the proceeding, it""ff ;r,procedurally wrong, the sutrsequent orders also getsnulified automaticafly. nulified automaticafly. 37 The prelipreli The preliprelimrnary objection raised by the petitioner issustained andall these writ petitions stands allowed onthis very jurisdictional issue. Since the impugned noticesandorders are gefting quashed on the point ofjurisdiction, we are not inclined to proceed further anddectde the other issues raised by the petitioner whichstands reserved to be raised and contended in anappropriate proceedings. 38. Since the Hon,ble Supreme Court had, in the caseof Ashish Agarwal, supra, as a one_time measureexercising the powers under Article 142 of theConstitution of lndia, permitted the Revenue to proceedunder the substituled proviskthe petitions onry on ,n" ['nt' ]procedural [and ][this ]flaw, [court ]the [allowing]right 37 The prelipreli The preliprelimrnary objection raised by the petitioner issustained andall these writ petitions stands allowed onthis very jurisdictional issue. Since the impugned noticesandorders are gefting quashed on the point ofjurisdiction, we are not inclined to proceed further anddectde the other issues raised by the petitioner whichstands reserved to be raised and contended in anappropriate proceedings. 38. Since the Hon,ble Supreme Court had, in the caseof Ashish Agarwal, supra, as a one_time measureexercising the powers under Article 142 of theConstitution of lndia, permitted the Revenue to proceedunder the substituled proviskthe petitions onry on ,n" ['nt' ]procedural [and ][this ]flaw, [court ]the [allowing]right conferred on the [Revenue ][would ][rernain 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.Wervouldonlyfurtherliketomakeobservationsthatsinccr.r,e arc inclined to [dispose ][of ][the instant ][writ ][petition, ][conscious ][of]the fact that [the ][earlier order ][of ][this ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]Kannkalo Ravintlra [Reddy ][(l ][suPra) ][is ][subjected ][to ][chal[enge]belore tlre Hon'ble [Supreme ][Court ][in ] [No'3574 ][of ][2024']the [lncome ][Tax ][Department, we ][make ][it ][clear ][that]prct-en'gd by allorving ol the [instant ][writ ][petition ][is ][subject ][to ][outcome ][of ][tl.re]atirresaicl SI-t) [pre ][fered ][by ][the ][Revenue against ][the decision ][of ][this]l{iglr [('oLrrt ]in ihe [case ][of ][Kanakala ][Ravindra ][Redd;' ][(l ][strpra).]t hi:. irr other [words, ][would ][mean ][that either ][of ][the parties' ][if ][tlicl]s() \\ arrt. nrav tnove an appropriate [petition ][seeking ][revival ][ol ][this]rr r.it petirion in ttre tight of [the decision ][of ][the ][IIon'ble ][Suprcrrtc](lourt irr the pending SLP on the rrery sanrc issue' 19. Accordingly, [the ][instant ][writ ][petition ][stands ][allorvcd]1nISlavor.rr ol' the assessee [so far ][as ][the ][issue ][of ][jurisdiction]concclned. As a [consequence, ][the ][impugned ][noticc ][utrdcl]challcnge rrndcr Scctions [148-A ][and ][148 stands ][set ][aside/quashed] !tI The consequential orders, il any, also stand set .aside/quashed in similar terms as lrave been passed by this High Court in the case of Kankanala Ravindru Reddy (l supra). There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, misce[[aneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- AHMED ABDULLAH KHANASSISTANT REGTSTRAR//TRUE COPYII,r"#* OFFICER HIGH COURT DATED:01 1051202s ORDER WP.No.32190 of ZO24 ALLOWING THE W.PWITHOUT COSTS.///.4/[/z][f]4 "Z-=--:-:\--..t-..1_.p.1 [:.iE ]S r)-/a [,:']Ln, -)'i2s il6 206I)2,Ar-1.',!D. r -.