Wp/32192/2024 Of Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Limited v. The Income Tax Officer

HIGH COURT ' - iSpecial Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, TWO THOUSAND PRESENT THE HONOURABLE [SRt ][JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY] ANDTHE HONOURABLE [SRI .TUSiICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA] WRIT PETITION [:32][ 192UF ][2024] Between: PRIMARY [AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY ][LIMITED']CHEEKODE, [nep ][-t"v'"tni"5"C'"t"v ][PADAI/AT| ][PRASHANTH' s/o']sATHyANARAvnr.rn"'pnbXrrliii [Asgq-"bout ][33 ][vears' ][occupation]Business, [nyo. ][cnfuk66e'''i;niinr.rXFEr- ][veoRx ][502303' ][Telansana']"l PA'N.' AA'anCzEasR, [ntsessment Year' ][20 ][1 ] [9]";il. .,.PETITIONER AND IThe lncome [Tax]Officer, - f.l.w grs Ward Stand. [1' ][SangareddY]VeerabhadralncomeNagar,Tax SangareddYOffice,Veerabhadra [Nagar,]502001 , [Telangana.]Veerabhadra [Nagar,]502001 , [Telangana.]2. The Principal [Chief ][Commissioner ][of ][lncome ][Tax ][Telanqana ][and ][A'P']lr [ro*e,s,"ii"diliat'"'rt'r"J ][rank' ][Hvderabad ][- ][500028']lr [ro*e,s,"ii"diliat'"'rt'r"J ][rank' ][Hvderabad ][- ][500028']Hyderabad, Telangana.Telangana. 3.ThecentralBoardofDirectTaxes,Represented.byitschairman'Departmentof Revenue, [I\/inistry.t ][Fi"''il" ][b'""5inmenf ][ot lhdia' ][Secretariat Buildings']New Delhi [- ][1 ][10 ][001 ][.]of Revenue, [I\/inistry.t ][Fi"''il" ][b'""5inmenf ][ot lhdia' ][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 ][Secretarv ][to ][the ][Government']'r'rew oelrri [- ][1 ][10 ][001 ]r'rew oelrri [- ][1 ][10 ][001 ]Department [ot ][R"r"n,e)f,fi1]t[v' ]"iri"l"le' "iri"l"le' ...RESPONDENTS Petition under [Article ][226 ][of ][lhe 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 National [Faceless ][E-Assessment ][Centre ][completed ][the ][assessment]U/S 147 r.w.s [144 ][Date ][of ][05-03-2024' ][DIN ITBA tASr tsl147l ][2023-24] 11062057576(1) for the Assessment year 2o1B-19 determining the totar incomeof Rs l '48,79,375/- as arbitrary, iregar, bad in raw, without jurisdiction, void-ab-initio, viorative of the principres of naturar justice apart fronr being viorative ofArticles 14, 1g(1xg) and 265 of the constitution of rndia and sec. 148A of thelncome Tax Act, '1 96 1, and consequenfly set aside the same in the interests ofjustice.of Rs l '48,79,375/- as arbitrary, iregar, bad in raw, without jurisdiction, void-ab-initio, viorative of the principres of naturar justice apart fronr being viorative ofArticles 14, 1g(1xg) and 265 of the constitution of rndia and sec. 148A of thelncome Tax Act, '1 96 1, and consequenfly set aside the same in the interests ofjustice. IA NO: 10F 2024 Petition under Sectron 151 cPC praying that in the cirr;umstances statedin the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court rr ay be preased tosuspend the order Under section 147 t.w.s 144 Date of 15_03_2024, DIN,rBA/AST/S/14712023 -24r106 2057576 ('r) for the Assessment year 20.r8-19determining the totar income of Rs. 1,48,7g,375/- and Demand notice u/s 156 0fthe rncome Tax act 196'1 , vide DrN and Notice No. rrBA/As;-rls/15 612023-24r'106 205 7626 (1,i Dt o5-03-2024 for the assessment year lrolB-.19 pendingdisposal of the above Writ petition. Counset for the petitioner: SRI THANNERU CHA|TANYA KUMAR Counset forthe Respondent No.1 to 4: SRI K.SUDHAKAR REDDY,REDDY, Sr. SC FOR ITCounsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI B.MUKHERJEE,SC FOR UNION OF INDIA The Courl made the following: ORDER THE HONOT]RABLE [JUSTICE P'SAM KOSHY]ANDTHE HONOURABLE NANDIKONDA WRITPE [ No.3219][ 20F ][2024] Counset for the petitioner: SRI THANNERU CHA|TANYA KUMAR Counset forthe Respondent No.1 to 4: SRI K.SUDHAKAR REDDY,REDDY, Sr. SC FOR ITCounsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI B.MUKHERJEE,SC FOR UNION OF INDIA The Courl made the following: ORDER THE HONOT]RABLE [JUSTICE P'SAM KOSHY]ANDTHE HONOURABLE NANDIKONDA WRITPE [ No.3219][ 20F ][2024] 9RDEB, [(per ][Hon'ble ][Sri ][Justice ] [Sam ][Koshy)] Heard Mr. [Thanneru Chaitanya ][Kumar' ][learned ][counsel ][for]the petitioner, [Mr. ][K'Sudhakar ][Reddy' ][learned ][Senior ][Standing]CounseiforthelncomeTaxDepartmentforrespondentNos.lto4and Mr. [B.Mukherjee, ][leamed counsel representing the ][Union ][of]India for [respondent ][No'5' ][Perused ][the record'] This is a a [[writ ][petition where ][the ][proceedings ]][[petition where ][the ][proceedings ]][[the ][proceedings ]][[proceedings ]][[are ][either]][[either]] 2. This is a a [[writ ][petition where ][the ][proceedings ]][[petition where ][the ][proceedings ]][[the ][proceedings ]][[proceedings ]][[are ][either]][[either]]challenged [to ][the notices ][which were ][issued ][under Section ][148,4.]and 148 of [the ][Income ][Tax ][Act, ][1961 ][(for ][short'the Act') ][or ][the]assessment [orders those ][have ][been ][passed ][under Section ][147 ][of]the Act [which ][have been assailed'] This writ [[petition ]][[is being taken ]][[up ][today only ]][[today only ]][[on ][one ][of ][the]][[one ][of ][the]][[of ][the]][[the]] 3. This writ [[petition ]][[is being taken ]][[up ][today only ]][[today only ]][[on ][one ][of ][the]][[one ][of ][the]][[of ][the]][[the]]that [the ][notices ][issued ][under Section 148A ][of ][the ][Act]grounds, and the [subsequent ][initiation ][of ][proceedings ][under Section ][148 ][of]the Act [by ][the ][jurisdictional ][Assessing ][Officer' ][whereas ][in ][terms]of the [amendment that was brought ][to ][the ][Income ][Tax Act ][by ][way] of Finance Act, Z02l w.e.f., 01.04.2021 onwards, proceedingsunder Section 148A of the Act as also under Section 14g of theAct ought to have also been issued and proceeded ..rr a facelessmanner 4. The contention of the petitioner is that tL e issue ofproceedings being in violation of the Financ e Act, 21.021 i.e., theimpugned notices under section l4gA and Section 11ti of the Actnot being issued in a faceless manner, have already ber:r dealt withand decided by this Courr in rhe case of KA\KANALARAVINDRA REDDY vs. INCOME_TAX OFFICI]R.T decidedon 14.09.2023 whereby a batch of writ petitions were allowed andthe proceedings initiated under Section 14gA as also un<rer section148 of the Act were held to be bad with consequential reliefs on theground of ir being in violation of the provisions of Secticn 15rA ofthe Act read with Notification lg/2022 dated 29.03.ZO2it. The saidjudgment passed by this Court has also been subsequentll.followedin a large number of writ petitions which were allowed .n similarterms '[Q023) 156 raxrnann.com 17g (Telangana)J ) '[Q023) 156 raxrnann.com 17g (Telangana)J ) 5. Down the [line, we ][find ][that the ][same issue ][has ][also ][been]decided [against ][the ][Revenue ][by ][various ][High ][Courts ][i'e'']the [Bombay ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ] by TECHNOLOGIES [LTD., ][VS. ] OF INCOME [TAX & ][OTHERS2, ][Gauhati ][High ][Court in ][the ][case]of RAM [SAI{ ][vs' ][UNION OF INDIA3' ][Punjab ][and]Haryana High [Court ][in the ][case ][of ] vs. UNION [INDIA4, ][and Telangana ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]SRI VENKATARAMANA [VS. ] COMMISSIONER [where the ][issue ][was ][in]respect of [intemational ][taxation, ][Bombay ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]ABHIN ANILKUMAR [SHAH vs' ] [OFFICER']INTERNATIONAL [which is ][again ][on ][intemational]taxation [and ][central circle, ][High ][Court ][of Himachal ][Pradesh ][in ][the]case of GOVIND [vs' ] [OFFICER?']Gujarat High [Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ] ' Vozql464 [ITR 430 (Bom)]'ilzOzil [156 ][taxmann.com ][478 (Gauhati)l]'iizozq [165 ][taxmann.com ][115 ][(Punjab ][& ][Haryana)l]'12024) [167 ][taxmairn.com 411 ][(Telangana)l]" 12024) [166 ][taxmann.com 679 ][(Bombay)l]'iioz+i [1 ][65 ][taxmann.com ] [13 ][(Himachal ][Pradesh)l] DAHYABIIAI RADADIYA vs. INCoME TAx OFFICER,WARD 3(3X5)8, Jharkand High Court in the case of SHyAMSUNDAR SAW vs. TINION OF INDIAe, Rajasthan High Court inthe case ol SHARDA DEVI CHHAJER vs. INCOME TAXOFFICER & ANOTHER and batch of writ petiticnsr0 whichstood decided on 19.03.2024. Similar views have alsc been takenby the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in .he case ofGIRDHAR 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 decidec by a largenumber of High Courts, we are still confronted with large flling ofidentical matters on daily basis ranging betrveen 5 lo l0 writpetitions. ['lhat ]upon the instructions being sought ftom theDepartment. they have been taking a solitary grounl that thedecision of' the Bombay High Court in the case of HexawareTechnologies Ltd., (2 supra) as also the one which has beendecided by this Court in the case of Kanakala Ravinira Reddy 82OZq scc online Guj 4012'2025 SCC Online lbar 287to 7zoz3 [: ] :49 8 4-DBl 'l (1 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'] 7. To a query [being put ][to ][the ][learned counsel ][for ][the ][Revenue']have [categorically ][accepted ][the fact ][that ][there ][is ][no ][interim]they order [granted ][by ][the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Court ][in ][any ][of ][these]matters [pending ][before ][it' ][Meanwhile' fresh ][writ ][petitions ][of]identical [nature ][are ][being ][piled ][up ][before this ][Bench ][on daily ][basis]and the [pendency ][is ][getting ][increased ][on matter ][which ][otherwise]has already [been ][dealt ][and ][decided ][by ][this ][very ][High ][Court ][itself']8. On the one [hand, even though the ][order ][of this ][Court ][that]was passed [as ][early ][as ][on ][14'09 ][2023 ][and ][more ][16 ][months ][have]Iapsed, till date, [we ][do ][not ][hnd ][any remedial ][steps ][having ][been]taken by [the ][Income ][Tax ][Department ][to ][take appropriate ][steps ][to]either hold [back ][issuance ][of ][notice ][under Section ][148A ][and ][under]Section [148 ][of ][the ][Act ][by ][the ][jurisdictional ][Assessing ][Ofhcer']rather the authorities [concemed ][in ][the ][teeth ][of ][series ][of ][decisions] by all thc major High Courts in India are conlinuously stillinitiating ltroceedings under Section l4gA of the .,\ct and alsoinitiating proceedings under Section 14g of rhe Act incontravention to the amendments brought into the Incorie Tax Actpursuant [o the Finance Act,2020 as also the Finance Acl 2021.9. Upon a query being put as to why can,t this u,rit petition bedisposed of in the teeth of the decision rendered by this Court inthe case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra), learned StandingCounsel for the Income Tax Department contends that those wouldunnecessarily burden the Income Tax Deparlment where theywould be required to file equal number of SLps before theHon'ble Supreme Court and it would be further buidening theexchequer of the Union of India. It was also the contertion of theleamed Standing Counsel that no prejudice would be c,aused to theinterest of the petitioners in case if this writ petition is irr:pt pendingtill the frnalization of the SLps pending before tLe Hon,bleSupreme Court and the fact that the petitioner is already enjoyingthe benefit of interim protection. Nonetheless, on the e,eLrlier queryof this Coud as to why the Income Tax Department havr: not comeout with a m,echanism to issue appropriate 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 ][hold ][in ][the ][light ][ofthe ][decisions dedcided ][by ][the]various High [Courts, ][it ][was ][submitted ][by ][the.leamed ][Standing]Counsel that [the ][said ][steps ][can ][only be ][taken ][at ][the ][level ][ofCBDT]as any such [steps ][would ][have ][to ][be ][taken ][Pan ][India ][and cannot ][be]limited to any [of ][these ][jurisdictional High ][Coutts'] 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 [High ][Court ][allowing ][writ ][petitions ][on ][the ][very ][same]issue. The [Income ][Tax ][authorities ][concerned are ][still ][even ][now ][in]2025 also initiating [proceedings ][in ][contravention ][to ][the ][provisions]of Section [l51A ][of ][the ][Act ][and ][as ][a ][result ][by ][now, more ][than ][600]to 700 [petitions ][have ][been ][already ][got ][piled ][up ][before ][this ][High]Court.onanissuewhichotherwisestandssquarelycoveredbythejudgment of this Court [in ][the ][case ][of ][Kanakala Ravindra ][Reddy]What [is ][also ][surprising ][is ][the ][fact ][that though ][while](1 supra). allowing the [writ ][petitions ][in ][the ][case ][of ][Kanakala ][Ravindra]Reddy (l 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 forinitiating fresh proceedings strictly in accordance with the amendedprovisions of the Act, as amended by the Financ e Act, 2020 andinitiating fresh proceedings strictly in accordance with the amendedprovisions of the Act, as amended by the Financ e Act, 2020 andthe Finance Act,202l. The petitioner assessee would be entitled tochallenge or raise the other legal objections if the Reve.nue initiatesfiesh proceedings. The fiesh proceedings. The Department has made no enflsayeu1 l,availing the said liberty that was reserved for the Revc;.rue. on thecontrary, they have been still sticking on to the stanri which thisHigh Coufl as well as many other High Courts alreaclr, held to bebad.availing the said liberty that was reserved for the Revc;.rue. on thecontrary, they have been still sticking on to the stanri which thisHigh Coufl as well as many other High Courts alreaclr, held to bebad. 11. It appears that because ofthe aforesaid liberty that this HighCourt had granted permitting the Revenue for initirting freshproceedings as a one-time measure in a faceless rr anner, theIncome Tax Department wants to take advantage of the same byprotracting these proceedings which would enable them 1o meet thelimitation that would otherwise come in the way. Likervise, if thewrit petition is kept pending for a considerable long period of timeand finally at a later stage if the Hon,ble Supreme Court confirmsthe decision taken by this High Court as also by the cther HighCourts in rvhich the SLps are still pending, the lncome Tax Department [would ][get ][the advantage ][of ][the ][liberty ][that ][is ][otherwise]in [favour ][of ][the ][Revenue ][for ][initiation ][of ][fresh]protected proceedings [from ][the ][disposal ][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]Department [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 ][setit ][Kanakala Ravindra ][Reddy ][(1 ][supra)' ][is ][a]matter of [grave ][concern ][The Income ][Tax ][Department's persistent]initiation [of ][fresh ][proceedings, disregarding ][the ][established ][judicial]pronouncements, [has ][led ][to ][an ][unprecedented ][surge ][in ][litigation]with over [600-700 petitions ][piling ][up ][on ][the ][same ][issue' ][This]deliberate [approach ][not only ][undermines ][the ][principle ][of ][judicial]but [also strains ][the ][judicial ][resources ][unnecessarily' ][The]precedent Department's [sfiategy ][of ][awaiting the ][Supreme ][Court's decision ][on]pending SLPs [while ][continuing ][to ][initiate ][fresh ][proceedings]to [be ][a. ][calculated ][move ][to ][buy ][time ][and ][circumvent]appears limitation [periods, rather ][than ][adhering ][to the ][established ][legat] position. Such conduct raises serious questions about theadministrative efhciency and the respect lbr judicialpronouncelnents, particularly when this Court has already provideda balanced approach by preserving both the Revenur: s rights andassesses lllterests. 13. Another aspect which needs to be considered is trat in fact itshould have been realized by the Income Tax Departmr:nt itself andshould have found out via media in ensuring that irroceedingsunder Sections 14g_A and 14g should not have been issued in af'aceless manner, at least till the Hon,ble Supreme Cour.t decide thetweive hundred (1200) odd SLps which it is already seized ofor, atleast the Lrcome Tax Department shou rd have fbund out someremedial steps to ensure that wherever the authorities intend toinitiate proceedings under Sections 14g_A and 14g, other than in afaceless manner, the proceedings shourd have been deferredwithout precipitating the matter further intimating the assessee thatthey shall initiate appropriate proceedings only after the SLp,s aredecided by the Hon,ble Supreme Court on the very sare 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 ][which]otherwise has [to ][be ][by ][way ][of ][a ][policy ][decision ][and ][that ][too ][at ][the]level of Central [Board ][of ][Direct ][Taxes. ][Though ][the ][learned]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]Coufi resulting [in ][hling ][of ][hundreds ][of ][new ][writ ][petitions which ][in]the long run not [only ][affects the ][disposal ][of ][the ][writ ][petitions but]also consumes [substantial ][time ][of ][the ][Bench ][in ][hearing ][these]and [again on ][daily ][basis. ][Admittedly, ][in ][spite ][of ][the]matters again matter before the [Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Court having ][been taken ][on]many occasions, [the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Court ][which ][is ][seized ][of ][the]matter has been [reluctant ][in ][granting any ][interim ][protection to ][the]Income Tax [Department. ][Yet, ][the ][authorities ][concemed ][at ][the]State level are [not ][ready ][to ][accept the ][verdict ][passed ][by ][a ][majority]of High Courts [of ][different ][States ][on the ][same ][issue; ][and to ][make]things further [worse, ][the ][Income ][Tax ][Department ][is ][showing]audacity by issuing [notices ][continuously ][under Sections 148-A and] 148 through the jurisdictional Assessing Offlcer whereas it oughtto have been only in the faceless manner 14. In the case of BANK OF INDIA vs. .a.SSISTANT COMMISSIONER, INCOME TAXrr, on an issue vr;tether it wasjustifiable on the part of the Income Tax Deparlrnent in notfollowing an order passed by the adjudicating authority only on theground that the appeals are pending, the Division Uench of theHigh Courl of Bombay held at paragraph No.25 as undr:r, viz., :following an order passed by the adjudicating authority only on theground that the appeals are pending, the Division Uench of theHigh Courl of Bombay held at paragraph No.25 as undr:r, viz., : "25. Mr. [paridwalla ]has righfly drawn out attentiol 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, rvhereinthe Court categorically observed that the Revenue havng not"accepted' the judgment of the High Court would not mea.r that tillthe same [js ]set aside in a manner known to law, it would (,ose itsbinding force. Referring to the decision of the Supreme C;ourt inUnion of India vs. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd.14, theCourt observed that 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. il Llo [[rax,nam.com ]][422 ][(Bombay)l]'' tlt|, I I r ITR il Llo [[rax,nam.com ]]ll978l I I r ITR I r ITR r ITR ITR 589 (Bombay)ll978l I I r ITR I r ITR r ITR ITR 589 (Bombay) '1 TZOZ+1 [16.5 ][tarmann.corn ]5g 1/300 Taxman 452 (Bombay) ta ltggZltaxrnann.com 16155ELT 433 (SC) I I l il Llo [[rax,nam.com ]][422 ][(Bombay)l]'' tlt|, I I r ITR il Llo [[rax,nam.com ]]ll978l I I r ITR I r ITR r ITR ITR 589 (Bombay)ll978l I I r ITR I r ITR r ITR ITR 589 (Bombay) '1 TZOZ+1 [16.5 ][tarmann.corn ]5g 1/300 Taxman 452 (Bombay) ta ltggZltaxrnann.com 16155ELT 433 (SC) I I l "6. Sri Reddy is [perhaps ][right ][in ][saying ][that ][the]officers were [not ][actuated ][by ][any mala fides ][in]passing the impugned orders. [They ][perhaps]genuinely felt that the claim [of ][the ][assessee ][was ][not]tenable and that, [if it ][was ][accepted, ][the ][Revenue]would suffer. [But ][what Sri Reddy overlooks is that we]are not concerned [here ][with ][the ][correctness or]otherwise of their [conclusion ][or of ][any ][factual]malafides but [with ][the fact ][that ][the officers, in reaching]in their conclusion, [by-passed ][tvvo ][appellate orders ][in]regard to the same [issue which were placed ][before]them, one of the [Collector (Appeals) and ][the ][other ][of]the Tribunal. [The ][High Court ][has, ][in our ][view, ][rightly]criticized this [conduct ][of ][the ][Assistant ][Collectors and]the harassment [to ][the ][assessee caused by ][the ][failure]of these officers to [give effect ][to ][the ][orders ][of]authorities higher [to ][them ][in the ][appellate ][hierarchy ][lt]cannot be too [vehemently emphasized ][that ][it ][is ][of]utmost importance [that, ][in ][disposing ][of ][the]quasiiudicial issues before [them, ][revenue ][officers ][are]bound by the [decisions ][of ][the ][appellate ][authorities']The order of the [Appellte Collector ][is ][binding on ][the]Assistant Collectors [working ][within ][his ][jurisdiction ][and]the order of [the Tribunal is binding ][upon ][the ][Assistant]Collectors and the [Appellate ][Collectors ][who ][function]under the iurisdiction [of ][the ][Tribunal. ][The principles ][of]judicial discipline require that the [orders ][of ][the ][hlgher]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 [subiect matter ][of ][an ][appeal ][can ][furnish ][no]ground for not. following [it ][unless ][its ][operation ][has]been ?uspended [by ][a ][competent ][court ][lf ][this ][healthy] .: :.. ';], ,r..-;,.' ;.:i . x ,.-- ,',, 3.'i , tb li l.;4,;$.-ir iLr&:i5ls ']l|" t, .?r Y' .;|l|l r, ', .: rule is not followed, the result will only be un Jueharassment to assesses and chaos in administra:ionof tax laws. 12We have dealt with this aspect at some length,because lt has been suggested bythe learredAdditional Solicitor ceneral that theobservatic nsmade by the High Court, have been harsh on theofficers. It is clear that the observations of the HighCour1, seemingly vehement, and apparenflyofficers. It is clear that the observations of the HighCour1, seemingly vehement, and apparenflyunpalatable to the Revenue, are only intended to curba tendency in revenue matters which, if allowed toa 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 theto the Revenue. We would like to say that thedepartment should take these observations in ll- eproper spirit. The observations of the High Courtshould be kept in mind in future and the utmost regardshould be kept in mind in future and the utmost regardshould be paid by the adjudicating authorities and theapoellate authorities to the requirements of judicialdiscipline and the need for giving effect to the ordersof the higher appellate authorities which are bindin{)on them."of the higher appellate authorities which are bindin{)on them." 15' what is worrying this Bench more is the tar:t 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 viola_ive of the Finance Act,2020and [Finance ][Act,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 ][rendeied ][by ][this High ][Court in the ][case ][of]Kankanala [Ravindra ][Retfuly ][(1 ][supra) shall ][however ][be subject ][to]theoutcomeofthesLPswhichwerefrledbythelncomeTaxDepadment [and ][which ][is ][pending consideration before ][the ][Hon'ble]Supreme [Coutt.] 16. In the [given facts ][and ][circumstances' ][this ][Rench ][is ][of ][the]considered [opinion ][that ][unless ][and ][until ][we ][do ][not ][timely ][dispose]of matters [which ][are ][squarely covered ][by ][the decision ][of this Court]and which [stands ][fortified ][by ][the ][decisions ][of ][the various ][other]Courts [on the ][very ][same ][issue, ][the ][pendency ][of ][this ][High]High Court would [further be ][burdened ][which ][otherwise ][can ][be ][decided]and disposed [of ][as a ][covered ][matter'] 17 . So far [as ][the interest ][of ][the Revenue is ][concemed' we ][are ][of]the considered [opinion ][that ][the ][interest ][ofthe ][Revenue ][has ][already]been considered [and ][protected, ][as ][has ][been observed ][in ][paragraphs] 36,37 and 18 ofthe order which, for ready reference, rs reproducedhereunder: 36 For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned nlticesissued and the proceedings drawn by the resporrdent_Department is .sustainable.neither tenable, nor The notices so issued and the procedure adopted beingper se illegal, deserves to be and are accordingly setaside/quashed. As a consequence, all the impugnedorders getting quashed, the consequential orders passedby the respondent-Department pursuant to the ncttcesissued under Section 147 and 14g would also getquashed and it is ordered accordingly. The reason weare quashing the consequential order is on the prinl plesthat when the initiation of the proceedings itsell wasprocedurally wrong, the subsequent orders also getsnullified automatically_ :17. The preliminary objection raised by the petitionor issustained and all these writ petitions stands allowec onthis very jurisdictional issue. Since the impugned noticesand orders are getting quashed on the point ofjurisdiction, we are not inclined to proceed further anddecide the other issues raised by the petitioner wl- ichslanCs reserved to be raisedand contended in anappropriate proceedings. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the c,zrseof AshishAgarwal, supra, as a one-timemeasureexercisingthe powers under A(icle 142of theConstitution of lndia, permifted the Revenue to proceedunder the substituted provisions, and this Court allowirgthe petitions only on the procedural flaw, the right confened 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. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the c,zrseof AshishAgarwal, supra, as a one-timemeasureexercisingthe powers under A(icle 142of theConstitution of lndia, permifted the Revenue to proceedunder the substituted provisions, and this Court allowirgthe petitions only on the procedural flaw, the right confened 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 [ol ][the ][instant ][writ ][petition' ][conscious ][of]the tact that the [earlier order ][of ][this ][High Court in the ][case ][of]Kanakalu Ravindra [Reddy ][(l ][supra) ][is ][subjected ][to ][challenge]befbre the Hon'ble [Supreme ][Court ][in ][SLP No'3574 ][of ][2024']preferred by [the lncome Tax ][Department, ][we ][make ][it ][clear ][that]of [the ][instant ][writ ][petition ][is ][subject ][to ][outcome ][of ][the]allowing aforesaid SLP [prefened ][by the Revenue ][against ][the ][decision ][of ][this]High Court in [the ][case ][of ][Kanakala Ravindra ][Reddy ][(l ][supra)']This,inotherwords,wouldmeanthateitheroftheparties'iftheyso want, [may move an ][appropriate ][petition ][seeking ][revival ][of ][this]writ petition in [the ][tight 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]1nfavour of the [assessee ][so ][far ][as ][the ][issue ][of ][jurisdiction]ISconcerned. [As-a ][consequence, ][the ][impugned ][notice ][under]challenge under [Sections][ 148-4 ][and ][148 ][stands ][set ][aside/quashed'] I The consequential orders, if any, also stand set asirle/quashed insimilar terrns as have been passecl by this High Court in the case of Kankanala Ravindra Redtly (l supra). There shall br: no order asto costs Consequcntly, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- K. AMMAJIUTY REGISTRARUTY REGISTRAR//TRUE COPY/I IT: SECTION OFFICER1. The lncome TaxOfficer, Ward 1,Sangarvln,:omeTax Office,Veerabhadra Nagar,New Bus Stand,VeerabhadralJagar,Sangareddy502001 , Telanga na.Veerabhadra Nagar,New Bus Stand,VeerabhadralJagar,Sangareddy502001 , Telanga na. To, 2T.he Principal Chief Commis{oner of lncome Tax, T<:langana and A.p.Hyderabad, lT Towers, AC Guards, vasio rank,'Hy;l;;;i;d" _-6ooo)'e,Telangana.Hyderabad, lT Towers, AC Guards, vasio rank,'Hy;l;;;i;d" _-6ooo)'e,Telangana. 3The Chairman. Central Board of _Direct Taxes, Depanment of Revenue.yili.^try of Frnance, Government of tndia, Seiretir[i"eLiOirsi, N"*"O"Jf;i"]1 10 001.yili.^try of Frnance, Government of tndia, Seiretir[i"eLiOirsi, N"*"O"Jf;i"]1 10 001. 4. The National Faceless Assessment Center, lncome Tax Department, NewDelhiDelhi 5. The Secretarv to lhc . Government, Department of Re renue, Ministry ofFinance, New'Delhi, Union of tndia - i 10 Obl [' ][""']Finance, New'Delhi, Union of tndia - i 10 Obl [' ][""'] 6. One CC to SRI THANNERU CHA|TANYA KUIVIAR, Advocate tOpUCl 7. One CC to SRt B I\IUKHERJEE, SC FOR UNTON OF tNDy\ 8. One CC to SRI K.SUDHAKAR REDDY, Sr. SC FOR tT [OtrUC] 9. One CC to SRI GAD| PRAVFfN KU|UAR, DEpUTy SOLt(ltTOR GENERTALOF tNDlA, High Court for the State of Telangana it UVOerabaO-[Op-UEi-"'^OF tNDlA, High Court for the State of Telangana it UVOerabaO-[Op-UEi-"'^ '10. Two CD CopiesBSRoGJP HIGH COURT DATED:0210512025 ORDER WP.No.32192 of 2024 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS ,r{ I( iHF sO1-10luL r.ronh*o".',1-ir;sE.