Wp/33424/2024 Of Primary Agricutural Co Operative Society Limited v. The Income Tax Officer Ward 1

,-/-."- TELANGANAHrGH couRr [.?+ ]IlED:ItlioF (SPeciai [original ][Jurisdiction)] X/ONDAY, """''"i^/o iH-ousn*o AND TWENTY FlvE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE [JUSTICE P'SAM KOSHY]ANDTHE HONOURABLE ['TUSTIiTANSING ] 4oF 2024WRIT [P] [ ON ] [:3342] Between:""'*"ffi ;ai:gfi::"ifr [i-[::l'ruru:'ln'#ills!';f,1'lii]:] ...PETITIONER AND 1The lncome [Tax ][Officer ][Ward ][1' ][Adilabad' ][Hyderabad 504106' Telangana] 2r h e [p ][ri ][n ][ci ][p a ][r ][ctr ][i ]"r 99 "lT,.d'fJ,?'.:t^,1 :::f ? Jfrl Jf; 3?iS,l3 [tt'. ][0rE ][:]Hyderabad, [lT ][Towers, ][au]Telangana.Hyderabad, [lT ][Towers, ][au]Telangana. i The Central [Board of ][Dlrect Taxes-' ][Represented,by ][its ][Chairman' ][Department]of Revenue' [Ministry ]"t [rill"i"' ][ctveinment ][ol ][lndii' ][Sbcretariat Buildings']of Revenue' [Ministry ]"t [rill"i"' ][ctveinment ][ol ][lndii' ][Sbcretariat Buildings']New Delhi [- ][110 ][001 ]['] 4. The [National Faceless Assessment ][Center' ][lncome ][Tax Department' ][New]DelhiDelhi 5TheUnionoflndia,RepresentedbyitssecretarytotheGovernment,Department [ot ][RevenuJ',ffiitil ]"1 [ri"i"""' ][New Delhi ][- ][110 ][001]Department [ot ][RevenuJ',ffiitil ]"1 [ri"i"""' ][New Delhi ][- ][110 ][001] ...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 lssue [an appropriate writ, order or dlrection more particularly one ][in the]nature of writ [of ][fvlandamus, ][declaring ][the ][order ][passed ][by ][the ][lncome ][Tax]Authorities [(National Faceless ][E-Assessment ][Centre) completed ][the ][assessrnent]U/S147r'w.sl44readwithSectionl44Bofthelncome-taxActDateofl5-02-2024'DINITBA/AST/S/14712023'2411061005975(1)fortheAssessmentYear in 2015-16 determining law, without j,rrisoiction the totat ;;::^",::,:" income of Rs. 2,z''e'100i 55,39as arbitrarv, illesal, badiustce apart r,o,, o"njnu;"j:;:t l;':^;::T ":J::,Ji:T"x, Constitution ::T:consequenry of set aside the same in the lndia and Sec. 14BA interests.rrrirl" of the lrTax Act, i961, and IA NO 10F 2024 petition under Serthe suspend the arridavit the order ,,*o ,,. Undr.,,'i"",i ,"",,on ::ln]r}:lt:^lltin 147r.w.s court circumstances stated may be preased toin,oo l,nn rncome_tax Act Date o, ,u, s - o 2 [_2o2 ]4,o, ro r th e Assess me nt yea r *,.rro.# : "ii:, ;:it: i r; #.Tjrl;and Demand notice u/s 2015-16 determining the total income of Rs.2,55,39,100/-.BA/AS r/s/1 s 6 20 23., ;;H:H ;.; [,iH:; ;: ; :H ru: 2015-16 pending disposal of the above Writ petition.:X;:: Counsel for the petitioner: SRI THANNERU CHAITANYA KUMAR counser for rhe Respondent Nos.1 r,,yj*i;Rr#r#* " " ,""o*. ,*,counser for the Respondent No.s: i,Tl?rlfStr[?i*BiiREpRESENTTNGThe Court made the following: ORDER .[t{E SRI JUSTICE' [P'SAM ] IIONOURABI,E ANI)TTIE NANDTKONDA WRIT PETITI [No.33424][ oF ][2024] ORDER, [(per ][Hon'ble ][Sri ][Justice P ][Sam ][Koshv)] l{eard [Mr'Thanneru ][Chaitanya ][Kumar' ][iearned ][counsel]lor the [petitioner, ][Ms'J'sunitha' ][learned ][Junior ][Standing ][Counsel]for the [Income ][Tax ][Department ][for ][rr: ][spondent ][Nos' ][1 to ][4 ][and]Mr. B. [Mukherjee, ][Ieamed ][counsel ][representing ][the ][Union ][of ][India]tbr respondent [No'5' ][Perused ][the record'] This is is [[a ][writ ][petition ][where ][the ][proceedings ]][[writ ][petition ][where ][the ][proceedings ]][[petition ][where ][the ][proceedings ]][[where ][the ][proceedings ]][[the ][proceedings ]][[proceedings ]][[are ][either]][[either]] WRIT PETITI [No.33424][ oF ][2024] ORDER, [(per ][Hon'ble ][Sri ][Justice P ][Sam ][Koshv)] l{eard [Mr'Thanneru ][Chaitanya ][Kumar' ][iearned ][counsel]lor the [petitioner, ][Ms'J'sunitha' ][learned ][Junior ][Standing ][Counsel]for the [Income ][Tax ][Department ][for ][rr: ][spondent ][Nos' ][1 to ][4 ][and]Mr. B. [Mukherjee, ][Ieamed ][counsel ][representing ][the ][Union ][of ][India]tbr respondent [No'5' ][Perused ][the record'] This is is [[a ][writ ][petition ][where ][the ][proceedings ]][[writ ][petition ][where ][the ][proceedings ]][[petition ][where ][the ][proceedings ]][[where ][the ][proceedings ]][[the ][proceedings ]][[proceedings ]][[are ][either]][[either]] 2. This is is [[a ][writ ][petition ][where ][the ][proceedings ]][[writ ][petition ][where ][the ][proceedings ]][[petition ][where ][the ][proceedings ]][[where ][the ][proceedings ]][[the ][proceedings ]][[proceedings ]][[are ][either]][[either]]chaltenged [to the ][notices ][which ][were ][issued ][under ][Section ][l48A]and 148 [of ][the Income ][Tax ][Act' ][1961 ][(for ][short ]['the ][Act') ][or ][the]assessment [orders those have been ][passed ][under Sectioh ][l4'7 ][of]the Act [which ][have been ][assailed'] This writ writ [[petition ][is ][being taken ][up today ]][[is ][being taken ][up today ]][[being taken ][up today ]][[up today ]][[only ][on one ][of ][the]][[on one ][of ][the]][[of ][the]][[the]] 3. This writ writ [[petition ][is ][being taken ][up today ]][[is ][being taken ][up today ]][[being taken ][up today ]][[up today ]][[only ][on one ][of ][the]][[on 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, 202t w.e.f_, 01.04.2021 onwards, proceedingsunder- Seclion l4gA of the Act as also under Section l4li of thcAct ought to have also heen issued and proceeded in a f_acelessmanner4. Thecontention of the petitioner rs that the issue of the petitioner rs that the issue the petitioner rs that the issue petitioner rs that the issue rs that the issue that the issue issue ofproceedings being in violation of the Financ e Act, 2021i.e.. thelmpugned notices under Section 148A and Section 148 of rhe Actnot berng rssued in a faceless manner, have already been dcalt withand decided by this Courr in the case of KANKANALARAVINDRA REDDY vs. INCOME_TAX OFFICERT decidedon 14.09.2023 whereby a batch of writ petitions were allowed andthe proceedings initiated under Section l4gA as also un<Ier SectionI48 of the Act ,were held to be bad with consequential l"ti"f, on th.ground of it being in vioration of the provisions of Section I5rA ofthe Acr read wirh Norification lg/2022 dated 29.03.2022. l.he saidjudgment passed by this Court has also been subsequently followedin a large number of writ petitions which were allowed on similarterms. contention of the petitioner rs that the issue of the petitioner rs that the issue the petitioner rs that the issue petitioner rs that the issue rs that the issue that the issue issue of ' [(2023) 1 56 taxmiinn.comLu^,,k,,u,.uom 178 (Tetangana)l contention of the petitioner rs that the issue of the petitioner rs that the issue the petitioner rs that the issue petitioner rs that the issue rs that the issue that the issue issue of ' [(2023) 1 56 taxmiinn.comLu^,,k,,u,.uom 178 (Tetangana)l 5. Down [the ][line' ][we hnd ][that the ][same ][issue ][has ][also ][been]decided [against ][the ][Revenue ][by ][various ][High ][Courts ][i'e"]the [Bombay ][l{igh ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][ol ] by 'TECIINOLOGIES LTD', [vs' ASSISTANT ] oF INCOME [.tAx ][& ][OTHERS2, ][Gauhati ][l{igh ][Court ][in the ][case]of RAM [SAH vs' ] [Ot'- ][INDIAT' ][Punjab ][and]ltaryana [High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ] vs. UNION [INDIC, ][and ][Telangana ][High Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]SRI [VENKA'IARAMANA ] [PATLOOI,A ][VS. ] COMMISSIONER [OF' ] [wherc ][thc ][issue ][was ][in]respect [of ][international ][taxation' Bombay ][Fligh Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]ABIIIN ANILKUMAR [VS. ] [OFFICER,]INTERNATIONAL [which ][is again ][onlintcrnational]taxation [an<l ][central ][circle, ][High Court ][of ][Himachal ][Pradesh ][in ][the]case of GOvtND [vs' ] [OFFICERT,]Gujarat High [Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ] 'yzoz+1464 [430 ][(Bom)]'l(2024) [156 ][taxmann-com ][478 ][(Gauhati)l]" tQO24) [165 ][taxmann.com ][1 ][15 ][(Punjab ][& ][Haryana)l] ' 12024) [167 ][taxmann.com ][4 ][t ] [(Telangana)l] " 12024) [166 ][taxmann.com ][679 ][(Bombay)l] II ' izOzq [65 ][taxrnann-corn ] [l3 ][(Himachal ][Pradesh)l] DAHYABI{AT RADADIYA vs. TNCOME TAx OFFICER, WAR_D 3(3X5)s, Jharkand High Court in rhe case of SHyAMSUNDAR SAW vs. UNION OF INDIAe, Rajasthan l{igh Courr inthe case of SHARDA DEVI CHHAJER vs. INCOME TAXHigh Court in rhe case of SHyAMSUNDAR SAW vs. UNION OF INDIAe, Rajasthan l{igh Courr inthe case of SHARDA DEVI CHHAJER vs. INCOME TAXOFFICER & ANOTHER and barch of writ and barch of writ petirionsr0 whichstood decided on 19 03.2024. Similar views have also been hkenby the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in the case ofGIRDHAR GOPAL DALMIA vs. UNION OF_ INDIA & ORS(M.A.T t690 ctf 2023), decided on 25.09.2024.6. Even thc,ugh the same issue having been decided by a largenumber of High Courts, we are still confronted with large filing ofidentical stood decided on 19 03.2024. Similar views have also been hkenby the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in the case ofGIRDHAR GOPAL DALMIA vs. UNION OF_ INDIA & ORS(M.A.T t690 ctf 2023), decided on 25.09.2024.6. Even thc,ugh the same issue having been decided by a largenumber of High Courts, we are still confronted with large filing ofidentical matters on daily basis ranging between 5 to I0 writpetitions. Thar upon the instrucrions being ,orgllt. fiom theranging between 5 to I0 writpetitions. Thar upon the instrucrions being ,orgllt. fiom theDepartment, they have been taking a solitary ground that thetaking a solitary ground that thedecision of the Bombay High Court in the case ot HexawareTechnologies Ld., (2 supra) as also the one which has beendecided by this (lourr in the case of Kanakala Ravitttlra Reddy8202+ scc onlint: Guj 4012'2025 Onlinr: Jhar 287'o12ozJ [: ][RJ-JD:a984-DBl]Reddy8202+ scc onlint: Guj 4012'2025 Onlinr: Jhar 287'o12ozJ [: ][RJ-JD:a984-DBl] (i supra) [has been ][sub.lected ][to ][challenge ][in ][a ][Special ][Leave]Petition [i'e', ] [No'3574 ][ol ][2024 ][before ][the ][Hon'ble ][Supremc]court [and ][the ][Hon,bre ][Supreme ][court is ][seized ][of ][the ][matter']In addition, [there ][are ][about ][1200 SI-Ps ][also ][hled ][arising out ][of ][the]same [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 ][intcrim]order [granted ][by ][the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Court ][in ][any ][of ][thesc]Meanwhile' [fresh ][writ ][petitions ][of]matters [pending ][betbre ][it ]identicat [nahlre ][are ][being ][piled ][up ][before this Bench on ][daity ][basis]and the [pendency ][is ][getting ][increased ][on matter ][which ][otherwise]hasalreadybeendealtanddecidedbythisveryHighCourtitself.8. On the [one hand, ][cven though the order ][of ][this Court ][tltat]was [passed ][as early ][as ][on ][t4'09'2023 ][and ][more ][16 ][months ][havc]till [date, ][we do ][not ][find ][any ][remedial ][steps ][having ][been]Iapsed, taken by [the Income ][Tax ][Deparlment ][to ][take ][appropriate ][steps ][to]either hold [back ][issuance ][of ][notice under ][Section ][148,4. ][and under]Section [148 ][of ][the ][Act by ][the ][jurisdictional ][Assessing ][Officer']rather the [authorities concerned ][in ][the teeth ][of ][series ][of ][decisions] by all the maJor High Courtsln lndia arecontrnuously stillrnrtrating proceedings under Sectionl48A of the Act and alsorn rtratingProceedings under Sec:tion I48 ol rhe Acttncontravention to the amendments brought into the Income laxActpursuant to the Finance Act,2020as also the Finance Act 2021.9. Upon a. query being put as to why can,t this writ petitionbedisposed of in the teeth of the decision rendered by this Courtinthe case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (lsupra), Iear.ned StandingCounsel for thr: Income Tax Department contends that those wouldunnecessarily burden the Income Tax Department where theywould be reqr-rired to file equal number ol SLps before theHon'ble Suprerne Court and it would be further burdening theexchequer of the Union of India. It was also rhe conleStion of theleamed Standing Counsel that no prejudiee would be caused to theinterest of the petitioners in case if this writ petition is kept pendingtill the finalizarion of the SLps pending before the Hon,bleSupreme Court and the fact that the petitioner is atready enjoyingthe benefLt of interim protection. Nonetheless, on the earlier [query]of this court [as ][to ][why ][the ][lncome ][Tax ][Department have not ][come]out [r'vith a mechanism ][to ][issue appropriate ][instructiol: ][or ][to ][take] F F appropriate [steps ][in ][ensuring tirat proceedings under ][Section ][148A]of the [Act ][as aiso ][the ][assessmen[ ][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 ][iearned ][Standing]counsel [that the ][said ][steps ][can ][onry ][be ][taken at ][the rever ][of ][cBD'r]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 ][t{igh ][Court ][allowing ][writ ][petitions ][on ][the ][very ][same]issue. [The ][lncome ]['l'ax ][authorities concemed are ][still ][even ][now ][in]2025 also [initiating ][proceedings ][in ][contravention ][to ][the provisions]of Section [15 ] [of ][the ][Act ][and ][as ][a ][result ][by ][no*' ][*io1" ][than 600]to 700 [petitions ][have been already ][got ][piled ][up before ][this ][High]Court on [an issue ][which ][other-wise ][stands ][squarely covered ][by ][the]judgment of this Court in [the ][case ][ol ][Kanukala Ravindra ][Reddy](l supra). What is [also surprising ][is ][the fact ][that though ][rvhile]allowing the writ [petitions ][in ][the ][case ][of ][Kanakala ][Ravindra]the [Division ][Bench ][while ][reserving ][the ][right ][ol]Reddy (l supra), the Revenue, has [also ][protected ][the ][interest ][of ][the ][petitioners] \ lnsofar asthe liberty which was granted to the Revenue to the Revenue the Revenue Revenue rnltiating frt:sh proceedings strictly in accordance with the amendedprovtsions of the Act,as amended by the Finance Act, 2020 andthe Finance \ct,2021.The petitioner assessee would be entitled tochallenge or raise the other legal objections ifthe Revenue initiatesfresh proceedings.The Department has made no endeavour inavailing the s;aid liberty that was reserved for the Revenue. On thecontrary, they havebeen still sticking on ro the stand, which thisHigh Courr as well45 rDany other High Courts already held to bebad.I l. It appears that because ofthe aforesaid liberty thar this Highcourt had granted permitting the Revenue for initiating lieshproceedings as a one_time measure in a faceless ,manner, th"Income Tax 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 timeand finally at a later stage if the Hon,ble Supreme Court confirrnsthe decision taken by this High Courr as also by rhe orher HighCourts in which the SLps are still pending, the Income Tax/ the liberty which was granted to the Revenue to the Revenue the Revenue Revenue for Department [would ][get the advantage ][ol ][the ][liberty ][that is otherwise]in favour [of ][the ][Revenue ][lor ][initiation ][of ][fresh]protected from [the ][disposal ][of ][these ][matters ][at a ][much ][la[er ][stage]proceedings which would be [advantageous ][and ][benef,rcial ][to ][the ][Revenue ][and]would be equally [disadvantageous and ][detrimental ][so ][far ][as ][interest]of the assesses [are ][concerned. As ][a ][consequence, ][the Income Tax]Department [gets ][an extended ][period ][of ][time ][for ][initiation ][of ][fresh]proceedings. the liberty which was granted to the Revenue to the Revenue the Revenue Revenue for Department [would ][get the advantage ][ol ][the ][liberty ][that is otherwise]in favour [of ][the ][Revenue ][lor ][initiation ][of ][fresh]protected from [the ][disposal ][of ][these ][matters ][at a ][much ][la[er ][stage]proceedings which would be [advantageous ][and ][benef,rcial ][to ][the ][Revenue ][and]would be equally [disadvantageous and ][detrimental ][so ][far ][as ][interest]of the assesses [are ][concerned. 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 setin [Kanakala Ravindra ][Reddy ][(l ][supra), ][is ][a]matter of grave concern. [The ][Income ][Tax ][Department's ][persistent]initiation of fresh [proceedings, ][disregarding ][the established ][judicial],lpronouncements, has led to [an ][unprecedented ][surge ][in ][titigation]with over 600-700 [petitions ][piling ][up ][on ][the ][same issue' This]deliberate approach [not ][oniy ][undermines the ][principle ][ofjudicial]precedent but also strains [the ][judicial ][resources ][unnecessarily' The]Department's strategy of awaiting [the ][Supreme ][Court's decision ][on]pending SLPs while continuing to initiate [fresh ][proceedings]appears to be a calculated [move ]to buy [time ][and ][circumvent]limitation periods, rather than [adhering ]to [the ][established ][legal]t, \\ -*- posttion. Such conduct raises serious questions about theadministrativeefficiency and thcrespect for judicialpronouncements, particularly when this Court has ah.eady provideda balanced approach by preserving both the Revenue,s rights andassesses interests.when this Court has ah.eady provideda balanced approach by preserving both the Revenue,s rights andassesses interests. 13. Another aspect which needs to be considered is that in fact itshould have been realized by the Income Tax Deparlment itself andshould have found out via media in ensuring that proceedingsunder Sections l4g_A and 14g should not have been issued in afaceless manner, at least till the Hon,ble Supreme Court decide thetwelve hundred (1200) odd SLps which it is already seized of or, arleast the Income Tax Department should ha,,re fbund out someremedial steps to ensure that wherever the authorit,iep intend toinitiate proceedings under Sections l4g_A and l4g, orher rhan 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 same issue.This again, the Income Tax Department, has not been able to give aconvincing repl.r, except for the fact that such a decision if at allII !- \ .F-.a !- \ .F-.a has to [be taken, ][has ][to ][be taken ][fbr ][the ][whoie ][of ][tndia' ][and ][which]other-wise [has ][to ][be ][by way ][of ][a ][policy ][decision ][and ][that ][too ][at the]Ievel [of ][Central ][Board ][ol ][Direct ][Taxes. ][Though ][the ][leamed]Standing [Counsel ][for the ][Income ][Tax ][Deparlment contended ][that]the Delhi [High ][Court ][dismissed ][a ][writ ][petition ][of ][similar ][nature' ][on]the one [hand ][when ][the High ][Court ][is ][struggting ][to ][reduce ][its]pendency, [such ][notices ][which ][are under ][challenge ][in ][this ][writ]petition [are ][forcing ][the ][assessee ][to ][knock ths ][floors ][of ][this t{igh]Courl [resulting ][in ][filing ][of ][hundreds ][o[ ][new ][writ ][petitions which in]the long [run not ][only ][aflects ][thc disposal ][of ][the ][writ ][petitions ][but]also [consumes ][substantial ][time ][of ][the ][Bench. ][in ][hearing ][these]matters [again and ][again on ][daily ][basis' ][Admittedly' ][in ][spite ][olthe]matterbeforetheHon,blesupremeCourthavingbcentakenonmany occasions, [the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Couft which ][is ][seized ][of ][the]matter has [been reluctant ][in ][granting ][any ][interim ][protection ][to ][the]lncome Tax [Department. ][Yet, ][the ][authorities ][concerned ][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 {5sg55ing Oflicer whereas it oughrto have been only in the 1hceless manner. 14. In rhe case of BANK OF INDIA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, justifiable INCOME TAXIr, on an issue whether ir wason the part of the Income Tax Deparrment in notfollowing an order passed by the adjudicating authority only on theground that the appeals are pending, the Division Bench of rheHigh Court of Bombay he ld at paragraph No.25 as under, viz., : "25. Mr.. paridwa adecision of this court .n [h" ][t'9htl' ][drawn ][out ][attention ][to ][the]of lncome Tax vs' smt'ordinate Godavaridevi Bench s".rt,, of mis cc' uco"issioner arso the recent decision of the co-or which one or us ,r,.,,J: : :.il:,.fi'J:'J:"i:l,::1, ;^"r,:;the court categoricaly observed that the Revenue having not"accepted,, the judgment of the High Court would not meAn fhat tillthe same is sel aside in a manner known to law, it would ldose itsbinding force. Referring to the decision of the Supreme Court inUnion of lndia vs. Kamtakshi Finance Corporation Ltd.14, theCourt observed that the approach of the oflicials of Revenue oftreating decisions being "not acceptable,, was criticized by theSupreme CoLlrt. ln such decision, following are the re,evantobservations rnade by the Supreme Court. I t t r2025) I 70 70 ta> mann.com [422 ][(Bombav)l] t r2025) r2025) I 70 70 fffi' [u, ][ttp- ][:89 ][G^*@ ]', 00 [Taxman 452 (Bombay)] 'ttr,.,":ilTfi**ffi"";;l3f1s. [- ][-] I t t r2025) I 70 70 ta> mann.com [422 ][(Bombav)l] t r2025) r2025) I 70 70 fffi' [u, ][ttp- ][:89 ][G^*@ ]', 00 [Taxman 452 (Bombay)] 'ttr,.,":ilTfi**ffi"";;l3f1s. [- ][-] "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 ][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 appellate ][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 tha]Assistant Collectors [working ][within ][his ][jurisdiction ][and]the order of the [Tribunal is ][binding ][upon the Assistant]Coltectors and the [Appellate Collectors ][who ][function]under the [jurlsdiction of ][the ][Tribunal. ][The ][principles ][of]judicial discipline require lhat 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]ground for not following it unless its [operation ][has]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 tax laws. 12. We have dealt with this aspect at some length,bet;ause it has been suggested by the learnedAdclitional Solicitor General that the observationsmade by the High Court, have been harsh on theofficers. lt is clear that th,court, seeminsry r"r""r"#"t"'IJt ["jJ::rl:;]unpalatable to the Revenue, are only intended to curba tendency in revenue matters which, if allowed tobecome widespread, could result in considerableharassment to the assesses_public without any benefitto the Revenue. We would like to say that thedepartment should take lhese observations in lheproper spirit. The observations of the High Courtshourd be kept in mind in future and the utmost regardshoutd be paid by the adjudicating authorities and theappellate authorities to the requrrements of judicialdiscipline and the need for giving effect to tne orJersof the higher appellate authorities which are bindingon them." 15 what is wonying this Bench more is the fact that anendeavour is being made whole heartedly to ensure not to generatefurther iitigation 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 Deparlment being violative oltheII 15 what is wonying this Bench more is the fact that anendeavour is being made whole heartedly to ensure not to generatefurther iitigation 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 Deparlment being violative oltheII Finance [rlct,2020 ][and ][Finance ][Act'2021' ][Now' ][in order to ][protect]the intercst [of ][the ][Revenue ][as ][also ][that ][of ][the ][assessee' ][it ][would ][bc]trite at [ihis ][juncture, ][il ][lr'e ][dispose ][of ][the ][writ ][petition ][rvitl'r ][an]obser.ration/direction [that the disposal ][of ][the instant ][writ ][petition ][in]terms of [the ][judgment ][rendcred ][by ][this High ][Court ][in ][thc ][casc ][ol]Kunkanala [Ravindra ][Reddy ][(.1 ][supra) ][shall ][however ][be ][subject ][to]theoutcomeotthesLPswhichwerelrledbythelncomeTaxDepartment [and ][which ][is ][pending consideration before ][the ][Hon'ble]Supreme [Court.] 16. In [the given ][iacts ][anci ][circumstances' ][this ][Bench ][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 ][fortihed ][by ][the ][decisions ][of ][the ][Jarious ][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'] 11 . So far as [the interest ][of ][the ][Revenue ][is ][concemed, ][we ][are ][of]the considered [opinion ][that ][the interest ][olthe ][Revenue ][has ][already]been considered and [protected, ][as ][has ][been observed ][in ][paragraphs] 36,37 and.]8 ofthe order which, for ready reference, rs reproducedhercuncler 36. For all the aforesaid r iss ued and tne proceeoins,e;:Hj?TJT:il:::TDepartment is neithertunuo'"' nor sustainabre.The notices so issued "no perseillegal,deserves.otheProcedureadopledbeingbe and are accordingly setasirje/quashed. As a cons t"o'"n"u' all the impugnedorders getting quashed. ,n" by the respondur.o"r"nrlli ,rtJ:: ;";: ff::issued under Section 14.148would also getquashed and it is ora"r"o7,and accordingly. The reason weare rtruashing lhe conseguential order is on the principlesthat when the initiation of the proceedings itself wasproc,3durally wrong, the sul)sequent orders arso getsnu,if;ed automaticary. 37. The preliminary objection raised by the petitioner issustained and all these writ petitions stands allowed onthis very jurisdictional issue_ Since the impugned rloticesand orders are getting quashed on the point ofjurisdiction, we are not inclined to .proceed further anddecider the other issues raised by the petitioner whichstands reserved to be raisedand conlended in anappropriate proceedings. 38Since the Hon,ble Supreme Court had, in the caseof AshishAgarwal, supra, as a one{imemeasureexercisingthe powers under Article 142of theConstitution of lndia, permitted lhe Revenue to proceedunder the substituted provisions, and this Court allowingthe petitions only on the procedural flaw, the rightunder the substituted provisions, and this Court allowingthe 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 ][the]order [of ][the ][Supreme ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ][Ashish]Agarwal, [suPra] 38Since the Hon,ble Supreme Court had, in the caseof AshishAgarwal, supra, as a one{imemeasureexercisingthe powers under Article 142of theConstitution of lndia, permitted lhe Revenue to proceedunder the substituted provisions, and this Court allowingthe petitions only on the procedural flaw, the rightunder the substituted provisions, and this Court allowingthe 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 ][the]order [of ][the ][Supreme ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ][Ashish]Agarwal, [suPra] i8. [We ][would only ][turther ][like ][to ][make observations ][that ][stnce]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 ][o[]Kanakala [Ravindra ][Reddy ][(l ][supra) ][is ][subjected ][to ][challenge]before [the Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Court ][in ][SLP No'3574 ][of ][2024']preferred [by ][the ][Income ][Tax Depaftment' ][we ][make ][it ][clear ][that]altowing [of ][the ][instant ][writ ][petition ][is ][subject ][to ][outcome ][of ][the]aforesaid [SLP prefened ][by ][the Revenue against the ][decision ][ofthis]High Courl [in ][the ][case ][of ][Kanakaltt Ravindra ][Reddy ][(l ][sttpra)']This, in [other words, ][would ][mean ][that either ][of ][the ][pgties' ][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'] I 9. Accordingly, [the ][instant ][writ ][petition ][stands ][allowed ][in]favour of the [assessee ][so ][far ][as the ][issue ][of ][jurisdiction]1Sconccmcd. [As ][a ][consequence, ][the ][impugned ][notice ][under]chalienge [under Sections 148-A ][and ][148 stands ][set ][aside/quashed] The consequential orclers, if any, also stand set aside/quashed insimilar tenns as have been passed by this High court in the case ofKunkanala Rqvindra .fhere Reddy (I supra). shalt be no order as to costs Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shatl stand closed. HIGH COURT DATED:2BtO4t2O2S 2 o stP zoE-..,,ORDERWP.No.33 424 of 2024 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITIONWITHOUT COSTS "-lt [-,/]