Wp/33450/2024 Of Primary Agricutural Co Operative Society Limited v. The Income Tax Officer

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction)MONDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF APRILTWO THOUSAND AND TWENW FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION NO: 33450 OF 2024 Between: PRIMARY AGRICUTURAL CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, GUDIHATHNOOR. Rep. by the CEO KENDRE PANDARI. S/o. RATANHARIKENDARE, Aged about 44 years, Occupation. Business, Rio.GUDIHATHNOOR P, GUDIHATHNOOR IV, GUDIHATHNOOR, ADILABAD504001. Telangana, lndia, PAN. , Assessment Year.2018-19 ...PETITIONER AND 1Ttrc lncome Tax Officer, Ward 1, Adilabad/Adilabad, Hyderabad, Adilabad,Hyderabad, Hyderabad 5041 06, Telangana.Hyderabad, Hyderabad 5041 06, Telangana. 2The Principal Chief Commissioner of lncome Tax - Telangana and A-P.,Hyderabad, lT Towers, AC Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad - 500028,Telangana,Hyderabad, lT Towers, AC Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad - 500028,Telangana, 3The Central Board of Direct Taxes, Represented by its Chairman, Departmentof Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Governnrerlt o[ lrtdia, Secretariat Buildings,New Delhi - 1 10 001 .of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Governnrerlt o[ lrtdia, Secretariat Buildings,New Delhi - 1 10 001 . 4The National Faceless Assessment Center, lncome Tax Department, NewDelhi.Delhi. 5The Union of lndia, Represented by its Secretary to the Government,Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, l.lew Delhi - 1 10 001.Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, l.lew Delhi - 1 10 001. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia [praying ]that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may bepleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one inthe nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the order [passed ]by the Income TaxAuthorities (National Faceless E-Assessment Centre) completed the assessmentU/S 147 r.w.s 144 read with section 144B of the lncome-tax Act Date ol [17 ][-O2-] 2024, DIN ITBA/AST/S/14712023-2411061064645( 1 ) Ior the Assessment Year20'18-19 determining the total income of Rs. 62,22,083,-- as arbitrary, illegat, badin law, without jurisdiction, void-ab-initio, violative of the principles of naturaljustice apart from being violative of Articles 1a, ' 9(1 )(g) and 265 of theConstitution of lndia and Sec. 148A of the lncorne Tax Act, 1 96'i , andconsequently set aside the same in the interests of justice. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petitir:n under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances statedin the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cou( may be pleased toin the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cou( may be pleased tosuspend the orcier Under section 147r.w.s 144 read with section 1448 of thelncome-tax Act Date of 17 -02-2024, DIN |fBA./AST/S/14il2o23-lncome-tax Act Date of 17 -02-2024, DIN |fBA./AST/S/14il2o23-24l1061064645(1) for the Assessment Year 2O1B-'9 determining the totalincome of Rs. 62,22,083/- and Demand notice u/s 156 of the lncome Tax act,.1961, vide DIN and Notice No. ITBA/ASr/S/156t2O23- 2411061064661(1) Dt.17 -02-2024 for the assessment year 2018-19 pending rlisposal of the above WritPetition-Petition- 1 -bounsel for the Petitioner: SRI THANNERU CHATTANYA KUMAR ;Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 4: Ms. J.SUNITHA Jr. SC FOR lTfor the Respondent No.1 to 4: Ms. J.SUNITHA Jr. SC FOR lT Counsel for the Respondent No.s: SRI B.MUKHERJEE REp. FORSRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR,DEPUTY SOLICITOTI GENERIAL OF INDIASRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR,DEPUTY SOLICITOTI GENERIAL OF INDIA The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE [SRt ] [P.SAI\{ ] ANDTTIE HONOURABLE NANDTKONDA WRIT PETITI [No.33450][oF ][2024] $DEB, [(per ][Hon'blc ][Sri ][Justice ][P.Sam ][Koshv)] Heard Mr.Thanneru [Chaitanya ][Kumar, ][leamed ][counsel] 1 -bounsel for the Petitioner: SRI THANNERU CHATTANYA KUMAR ;Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 4: Ms. J.SUNITHA Jr. SC FOR lTfor the Respondent No.1 to 4: Ms. J.SUNITHA Jr. SC FOR lT Counsel for the Respondent No.s: SRI B.MUKHERJEE REp. FORSRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR,DEPUTY SOLICITOTI GENERIAL OF INDIASRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR,DEPUTY SOLICITOTI GENERIAL OF INDIA The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE [SRt ] [P.SAI\{ ] ANDTTIE HONOURABLE NANDTKONDA WRIT PETITI [No.33450][oF ][2024] $DEB, [(per ][Hon'blc ][Sri ][Justice ][P.Sam ][Koshv)] Heard Mr.Thanneru [Chaitanya ][Kumar, ][leamed ][counsel] for the petitioner, [Ms.J.Sunitha, leamed ][Junior ][Standing ][Counsel]for the Income Tax [Department ][lor ][respondent ][Nos'l ][to ][4 ][and]Mr. B. Mukherjee, [tearned ][counsel representing ][the ][Union ][of ][India]for respondent No.5. [Perused ][the record'] 2. This is a writ [petition where ][the ][proceedings ][are ][either]challenged to the [notices ][which ][were ][issued ][under ][Section ][148,{]and 148 of the [Income ][Tax ][Act, ][196l (for ][short'the ][Act') ][or ][the]assessment orders [those have been ][passed ][under Section ][147 ][of]the Act which have [been assailed.] 3. This writ [petition ][is ][being ][taken up ][today ][only ][on ][one ][of ][the]grounds, that the notices [issued ][under ][Section ][t48A ][of ][the ][Act]and the subsequent [initiation ][ofproceedings ][under Section ][148 ][of]the Act by the [jurisdictional ][Assessing ][Oflficer, ][whereas ][in ][terms]of the amendment [that was ][brought to the ][[ncome ][Tax ][Act ][by ][way] of Finance Act, 20Zl w.e.f., 01.04.2021 onwarCs, proceedingsunder Section l48A of the Act as also under Ser.tion l4g of theAct ought to have also been issued and proceedr:d 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 issue proceedings lreing in violaticn of the Finance Acr. 202i i.e., theimpugneri nolices under Section 14gA and Section l4g of the Actnot being issued in a faceless manner, have already been dealt withand decided by this Court in the case ol I(ANKANALARAVINDRA REDDY vs. INCOME_TAX OIF|CERT decidedon 14.09.|1fr23 whereby a batch of rvrit petitions we r.e allowed andthe proccedi,gs initiated under Section l4gA as arsc trnder Sectio.148 of the Act were held to be bad with consequentiz I relief.s on theground oi it being in violation of the provisions of St:cr.ion l5 l A olthe Act read with Notification lgl2}2|dated 29.0i.2.)22. .lhe saidjudgmcnt passed by this Court has also been subsequ()ntly lollowedin a large nurnber of writ petitions which were ailou ed on simirar 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 issue of terms. '[(2023) I56 raxmann.com 17g (Telangana)] 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 issue of terms. '[(2023) I56 raxmann.com 17g (Telangana)] 5. Down the line, we find that the same issue has also beendecided against the Revenue by various High Courts i.e.,by the Bombay High Court in the case of HEXAWARETECHNOLOGTES LTD., vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX & OTHERS2, Gauhati High Court in the caseof RAM NARAYAN SAH vs. UNION OF INDIAT, punjab andHaryana High Court in the case of JATINDER SINGH BANGUvs. UNION OF INDIA4, and Telangana High Court in the case ofSRI \.ENKATARAMANA REDDY PATLOOLA vs. DEPUTYCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX5 where rhe issue was inrespect of international taxation, Bombay High Court in the case ofABHIN ANILKUMAR SHAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,INTERNATIONAL TAXATION6 which is again on intemationaltaxation and central circle, High Court of Himachal pradesh in thecase of GOVIND SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERT,Gujarat High Court in the case of MANSUKHBHAI'lzoz+1464 [430 ][(Bom)]'[(2024) 156 taxmann.com 478 (Gauhati)]'l(2024) 165 taxmann.com I l5 (Punjab & Haryana)l'[2024) [167 ]taxmarur.com 4l I (Telangana)]" 12024) [166 ]taxmann.com 679 (Bornbay)l' [2024) [165 ]taxmarur.com t l3 (Himachal Pradesh)] DAHYAIIHAI RADADIYA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 3(3)(5)8, Jharkand High Court in the case of SHYAMSTINDAR SAW vs. UNION OF INDIAe, Rajasthal I{igh Court inthe case of SHARDA DEVI CHHAJER vs. II{COME TAXOFFICER & ANOTIIER and batch of writ petitionsro whichstood decided on 19.03.2024. Similar views have also been takenby the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court n the ca-se ofGIRDHAR COPAL DALMIA vs. UNION OF I\DIA & ORS(M.A.T 1ti90 of 2023), decided on25.09.2024.6. Even though the same issue having been dec ded by a largenumber ol- I{igh Courts, we are still confronted witt large filing ofidentical matters on daily basis ranging between 5 to 10 writpetitions. That upon the instructions being sot glit from theDepartment, they have been taking a solitary ground that thedecision of the Bombay High Court in the case ol- H acawareTechnologies Ltd., (2 supra) as also the one wrich has beendecided by this Court in the case of Kanakala Rtrvindra Reddy s2024 SCC Online Guj 4012"2025 SCC Online Jhar287I o 12023 [: ] [-JD ][:4984-DBl] (l supra) has been subjected to challenge in a Special LeavePetition i.e., SLP No.3574 of 2024 before the Hon'ble SupremeCourt and the Hon'ble Supreme Court is seized of the matter.In addition, there are about 1200 SLPs also filed arising out ofthesame issue being decided by various High Courts. 7. To a query being put to the learned counsel for the Revenue,they have categorically accepted the fact that there is no interimorder granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in any of thesematters pending before it. Meanwhile, fresh writ petitions olidentical nature are being piled up before this Bench on daity basisand the pendency is getting increased on matter which otherwisehas alreadybeen dealt and decided by this very High Court itself. 8. On the one hand, even though the order of this Court thatwas passed as early as on 14.09.2023 and rnore 16 months haveIapsed, till date, we do not find any remedial steps having beentaken by the Income Tax Department to take appropriate steps toeither hold back issuance of notice under Section 1484. and underSection 148 of the Act by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer,rather the authorities concemed in the teeth of series of decisions by all the rnajor High Courts in India are co ntinuously stillinitiating proceedings under Section 148,4. of thr: Act and alsoinitiating proceedings under Section 148 oI tLre Act incontravention to the amendments brought into the ILrcorne Tax Actpursuant ro the Finance Act,2020 as also the Finance Act20Zl 8. On the one hand, even though the order of this Court thatwas passed as early as on 14.09.2023 and rnore 16 months haveIapsed, till date, we do not find any remedial steps having beentaken by the Income Tax Department to take appropriate steps toeither hold back issuance of notice under Section 1484. and underSection 148 of the Act by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer,rather the authorities concemed in the teeth of series of decisions by all the rnajor High Courts in India are co ntinuously stillinitiating proceedings under Section 148,4. of thr: Act and alsoinitiating proceedings under Section 148 oI tLre Act incontravention to the amendments brought into the ILrcorne Tax Actpursuant ro the Finance Act,2020 as also the Finance Act20Zl 9. Upon a query being put as to why can't this writ petition bedisposed of in the teeth of the decision rendered by this Court inthe case ctl Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra), le amed StandingCounsel for the Income Tax Department contends that those wouldunnecessarily burden the Income Tax Departme nt where theywould be required to file equal number of St ps before theHon'ble Supreme Coutt and it would be further burdening theexchequer ot'the Union of India. It was also the cc ntention of theleamed Standing Counsel that no prejudice would be caused to theinterest of the petitioners in case if this writ petition s kept pendingtill the finalization of the SLps pending befon: the Hon,bteSupreme [(lour1 ]and the fact that the petitioner is al:eady enjoyingthe benefit of interim protection. Nonetheless, on the earlier queryof this Court as to why the lncome Tax Department have not comeout rvith a mechanism to issue appropriate instruct,ons or to take/({ appropriate steps in ensuring that proceedings under Section 14EAof the Act as also the assessment orders under Section 148 of theAct are kept in a hold in the light ofthe decisions dedcided by thevarious High Courts, it was submitted by the leamed StandingCounsel that the said steps can only be taken at the level of CBDTas any such steps would have to be taken Pan [ndia and cannot belimited to any of these jurisdictional High Courts. 10. As a result of which, what we are facing is steep increase ollitigation day in and day out even though various orders have beenpassed by this High Court allowing writ petitions on the very sarneissue. The Income Tax authorities concerned are still even now in2025 atso initiating proceedings in contravention to the provisionsof Section 15lA of the Act and as a result by now, more than 600tt-r 700 petitit-tns have been alreatly got pilcd up bclurc this HighCourt on an issue which otherwise stands squarely covered by thejudgment of this Court in the case of Kanukala Ravindra Reddy(1 supra). What is also surprising is the fact that though whileallowing the writ petitions in the case of Kanakala RavindraReddy (l supra), the Division Bench while reserving the right ofthe Revenue, has also protected the interest ol the petitioners insofar as the liberty which was granted to th: Revenue forinitiating fresh proceedings strictly in accordance w.th the amendedprovisidns of the Act, as amended by the Finance Act, ZO2O andthe Financc Act,202l. The petitioner assessee would be entitled tochallenge or raise the orher legat objections if the R,:venue initiatesfresh pror:eedings. The Department has made n(r endeavour inavailing the said libcrty that was reserved for the Rrvenuc. On thecontrary, they have been still sticking on to the stand, which thisI{igh Court as well as many other High Courts alreacly held to bebaci. insofar as the liberty which was granted to th: Revenue forinitiating fresh proceedings strictly in accordance w.th the amendedprovisidns of the Act, as amended by the Finance Act, ZO2O andthe Financc Act,202l. The petitioner assessee would be entitled tochallenge or raise the orher legat objections if the R,:venue initiatesfresh pror:eedings. The Department has made n(r endeavour inavailing the said libcrty that was reserved for the Rrvenuc. On thecontrary, they have been still sticking on to the stand, which thisI{igh Court as well as many other High Courts alreacly held to bebaci. I l. It appears appears that because ofthe because ofthe ofthe aforesaid libertl that this Highthat this HighHighCourt had granted pennitting the Revenue for iritiating freshCourt had granted pennitting the Revenue for iritiating freshproceedin6ls as a one-time measure in a facelesr, manner, theIncome Tax Depaftment wants to take advantage of the same byprotracting these proceedings which would enable tht:m to rneet theprotracting these proceedings which would enable tht:m to rneet thelimitation lhat u,ould otherwise come in the way. L.kewise, if theu,rit petition is kept pending for a considerable long teriod of timeand hnally at a later stage if the Hon'ble Supreme Court confirmsthe decision taken by this High Court as also by the other Highu,rit petition is kept pending for a considerable long teriod of timeand hnally at a later stage if the Hon'ble Supreme Court confirmsthe decision taken by this High Court as also by the other HighCourts in which the SLPs are still pending, the Income Tax It appears appears that because ofthe because ofthe ofthe aforesaid libertl that this Highthat this HighHigh Department would get the advantage of the liberty that is otherwiseprotected in favour of the Revenue for initiation of freshproceedings fiom the disposal ofthese matters at a much later stagewhich would be advantageous and beneficial to the Revenue andwould be equally disadvantageous and detrimental so far as interestof the assesses are concemed. As a consequence, the Income TaxDepartment gets an extended period of time for initiation of fieshproceedings 12. The alarming trend of docket explosion in this Court, despitethe clear precedent set in Kflnakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra), is amatter of grave concern. The Income Tax Department's persistentinitiation of [resh proceedings, disregarding the established [judiciat]pronouncements, has led to an unprecedented surge in litigationwith over 600-700 petitions piling up on the same issue. Thisdeliberate approach not only undermines the principle of [judicial]precedent but also strains the [judicial ]resources unnecessarily. TheDepartment's strategy of awaiting the Supreme Court's decision onpending SLPs while continuing to initiate fresh proceedingsappears to be a calculated move to buy time and circumventlimitation periods, rather than adhering to the established [legal] position. Such conduct raises serious questions about theadministrative effrciency and the respect for judicialpronouncements, particularly when this Court has already provicieda balanced approach by preserving both the Reverrue's rights andassesses interests. position. Such conduct raises serious questions about theadministrative effrciency and the respect for judicialpronouncements, particularly when this Court has already provicieda balanced approach by preserving both the Reverrue's rights andassesses interests. 13. Anr>ther aspect which needs to be considered is that in fact itshould have been realized by the Income Tax Deparrnent itself andshould have lbund out via media in ensuring that proceedingsunder Sections 148-A and 148 should not have bt:en issued in afaceless manner, at least till the Hon'bte Supreme Court decide thetwelve hundred (1200) odd SLps u,hich it is already seized of or, atleast the [ncome Tax Department should have fc und out someremedial steps to ensure that wherever the autholities intend toinitiate proceedings under Sections 148-A and l4g, other than in afaceless manner, the proceedings should 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 ve:y same issue.This again. the Income Tax Department, has not beerL able to give aconvincing reply, except fcr the fact that such a de:ision if at all has to be taken, has to be taken for the whole of India, and whichotherwise has to be by way of a policy decision and that too at thelevel of Central Board of Direct Taxes. Though the leamedStanding Counsel for the Income Tax Department contended thatthe Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition of similar nature, onthe one hand when the High Court is struggling to reduce itspendency, such notices which are under challenge in this writpetition are forcing the assessee to knock the doors of this HighCourt resulting in filing of hundreds of new writ petitions which inthe long run not only affects the disposal of the writ petitions butalso consumes substantial time of the Bench in hearing thesematters again and again on daily basis. Admittedly, in spite of thematter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court having been taken onmany occasions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court which is seized of thematter has been reluctant in granting any interim protection to theIncome Tax Department. Yet, the authorities concerned at theState level are not ready to accept the verdict passed by a majorityof High Courts of different States on the same issue; and to makethings further worse, the Income Tax Department is showingaudacity by issuing notices continuously under Sections 148-A and 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 TAXrr, on an issue u,herher it wasjustiflable on the part of the [ncome Tax Depirrlment in notioliowing an order passeci by the adjudicating autho-ity only on theground that the appeals are pending, the Divisior Bench of theHigh Court of Bombay held at paragraph No.25 as uLrder, r,iz., : "25. ivir. Paricjwaila has rightly cirawn out aiienrion to thedecision of this Court in Commissioner of lncome T:rx vs. Smt.Godavaridevi Sarafl2 as also the recent decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this Coud in Samp Furniture (p) Lid. v. lTO13of which one of us (Justice G.S. Kulkarni) was a member, whereinthe Court categorically observed that the Revenue having not"accepted" the judgment of the High Court would not nean that tillthe same is set aside in a manner known to law, it wor ld Ioose itsbinding force. Referring to the decision of the Suprerre Court inUnion of lndia vs. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd.'4, theCourt observed that the approach of the offlcials of flevenue oftreating decisions being "not acceptable" was critici;led by theSupreme Court. ln such decision, following are tf e relevantobservations made by the Supreme Cou(. " [(202S) [170 ][iaxmann.com ][422 ][(Bombay)]]'' U9781 I | 3 ITR 589 lBonrbay) '1 120241165 [taxmann.com ]581/300 Taxman 452 (Bombry)'o ltggZl [raxmann.com ][16/55 ]ELT 433 (SC) " [(202S) [170 ][iaxmann.com ][422 ][(Bombay)]]'' U9781 I | 3 ITR 589 lBonrbay) '1 120241165 [taxmann.com ]581/300 Taxman 452 (Bombry)'o ltggZl [raxmann.com ][16/55 ]ELT 433 (SC) "6. Sri Reddy is perhaps right in saying that theofficers were not actuated by any mala fides inpassing the impugned orders. They perhapsgenuinely felt that the claim of the assessee was nottenable and that, if it was accepted, the Revenuewould suffer. But what Sri Reddy overlooks is that weare not concerned here with the correclness orotherwise of their conclusion or of any factualmalafides but with the fact that the officers, in reachingin their conclusion, by-passed two appellate orders inregard to the same issue which were placed beforethem, one of the Collector (Appeals) and the other ofthe Tribunal. The High Court has, in our view, rightlycriticized this conduct of the Assistant Collectors andthe harassment to the assessee caused by the failureof these officers to give effect to the orders ofauthorities higher to them in the appellate hierarchy. ltcannot be too vehemently emphasized that it is ofutmost importance that, in disposing of thequasijudicial issues before them, revenue officers arebound by the decisions of the appellate authorities.The order of the Appellte Collector is binding on theAssistant Collectors working within his iurisdiction andthe order of the Tribunal is binding upon the AssistantCollectors and the Appellate Collectors who functionunder the [jurisdiction ]of the Tribunal. The principles ofjudicial discipline require that the orders of the higherappellate authorities should be followed unreservedlyby the subordinate authorities. The mere fact that theorder of the appellate authority is not "acceptable" tothe department - in itself an objectionable phrase -and is the subject matter of an appeal can furnish noground for not following it unless its operation hasbeen suspended by a competent court. lf this healthy .-, -, rule is not followed, the result will only be Jndueharassment to assesses and chaos in adminis lrationof tax laws. 12. We have dealt with this aspect at some l:ngth,because it has been suggested by the learnedAdditional Solicitor General that the observationsmade by the High Court, have been harsh cn theofficers. it is ciear that the observations of th< HighCourt, seemingly vehement, and appa r.ent!;-unpalatable to the Revenue, are only lntended t() curba tendency in revenue matters which, if allor,r ed tobecome widespread, could result in considi)rableharassment to the assesses-public without any t enefitt^ th6 A^r,^^' '^ t /^ ..,^,.1,J t:1,^ r^ ^^.,rrNs rU sdy tlt(.1 lll(idepartment should take these observations ir theproper spirit. The observations of the High Courtshould be kept in mind in future and the utmost r-.gardshould be paid by the adJudicating authorities ar d theappellate authorities to the requlrements of jt dicialdiscipline and the need for giving effect to the r,rderscf the higher appellate authorities which are brndingon them." 1 5. What is worrSring this Bench more is thc fact that anendeavour is being made whole heartedly to ensure itot to generatefurther litigation on issues which have been laid to rest by a largenumber o1'High Courts all of whom have taken a ctnsistent standthat the action of the Income Tax Department being iiolative of the 1 5. What is worrSring this Bench more is thc fact that anendeavour is being made whole heartedly to ensure itot to generatefurther litigation on issues which have been laid to rest by a largenumber o1'High Courts all of whom have taken a ctnsistent standthat the action of the Income Tax Department being iiolative of the Finance Act,2020 and Finance Act,202l. Now, inorder to protectthe interest of the Revenue as also that of the assessee, it would bethe interest of the Revenue as also that of the assessee, it would betrite at this juncture, if we dispose of the writ petition with anobservation/direction that the disposal of the instant writ petition interms of the [judgment ]rendered by this High Court in the case ofKankanala Ravindra Reddy (l supra) shall however be subject tothe outcome of the SLPs which were filed by the Income TaxDepartment and which is pending consideration before the Hon'bleSupreme Court.observation/direction that the disposal of the instant writ petition interms of the [judgment ]rendered by this High Court in the case ofKankanala Ravindra Reddy (l supra) shall however be subject tothe outcome of the SLPs which were filed by the Income TaxDepartment and which is pending consideration before the Hon'bleSupreme Court. 16. In the given facts and circumstances, this Bench is of theconsidered opinion that unless and until we do not timely disposeof matters which are squarely covered by the decision of this Courtand which stands fortified by the decisions of the various otherHigh Courts on the very sarne issue, the pendency of this IlighCourt would further be burdened which otherwise can be decidedand disposed ofas a covered matter 17. So far as the interest of the Revenue is concerned, we are 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 reproduced hereunder: 36. For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned noticesissued and the proceedings drawn by the re.. pondent_Department is neither tenable, nor sur;tainable.The notices so issued and the procedure adop ed beingper se illegal, deserves to be and are accorc ingly setaside/quashed. As a consequence, all the i.npugnedorders getting quashed, the consequential orders passedby the respondent-Department pursi:ant to tho noticesissued under Section 142 and 14g would also getquashed and it is ordered accordingly. The reason weare quashing the consequential order is on the t rinciplesthat when the initiation of the pioceedings it;eif wasprocedurally wrong, the subsequent orders also getsnullified automatically. 37. The preliminary objection raised by the pet tioner issustained and all these writ petitions stands all{)wed onthis very iurisdictional issue. Since the impugnec noticesand orders are getting quashed on the t)oint of_urisdiction, we are not inclined to proceed furlher and,lecide the other issues raised by the petition(,r which:;tands reserved to be raised and contenderl in anappropriate proceedings. 38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in tne caseof Ashish Agarwal, supra, as a one-time r.teasureexercising the powers under Article 142 of theOonstitution of lndia, permifted the Revenue to t)roceedunder the substituted provisions, and this Court itllowingthe petitions only on the procedural flaw, fl- e right conferred on the Revenue would remain reserved toproceed further if they so want from the stage of theorder of the Supreme Court in the case of AshishAgarwal, supra. 18. We would only further like to make observations that since 38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in tne caseof Ashish Agarwal, supra, as a one-time r.teasureexercising the powers under Article 142 of theOonstitution of lndia, permifted the Revenue to t)roceedunder the substituted provisions, and this Court itllowingthe petitions only on the procedural flaw, fl- e right conferred on the Revenue would remain reserved toproceed further if they so want from the stage of theorder of the Supreme Court in the case of AshishAgarwal, supra. 18. We would only further like to make observations that since we are inclined to dispose of the instant writ petition, conscious ofthe fact that the earlier order of this High Court in the case ofKanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra) is subjected to challengebefore the Hon'ble Supreme Courtln SLP No.3574 of 2024,preferred by the lncome I'ax Deparlment, we make it clear thatKanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra) is subjected to challengebefore the Hon'ble Supreme Courtln SLP No.3574 of 2024,preferred by the lncome I'ax Deparlment, we make it clear thatallowing of the instant writ petition is subject to outcome of theaforesaid SLP prelened by the Rcvenue against the decision of thisI{igh Court in the case ol Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (l stryra)This, in other words, would mean that either of the parties, if theyaforesaid SLP prelened by the Rcvenue against the decision of thisI{igh Court in the case ol Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (l stryra)This, in other words, would mean that either of the parties, if theyso want, may move an appropriate petition seeking revival of thiswrit petition in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble SupremeCourt in the pending SLP on the very same issue.writ petition in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble SupremeCourt in the pending SLP on the very same issue. 19. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands allowed infavour of the assessee so far as the issue of jurisdictionlsconcemed. As a conscquence, the impugned notice underchallenge under Sections 148-A and 148 stands set aside/quashed tI The corrsequential orders, if any, also stand set iLside/quashed in similar l.erms as have been passed by this High Corr( in the case of Kankanala Ravindra Reddy (l supra). There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pendirrg, if any, shall stanci cklsed. 7*Q/.P.GOWRI [SHAi.tKAR]qEPUw REGTSTRARqEPUw REGTSTRARi/TRUE COPY//I SEcTIoN oFFIcERI SEcTIoN oFFIcERi)The lncome Tax Officer, Ward 1, Adilabad/AdUa'i [[Hyder-abad, ]][[A.dilabad,]]Hyderabad, Hyderabad 504106. Telangana.Hyderabad 504106. Telangana.Hyderabad, Hyderabad 504106. Telangana.Hyderabad 504106. Telangana. To, 1lncome Tax Officer, Ward 1, Adilabad/AdUaWard 1, Adilabad/AdUa1, Adilabad/AdUaAdilabad/AdUa'i [[Hyder-abad, ]][[A.dilabad,]]'i [[Hyder-abad, ]][[A.dilabad,]]Hyderabad, Hyderabad 504106. Telangana.Hyderabad 504106. Telangana.)T.he Principal Chief Commissioner of lncome Tax - Telangana and A.p.,lyderabad, [lT ][Towers, ] [Guards, ][fr,frsaO"fani ]HyOeratia --S-Odfiig,Telangana,lyderabad, [lT ][Towers, ] [Guards, ][fr,frsaO"fani ]HyOeratia --S-Odfiig,Telangana, 3The Chairman, Central Board .of .Direct Taxes, D.rpartment of Revenue,yjfi.^ry of Finance, Government of lnOia, S.crltr r,, i'ririf O ings, Ne\.Oetii.-i110 001yjfi.^ry of Finance, Government of lnOia, S.crltr r,, i'ririf O ings, Ne\.Oetii.-i110 001 4The.National Faceless Assessment Center, lncome Tax Department, NewDelhi.Delhi. 5The Secretary to the Government, Department o Revenue, tvlinistry ofFinance, New Dethi, Union of tnAia - i f O bblFinance, New Dethi, Union of tnAia - i f O bbl 6One CC to SRI THANNERU CHAITANYA KUMAR Advocate tOpUCl7One CC to Ms. J.SUN|THA, Jr. SC FOR |NCOTVE rA)t 7One CC to Ms. J.SUN|THA, Jr. SC FOR |NCOTVE rA)t 89lq [to ] KUMAR, DEpUTy ;OLIC|TOR GENERTALoF tNDtA, [oPUCIoF tNDtA, [oPUCI ITwo CD Copies BSRooGJ HIGH COURT DATED:2810412025 ORDER WP.No.33450 of 2024 zlu:,4.!.7 i\iee'6t.)15 [S:P ][206].!ii-a:a" ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION,WITHOUT COSTS Es