Wp/33454/2024 Of Primary Agricutural Co Operative Society Limited v. The Income Tax Officer Ward 1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA---' 'AT HYDERABAD (Special Originat Jurisdiction)MONDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF APRILTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TIVC [''] PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYTHE HONOURABLE SRI .IUSTilCDruENSING RAO NANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION NO: 33454 oF 2024 Between: Primary Agricutural Co Oorn,tfi [jrlff ][,#:!:,f ,if.ffi ]iffi ffi"}ilriri"ft HiH:i,r}i,'.il'ri::n,tfi [jrlff ][,#:!:,f ,if.ffi ]iffi ffi"}ilriri"ft HiH:i,r}i,'.il'ri:: ...PETITIONER AND 1. The Hyderabad, Hyderabad 504106: lncome Tax Officer War!!, Adilabad/ Adilabadr;h;l;il [*"'uo'\J], Hyderabad, [tv]Aditabad,2The Principal Chief Commissiorer of lncoile Tax_Telangana and A.p,iJfl?A'f,1 [rr ][rowers, ][nc ][cuiros, ][Ma;;iji;"( ][i;d1iEo,d:sbb'ozs,]2The Principal Chief Commissiorer of lncoile Tax_Telangana and A.p,iJfl?A'f,1 [rr ][rowers, ][nc ][cuiros, ][Ma;;iji;"( ][i;d1iEo,d:sbb'ozs,]3. The Central Board of Direct Taxes, Represented R :["j:irf [.,y ]I b.BI " r Fi;; ffi ,-il;;I;ilL]ii,Ei r by.its -Chairman. ll," secreta ria r DepartmentB uird i n g sR :["j:irf [.,y ]I b.BI " r Fi;; ffi ,-il;;I;ilL]ii,Ei r by.its -Chairman. ll," secreta ria r DepartmentB uird i n g s 4. ThenNational Faceless Assessment Center, lncome Tax Department, NewAssessment Center, lncome Tax Department, New 5. The Union.of lndia, Represente^d - by its Secretary to the Government.Revenue, Ministrv of FinanCe New Derhi - r io 601 co;6;;;il';T;rdiX vLL \J'| ,,,urcr'S;#;;;i,ijliiii"g",Revenue, Ministrv of FinanCe New Derhi - r io 601 co;6;;;il';T;rdiX vLL \J'| ,,,urcr'S;#;;;i,ijliiii"g", 'il},i;',ffft .";i";#!?;y,dit&:r$"*:::,sy,:?*%""iJiTff recre,ara,.";i";#!?;y,dit&:r$"*:::,sy,:?*%""iJiTff recre,ara, ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Articre 226 of the constitution of India praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may bepleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particurarry one in thenature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the order passed by the lncome Tax Authorities [(National ][Faceless E-Assessment Centre) completed ][the ][assessment]U/S 147 [r.w.s ][144 ][read ][with ][section 1448 ][of ][the ][lncome-tax ][Act ][Date ][of ][01-02-]2024, [ITBA/AST/S/147t2023-2411060387S93(1) ][for ][the ][Assessment ][Year]2018-19 [determining ][the total income ][of ][Rs' 1'34'20'771/- ][as ][arbitrary' ][illegal' ][bad]in law, [without jurisdiction, void-ab-initio' ][violative ][of ][the ][principles ][of ][natural]from [being ][violative ][of ][Articles ][1a' ][19(1)(g) ][and ][265 ][of ][the]justice apart Constitution [of ][lndia ][and ][Sec ][148A ][of ][the ][lncome ][Tax ][Act' ][1961' ][and]consequently [set ][aside ][the ][same ][in ][the ][interests ][of ][justice'] IA NO:1O[ F ][2024] petition under section [151 ][cpc ][praying that in ][the ][circumstances stated ][in]the affidavit [fired ][in ][support ][of ][the ][petition, ][the High ][court ][may ][be ][pleased ][to]suspend [the order ][Under ][section ][147r'w ][s ][144 ][read ][with ][section ][1448 ][of ][the]lncome.taxActDateofol.o2-2O24,DlN|TBAiASTtsl147t2o23.24l1060387893(1)forthe [Assessment ][Year ][2018-19 determining ][the ][total ][income ][of ][Rs'l ]['34'20'7711-]and Demand [notice u/s 156 of ][the ][lncome ][Tax ][act ][1961 ][' ][vide ] [& ][Notice ][No]rrBA/Asr/s/15 [6t2o23_24r1060387979(1) ][Dr ][01-02-2024 ][for ][the ][assessment ][year]2018-19 [pending disposal of the above ][Writ Petltion'] Counsel [for the Petitioner: ] ' '- Counsel [for the Respondent ][Nos'1 ][to ][4: ][MS'J ]^SUNITHASC [lNcoME ][TAX)](JUNloR Counsel [for the ][ResPondent No'5: ] [B. MUKHERJEE, REPRESENTING]THE UNION The Court [made the ][following: ] :'1.? THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTIIE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAONANDIKONDAWRIT P TITTOEN No.33454 oF 2024 OR-DER, (per Hon'ble Srt Justice p.Sam Koshy) Counsel [for the Petitioner: ] ' '- Counsel [for the Respondent ][Nos'1 ][to ][4: ][MS'J ]^SUNITHASC [lNcoME ][TAX)](JUNloR Counsel [for the ][ResPondent No'5: ] [B. MUKHERJEE, REPRESENTING]THE UNION The Court [made the ][following: ] :'1.? THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTIIE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAONANDIKONDAWRIT P TITTOEN No.33454 oF 2024 OR-DER, (per Hon'ble Srt Justice p.Sam Koshy) Heard Mr.Thanneru Chaitanya Kumar, learned counselfor the petitioner, Ms.J.Sunitha, learned Junior Standing Counselfor the Income Tax Department for respondent Nos.l to 4 andMr. B. Mukherjee, learned counsel representing the Union of Indiafor respondent No.5. perused the record. 2. This is a writ petition where the proceedings are eitherchallenged to the notices which were issued under Section l4gAand 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short .the Act,) or theassessment orders those have been passed under Section 147 ofthe Act which have been assailed. 3. This writ petition is being taken up today only on one of thegrounds, that the notices issued under Section l4gA of the Actand the subsequent initiation ofproceedings under Section l4g ofthe Act by the jurisdictional Assessing Ofhcer, whereas in termsof the amendment that was brought to the Income Tax Act by way of Finance [,\ct, ][2021 w ][e'f', ][01 ][04'2021 onwards' ][proceedings]under [Section ][148A ][of ][the ][Act ][as ][also under Section 148 ][of ][the]Act ought [to ][have ][also ][been issued and ][proceeded ][in ][a ][faceless]manner The contention contention [[of ][the ][petitionel ][is ][that ][the ][issue ][of]][[the ][petitionel ][is ][that ][the ][issue ][of]][[petitionel ][is ][that ][the ][issue ][of]][[is ][that ][the ][issue ][of]][[that ][the ][issue ][of]][[the ][issue ][of]][[issue ][of]][[of]] 4. The contention contention [[of ][the ][petitionel ][is ][that ][the ][issue ][of]][[the ][petitionel ][is ][that ][the ][issue ][of]][[petitionel ][is ][that ][the ][issue ][of]][[is ][that ][the ][issue ][of]][[that ][the ][issue ][of]][[the ][issue ][of]][[issue ][of]][[of]]proceedings [being ][in ][violation ][of ][the Finance Act' ][2021 ][i'e ][' ][the]impugned [notices ][under Section ][148A ][and ][Section ][148 ][of ][the ][Act]not being [issued ][in ][a ][faceless ][manner' ][have ][already ][been dealt ][with]and decided [by ][this ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ] RAYINDRA [REDDY vs' INCOME-TAX ] [decided]on 14.09.2023 [whereby ][a ][batch ][of writ ][petitions ][were ][allowed ][and]the proceedings [initiated ][under Section ][148A ][as also ][under ][Section]l4SoftheActwereheldtobebadwithconsequentialreliefsontheground of it being [in violation of ][the ][provisions ][of ][Section ][1 ][51A ][of]the Act [read ][with ][Notification l8l2}22 ][dated2g'03'2022' ][The said]judgment passed by [this Court ][has ][also ][been ][subsequently ][followed]in a large [number ][of writ ][petitions which ][were allowed on ][similar]terms 'lQO23) [156 ][taxmann'com ][178 ][(Telangana)l] ,) 5. Down the line, we find that the same we find that the same that the same the same same issue has also beenhas also beenalso beenbeendecided against the Revenue by various High Courts i.e.,by the Bombay High Court in the case of HEXAWARETECHNOLOGIES LTD., vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX & OTHERS2, Gauhati High Courr in the caseof RAM NARAYAN SAH vs. UNION Of,, INDIA3, punjab andHaryana High Court in the case of JATINDER SINGH BANGUvs. UNION OF INDIA4, and Telangana High Court in the case ofSRI VENKATARAMANA REDDY PATLOOLA vs. DEPUTYCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX5 where the issue was inrespect of international taxation, Bombay High Court in the case ofABTIIN ANILKUMAR SHAH vs. INCOME TAx OFFICER,INTERNATIONAL TAXATION6 which is again on internationaltaxation 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 Down the line, we find that the same we find that the same that the same the same same issue has also beenhas also beenalso beenbeen 2lzoz+1464 tTR 430 (Bom)'[(2024) 156 raxmann.com 478 (Gauhati)]^ l(2024) I 65 taxmann.com 1 15 (punjab & Haryana)l'[2024) 167 taxmann.com 41 I (Telangana)]" [2024) 166 taxmann.com 679 (Bombay)]7 12024) 165 taxmann.com l13 (Himachai pradesh)l DAHYABHAI [VS. ] [OFFICER,]WARD [3(3XO8, ][Jharkand ][High Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ] SIINDAR [vs. ] [INDIAe' ][Rajasthan ][High ][Court ][in]the case of [vs' ] OFFICER&ANOTHERandbatchofwritpetitionsl0whichstood [decided ][ot ][19'03'2024' ][Similar views ][have ][also been taken]the [Division ][Bench ][of ][Calcutta ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]by GIRDHAR [vs' ] [INDIA & ] 1690 [of ][2023), decided ][on25'09'2024'](M.A.T 6.EventhoughthesameissuehavingbeendecidedbyalargenumberofHighCourts,wearestillconTrontedwithlargefitingofidentical [matters ][on ][daily ][basis ranging ][between ][5 ][to ][10 ][writ]That [upon ][the ][instructions ][being ][sought ][from ][the]petitions. Department, [they ][have been ][taking ][a ][solitary ][ground ][that ][the]decision of [the ][Bombay ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ][Hevaware]Technologies [Ltd., ][(2 ][supra) ][as ][also the one which ][has ][been]decided by [this Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ][Kanakala Ravindra ][Reddy] Ezoz4 SCC online Guj 4012" [2025 ] [Online ][thar ][287]'o 7zoz3 [: ] [:4984-DBl] (1 supra) has been subjected to challenge in a Special LeavePetition i.e., SLp No.3574 of 2024 before the Hon,ble Supremecourt and the Hon'ble supreme court is seized of the matter.In addition, there are about 1200 SLps also filed arising out ofthecourt 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 a query being put to the learned counsel query being put to the learned counsel being put to the learned counsel put to the learned counsel to the learned counsel the learned counsel for the Revenue,the Revenue,they have categoricaily 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 ofidentical nature are being piled up before this Bench on daily basisand the pendency is getting increased dn matter which otherwisehas already been dealt and decided by this very High Court itself.8. On the one hand, even though the order of this Couft thatwas passed as earry as on 14.09.2023 and, more 16 months havelapsed, till date, we do not find any remedial steps having beentaken by the Income Tax Department to take appropriate steps toeither hold back issuance ofnotice under Section l4gA and underSeetion 148 of the Acr by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer,rather the authorities concerned in the teeth of series of decisions To a query being put to the learned counsel a query being put to the learned counsel query being put to the learned counsel being put to the learned counsel put to the learned counsel to the learned counsel the learned counsel for the Revenue,the Revenue, by all the [major ][High ][Courts ][in ][India ][are ][continuously ][still]initiating [proceedings ][under ][Section 148A ][of ][the ][Act ][and ][also]initiating [proceedings ][under ][Section ][148 ][of ][the ][Act ][in]contravention [to ][the amendments ][brought ][into ][the Income Tax ][Act]pursuant to the [Finance Act,2020 ][as ][also ][the ][Finance Lct ][202l ]['] To a query being put to the learned counsel a query being put to the learned counsel query being put to the learned counsel being put to the learned counsel put to the learned counsel to the learned counsel the learned counsel for the Revenue,the Revenue, by all the [major ][High ][Courts ][in ][India ][are ][continuously ][still]initiating [proceedings ][under ][Section 148A ][of ][the ][Act ][and ][also]initiating [proceedings ][under ][Section ][148 ][of ][the ][Act ][in]contravention [to ][the amendments ][brought ][into ][the Income Tax ][Act]pursuant to the [Finance Act,2020 ][as ][also ][the ][Finance Lct ][202l ]['] g. Upon a [query ][being ][put ][as ][to ][why ][can't ][this ][writ ][petition ][be]of [in ][the teeth ][of ][the ][decision ][rendered ][by ][this ][Court ][in]disposed thecaseofKanakalaRavindraReddy(lsupra)'leamedStandingCounsel for [the Income ][Tax Deparlment ][contends that ][those ][would]unnecessarily [burden ][the ][Income ][Tax ][Department ][where ][they]would be [required ][to ][file ][equal nuniber ][of ][SLPs before ][the]Hon'ble Supreme [Court ][and ][it ][would ][be ][further ][burdening ][the]exchequer [of ][the ][Union ][oflndia' ][lt ][was ][also ][the contention ][of ][the]leamed Standing [Counsel ][that ][no ][prejudice ][would ][be caused ][to ][the]interest of the [petitioners in ][case ][if ][this ][writ ][petition ][is ][kept pending]till the finalization [of ][the ][SLPs pending ][before ][the ][Hon'ble]Court [and ][the ][fact ][that ][the ][petitioner ][is ][already enjoying]Supreme the benefit of interim [protection' ][Nonetheless, ][on ][the ][earlier query]of this Court [as ]to [why ][the Income ][Tax ][Department have ][not ][come]out with a mechanism [to ][issue ][appropriate instructions ][or ][to ][take] ar' appropriate steps in ensuring that proceedings under Section 14gAofthe Act as also the assessment orders under Section l4g oftheAct 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 India and cannot belimited to any of these jurisdictional High Coufts. 10. As a result of which, what we are facing is steep increase oflitigation day in and day out even though various orders have beenpassed by this High Court allowing writ petitions on the very sameissue. The Income Tax authorities concerned are still even now in2025 also initiating proceedings in conrravention to the provisionsof Section l5lA of the Act and as a result by now, more than 600to 700 petitions have been already got piled up before this HighCourt on an issue which otherwise stands squarely covered by thejudgment of this Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy(l supra). what is also surprising is the fact that though whileallowing the writ petitions in the case of Kunakara RavindraReddy (l supra); the Division Bench while reserving the right ofthe Revenue, has also protected the interest of the petitioners insofar as [the liberty which ][was ][granted ][to ][the ][Revenue for]initiating [fresh proceedings ][strictly in ][accordance ][with ][the ][amended]of [the ][Act, ][as ][amended ][by ][the ][Finance ][Act' ][2020 ][and]provisions the Finance [Act,2027 ][- ][The ][petitioner ][assessee ][would ][be ][entitled ][to]challenge [or ][raise ][the ][other ][legal ][objections ][if ][the ][Revenue ][initiates]fresh proceedings. [The ][Department ][has ][made ][no ][endeavour in]the [said ][liberty ][that was reserved ][for the ][Revenue' ][On ][the]availing contrary, they [have ][been ][still ][sticking on to the ][stand' ][which ][this]Court [as ][well ][as ][many other ][High ][Courts already held ][to ][be]High bad. insofar as [the liberty which ][was ][granted ][to ][the ][Revenue for]initiating [fresh proceedings ][strictly in ][accordance ][with ][the ][amended]of [the ][Act, ][as ][amended ][by ][the ][Finance ][Act' ][2020 ][and]provisions the Finance [Act,2027 ][- ][The ][petitioner ][assessee ][would ][be ][entitled ][to]challenge [or ][raise ][the ][other ][legal ][objections ][if ][the ][Revenue ][initiates]fresh proceedings. [The ][Department ][has ][made ][no ][endeavour in]the [said ][liberty ][that was reserved ][for the ][Revenue' ][On ][the]availing contrary, they [have ][been ][still ][sticking on to the ][stand' ][which ][this]Court [as ][well ][as ][many other ][High ][Courts already held ][to ][be]High bad. 1 1. It appears [that ][because ][of ][the ][afori:said ][liberty ][that ][this ][High]Courl had [granted ][permitting the ][Revenue ][for ][initiating ][fresh]as [a ][one-time ][measure ][in ][a ][faceless ][manner' ][the]proceedings Income Tax [Department wants ][to ][take ][advantage ][of ][the ][same ][by]protracting these proceedings [which ][would ][enable them ][to ][meet ][the]limitation that [would ][otherwise ][come ][in ][the ][way. ][Likewise, ][if ][the]writ petition is kept [pending ][for ][a ][considerable ][long ][period ][of ][time]and finally at a later stage [if ][the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Court confirms]the decision taken by this High [Court ][as also ][by ][the ][other High]Courts in which the SLPs are still [pending, ][the ][Income ][Tax] Department would get the advantage of the liberly that is otherwiseprotected in favour of the Revenue for initiation of freshproceedings from the disposal of these matters at a much later stagewhich would be advantageous and beneficial to the Revenue andwould be equally disadvantageous and detrimental so far as interestof the assesses are concemed. As a consequence, the Income TaxDepartment gets an extended period of time for initiation of freshproceedings.which 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 freshproceedings. 12. The alarming trend of docket explosion in this Courl, despitethe clear precedent set in Kanukala Ravindra Reddy (l supra), is amatter of grave concem. The Income Tbx Department,s persistentinitiation of fresh proceedings, disregarding the established judicialpronouncements, has led to an unprecedented surge in litigationwith over 600-700 petitions piling up on the same issue. Thisdeliberate approach not only undermines the principle ofjudicialprecedent 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 Such [conduct ][raises ][serious ][questions ][about ][the]position. administrative [efficiency ][and ][the ][respect ][for ][judicial]pronouncements, [particularly ][when ][this Courl ][has already ][provided]a balanced [approach ][by ][preserving ][both ][the ][Revenue's ][rights ][and]assesses [interests] Such [conduct ][raises ][serious ][questions ][about ][the]position. administrative [efficiency ][and ][the ][respect ][for ][judicial]pronouncements, [particularly ][when ][this Courl ][has already ][provided]a balanced [approach ][by ][preserving ][both ][the ][Revenue's ][rights ][and]assesses [interests] 13. Another [aspect ][which ][needs ][to ][be ][considered ][is ][that ][in ][fact ][it]should [have been ][realized ][by ][the Income ][Tax ][Department ][itself ][and]should [have found ][out via ][media ][in ][ensuring ][that ][proceedings]under Sections [148-4 ][and 148 ][should ][not ][have ][been ][issued ][in ][a]faceless [manner' ][at ][least ][ti1l ][the ][Hon,ble ][Supreme ][Court ][decide ][the]twelve [hundred (1200) odd SLPs ][whichlt ][is ][already ][seized ][ofor' ][at]least the [Income ][Tax ][Department should ][have found ][out ][some]remedial [steps ][to ][ensure ][that ][wherever ][the ][authorities intend ][to]initiate [proceedings ][under Sections ][148-,4. ][and 148' ][other than ][in ][a]faceless manner, [the ][proceedings ][should ][have ][been ][deferred]without precipitating [the ][matter ][further ][intimating ][the ][assessee ][that]they shall initiate [appropriate proceedings ][only ][after the ][SLP's ][are]decided by the [Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Court ][on ][the very ][same ][issue']This again, the klcome [Tax Department, ][has ][not ][been able ][to ][give ][a]convincing reply, except [for the ][fact ][that ][such ][a ][decision ][if ][at ][all] has to be taken, has to be taken for the whole of India, and whichotherwise has to be by way of a policy decision and that too at thelevel of Central Board of Direct Taxes. Though the learnedotherwise has to be by way of a policy decision and that too at thelevel of Central Board of Direct Taxes. Though the learnedStanding Counsel for the Income Tax Department contended thatthe Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition of slmitar 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 firing 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 thesethe Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition of slmitar 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 firing 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 themany 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 concemed 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 makeState 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 14g-A andaudacity by issuing notices continuously under Sections 14g-A and 148 through [the ][jurisdictional ][Assessing ][Officer ][whereas ][it ][ought]to have been [only ][in ][the ][faceless ][manner'] 148 through [the ][jurisdictional ][Assessing ][Officer ][whereas ][it ][ought]to have been [only ][in ][the ][faceless ][manner'] 14. In the [case ][of ] [vs' ] COMMISSIONER, [TAXl1, ][on ][an ][issue ][whether ][it ][was]justifiabte on the part of [the ][Income ][Tax ][Department ][in ][not]following [au ][order ][passed ][by the adjudicating authority ][only ][on the]that [the ][appeals ][are ][pending, ][the ][Division ][Bench ][of ][the]ground High Court [of ][Bombay held ][at ][paragraph ][No'25 ][as ][under' ][viz" ][:] "25. Mr. Paridwalla [has ][rightly drawn ][out ][attention ][to ][the]decision 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 Fu'rniture (P) ][Ltd' ][v' ][lTO13]of which one [of ][us ][(Justice ][G.S ][Kulkarni) was ][a ][member' wherein]the Court [categorically observed ][that ][the ][Revenue ][having ][not]"accepted" the iudgment [of ][the High Court would ][not ][mean that ][till]the same [is set aside in a manner known ][to ][law, ][it ][would ][loose ][its]force. [Referring ][to the ][decision ][of the ][Supreme ][Court ][in]binding Union of lndia [vs. ][Kamlakshi Finance ][Corporation ][Ltd'14, ][the]Court observed that the [approach ][of ][the ][officials ][of ][Revenue ][of]treating decisions being ["not ][acceptable" ][was ][criticized ][by ][the]Supreme Court. ln such [decision, ][following ][are the ][relevant]observations made [by the Supreme ][Court.] tl 71zozs1 170 taxmann.com 422 (Bombay)l71zozs1 170 taxmann.com 422 (Bombay)l tz 7t9ts1 1 l3 ITR 589 (Bombay)7t9ts1 1 l3 ITR 589 (Bombay) '3 TzOz+1165 [taxmann.com 581i300 ][Taxmat452 ][(Bombay)] 'o llggzltaxmann.com [16/55ELT ][433 (SC)] tl 71zozs1 170 taxmann.com 422 (Bombay)l71zozs1 170 taxmann.com 422 (Bombay)l tz 7t9ts1 1 l3 ITR 589 (Bombay)7t9ts1 1 l3 ITR 589 (Bombay) '3 TzOz+1165 [taxmann.com 581i300 ][Taxmat452 ][(Bombay)] 'o llggzltaxmann.com [16/55ELT ][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 Revenuepassing 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 cor!.ectness orare not concerned here with the cor!.ectness 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, righflycriticized this conduct of the Assistant Collectors andthe harassment to the assessee caused by the failuremalafides 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, righflycriticized this conduct of the Assistant Collectors andthe harassment to the assessee caused by the failureof these offrcers to give effect to the orders ofauthorities higher to them in the appellate hierarchy. ltauthorities higher to them in the appellate hierarchy. ltcannot be too vehemenfly emphasized that it is ofutmost importance that, in lisposing of thequasijudicial issues before them, revenue officers areutmost importance that, in lisposing 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 jurisdiction andthe order of the Tribunal is binding upon the AssistantCollectors and the Appellate Colleclors who functionunder the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The principles ofjudicial Assistant Collectors working within his jurisdiction andthe order of the Tribunal is binding upon the AssistantCollectors and the Appellate Colleclors who functionunder the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The principles ofjudicial discipline require that the orders of the higherappellate authorities should be followed unreservedlyby the subordinate authorities. The mere fact that theorder of the appellate authority is not [,,acceptable,, ]toorder of the appellate authority is not [,,acceptable,, ]tothe department - in itself an objectionable phrase _and is the subject matter of an appeal can furnish noground for not following it unless its operation hasand is the subject matter of an appeal can furnish noground for not following it unless its operation hasbeen suspended by a competent cou(. lf this healthy rule is not [followed, ][the ][result ][will ][only ][be ][undue]harassment [to ][assesses and chaos ][in ][administration]of tax laws rule is not [followed, ][the ][result ][will ][only ][be ][undue]harassment [to ][assesses and chaos ][in ][administration]of tax laws 12. We have [dealt ][with this ][aspect ][at ][some ][length']because it [has ][been ][suggested ][by thb ][learned]Additional [Solicitor General ][that ][the ][observations]made by [the ][High ][Court, have ][been ][harsh ][on ][the]officers. [lt ][is ][clear that ][the ][observations ][of the ][High]Court, [seemingly vehement, ][and ][apparently]unpalatable [to the ][Revenue, are only intended ][to ][curb]a tendency [in ][revenue matters ][which' ][if ][allowed ][to]become [widespread, ][could result ][in ][considerable]harassment [to the ][asSesses-public ][without ][any ][benefit]to the Revenue. [We ][would ][like ][to ][say that ][the]department [should ][take these ][observations ][in ][the]proper spirit. [The ][observations ][of ][the ][High ][Court]should [be kept ][in ][mind ][in future and ][the ][utmost ][regard]should be [paid ][by ][the adjudicating authorities and ][the]appetlate [authorities ][to ][the ][requirements ][of ][judicial]discipline [and ][the ][need ][for ][giving effect to ][the ][orders]of the higher [appellate authorities which ][are ][binding]on them." 15. What is [worrying ][this ][Bench ][more ][is ][the ][fact ][that ][an]endeavour [is ][being ][made ][whole ][heartedly ][to ][ensure ][not ][to ][generate]further litigation [on ][issues ][which ][have been ][laid ][to ][rest ][by ][a ][large]number of [High ][Courts ][all ][of whom ][have ][taken ][a ][consistent ][stand]that the action [of ][the ][Income ][Tax ][Department ][being ][violative of ][the] Finance Lct, 2020 and Finance Act, 2O2l . Now, in order to protectthe interest of the Revenue as also that of the assessee, it would betrite at this juncture, if we dispose of the writ petition with anobservation'/direction that the disposal ofthe instant writ petition interms of the judgment rendered by this High Court in the case ofKqnkanala Ravindrq Reddy (1 supra) shall however be subject toKqnkanala Ravindrq Reddy (1 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,breSupreme Cour1.Department and which is pending consideration before the Hon,breSupreme Cour1. 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 coufiand which stands fortified by the decisions of the various otherHigh Courts on the very same issue, the pendency of this HighCourt would further be burdened which otherwise can be decidedand disposed ofas a covered matter. 17 . So far as the interest of the Revenue is concemed, we are ofthe considered opinion that the interest of the Revenue has alreadybeen considered and protected, as has been observed in paragraphsthe considered opinion that the interest of the Revenue has alreadybeen considered and protected, as has been observed in paragraphs 36,37 [ald38 ][of ][the ][order ][which, for ][ready reference, ][is ][reproduced]hereunder: 36. For [all ][the ][aforesaid reasons' ][the ][impugned ][notices]issued and [the ][proceedings drawn ][by the ][respondent-]Department [is ][neither tenable' ][nor ][sustainable']The notices [so ][issued ][and the ][procedure adopted ][being]per se illegal, [deserves ][to ][be and ][are ][accordingly ][set]aside/quashed. [As ][a ][consequence' ][all the ][impugned]orders [getting quashed, the consequential orders ][passed]by the respondenlDepartment [pursuant ][to the ][notices]issued [under ][Section ][147 ][and ][148 ][would ][also ][get]it [is ][ordered ][accordingly The ][reason ][we]quashed and are [quashing ][the ][consequential order is on ][the ][principles]that when [the ][initiation ][of ][the ][proceedings ][itself ][was]procedurally [wrong, ][the ][subsequent ][orders ][also ][gets]nullified [automaticallY] 37. The [preliminary objection raised by ][the ][petitioner ][is]sustained [and ][all ][these ][writ ][petitions ][stands ][allowed ][on]this very iurisdictional [issue' ][Since ][the ][impugned ][notices]and orders [are ][getting ][quashed ][on ][the ][point ][of]jurisdiction, we are not inclined [to ][proceed further ][and]decide the other [issues ][raised by ][the ][petitioner ][which]stands reserved [to ][be ][raised ][and ][contended ][in ][an]appropriate [proceedings.] 38. Since the [Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the case]of Ashish Agarwal, [supra, ][as ][a ][one-time ][measure]exercising the [powers ][underArticle ][142 ][of ][the]Constitution of lndia, [permitted the Revenue ][to ][proceed]under the substituted [provisions, and ][this ][Court ][allowing]the petitions only on the [procedural ][flaw, ][the ][right] conferred on the Revenue would remain reserved toproceed further if they so want from the stage of theorder of the Suppsrns Court in the case of AshishAgarwal, supra.Agarwal, supra. 18. We would only further like to make observations that sincewe 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 (1 supra) is subjected to challengebefore rhe Hon,ble Supreme Court in SLp No.3574 of 2024,prefened by the Income Tax Department, we make it clear thatallowing of the instant writ petition is subject to outcome of theaforesaid SLP preferred by the Revenue against the decision ofthisHigh Court in the case of Konakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra).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. 19. Accordingly, the instant wnt petition instant wnt petitionwnt petitionpetitionstands allowed infavour of the assessee so far as the issueof [jurisdiction]1Sconcerned. As aconsequence, the impugned notice underchallenge under Sections 14g_A and148 stands set aside/quashed. . ,"--,:e The consequential [orders, ][if ][any, ][also stand set ][aside/quashed ][in]similar terms [as have been ][passed ][by this ][High ][Court in ][the ][case ][of]Kankanala [Ravindra ][Reddy ][(l ][supra) ][There shall ][be ][no order ][as] to costs Consequently, [miscellaneous ][petitions ][pending, ][if ][any' ][shall]stand closed. SD/- M. OSMAN ASSISTANJREGISTRARseclfior.r oFFlcER //TRUE 19. Accordingly, the instant wnt petition instant wnt petitionwnt petitionpetitionstands allowed infavour of the assessee so far as the issueof [jurisdiction]1Sconcerned. As aconsequence, the impugned notice underchallenge under Sections 14g_A and148 stands set aside/quashed. . ,"--,:e The consequential [orders, ][if ][any, ][also stand set ][aside/quashed ][in]similar terms [as have been ][passed ][by this ][High ][Court in ][the ][case ][of]Kankanala [Ravindra ][Reddy ][(l ][supra) ][There shall ][be ][no order ][as] to costs Consequently, [miscellaneous ][petitions ][pending, ][if ][any' ][shall]stand closed. SD/- M. OSMAN ASSISTANJREGISTRARseclfior.r oFFlcER //TRUE To,1The lncome Tax [Officer ][Ward ][1, ][Adilabad/ ][Adilabad' ][Hyderabad' Adilabad']UvJeraUaO [Hvderabad 504106' ][Telangaru']1The lncome Tax [Officer ][Ward ][1, ][Adilabad/ ][Adilabad' ][Hyderabad' Adilabad']UvJeraUaO [Hvderabad 504106' ][Telangaru']2The Princioal Chief [commissio]rer ][ciln"rcme rax-Telanoana ][anC ] [P']ffi [# ][U5'ii1;;";;: ][Ai ]["&; ][i"i'I ir'r"' ][o ][iun ][i ][u vo ][e ][ri ][oao ][-500 ][0 ][28]Hf t%1.ll* Board [of Direct ][Taxes, Represented,bv.its ][chairman' ][Department];i'R";;;;, [-r,i'i"iJt.v ]"r [ri"l""6'Icor"in".,""t ][of ][lnbia. ][secretariat ][Buildings,]ffi [# ][U5'ii1;;";;: ][Ai ]["&; ][i"i'I ir'r"' ][o ][iun ][i ][u vo ][e ][ri ][oao ][-500 ][0 ][28]Hf t%1.ll* Board [of Direct ][Taxes, Represented,bv.its ][chairman' ][Department];i'R";;;;, [-r,i'i"iJt.v ]"r [ri"l""6'Icor"in".,""t ][of ][lnbia. ][secretariat ][Buildings,]New Delhi [- ][110 ][001 ][.]4. The National [Faceless Assessment Center' lncome ][Tax ][Department' New]Delhi.Delhi.5. ii"'3""r"tury [to ][the ][Government, ][The ][Union ][of lndia' ][Revenue' ][Ministry ][of]Finance, New [Delhi]Finance, New [Delhi]oThe secretarv to the Government, [The ][Union ][of ][lndia, Department of]nevenue, Nliiistry [of Finance, New ][Delhi ][- ] [001 ][']nevenue, Nliiistry [of Finance, New ][Delhi ][- ] [001 ][']7OnJCC-io Sri [Thanneru Chaitanva ][Kumar, ][Advocqte ]lO-P^t]p]^.o. 5;; CC io [r'lts. ]L [Srnitna ][(JUNloh ] [for lncome ][Tax) ][[oPUC.l]I. o;; cc io sii croi [pravedn-Kumar, ][Depury Soticitor ][General of ][lndia[oPUC]]10.Two CD Copieso. 5;; CC io [r'lts. ]L [Srnitna ][(JUNloh ] [for lncome ][Tax) ][[oPUC.l]I. o;; cc io sii croi [pravedn-Kumar, ][Depury Soticitor ][General of ][lndia[oPUC]]10.Two CD CopiesoTJTKSTKS HIGH COURT DATED:2810412025 ORDER WP.No.33454 [o12024] ALLOWING WITHOUT 2\ ' ,1 . (,'-:-'1-t [1"].S\31JlJl.2r5C) it')\\.)1cEO