Wp/33509/2024 Of Primary Agricutural Cooperative Society Ltd Mannoor v. Income-Tax Officert Decided On 14.09.2023 Whereby A Batch Of Writ Petitions Wcre Allowed And The Proceedings Initiated Under Section 148A As Also Under S

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction) IVIONDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF APRILTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION NO:33509 OF 2024 Between: Primary Agriculture Cooperative Society Ltd lVlannoor, Rep. by the CEOVenkateshwar Dhanure, S/o. Datta Dhanure, Aged about 45 years,Occupation- Business, R/o. D NO 7 -27 Mannoor, Telangana GudihathnurAdilabad 504308, Telangana, lndia. ...PETITIONER AND 1The lncome Tax Officer Ward 1, Adilabadi Adilabad, Hyderabad, Adilabad,Hyderabad, Hyderabad 504'106, Telangana.Hyderabad, Hyderabad 504'106, Telangana. 2The Principal Chief Commissioner of lncome Tax - Telangana and A.P, THyderabad, lT Towers, AC Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad - 500028,Telangana-Hyderabad, lT Towers, AC Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad - 500028,Telangana- 3. The Cenkal Board of Direct Taxes, Represented by its Chairman, Departmentof Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of lndia, Secretariat Buildings,New Delhi - 110 001.of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of lndia, Secretariat Buildings,New Delhi - 110 001. 4. The National Faceless Assessment Center, lncome Tax Department, NewDelhi.Delhi. 5. The Union of lndia, Represented by its Secretary to the Government,Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi - 1 10 001 .Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, New 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 in thenature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the order [passed ]by the Income TaxAuthorities (National Faceless E-Assessment Centre) [completed ]the assessmentUIS 147 r.w.s 144 read with section 1448 of the [lncome-tax ][Act ][Date ]of 22-02- 2024, DIN ITBA/AST/S/14712023-2411061349546(1) for the Assessment Year2019-20 determining the total income of Rs. 2,84,02,591/-. as arbitrary, illegal, badin law, without jurisdiction, void-ab-initio, violative of the principles of naturaljustice apart from being violative of Articles 1 a, 19(1 Xg) and 265 of the2019-20 determining the total income of Rs. 2,84,02,591/-. as arbitrary, illegal, badin law, without jurisdiction, void-ab-initio, violative of the principles of naturaljustice apart from being violative of Articles 1 a, 19(1 Xg) and 265 of theConstitution of lndia and Sec. ['148A ]of the lncome Tax Act, 1961 , andconsequently set aside the same in the interests of justice.consequently set aside the same in the interests of justice. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated inthe affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased tosuspend the order Under section 147r.w.s 144 read with section 1448 of thelncome-tax Act Date of 22-02-2024, DIN ITBA/ASTlsl147l2023-24i1061349546(1)for the Assessment Year 2019-20 determining the total income of Rs.2,84,02,5911- and Demand notice u/s ['1 ]56 of the lncome Tax act 1961, vide DINand Notice No. ITBA/AST13115612023-24/1061349693(1) Dt. 22-02-2024 fot theassessment year 2O19-20 pending disposal of the above Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI THANNERU CHAITANYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: J SUNITHA (JUNIOR SC FOR INCOME TAX)The Court made the following: ORDER i.) THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAONANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION No.33509 OF 2024 QBDEB, @er [Hon'ble ][Sri ][Justice ][Narsing ][Rao ][Nandikonda)] Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI THANNERU CHAITANYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: J SUNITHA (JUNIOR SC FOR INCOME TAX)The Court made the following: ORDER i.) THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAONANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION No.33509 OF 2024 QBDEB, @er [Hon'ble ][Sri ][Justice ][Narsing ][Rao ][Nandikonda)] Heard Mr.Thanneru Chaitanya Kumar, leamed counselfor the petitioner, Ms.J.Sunitha, leamed Junior Standing Counselfor the Income Tax Department for [respondent ]Nos.l [to ][4 ][and]Mr. B. Mukherjee, learned 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 ][l48A]and 148 of the Incorne Tax Act, 1961 [(for ]short'the [Act') ][or ][the]assessment orders those have been [passed ][under ][Section ][147 ][of]the Act which have been assailed. 3. This writ petition is being taken up today only on one [of ][the]grounds, that the notices issued under Section l48A of [the ][Act]and the subsequent initiation of [proceedings under ][Section ][148 ][of]the Act bylthe [jurisdictional ]Assessing Officer, [whereas ][in ][terms]Iof the amendment that was brought [to the Income ][Tax Act by way] of Finance Act,, 2021 w.e.f., 01.04.2021 onwards, proceedingsunder Section 1484. of the Act as also under Section 148 of theAct ought to have also been issued and proceederl in a facelessmanner.4. The contention contention of the petitioner is that the issue ofthe petitioner is that the issue ofpetitioner is that the issue ofis that the issue ofthat the issue ofthe issue ofissue ofofproceedings being in violation of the Finance Act, 2021 i.e., theimpugned notices under Section l48A and Section t48 of the Actnot being issued in a faceless manner, have already been dealt withand decided by this Court in the case of KANKANALARAVINDRA REDDY vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICERT decidedon 14.09.2023 whereby a batch of writ petitions wcre allowed andthe proceedings initiated under Section 148A as also under Section148 of the Act were held to be bad with consequential reliefs on theground of it being in violation of the provisions of Scction 151A ofthe Act read with Notification 1812022 dated29.03.2022. The saidjudgment passed by this Court has also been subsequently foltowedin a large number of writ petitions which were allowed on similarterms The contention contention of the petitioner is that the issue ofthe petitioner is that the issue ofpetitioner is that the issue ofis that the issue ofthat the issue ofthe issue ofissue ofof 'l(2023) [156 ][taxmann.com ][178 ][(Telangana)l] !8-' ---t":-- - __.:=v! 5. Down the line, we find that the [same ][issue has also ][been]decided against the Revenue byvanous High Courts i.e.,by the Bombay High Court in the [case ]of HEXAWARLTECHNOLOGTES LTD., [VS. ]ASSISTANT OF INCOME TAX & OTHERS2, Gauhati [High Court in ][the ][case]of RAM NARAYAN SAH [vs. ]UNION [INDIA3, ][Punjab ][and]Haryana High Court in the case of JATINDER vs. UNION OF INDIA4, and Telangana [High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]SRI VENKATARAMANA [VS. ] COMMISSIONER OF INCOME [where ][the ][issue ][was ][in]respect of intemational taxation, [Bombay ][High ][Court in ][the ][case ][of]ABHIN ANILKUMAR SHAH [vs. ]INCOME [OFFICER,]INTERNATIONAL TAXATION6 [which is ][again ][on ][international]taxation and central circle, High [Court of Himachal ][Pradesh ][in ][the]case of GOVIND SINGH vs. INCOME [OFFICERT,]Gujarat High Court in the case of 2 Tzoz+1464ITR 430 (Bom)Tzoz+1464ITR 430 (Bom)'l(2024) [156 ][taxmann.com 478 ][(Gauhati)l] ' l(2024) [165 ][taxmann.com I ] [5 ][(Punjab ][& ][Haryana)l] ' 12024) [67 tffirfila-nn.com ][4 ] [(Telangana)l] "12024) [166 ][taxmarur.com 679 ][(Bombay)l] '12024) [165 ][taxmann.com ][113 ][(Hirnachal ][Pradesh)l] 2 Tzoz+1464ITR 430 (Bom)Tzoz+1464ITR 430 (Bom)'l(2024) [156 ][taxmann.com 478 ][(Gauhati)l] ' l(2024) [165 ][taxmann.com I ] [5 ][(Punjab ][& ][Haryana)l] ' 12024) [67 tffirfila-nn.com ][4 ] [(Telangana)l] "12024) [166 ][taxmarur.com 679 ][(Bombay)l] '12024) [165 ][taxmann.com ][113 ][(Hirnachal ][Pradesh)l] DATfYABHAI RADADIYA VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 3(3)(5)8, Jharkand High Court in the case of SIIYAMSUNDAR SAW vs. UNION OF INDIAe,, Rajasthan High Court inthe case of SHARDA DEVI CHHAJER vs. INCOME TAXOFFICER & ANOTHER and batch of writ petitionsro whichstood decided on 19.03.2024. Similar views have also been takenby the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in the case ofGIRDHAR GOPAL DALMIA vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS(M.A.T 1690 ot2023), decided on25.09.2024. 6. Even though 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 10 writpetitions. That upon the instructions being sought from theDepartment, they have been taking a solitary ground that thedecision of the Bombay High Court in the case of HaunareTechnologies Ltd., (2 supra) as also the one rvhich has beendecided by this Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy '2024SCC [online ][G:uj ][4012]'2025 [Online ][Ihar287]o ' 12023 [: ] [:49 ][84-DBl] (1 supra) has been subjected to challenge in a [Special ][Leave]Petition i.e., SLP No.3574 of [2024 before ][the Hon'ble ][Supreme]Court and the Hon'ble Supreme [Court ][is ][seized ][of ][the ][matter.]In addition, there are about [1200 ][SLPs also ][filed ][arising out ][ofthe]same issue being decided by [various ][High Courts.] 7 . To a query being [put to ][the leamed counsel ][for ][the ][Revenue,]they have categorically [accepted ][the ][fact ][that ][there ][is ][no ][interim]order granted by [the Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Court ][in ][any ][of ][these]matters pending before it. [Meanwhite, ][fresh ][writ ][petitions ][of]identical nature are being [piled up ][before ][this ][Bench on ][daily ][basis]and the pendency [is ][getting ][increased ][on ][matter ][which ][otherwise]has already been dealt and [decided ][by ][this ][very ][High ][Court ][itself.]8. On the one [hand, even ][though ][the ][order ][of ][this ][Court ][that]was passed as early as on [14.09.2023 ][and ][more ][16 months ][have]lapsed, till date, we do [not ][find ][any remedial ][steps ][having ][been]taken by the Income [Tax ][Department to ][take ][appropriate ][steps ][to]either hold back issuance [of ][notice under Section ][1484 ][and under]Section 148 of the Act by [the ][jurisdictional ][Assessing ][Officer,]rather the authorities [concemed ][in ][the teeth ][of ][series ][of ][decisions] by all the major High Courts in India are continuousiy stillinitiating proceedings under Section l48A of thc Act and alsoinitiating proceedings under Section 148 of the Act incontravention to the amendments brought into the Income Tax Actpursuant to the Finance Act, 2020 as also the Finance Act 2021.9. Upon a query being put as to why can't this writ petition bedisposed of in the teeth of the decision rendered by this Court inthe case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra), learned StanclingCounsel lor the Income Tax Department contends that those woukiunnecessarily burden the Income Tax Department where theywould be required to file equal number of SLPs before theHon'ble Supreme Court and it would be further burdening theexchequer of the Union of India. It was also the contention of theleamed Standing Counsel that no prejudice would be caused to theinterest of the petitioners in case if this writ petition is kept pendingtill the finalization of the SLPs pending before the Hon'bleSupreme Court and the fact that the petitioner is already enjoyingthe benefit of interim protection. Nonetheless, on the earliel queryof this Courl as to why the Income Tax Deparlment have not comeout with a mechanism to issue appropriate instructions or to take appropriate steps in ensuring [that proceedings under ][Section ][148A]of the Act as also the assessment orders under [Section ][148 ][of ][the]Act are kept in a hold in the light ofthe decisions [dedcided ][by ][the]various High Courts, it was submitted by [the ][leamed ][Standing]Counsel that the said steps can only [be ][taken ][at ][the ][level ][of ] as any such steps would have [to ]be [taken Pan ][India ][and cannot ][be]limited to any of these [jurisdictional ][High ][Courts.] 10. As a result of which, what we [are ][facing ][is ][steep ][increase ][of]litigation day in and day out even [though ][various ][orders ][have been]passed by this High Court allowing writ [petitions ]on the [very ][same]issue. The Income Tax authorities concemed [are ][still ][even ][now ][in]2025 also initiating [proceedings ][in ][contravention ][to,the ][provisions]of Section 151A of the Act and [as ][a result ][by ][now, more ][than ][600]to 700 petitions have been already [got ][piled ][up before ][this ][High]Court on an issue which [otherwise ][stands ][squarely covered ][by ][the]judgment of this Court in the case of Kanaksla Ravindra Reddy(1 supra). What is also surprising is the [fact ][that though while]allowing the writ [petitions ]in [the ][case ][of ][Kanakala ][Ravindra]Division [Bench ][while ][reserving the ][right ][of]Reddy (l supra),'the the Revenue, has also protected the [interest ]of [the ][petitioners] insofar as the liberty which was granted to the Revenue forinitiating fresh proceedings strictly in accordance with the amendedprovisions of the Act, as amended by the Finance Act, 2020 andthe Finance Act,202l . The petitioner assessee would be entitled tochallenge or raise the other legal objections if the Revenue initiatesfresh proceedings. The Department has made no endeavour inavailing the said liberty that was reserved for the Revenue. On thecontrary, thel' have been still sticking on to the stand, which thisHigh Court as well as many other High Courts already hetd to bebad I 1. It appears that because of the aforesaid liberty that this HighCourt had granted permitting the Revenue fbr initiating freshproceedings as a one-time measure in a faceless manner, theIncome 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 Couft confirmsthe decision taken by this High Court as also by the other HighCourts in which the SLPs are still pending, the Income Tax Department would get the advantage of the liberty 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 concerned. As a consequence, the Income TaxDepartment gets an extended period of time for initiation of [ffesh]proceedings. 12. The alarming trend of docket explosion in this Court, despitethe clear precedent setir, Kanskala Ravindra Reddy (l supra), [is ][a]matter of grave concern. The Income Tax Department's [persistent]initiation of fresh proceedings, disregarding the established [judicial]pronouncements, has led to an unprecedented surge in litigationwith over 600-700 petitions piling up on the same [issue. This]deliberate approach not only undermines the [principle ]ofjudicialprecedent but also strains the [judicial ]resources unnecessarily. TheDepartment'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] 12. The alarming trend of docket explosion in this Court, despitethe clear precedent setir, Kanskala Ravindra Reddy (l supra), [is ][a]matter of grave concern. The Income Tax Department's [persistent]initiation of fresh proceedings, disregarding the established [judicial]pronouncements, has led to an unprecedented surge in litigationwith over 600-700 petitions piling up on the same [issue. This]deliberate approach not only undermines the [principle ]ofjudicialprecedent but also strains the [judicial ]resources unnecessarily. TheDepartment'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] position. Such conduct raises serious questions about theadministrativo efficiency and the respect for judicialpronouncements, particularly when this Court has already provideda balanced approach by preserving both the Revenue's rights andassesses lnterests.assesses lnterests. 13. Another aspect which needs to be considered is that in fact itshould have been realized by the Income Tax Department itself andshould have found out via media in ensuring that proceedingsunder Sections 148-4. and 148 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 ofor, atleast the Income Tax Department should have found oul someremedial steps to ensure that wherever the authorities intend toinitiate proceedings under Sections 148-A and 148, 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 very same issue.This again, the Iricome Tax Department, has not been able to give aconvincing reply, except for the fact that such a decision if at all has to be taken, has to be taken for the [whole ]oflndia, [and ][which]otherwise has to be by way of a policy decision and that too at thelevei of Central Board of Direct Taxes. [Though ]the [learned]Standing Counsel for the Income Tax [Department ][contended that]the Delhi High Court dismissed a writ [petition ]of [similar ][nature, ][on]the one hand when the High Court is [struggling ][to ][reduce ][its]pendency, such notices which are under challenge [in ][this ][writ]petition are forcing the assessee to knock the doors of [this High]Court resulting in filing of hundreds of [new ][writ ][petitions ][which ][in]the long run not only affects the [disposal ][of ][the ][writ ][petitions ][but]also consumes substantial time of [the ][Bench ][in ][hearing ][these]matters again and again on daily basis. [Admittedly, ][in ][spite ][of ][the]matter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court [having ][been taken ][on]many occasions, the Hon'ble Supreme [Court ][which ][is ][seized ][of ][the]matter has been reluctant in [granting ][any ][interim ][protection ][to ][the]Income Tax Department. [Yet, the ][authorities ][concemed ][at ][the]State level are not ready to accept [the verdict ][passed ][by ][a ][majority]of High Courts of different States [on ][the ][same issue; and ][to ][make]things further worse, the Income Tax [Department ][is ][showing]audacity by issuing notices continuously [under ][Sections ][148-A ][and] 148 through the jurisdictional Assessing Officer whereas it oughtto have been only in the faceless manner. 14. In thc case of BANK OF INDIA vs. ASSISTANTCOMMISSIONER, INCOME TAXrr, on an issue whether it r.vasjustifiable on the pan 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 theHigh Court of Bombay held at paragraph No.25 as under, viz., : 148 through the jurisdictional Assessing Officer whereas it oughtto have been only in the faceless manner. 14. In thc case of BANK OF INDIA vs. ASSISTANTCOMMISSIONER, INCOME TAXrr, on an issue whether it r.vasjustifiable on the pan 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 theHigh Court of Bombay held at paragraph No.25 as under, viz., : "25. tr/r. Pariowaila has i-ighfly drawn out attention to thedecision oi this Couri in Commissioner of lncome Tax vs. Smt.Godavaridevi Saraf'2 as also the .ecent decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court rn Samp Furniture (p) Ltd. v. lTOl3of which one of us (Justice G.S. Kulka:.ni) was a member, whereinthe Courl catejoilcally observed that the Revenue havjng not"accepteci" ,he judgment of ihe High Court would not mean that tillthe same is set aside in a manner known to law, it would loose itsbinding force. Referring to the decision of the Supreme Court inUnion of lndia vs. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd.14, theCourt observed that the approach cf the officials of Reverrue oftreating dec:sions being "not acceptable" was criticized by theSupreme Court. ln such decision, following are the relevantobservations made by the Supreme Court. ]] t' [tfZOZS; ][170 ][taxmann.corn 422 ][(Bornbay)l]7t9181 I l3 trR 589 (Bombay)" [TZOZ+1 I ][65 taxmann.c ][om ][5 ][8 ] [/3 ][00 ] [axmat ][4 ]52 [(Bombay)]'o ]l9921taxmann.com [l6155 ]ELT 433 [(SC)] "6. Sri Reddy is perhaps right in saying that theofficers were not actuated by any mala fides [in]passing 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 correctness 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, 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 bppellate hierarchy. ltcannot be too vehemently emphasized that it is ofutmost impo(ance that, in disposing of [the]quasijudicial issues before them, revenue officers arebound by the decisions of the appellate authorities.The order of the Appellte Collector is binding on [the]Assistant Collectors working within his [jurisdiction ][and]the order of the Tribunal is binding upon the [Assistant]Collectors and the Appellate Collectors who [function]under the [jurisdiction ]of the Tribunal. The [principles ]ofjudicial discipline require that the orders of the higherappellate 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 hasbeen 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. 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,because it has been suggested by the learnedAdditional Solicitor General that the observationsmade by the High Court, have been harsh on theofficers. lt is clear that the observations of the HighCourt, seemingly vehement, and apparenflyunpalatable 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 these observations ln theproper spirit. The observations of the High Courtshould be kepl in mind in future and the utmost regardshould be paid by the adjudicating authorities and theappellate authorities to the requirements of judicialdiscipline and the need for giving effect to the ordersof the higher appellate authorities which are bindingon them." 15. What is worrying this Bench more is the fact that anendeavour is being made whole heartedly to ensure not to generatefurther litigation on issues which have been laid to rest by a largenumber of High Courts all of whom have taken a consistent standthat the action of the Income Tax Department being violative of the Finance Act,2020 and Finance Act,202l. Now, [in ]order to [protect]the interest of the Revenue as also that of the assesseo, it would betrite at this [juncture, ]if we dispose of the writ [petition ]with anobservation/direction that the disposal of the instant writ [petition ][in]terms of the [judgment ]rendered by this High Court in the case ofKankanala Ravindra Reddy (l supra) shall however be [subject to]the outcome of the SLPs which [were ]filed by [the ][Income ][Tax]Department and which is pending consideration before the [Hon'ble]Supreme Court. 16. In the given facts and circutnstances, 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 fortified by the decisions of [the various ][other]High Courts on the very same issue, the [pendency ]of [this ][High]Court would further be burdened which otherwise can [be ][decided]and disposed ofas a covered matter. 17. So far as the interest of the Revenue is concerned, [we are ]ofthe considered opinion that the interest of the [Revenue ][has ][already]been considered and [protected, ][as ][has ]been observed [in ][paragraphs] 36,37 and.38 ofthe order which, for ready reference, is reproducedhereunder: 36. For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned noticesissued and the proceedings drawn by the respondent_Department is neither tenable, nor sustainable.The notices so issued and the procedure adopted beingper se illegal, deserves to be and are accordingly selaside/quashed. As a consequence, all the impugnedorders getting quashed, the consequential orders passedby the respondent-Department pursuant to the noticesissued under Section 147 and 148 would also getquashed and it is ordered accordingly. The reason weare quashing the consequential order is on the principlesthat when the initiation of the proceedings itself wasprocedurally wrong, the subsequent orders also getsnullified automatically. 37. The preliminary objection raised by the petitioner issustained and all these writ petitions stands allowed onthis very jurisdictional issue. Since the impugned noticesand orders are getting quashed on the point ofjurisdiction, we are not inclined to proceed further anddecide the other issues raised by the petitioner whichstands reserved to be raised and contended in anappropriate proceedings. 38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the caseof Ashish Agarwal, supra, as a one{ime measureexercising the powers under Article 142 of theConstitution of lndia, permitted the Revenue to proceedunder the substituted provisions, and this Court attowingthe petitions only on the procedural flaw, the right ( \ 37. The preliminary objection raised by the petitioner issustained and all these writ petitions stands allowed onthis very jurisdictional issue. Since the impugned noticesand orders are getting quashed on the point ofjurisdiction, we are not inclined to proceed further anddecide the other issues raised by the petitioner whichstands reserved to be raised and contended in anappropriate proceedings. 38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the caseof Ashish Agarwal, supra, as a one{ime measureexercising the powers under Article 142 of theConstitution of lndia, permitted the Revenue to proceedunder the substituted provisions, and this Court attowingthe 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 theorder of the Supreme Court in the case of AshishAgarwal, 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 (l supra) is subjected to challengebefore the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No.3574 of [2024,]preferred 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 Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (l sryra).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 writ petition stands allowed [in]favour of the assessee so far as the issue of [jurisdiction]lsconcemed. As a consequence, the impugned notice [under]challenge under Sections 148-A and 148 stands set aside/quashed. 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 Kankanula Rqvindra Reddy (l supra). There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed SD/.7. JAYASREEqEryTYREGISTRAR//TRUE COPY//; [btcrror.r ][[oFFtcER]] To,; [[oFFtcER]]1. The lncome Tax Officer Ward 1, Adilabad/ Adilabad, Hyderabad, Adilabad,^ [Hyderabad, Hyderabad 504106: ][felano-an, ][* ][*-t^], Il.::ll:'fa,fCjrjer Hyoeraoao, rr towers. Com.mis^sioner AC Guards, Masab of tn-come Tank, Tax _ Hydera"bad Tetangana _ and SObOia,A.p, TTelangana.1. The lncome Tax Officer Ward 1, Adilabad/ Adilabad, Hyderabad, Adilabad,^ [Hyderabad, Hyderabad 504106: ][felano-an, ][* ][*-t^], Il.::ll:'fa,fCjrjer Hyoeraoao, rr towers. Com.mis^sioner AC Guards, Masab of tn-come Tank, Tax _ Hydera"bad Tetangana _ and SObOia,A.p, TTelangana.3 The central Board of Direct raxes, Represented by its chairman, Deoartmentof Revenue. Ministrv of Finance, e oueinmenfoi r"f iil S"rrliiri;i "B;idi;;L:'''NewDelhi -ilOOOiof Revenue. Ministrv of Finance, e oueinmenfoi r"f iil S"rrliiri;i "B;idi;;L:'''NewDelhi -ilOOOi4. The National Faceless Assessment Center, lncome Tax Department, NewDelhi.The National Faceless Assessment Center, lncome Tax Department, NewDelhi. 5. The Secretarv to the Government, Department of Revenue, Ivrinistry of rheUnion of tndi5, finance, New D;ihi- i10"0b".i:'"' [''']Union of tndi5, finance, New D;ihi- i10"0b".i:'"' [''']o. ^ [(Jne ]uu ro sfl I hanneru gl,.qit?!y_a Kumar, Advocate [OpUClgl,.qit?!y_a Kumar, Advocate [OpUClI. 9n" [to ][Ms. ][J. Sunitha ]1.lUrurO'n SC'ioi in*".L1r*, IOPUCIB. one cc to Sri Gadi pravetin rumai, Gputv'5iii":n,i'. clAXi"iJt'rnairloeucl9. Two CD CopiesB. one cc to Sri Gadi pravetin rumai, Gputv'5iii":n,i'. clAXi"iJt'rnairloeucl9. Two CD CopiesTJLS+yLS+y HIGH COURT DATED:2810412025 ORDER WP.No.33509 of 2024 rir; ')[ia,l'];ovlr l'J--1 b [?t25]=:t.t.'-i;:;.TCk{ ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITIONWITHOUT COSTS vn