Wp/33540/2024 Of Pacs Bidrelly Hq Mudhole v. The Income Tax Officer

rEr-.ANGANAH1GH couRr [txT ]I+ESIIIt^8F (sPeciai [oiiginil ][Jurisdiction)] *o**".;ffoH^FIXo.*S[]ER$3i,1*'' PRESENT THE HONOURABLE [sRl:'-usTlcE ][P'SAM KOSHY] RAo [NANDIK.NDA]THE HoNouRAB,"*t "'#'oNARstNG F2024WRIT TION N[O:33][540 ][0] Between: the CEO NADTPOLLA ;313.3i [iSilii, ][33"H8flt1'] [?"'H.i#f#',ff [#ftH':':hfr#] ...PETITIONER AND^] i*+Tr;q.q"#e***il.xffi* [:fr:# ][;ffi;] i?[iiti'',#:s3[[i*i?i'1iifr [ill].iFEiffi ilff,#,ff '"1'?e,,1,'fi1'a[fl-fi ii.* O"tni O"tni [[- ][110 ][001]][[110 ][001]][[001]][[Center' ][lncome ][Tax ][Department' ][New]][[lncome ][Tax ][Department' ][New]][[Tax ][Department' ][New]][[Department' ][New]][[New]]ii.* O"tni O"tni [[- ][110 ][001]][[110 ][001]][[001]][[Center' ][lncome ][Tax ][Department' ][New]][[lncome ][Tax ][Department' ][New]][[Tax ][Department' ][New]][[Department' ][New]][[New]] ii.* O"tni O"tni [[- ][110 ][001]][[110 ][001]][[001]]4. The The [National Faceless Assessment ][[Center' ][lncome ][Tax ][Department' ][New]][[lncome ][Tax ][Department' ][New]][[Tax ][Department' ][New]][[Department' ][New]][[New]]' ' 4. The The ' Delhi.' Delhi. Delhi.s Y[" [" ][u ][nio ][n ]"I [^,*i,J",,ft ]['"", ][ffJt3lr,ll"[3, ][iSffi ][[n ][-t:.l ][$301?o'"'n'"nt']"I [^,*i,J",,ft ]['"", ][ffJt3lr,ll"[3, ][iSffi ][[n ][-t:.l ][$301?o'"'n'"nt']Department [of Revenue' ][Mrlrrstr ][v ][vr ] [rr ][..'| ][rv-' ] .RES,ONDENTS Petition [under ][Article ][226 ][of ][lhe Constitution ][of ][lndia ][praying ][that in ][the]circumstances [stated ][in ][the ][affidavit ][filed ][therewith' ][the ][High ][Court may ][be]to [issue an ][appropriate ][writ' ][order ][or ][direction more ][particularly ][one ][in]pleased the nature [of-Writ ][of ][Mandamus' declaring ][the order ][passed by ][the ][lncome Tax]Authorities [(Nationar Faceress ][E-Assessment ][centre) ][completed ][the ][assessment]tJtS 147 r.w.s 144 read [with section ][144€i ][of the ][lncome-tax ][Act ][Date ][of ][02-O2-]DIN [ITBA/AST/S/147aa23-2411o6o425121(1\ ][for the ][Assessment ][Year]2024, 2O1g-2O determining [the ][total ][income ][of ][Rs'12'24'26'783/'' as arbitrary' ][illegal'] IQonstitution bad in ustice law, without jurisdiapart from of being ction, violative void-ab-initio,of Artict violative es 1a, 19(1)(g) of the principles and 265 of naturalof rheconsequenfly set lndia and Sec. aside the same in the interests 14gA ofthe of lncome justiceTax Act, 1961,andIA NO 10F 2024consequenfly set lndia and Sec. aside the same in the interests 14gA ofthe of lncome justiceTax Act, 1961,andIA NO 10F 2024 petitioh firet under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit in suppo( of in the circumstances stated inthe circumstances stated ininsuspend the order Undethe writ petition, the High court may be preased to,ncome.tax Acr o,,J'"1f"" ;::.:;Z;:,^,lli [-,H;lL:,::_:;::]2411060425121(1 ) for the Assessmen t year 2019-20determining vide of Rs.12,24,2i,783/_. DrN and Notice No. and rrBA,rAST/S/156t2023-24r1060425154(1) Demand notice u/s 156 of the lncome the totar incomeTax act 1961,for the assessment Dt. 02-02_2024year 2O1g_2O pending disposal of the above Writ petition Counsel for the petitioner: SRl. THANNERU CHAITANYA KUMARSRl. THANNERU CHAITANYA KUMAR Counset forthe Respondent Nos. 1to4: Ms. J.SUNITHAcounsel ror the Respondent FoR tNcoME rAx)The Court made the following: "".u, ORDER"*1'gl,f,I^iE THE TIONOURABLE [P'SAM ][KOSI{Y]ANDTrrE HoNouRABr,B [s{i iusucE ] [RAo]NANDIKONDA WRIT [o.33540 ][()F][ m24] ORDER [(per ][Hon'ble ][Sri ][Justice ][Narsing ][Rao ][Nandil<onda)] Heard [Mr'Thanneru ][Chaitanya ][Kumar' ][learned ][counsel]for the [petitioner, Ms'J'sunitha' ][leamed ][Junior ][Stan'ding ][Counsel]forthelncomeTaxDepartmentforrespondentNos.lto4andMr. B. [Mukherjee, ][Ieamed ][counsel representing ][the ][Union ][of ][India]for respondent [No'5' ][Perused ][the ][record'] Counsel for the petitioner: SRl. THANNERU CHAITANYA KUMARSRl. THANNERU CHAITANYA KUMAR Counset forthe Respondent Nos. 1to4: Ms. J.SUNITHAcounsel ror the Respondent FoR tNcoME rAx)The Court made the following: "".u, ORDER"*1'gl,f,I^iE THE TIONOURABLE [P'SAM ][KOSI{Y]ANDTrrE HoNouRABr,B [s{i iusucE ] [RAo]NANDIKONDA WRIT [o.33540 ][()F][ m24] ORDER [(per ][Hon'ble ][Sri ][Justice ][Narsing ][Rao ][Nandil<onda)] Heard [Mr'Thanneru ][Chaitanya ][Kumar' ][learned ][counsel]for the [petitioner, Ms'J'sunitha' ][leamed ][Junior ][Stan'ding ][Counsel]forthelncomeTaxDepartmentforrespondentNos.lto4andMr. B. [Mukherjee, ][Ieamed ][counsel representing ][the ][Union ][of ][India]for respondent [No'5' ][Perused ][the ][record'] This is is [[a writ ][petition ][where ]][[petition ][where ]][[where ]][[the ][proceedings ][are ][either]][[proceedings ][are ][either]][[are ][either]][[either]] 2. This is is [[a writ ][petition ][where ]][[petition ][where ]][[where ]][[the ][proceedings ][are ][either]][[proceedings ][are ][either]][[are ][either]][[either]]challenged [to ][the ][notices ][which ][were ][issued under ][Section ][l48A]and 148 [of ][the ][lncome ][Tax ][Act' ][1961 ][(for ][short 'the ][Act') ][or ][the]assessmetrt [orders those have been passed ][under Section 147 ][o[]the Act [which ][have ][been assailed'] 3'Thiswritpetitionisbeingtakenuptodayonlyononeofthethat [the ][notices ][issued ][uoder ][Section ][148A ][of ][the ][Act]grounds, and the subsequent [initiation ][of proceedings ][under ][Section ][148 ][of]the Ac! by the [j ][urisdictional ][Assessing ][Ofticer' ][whereas ][in ][terms])of the airendment [that ][was ][brought ][to ][the ][Income Tax ][Actby ][way] of Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f., 01.04.2021 onwards, proceedings under Section 14gA of the Att as also under Section I4g of theAct ought to have also been tssued and proceeded in a facelessmanner. 4. The contention of thepetitioner is that ttre issue is that ttre issue that ttre issue ttre issue issue ofproceedings being in violationof the Finance ACl, 2021 i.e., theimpugned notices under SectionI48A and Secrion t4g ol rhe Acrnot 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 were allowed andthe proceedings initiated under Section l4gA 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 Section l5lA ofthe Act read with Notification lg/2022 dated Zg.O3 .2022. The said,judgment passed by this Court has also been subsequently followedin a large number of writ petitions which were allowed on similarterms. petitioner is that ttre issue is that ttre issue that ttre issue ttre issue issue of 'tQ023) 156 raxmann.com l7g (Telangana)l Down [[the ][line, we frnd ][that ][the ][same ][issue has also ][been]][[line, we frnd ][that ][the ][same ][issue has also ][been]][[that ][the ][same ][issue has also ][been]][[the ][same ][issue has also ][been]][[same ][issue has also ][been]][[issue has also ][been]][[been]] petitioner is that ttre issue is that ttre issue that ttre issue ttre issue issue of 'tQ023) 156 raxmann.com l7g (Telangana)l Down [[the ][line, we frnd ][that ][the ][same ][issue has also ][been]][[line, we frnd ][that ][the ][same ][issue has also ][been]][[that ][the ][same ][issue has also ][been]][[the ][same ][issue has also ][been]][[same ][issue has also ][been]][[issue has also ][been]][[been]] 5. Down [[the ][line, we frnd ][that ][the ][same ][issue has also ][been]][[line, we frnd ][that ][the ][same ][issue has also ][been]][[that ][the ][same ][issue has also ][been]][[the ][same ][issue has also ][been]][[same ][issue has also ][been]][[issue has also ][been]][[been]]decided [against ][the ][Revenue ][by ][various ][High ][C'ourts ][i'e'']the [Bombay ][High ][Court ][in ][dre ][-case ][of ] by TECHNOLOGIES [LTD., ][VS. ] oFINCOMETAx&OTIIERS2,GauhatiHighCourtinthecaseof RAM [vs' ] [INDIAT' ][Punjab ][and]Haryana [High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ] vs. UNION [INDIA4, ][and Telangana ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]SRI VENKATARAMANA [VS. ] COMMISSIONER [where ][the ][issue ][was ][in]of [intemational taxation' Bombay ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]respect ABHIN ANILKLMAR [vs' INCOME ] [OFFICE&]INTERNATIONAL [which ][is ][again ][on international]taxation [and central ][circle, ][High ][Court ][of ][Himachal ][Pradesh ][in ][the]case of GOVIND [vs' ] [OFFICEd']Gujarat [High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ] \ '1zoz+1464 [ITR43o(Bom) ]'i2ozq [156 ][taxmann.com 478 (Gauha]'i<zozq) [165 ][taxmann.com ][115 ][(Punjab & Haryana)l]'[2024) [167 ][taxmann.com ][41 ] [(Telangana)]]" 12024) [166 ][taftaqn.com ][679 ][(Bombav)l]'iZOZq [[65 ][taxnrarur.com ] [t3 ][(Himachal ][Pradesh)]] DAIIYABHAI RADADIYA vs. INCOME TAX.OFFICE&WAR-D 3(3X5)3, Jharkand High Court in the case of SEyAMSUNDAR SAW vs. UNION OF INDIAe, Rajasrhan High Court inthe case of SHARDA DEW CHHAJER vs. INCOME TAXOFFICER & ANOTHER and batch of writ petitionsro whichstood decided oo 19.03.2024. Similar views have also been takenby the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in the case ofGIRDHAR C,OPAL DALMIA vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS(M.A.T 1690 of 2023),decided on 25.09.2024.6. Even though the same issue having been decided by a Iargenumber of High Courts, we are still confronted with large filing ofidentical matters on daily basis ranging between 5 to r 0 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 HexswareTeehnologies Ltd., (2 supra) as also the one which has beendecided by this Court-.ig_the case of Ksnakalo Ravindra Reddy82024 SCC Online Guj 40 l2' 2025 SCC On Line Jhar 287'o 12023 [: ]RI-JD :4984_DBl (1 supra) [itas ]''5:::Ll [;-'i:':'-le/..;6:d ][t.:' ][:iratienge ][in ][a ][Speci*t ][Lli;e]Petition [i'e., ] [No'3574 ][of ][2024 ][before ][the ][llon'ble ][Supreme]Court [and the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Court ][is ][seized ][of ][the ][matter']In addition, [there are ][about ][1200 SLPs also ][filed ][arising out ][ofthe]same [issue ][being decided by ][various High Courts']7. To a [query ][being put to ][the learned counsel ][for ][the Revenue']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' ][Meanwhile' fresh ][writ ][petitions ][of]identical [nahrre are ][being ][piled ][up before ][this ][Bench ][on daily ][basis]and the [pendency ][is ][getting ][increased ][on ][matter ][which ][otherwise]has arready [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, [tilt ][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 148A ][and under]Section [148 ][of ][the ][Act ][by ][the ][jurisdictional ][Assessing ][Offrcer']rather the [authorities ][concemed ][in ][the teeth ][of ][series ][of ][decisions] f b;' all the major,.iiiigi Cri,it: ir India are continuously si,.l rnrrlaring proceedings under Section l4gA of the Act and alsoinitiating proceedings under Section 14g of the Act iacontravention to the amendments brought into the Income Tax Actpursuant ro the Finance Act,2020as also the Finance Act 202t- 9. Upon a query being put as to why can,t this writ petition bea query being put as to why can,t this writ petition bequery being put as to why can,t this writ petition bebeing put as to why can,t this writ petition beput as to why can,t this writ petition beas to why can,t this writ petition beto why can,t this writ petition becan,t this writ petition bewrit petition bepetition bebedisposed of in the teeth of the decision rendered by rhis Court inthe case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (tsupra), leamed StandingCounsel for the Income Tax Department contends that those wouldunnecessarily 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 thelearned standing counser that no prejudice wourd be caused to the Upon a query being put as to why can,t this writ petition bea query being put as to why can,t this writ petition bequery being put as to why can,t this writ petition bebeing put as to why can,t this writ petition beput as to why can,t this writ petition beas to why can,t this writ petition beto why can,t this writ petition becan,t this writ petition bewrit petition bepetition bebe lnterest of the petitionen in case if this writ petition is kept pendingtill the finalization of the SLps pending before rhe Hon,bleSupreme Court and the fact that the petitioner is already enjoyingthe benefit of interim protection. Nonetheless, on the earlier queryof this court as to why the Income Tax Department have not comeout with a mechanism to issue api,ropriate instructions or to iake((- Upon a query being put as to why can,t this writ petition bea query being put as to why can,t this writ petition bequery being put as to why can,t this writ petition bebeing put as to why can,t this writ petition beput as to why can,t this writ petition beas to why can,t this writ petition beto why can,t this writ petition becan,t this writ petition bewrit petition bepetition bebe lnterest of the petitionen in case if this writ petition is kept pendingtill the finalization of the SLps pending before rhe Hon,bleSupreme Court and the fact that the petitioner is already enjoyingthe benefit of interim protection. Nonetheless, on the earlier queryof this court as to why the Income Tax Department have not comeout with a mechanism to issue api,ropriate instructions or to iake((- ialrpropriate [st€ps ][in ][ensuring ][that ][proceedings under Section ][l48A]of the [Act ][as ][also ][the ][assessment ][orders ][under Section ][148 ][of ][the]Act are [kept ][in ][a ][hold in ][the ][light of ][the decisions dedcided ][by ][the]various [High ][Courts' ][it ][was ][submitted ][by ][the ][leamed ][Standing]counser [that ][the said ][steps can ][onry be taken ][at ][the ][level of GBDT]as any [such ][steps ][would have to ][be taken Pan ][India ][and ][cannot be]limited [to ][any ][of ][these ][jurisdictional ][High Courts']t0. [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 [15lA ][of ][the ][Act ][and ][as ][a ][result ][by ][now' ][more than ][600]to 700 [petitions ][have been arready ][got ][p,ed ][up ][before ][this High]Court [on ][an ][issue ][which ][otherwise ][stands squarely covered ][by ][the]of [this ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of Kanakala ][Ravindra ][Reddy]judgment (1 supra). [What ][is ][also surprising is ][the fact ][that ][though ][while]allowing [the ][writ ][petitions ][in ][the ][case ][of ][Kanakala ][Ravindra]Reddy [(lsupra), ][the ][Division ][Bench ][while ][reserving the ][right ][of]the [Revenue, has ][also ][protected ][the ][interest ][of ][the ][petitioners]I lnsofar as the liberty which was granted to the ftsygnus fo1 fo1initiating tresh proceedings strictry in accordance with the amendedprovisions ofthe Act, as amended by the Finance Act,2020 and,the Finance Act, 2021. 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' they have been sdll sticking on to the stand, which thisHigh Court as well as many other High c-ourts arready herd to bebad.tl. It appears that because ofthe aforesaid liberty that this HighCourt had granted permitting the Revenue for initiating freshprocecdings as a one_time measure in a faceless mannet theIncome Tax Departrnent wants to take advantage of the same byprotracting tbese proceedings which would enable them to meet theIimitation that would othenvise come in the way. Likewise, if thewrit petition is kept pending for a considerable long period of timeand finally at a later stage if the Hon,ble Supreme Court confirmsthe decision taken by this High Court as also by the other HighCourts in which the SLps are still pending, the Jncome Tax Department [would ][get the ][advantage ][of ][the ][liberty ][that ][is ][otherwse]protected [in ][favour ][of ][the ][Revenue ][for ][initiation ][of ][ftesh]proceedings [from the disposal ][of ][these ][matters ][at ][a ][much later ][stage]which [would be ][advantageous and ][beneficial ][to ][the ][Revenue ][and]would [be ][equalty disadvantageous ][and ][detrimental ][so ][far ][as ][interest]the [assesses ][are ][concemed' As ][a consequence'][ the ][Inconre ][Tax]o[ Department [gets ][an extended ][period ][of ][time ][for initiation ][of ][fresh]proceedings.12. [The ][alarming ][trend ][of ][docket ][explosion in ][this ][Court' ][despite]the clear [precedent ][set ][it ][Kanakab ][Ravindra ][Reddy ][(l ][supra)' ][is ][a]matter [of ][grave concern' ][The ][lncome ][Tax ][Departmenls ][persistent]initiation [of ][ftesh proceedings, disregarding the ][established ][judicial]pronouncements, [has ][led ][to ][an ][unprecedented ][surge ][in ][litigation]withover600-T00petitionspilinguponthesameissue.Thisdeliberate [approach ][not only ][undermines ][the ][principle ][of judicial]precedent [but also ][strains ][the ][judicial ][resources ][unnecessarily' ][The]Department's [strategy ][of ][awaiting the ][Supreme ][Court's ][decision ][on]SLPs [while ][continuing ][to ][initiate ][fresh ][proceedings]pending to [be ][a ][calculated ][move ][to ][buy time ][and ][circumvent]appeam limitation [periods, ][rather ][than ][adhering ][to ][the ][established legal] position. Such conductrarses serious questions questions about thetheadministrative efficiencyand therespect for judicialpronouncements, particularly when this Court has already provideda balanced approach by preserving both the Revenue,s rights andassesses interests. rarses serious questions questions about thethe 13. Another aspect which needs to be considered is that in fact it should have been realized by the Income Tax Department itself andshould have found out via media in ensuring that proceedingsunder Sections l4g-A and l4g should not have been issued in afaceless manner, at least tilt 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 out some remedial steps fo ensure that wherever the authorities rntend totrutiate proc€edings under Sections I4g_A and l4g, other than in afaceless manner, the proceedings should have been deferredwithout precipitating the matter fufther intimating the assessee thatthey shall initiate appropriate proceedings onry after the SLp,s aredecided by the Hon,ble Supreme Court on the very same issue.This again, the Income Tax Department, has not been able to give aconvincing reply, except for the fact that such a decision if at all remedial steps fo ensure that wherever the authorities rntend totrutiate proc€edings under Sections I4g_A and l4g, other than in afaceless manner, the proceedings should have been deferredwithout precipitating the matter fufther intimating the assessee thatthey shall initiate appropriate proceedings onry after the SLp,s aredecided by the Hon,ble Supreme Court on the very same issue.This again, the Income Tax Department, has not been able to give aconvincing 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 ][wirictr]otherwise [has ][to ][be ][by way ][of ][a ][poticy ][decision ][and ][that ][too ][at ][the]level [of ][Central Board ][of ][Direct ][Taxes' ][Though ][the ][leamed]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]I which [are ][under challenge ][in ][this writ]pendencY, [such ][notices]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' ][Admittedty' ][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 ][concerned ][at ][the]State lever [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 148-4 ][and] l4g through the jurisd office.whereas it ought to have been onry in .";"""r*:: 14. In the case of BAN,( oF rNDrA vs' ASsTsTANT ASsTsTANTcoMMrssroNE& ,n TAxrr' iustifiable "o* on an issue whether it wason the oun the Income Tax foflowing Department in notan order passecof I by the adjudicating aurhonry ground that the appeals ipending' the Division only on theHighcourtofBombayhe-are Bench of thed at paragraph No.25 as under, viz., :"25. Mr. paridwa a Idecisionr*";;;;J_",shttv [drawn ][out ]anenrion ro theordinate Bench Godavaridevi ;;"rrtT'issioner of this *. ll" the recent decision of tncome rax of vs. smt.the co-of Mich one of us (rr.t,"u'1 'l [samp ][Furniture ][(P) ]Lto. v. 17qr:the court .r,*"r*rr[i's' Kulkarni) was a member, Merein"acceptea'thelJo;;;;,;t"*"0 [that the ][Revenue ]haMns northe same is set aside ,n u orn" High Court would not mean that ti:indins [rorce ][-";;*;;:T:j::"T,':;:j#:,ffi ]Union of lndia vs. Kamlakshi Finance fCorporation Ltd.,o, theCourt observed that the approach of the officials of Revenue oftreating decisions being "not acceptable" was criticized by theSupreme Court. ln such decision, following are the retevantobservations made by the Supreme Court. ',) t1,r2321 .r, o rax ma nn. c o m 422 (B o mb ay)lr r 3 rrR 58e (Bombay),; '.'. l]?18] [2024] I 65 raxmann.co- ,811100 Taxman '" ll992l taxmann.com l6155 ELT 433 (SC)4S2(Bombay) ) ',) t1,r2321 .r, o rax ma nn. c o m 422 (B o mb ay)lr r 3 rrR 58e (Bombay),; '.'. l]?18] [2024] I 65 raxmann.co- ,811100 Taxman '" ll992l taxmann.com l6155 ELT 433 (SC)4S2(Bombay) ) -6. Sri Reddy is [perhaps ][right ][in ][sayrng ][that ][th:]not [actuated ][by ][any ][mala ][fides ][in]**- ; O*n.n [,nt ][impugned ][orders' ][They ][perhaps];";;;..,, [felt that the ][claim ][of the ][assessee ][was not]tenabte [and ][that' ][if ][it ][was ][accepted' ][the ][Revenue]But [what ][Sri ][Reddy overlooks ][is ][that ][we],rr" "rO*. are [not ][concerned ][here ][with ][the ][correctness ][or]olherwise [of ][their ][oonclusion ][or ][of ][any ][factual].","r,O* [O* ][*'th ][the ][fact ][that the ][ofticers' ][in reaching]in their [conclus'on' by'passed ][tw'o ][appeltate ][orders ][in]regard [to the ][same issue which ][were ][placed ][before];";' [.* ][of ][the ][Collector (Appeals) ][and the ][other ][of]the Tribunal' [The ][High Court ][has' in our ][view' ][rightly]criticized [this ][conduct ][of the ][Assistant Collectors and]the [harassment to ][the ][assessee caused by the failure]of these [officers ][to ][give ][effect ][to ][the ][orders of]authorities [higher ][to ][them ][in the ][appellate ][hierarchy' ][lt]cannot [be ][too ][vehemently emphasized ][that ][it is ][of]utmost [importance ][that' ][in ][disposing ][of ][the]quasiiudicial [issues ][before ][them' ][revenue ][ofltcers ][are]bound by [the ][decisions ][of ][the ][appellate authorities']The order [of ][the Appellte ][Collector ][is ][binding ][on ][the]Assistant [Collectors working within his ][iurisdictbn ][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 ][principbs ][of]judicial discipline [require ][that the ][orders ][of the higher]authorities [should ][be ][followed ][unreservedly]appellate by the subordinate [authorities' The ][mere ][fact ][that the]order of the [appellate ][authority ][is ][not ]["acceptable" to]the departrnent - [in ][itself ][an ][objectionable phrase ][-]ard is the subiect [matter ][of ][an appeal can ][fumish ][no]ground for not following [it ][unbss ][its ][operation ][has]been suspended [by a competent ][murt' ][lf this ][healthy] harassmenr," rule is not followed, ;;". the J:sutt reschaos wifl onrv in administrationbe undueof tax laws. 12. We have dealt with withbecause at some lensth'Additionar " [n"t-;;;"'t:1"-'"0""t ]"l"nl,ggested by the rearnedsori"ito,. officers. T," [o, ]lt [rhe ]is clear that [Hish ][il:T:J ]J"'::T::'Hth(or the Hishcou(, ,"urins; [' ];:;:"-'o**tions unparatabre a tendency " in [*" ]revenue ^"*rr"",iilt;r,#:r.Ii:Txmabecome widespr"ro,-LJ"[.fl'::' :::ilr:r:harassment to the assesses-to rhe Revenue *"-;rtJt'l:"*,:"ffT::T:department should take these observations in theproper spirit. The observations of the High Courtshoutd be kept in mind in futushourd be paid by the appellate authorities to ".,.,;J:,il:ff"-H':::til:the requirements of judicialdiscipline and the need for giving effect to the ordersof the higher appellate authotrities which are bindingon them.,, 15. What is worrying this Bench more is the fact that an endeavour 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 lncome Tax Department being violative of the 15. What is worrying this Bench more is the fact that an endeavour 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 lncome Tax Department being violative of the Finance [Act, ][2020 ][and ][Finance ][Ac:'ZOZL' ][Now' ][in ][order ][to ][protect]the interest [of ][the Revenue ][as ][also that ][of ][the ][assessoe' ][it ][would ][be]trite at [this ][junchrre' ][if ][we ][dispose ][of ][the ][writ ][petition ][with ][an]obsewation/direction [that the ][disposar ][of ][the instant ][writ ][petition ][in]terms [of ][the ][judgment ][rendered ][by ][this ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]Kankanara [Ravind.ra ][Reddy ][(r ][supra) ][shalr ][however ][be subject ][to]the outcome [of ][the ][SLPs ][which ][were ][fiIed ][by ][the ][lncome ][Tax]Department [and ][which is ][pending consideration before ][the ][Hon'ble]Supreme [Court] 16. In [the ][given ][facts and circumstances' ][this ][Bench ][is of ][the]considered [opinion ][that unless and ][until ][we ][do ][not ][timely ][dispose]of matters [which ][are ][squarely covered ][by ][the decision ][of ][this ][court]and which [stands ][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 [of ][as ][a ][covered ][matter'] So far far [[as ][the ][interest ][of ][the ][Revenue ][is ][concemed' ]][[the ][interest ][of ][the ][Revenue ][is ][concemed' ]][[interest ][of ][the ][Revenue ][is ][concemed' ]][[of ][the ][Revenue ][is ][concemed' ]][[the ][Revenue ][is ][concemed' ]][[Revenue ][is ][concemed' ]][[is ][concemed' ]][[concemed' ]][we ][are ][of] 17 . So far far [[as ][the ][interest ][of ][the ][Revenue ][is ][concemed' ]][[the ][interest ][of ][the ][Revenue ][is ][concemed' ]][[interest ][of ][the ][Revenue ][is ][concemed' ]][[of ][the ][Revenue ][is ][concemed' ]][[the ][Revenue ][is ][concemed' ]][[Revenue ][is ][concemed' ]][[is ][concemed' ]][[concemed' ]]the considered [opinion ][that ][the interest ][of ][the Revenue ][has ][already]been considered [and ][protected' ][as ][has been ][observed ][in ][paragraphs] 36, i7 and 3g of the order which, for ready reference, is reproducedhereunder: 36. For all the aforesaic issued and all the aforesaictt," aforesaicp.o""uoi' reasons' the impugned noticesDepa(menr o' ;;;"t tenable, drawn 6v nor the sustainable.respondent-The notices so issued d the procedure per se iregar, creserves "n. ou and are adopted beingaside/quashed. o" u accoroingty set-lo- all the impugnodorders gefting quashed, an,'*'"n*' consequential orders bv tne responoe;,"#: passedissued under section Pursuant to the notices,ment are quashed quashing the and it is orouruon'_tno accordingly The lo8 [would ]reason [arso ][get]weper se iregar, creserves "n. ou and are adopted beingaside/quashed. o" u accoroingty set-lo- all the impugnodorders gefting quashed, an,'*'"n*' consequential orders bv tne responoe;,"#: passedissued under section Pursuant to the notices,ment are quashed quashing the and it is orouruon'_tno accordingly The lo8 [would ]reason [arso ][get]wethat when the initiation orttial con5sqys the order is on the principlesprocedurally Proceedings itself wasprocedurally Proceedings itself waswrong, the nurrified automaticalry. ,, rbsequent orders also gets 37. The preliminary objectir sustained objectirru,.uo by the petitioner isthis and a, these *r,,'n stands arowed onvery jurisdic,."",l]"r"... ,,"titions :::. :.':"" "'" [r"*nn ][='ffi ]I"JI'lr'J";*ll'TiJunsdiclion, we are not inclindecide the ,n* n*""'*o"T; ilff#j::ffi;appropriate stands reserved proceedings.to be raised and @ntended in an 37. The preliminary objectir sustained objectirru,.uo by the petitioner isthis and a, these *r,,'n stands arowed onvery jurisdic,."",l]"r"... ,,"titions :::. :.':"" "'" [r"*nn ][='ffi ]I"JI'lr'J";*ll'TiJunsdiclion, we are not inclindecide the ,n* n*""'*o"T; ilff#j::ffi;appropriate stands reserved proceedings.to be raised and @ntended in an 3-8. Since the Hon,ble Supreme Court had, in the caseexercising of Ashish Agarwal, the supra, as a one_time measurepowers under Aftcle 142 of theConstitution of lndia, permitted the Revenue to proceedunder the substituted provisiorthe oerrons .^, ; ;;il:il:JlH:i#T: \ confened [on ][the ][Re\Enue ][wouh ][remain ][reserved ][to]proceed further [if they so ][want ][from ][thle ][s{age ][of ][the]order of [the ][Supreme ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of Ashish]Agarural, [supra.] 18. [We ][would ][only ][further ][like to ][make ][obsewations that ][since]we are inclined [to ][dispose ][of ][the instant ][writ ][petition' ][conscious ][of]the fact [that ][the ][earlier order ][of ][this ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]KanakalaRavindraReddy(lsupra)issubjectedtochallerrgebefore [the Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Court ][in ][SLP No'3574 ][of ][2024']preferred [by ][the ][Income ][Tax Department' ][we ][make ][it ][clear ][that]allowing [of ][the ][instant ][writ ][petition ][is ][subject ][to ][outcome ][of ][the]aforesaid [preferred ][by ][the Revenue against the ][decision ][of ][this]Court [in ][the ][case ][of ][Kanakala Ravindra ][Reddy ][(l ][stryta)']High in [other words, ][would ][mean ][that ][either ][of ][the ][parties' ][if ][they]This, so want, [may move ][an appropriate ][petition ][seeking ][revival ][of ][this]writ petition [in ][the ][light ][of ][the ][decision ][of ][the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme]Court [in ][the ][pending SLP ][on the ][very ][same ][issue'] Accordingly, [the ][instant ][writ ][petition ][stands ][allowed ][in] 19.Accordingly, favour of the [assessee ][so ][far ][as the ][issue ][of ][jurisdiction ][is]concerned. As [a][ consequence, ][the ][impugned ][notice ][under]under [Sections ][148-4 ][and ][148 stands ][set ][aside/quashed']challenge I The consequential orders, iF any, also stand set aside/quashed in similar t'erms as have been passed by this High court in thb case of Kankanala Ravindra Reddy (l supra). There shall be no order asto costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed HIGH COURT DATED:2B tO4t2O2S - [-'::_ -,1:'- ][--]./::;'';:: [' ''i\.]'i.'\i [a ]ORDERfrF [',]i,; [2 ][5 ][StP ]*WP.No.33S40 of 2024 ALLOWNG THE WRIT PETITION WTHOUT COSTS g [q]