Wp/33698/2024 Of Primary Agricultural Co- Operativesociety Ltd v. Income-Tax Officert De

I HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction) IVONDAY, 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: 33698 OF 2024 Between: Primary_Agricultural Co- Operative Society LTD., Rep. by the CEO MalleshThota, S/o. Ganganna Thota, Aged about 39 years, Oc6upation. Business,Thota, S/o. Ganganna Thota, Aged about 39 years, Oc6upation. Business,R/o. VILL Aloor Sarangapur, Adilabad 5041 10, Telangana, lndia. ...PETITIONER AND 1The lncome Tax Officer Ward ['1 ], Nirmal/ lncome Tax Office, Nirmal, Nirmal,Hyderabad 504101 , Telangana.Hyderabad 504101 , Telangana. 2The Principal Chief Commissioner of lncome Tax - Telangana and A.P.,Hyderabad, lT Towers, AC Guards, lt/asab Tank. Hyderabad - 500028,Telangana.Hyderabad, lT Towers, AC Guards, lt/asab Tank. Hyderabad - 500028,Telangana. JThe Central Board of Dlrect Taxes, Represented by its Cftairman, Departmentof Revenue, M!i-s!ry of Finance, Government of India, Secr€tariat Buildings,New Delhi - 1 ['10 ]001 .of Revenue, M!i-s!ry of Finance, Government of India, Secr€tariat Buildings,New Delhi - 1 ['10 ]001 . 4The National Faceless Assessment Center, lncome Tax Department, NewDelhi.Delhi. EThe Union of lndia, Represented by its Secretary to the Government,Department of Revenue, N/inistry of Finance, New Delhi - 1 10 001 .-Department of Revenue, N/inistry of Finance, New Delhi - 1 10 001 .- ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of lhe 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 lncome 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 04-01-2024, DIN ITBA/AST/S/14712023-241105936B305(1) for the Assessment Year 2016-17 determining the total income of Rs. 68,34,5201-. as arbitrary, illegal, badin law, without jurisdiction, void-ab-initio, violative of the principles of naturalin law, without jurisdiction, void-ab-initio, violative of the principles of naturaljustice apart from being violative of Articles 14, 1S(1 )(g) and 265 of theConstitution of lndia and Sec. 148A of the lncome Tax Act, 1961, andconsequently set aside the same in the interests of justrce.Constitution of lndia and Sec. 148A of the lncome Tax Act, 1961, andconsequently set aside the same in the interests of justrce. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition urder Section 151 CPC praying that in the ,)ircumstances stated inthe affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Co rrt may be pleased tosuspend the order Under section 147r.w.s 144 read witr section 1448 of thethe affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Co rrt may be pleased tosuspend the order Under section 147r.w.s 144 read witr section 1448 of thelncome-tax Act Date of 04-01-2024, DIN ITBA/ASTlsl14712023-2411059368305(1)for the Assessment Year 2016-17 determining the total income of Rs. 68,34,5201.and Demand notice u/s 156 of the lncome Tax act 1961, vrde DIN and Notice No_ITBA/AST/S/1 56t2O23-241105S368405(1) Dt. 04-01-2024 fcr the assessment year2016-17 pending disposal of the above Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI THANNERU CHAITANYA KUMAR Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.1 to 4: MS. J. SUNITHA (JUN|OR SC FOR TNCOME TAX) Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KtJMAR,DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING NANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION No.33698 Ol- 2024 ORDER, [(per ]Hon'ble Sri Justicc [Narsing Rao Nandikonda)] Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI THANNERU CHAITANYA KUMAR Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.1 to 4: MS. J. SUNITHA (JUN|OR SC FOR TNCOME TAX) Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KtJMAR,DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING NANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION No.33698 Ol- 2024 ORDER, [(per ]Hon'ble Sri Justicc [Narsing Rao Nandikonda)] Heard Mr.Thanneru Chaitanya Kumar, learned counselfor the petitioner, Ms.J.Sunitha, leamed Junior Standing [Counsel]for 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 [148A]and 148 of the Income Tax Act, l96l [(for ][short 'the ][Act') ][or ][the]assessment 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 l48A of the Actand the subsequent initiation ofproceedings [under ]Section 148 ofthe ActfV [the ][jurisdictional ][Assessing ][Officer, ][whereas ][in ][terms]\of the amendment that was brought to the [Income ][Tax ]Act by [way] of Finanr:e Act, 2021 w.e.f., 01 .04.2021 onwards, proceedingsunder Ser:tion I48A of the Act as also under Secrion 148 of theAct ought. to have also been issued and proceede,l in a lacelessmanner4. The contention of the petitioner is that the issue contention of the petitioner is that the issue of the petitioner is that the issue the petitioner is that the issue petitioner is that the issue is that the issue that the issue issue ofproceedings being in violation of the Finance Act. 202 I i.e., rheimpugned notices under Section l48A and Section 148 of the Actnot being issued in a faceless manner, have already:rcen dealt withand decided by this Court in the case of h.ANKANAI.ARAVINDRA REDDY vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICERT decidedon 14.09.2023 whereby a batch of writ petitions wer-e allowed andthe proceedings initiated under Section 148A as also under Section148 of the r\ct were held to be bad with consequential tcliefs on theground of it being in violation of the provisions of Se ction l5lA olthe Act read with Notification 1812022 dated 29.03.2t)22. l'he saidjudgment passed by this Court has also been subsequr)nrly followedin a large number of writ petitions which were alloq ed on similarterms. The contention of the petitioner is that the issue contention of the petitioner is that the issue of the petitioner is that the issue the petitioner is that the issue petitioner is that the issue is that the issue that the issue issue of I 5. Down the line, we frnd that the same issue line, we frnd that the same issue the same issue same issue has also beenbeendecided against the Revenue byvanous High Courts i.e .,by the Bombay High Court in the case ol HEXAWARETECHNOLOGIES LTD., vs. ASSISTAN'I' COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX & OTHERS2, Cauhati High Court in the caseof RAM NARAYAN SAH vs. UNION OF INDIAT, Punjab andHaryana High Court in the case of JATINDER SINGH BANGUvs. UNION OF INDIA4, and Telangana High Court in the case ofSRI VENKATARAMANA REDDY PATLOOLA vs. DEPUTYCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX5 where the issue was inrespect of international taxation, Bombay High Court in the case ofABHIN ANILKUMAR SHAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE&INTERNATIONAL TAXATION6 which is again on,internationaltaxation and central circle, High Court of Hirnachal Pradesh in thecase of GOVIND SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERT,Gujarat High Court in the case of MANSUKHBIIAI Down the line, we frnd that the same issue line, we frnd that the same issue the same issue same issue has also beenbeen '7zoz+1464 [rrR ][430 ][(Bom)] ' [(2024) 156 taxmann.com 478 [(Gauhati)]] 'l(2024) [165 ][taxmann.com ][115 ][(Punjab ]& Haryana)l '12024) [t7 ][thxmann.com ][41 ][1 ][(Telangana)l] Down the line, we frnd that the same issue line, we frnd that the same issue the same issue same issue has also beenbeen '7zoz+1464 [rrR ][430 ][(Bom)] ' [(2024) 156 taxmann.com 478 [(Gauhati)]] 'l(2024) [165 ][taxmann.com ][115 ][(Punjab ]& Haryana)l '12024) [t7 ][thxmann.com ][41 ][1 ][(Telangana)l] " 12024) [166 ][taxmann.com ][679 ][(Bombay)l] '12024) 165 taxmann.com [l3 ][(Himachal ]Pradesh)l DAHYABHAI RADADIYA VS. INCOME TA.X OFFICER,WARD 3(3)(5)3, Jharkand High Court in the ca.ie of SHYAMSUNDAR SAW vs. UNION OF INDIAe, Rajasthan t{igh Court inthe case of SHARDA DEVI CHHAJER vs. INCOME TAXOFFICER & ANOTHER and batch of writ pt:titionsr0 whichstood decided on 19.03.2024. Similar views have llso been takenby the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in the case ofGIRDI{AR GOPAL DALMIA vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS(M.A.T 1690 of 2023), decided on25.09.2024.6. Even though the same issue having been dec ded by a largcnumber of High Courts, we are still confronted witl large filing olidentical matters on daily basis ranging between 5 to l0 writpetitions. That upon the instructions being sotrght from theDepartment, they have been taking a solitary gtound that thedecision of the Bombay High Court in the case ol- HexawareTechnologies Ltd., (2 supra) as also the one which has beendecided by this Court in the case of Kanakals Rotvindra Reddy8202q scc ()nl-ine Guj 4012'2025 [Online ][Jhar287]'o 72023 [: ] [:4984-DBl] \ \ (l supra) has been subjected to challenge in a Special Leave Petition i.e., SLP No.3574 of 2024 before the Hon'ble SupremeCourt and the Hon'ble Supreme Court is seized of the matterIn addition, there are about 1200 SLPs also fited arising out ofthesame issue being decided by various High Courts 7. To a query being put to the learned counsel lor the Revenue,they have categorically accepted the fact that there is no interimorder granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in any of thesematters pending before it. Meanwhile, fresh writ petitions ofidentical nahlre are being piled up before this Bench on daily basisand the pendency is getting incrOased on matter which otherwisehas already been dealt and decided by this very High Court itsetf. 8. On the one hand, even though the order of this' Court thatwas passed as early as on 14.09.2023 and more l6 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 of notice under Section l48A and underSection 148 of the Act by the [jurisdictional ]Assessing Officer,rather the authorities concemed in the teeth of series of decisions by all the' major High Couris ir, India are corrtinuously stillinitiating proceedings under Section l48A of the 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 Financt: Act202l.g. Upon a query being put as to why can't this rvrit petition bedisposed oi in the teeth of the decision rendered by this Court inthe case of Kanakalu Ravindra Reddy (l supra), leirmed StandingCounsel for the Income Tax Department contends thrt those wouldunnecessarily burden the Income Tax Depaftment where theywould be required to file equal number of SLI)s before theHon'ble Strpreme Court and it would be further turdening theexchequer of the Union of India. It was also the corrlention of thelearned Standing Counsel that no prejudice would be caused to theinterest ol the petitioners in case if this writ petition i:, kept pendingtill the finalization of the SLPs pending before the Hon'bleSupreme Courl and the fact that the petitioner is alrt:ady enjoyingthe benefit of interim protection. Nonetheless, on tht, earlier queryof this Court as to why the [ncorhe Tax Deparlment have not comeout with a mechanism to issue appropriate instructi<,ns or to take appropriate steps in ensuring that proceedings under Section 148Aof the Act as also the assessment orders under Section 148 of theAct are kept in a hold in the light of the decisions dedcided by thevarious High Courts, it was submitted by the learned 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 Courts. 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 concemed are still even now in2025 also initiating proceedings in contravention to the provisionsof Section l51A of the Act and as a result by now, mbre 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 Kanskala Ravindra Reddy(l supra). What is also surprising is the fact that though whileallowing the writ petitions in the case of Kanakala RavindraReddy (l supra), the Division Bench while reserving the right ofthe Revenue, has also protected the interest of the petitioners insofar as the liberty which was granted to tht: Revenue forinitiating fresh proceedings strictly in accordance with the amendedinitiating fresh proceedings strictly in accordance with the amendedprovisions of the Act, as amended by the Finance Act,2020 andthe Financr: Act,202l. The petitioner assessee would be entitled tochallenge or raise the other legal objections if the Rcvenue initiatesfresh procr:edings. The Department has made no endeavour inavailing the said liberty that was reserved for the Revenue. On thecontrary, they have been still sticking on to the stand, which thisHigh Court as well as many other High Courts aiready held to bebad.challenge or raise the other legal objections if the Rcvenue initiatesfresh procr:edings. The Department has made no endeavour inavailing the said liberty that was reserved for the Revenue. On thecontrary, they have been still sticking on to the stand, which thisHigh Court as well as many other High Courts aiready held to bebad. 11. It appears that because ofthe aforesaid liberty that this HighCourt had granted permitting the Revenue for ilitiating freshproceedings as a one-time measure in a faceless [lr4anner, ]theIncome Tax Department wants to take advantage ol the same byprotracting these proceedings which would enable the:m to rneet thelimitation that would otherwise come in the way. Lrkewise, if thewrit petition is kept pending for a considerable long period of timeand hnally at a later stage if the Hon'ble Supreme Court confirmsthe decision taken by this High Court as also by ttLe other HighCourts in rvhich 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 concemed. As a consequence, the Income TaxDepartment gets an extended period of time for initiation of freshproceedings.proceedings 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. 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 concemed. As a consequence, the Income TaxDepartment gets an extended period of time for initiation of freshproceedings.proceedings 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. 12. The alarming trend of docket explosion in this Court, despitethe clear precedent set in Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra), is amatter of grave concem. The Income Tax Department's persistentinitiation of fresh proceedings, disregarding the established judicialpronouncements, has led to an unprecedented surget in litigationwith over 600-700 petitions piling up on the same issue. Thisdeliberate approach not only undermines the principle of judicialprecedent but also strains the judicial resources unnecessarily. TheDepartment's strategy of awaiting the Supreme Court's decision onpending SLPs while continuing to initiate fresh proceedingsappears to be a calculated move to buy time and circumventlimitation periods, rather than adhering to the established legal position. Such conduct raises serious questiorls about theadministrative efficiency and the respect lor [judicial]pronouncements, particularly when this Court has already [provided]a balanced approach by preserving both the [Revenuc's ][nghts ][and]assesses lnterests 13. Another aspect which needs to be considered [is ][that ][in ][fact ][it]should have been realized by the lncome Tax Depanment [rtself ][and]should have found out via media in ensuring thlt [proceedings]under Sections 148-,4. and 148 should not have bten [issued ]in [a]faceless manner. at least till the Hon'ble Supreme Court decide thetwelve hundred (1200) odd SLPs which it is already seized ofor, [at]least the lncome Tax Department should have fcLrnd out someremedial steps to ensure that wherever the author ilies [intend ]toinitiate proceedings under Sections 148-A and 148, rrther [than ][in ][a]faceless 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 vey same [issue.]This again, the lncome Tax Department, has not been able to give aconvincing reply, except for the fact that such [a ][drcision ][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 learnedStanding Counsel for the Income Tax Department contended thatthe Delhi High Courl dismissed a writ petition of similar nahrre, onthe one hand when the High Court is struggling to reduce itsotherwise 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 Courl dismissed a writ petition of similar nahrre, 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 Highpetition are forcing the assessee to knock the doors of this HighCourt resulting in filing of hundreds of new writ petitions which inthe long run not only affects the disposal of the writ petitions butalso consumes substantial time of the Bench in hearing thesematters again and again on daily basis. Admittedly, in spite of thematter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court having bgen taken onmany occasions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court which is seized of thematter has been reluctant in granting any interim protection to theIncome Tax Department. Yet, the authorities 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 makethings further worse, the Income Tax Department is showingaudacity by issuing notices continuously under Sections 148-A andIImatters again and again on daily basis. Admittedly, in spite of thematter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court having bgen taken onmany occasions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court which is seized of thematter has been reluctant in granting any interim protection to theIncome Tax Department. Yet, the authorities 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 makethings further worse, the Income Tax Department is showingaudacity by issuing notices continuously under Sections 148-A andII 148 through the jurisdictional..Assessing Officer wtereas it oughtto have been only in the faceless manner. 14. In the case of BANK OF INDIA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, INCOME TAXrr, on an issue wherher it wasjustifiable on the part of the Income Tax Depa rtnrent in notfollowing an order passed by the adjudicating author ty, only on thefollowing an order passed by the adjudicating author ty, only on theground thal the appeals are pending, the Division Bcnch of theHigh Court of Bombay held at paragraph No.25 as undcr, r,iz., :High Court of Bombay held at paragraph No.25 as undcr, r,iz., : "25. Mr. Paridwalla has rightty drawn out attentiln to thedecision of this Court in Commissioner of lncome Ta): vs. Smt.Godavaridevi Sarafl2 as also the recent decision (f the co_ordinate Bench of this Court in Samp Furniture (p) Ltcl. v. lTOr3of which one of us (Justice G.S. Kulkarni) was a membe-, whereinthe Court categorically observed that the Revenue having not"accepted" the judgment of thq High Courl would not meah that tillthe same is set aside in a manner known to law, it woulcl loose itsbinding force. Referring to the decision of the Supremr, Court inUnion of lndia vs. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd.14, theCourt observed that the approach of the officials of Revenue oftreating decisions being,,not acceptable" was criticizeC by theSupreme Court. ln such decision, following are the relevantobservations made by the Supreme Court. ',t_[12025) [70 ][taxmann.com ]422 [(Bombay)]] ',t_[12025) '' il9781 Il3 tTR 589 (Bombay)'' il9781 Il3 tTR 589 (Bombay) t3 1ZOZ41 [165 ][taxmann.com ]5gl/300 Taxman 452 (Bombay)1ZOZ41 [165 ][taxmann.com ]5gl/300 Taxman 452 (Bombay) 'o ll9921taxmann.com 16155ELT 433 (SC) ( ',t_[12025) [70 ][taxmann.com ]422 [(Bombay)]] ',t_[12025) '' il9781 Il3 tTR 589 (Bombay)'' il9781 Il3 tTR 589 (Bombay) t3 1ZOZ41 [165 ][taxmann.com ]5gl/300 Taxman 452 (Bombay)1ZOZ41 [165 ][taxmann.com ]5gl/300 Taxman 452 (Bombay) 'o ll9921taxmann.com 16155ELT 433 (SC) ( "6. Sri Reddy ls perhaps right in saying that theofficers were not actuated by any mala fides inofficers 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 Revpnuewould suffer. But what Sri Reddy overlooks is that weare not concerned here with the correctness orwould suffer. But what Sri Reddy overlooks is that weare not concerned here with the correctness orotherwise of their conclusion or of factualany malafides but with the fact that the officers, in reachingin their conclusion, by-passed two appellate orders inregard to the same issue which were placed beforeany malafides but with the fact that the officers, in reachingin their conclusion, by-passed two appellate orders inregard to the same issue which were placed beforethem, one of the Collector (Appeals) and the other ofthe Tribunal. The High Court has, in our view, rightlycriticized this conduct of the Assistant Collectors andthe harassment to the assessee caused by the failureof these officers to give effect to the orders ofauthorities higher to them in the appellate hierarchy. ltcannot be too vehemently emphasized that it is ofutmost importance that, in disposing. of thequasijudicial issues before them, revenue officers arethe Tribunal. The High Court has, in our view, rightlycriticized this conduct of the Assistant Collectors andthe harassment to the assessee caused by the failureof these officers to give effect to the orders ofauthorities higher to them in the appellate hierarchy. ltcannot be too vehemently emphasized that it is ofutmost importance that, in disposing. of thequasijudicial issues before them, revenue officers arebound by the decisions of the appellate authorities.The order of the Appellte Collector is binding on \heAssistant Collectors working within his jurisdiction andthe order of the Tribunal is binding Lipon the AssistantAssistant Collectors working within his jurisdiction andthe order of the Tribunal is binding Lipon the AssistantCollectors and the Appellate Collectors who functionunder the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The principles ofjudicial discipline require that the orders of the higherunder 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 noand is the subject matter of an appeal can furnish noground for not following it unless ils operation hasbeen suspended by a competent court. lf this healthybeen suspended by a competent court. lf this healthy r'Jle is not followed, {he result [will ][only ][be ][trndue]harassment to assesses and [chaos in ][administration]of tax laws. r'Jle is not followed, {he result [will ][only ][be ][trndue]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 the ][leerned]Additional Solicitor General that the [observations]made by the High Court, have been [harsh ][on ][lhe]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]trecome widespread, could result in [considerable]harassment to the assesses-public [without any ][benefit]to the Revenue. We would like [to ][say ][the,t ][the]department should take these observations [ir ][the]proper spirit. The obgervations of the High Courtshould be kept in mind in future [and ]the [utmost regard]should be paid by the adjudicating authorities [and the]appellate authorities to the requirements [of ][j(ldicial]cliscipline and the need for [giving effect ][to ][16s,r1Jers]of the higher appellate authorities [which ][are ][b ][nding]on them." 15. What is worrying this [Bench ]more [is ][th,: 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 Act,2020 and Finance Act,2021. Now, in order to protectthe interest of the Revenue as also that of the assesseo, it would betrite at this [junchrre, ]if we dispose of the writ petition with anobservation/direction that the disposal of the instant writ petition interms of the [judgment ]rendered by this High Court in the case ofKunkanala Ravindra Reddy (l supra) shall however be subject tothe outcome of the SLPs which were flled by the lncome TaxDepartment and which is pending consideration before the Hon'bleSupreme Court. 16. In the given facts and circumstances, this Bench is of theconsidered opinion that unless and until we do not timely disposeIof matters which are squarely covered by the decision ofthis Courtand which stands fortified by the decisions of the lrarious otherHigh Courts on the very same issue, the pendency of this HighCourt would further be burdened which otherwise can be decidedand disposed of as a covered matter. 17. So far as the interest of the Revenue is concerned, we are of the considered opinion that the interest of [the ]Revenue has alreadybeen considered and protected, as has been observed in paragraphs 36,37 and 38 ofthe order which, for ready referenct:, [is ][reproduced]hereunder: l]6. For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned [notices]issued and the proceedings drawn by the [resoondent-]Department is neilher tenable, nor sustarnable.The notices so issued and the procedure adopt,3d beinqper se illegal, deserves to be and are accord ngly setasrde/quashed. As a consequence, all the irrpugnedorders getting quashed, the consequential orders [passed]by the respondent-Department pursuant to the noticesissued under Section 147 and 148 would a so [get]cluashed and it is ordered accordingly. The reason weare quashing the consequential order is on the [principles]that when the initiation of the proceedings itself wasprocedurally wrong, the subsequent orders a so getsnullified automatically. a. i)7. The [preliminary ]objection raised [by ]the [pet ]tioner [is]-s,ustained and atl these writ petitions stands allowed onthis very [jurisdictional ]issue. Since the impugnect rloticesand orders are getting quashed on the Doint ofjurisdiction, we are not inclined to proceed furlher anddecide the other issues raised by the petitionr;r whichstands reserved to be raised and contended in anappropriate proceedings. a. i)7. The [preliminary ]objection raised [by ]the [pet ]tioner [is]-s,ustained and atl these writ petitions stands allowed onthis very [jurisdictional ]issue. Since the impugnect rloticesand orders are getting quashed on the Doint ofjurisdiction, we are not inclined to proceed furlher anddecide the other issues raised by the petitionr;r whichstands reserved to be raised and contended in anappropriate proceedings. 38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in .he caseof Ashish Aganval, supra, as a one{ime rneasureexercising the powers under Article 142 of theOonstitution of lndia, permitted the Revenue to proceedunder the substituted provisions, and this Court allowingthe petitions only on the procedural flaw, trre right -h conferred on the Revenue would remain reserved toproceed further if they so want from the stage of theorder of lhe Supreme 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 ofKunakala Ravindra Reddy (1 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 prefened by the Revenue against the decision of thisHigh Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (1 supra)\This, in othtr words, would mean that either of the parties, if theytso 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 lnfavour of the assessee so far as the issue of jurisdictionlsconcemed. As a consequence, the impugned notice underchallenge under Sections 148-A and 148 stands set aside/quashed. II 1'he consequential orders, if any, also stand set aside/quashed insimilar teEns as have been passed by this High Cou.t in the case ofKankanalu Ravindra Reddy (1 supra). There shall be no order asto costs.similar teEns as have been passed by this High Cou.t in the case ofKankanalu Ravindra Reddy (1 supra). There shall be no order asto costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pendinr:, if any, shall sland closed. SD/. K. AMMAJI1[rp]PUTY REGISTRAR//TRUE COPYII'sEcloN oFFtcER'sEcloN oFFtcERTo,1- The lncome Tax Officer Ward ['1 ], Nirmal/ lncome Tax Crffice, Nirmal, Nirmal,2. The Hyderaba,J Principal Chief Commissioner 504'101 , Telangana.of lncome Tax - Telangana and A.p.,Hyderabad, lT Towers, AC Guards, Masab Tank, Hydcra6ad - 50002g,Telangana.1- The lncome Tax Officer Ward ['1 ], Nirmal/ lncome Tax Crffice, Nirmal, Nirmal,2. The Hyderaba,J Principal Chief Commissioner 504'101 , Telangana.of lncome Tax - Telangana and A.p.,Hyderabad, lT Towers, AC Guards, Masab Tank, Hydcra6ad - 50002g,Telangana.3. The Central Board of Direct Taxes, Repr-esented by its Chairman, Department9f [Reyqlqe, ][tt/i1i9!ry ][of ][Finance, Government ][of ][lndia, ][Secretariat ][Buildings,]New Ddlhi - 1 10 0019f [Reyqlqe, ][tt/i1i9!ry ][of ][Finance, Government ][of ][lndia, ][Secretariat ][Buildings,]New Ddlhi - 1 10 0014. The Ndlional Faceless Assessment Center, lncome Tax Department, NewDelhi.Delhi.5. The Union of lndia, Represented by its Secretary to thr: Government,Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, New Delhl- 110 00.1 .Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, New Delhl- 110 00.1 .6. One CC tc, Sri Thanneru Chaitahya Kumar, Advocate IOPUCI7. One CC tc, Ms. J. Sunitha (Junior SC for lncome Tax) tOPUCi8. One CC tc Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar, Deputy Solicitor (ieneralbf lndia 9. Two CD Copies7. One CC tc, Ms. J. Sunitha (Junior SC for lncome Tax) tOPUCi8. One CC tc Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar, Deputy Solicitor (ieneralbf lndia 9. Two CD CopiesT JGJ+GJ+ HIGH COURT DATED:2810412025 1HE.s[ils-.]".r),,\.\a?ffiORDERi 1E sEP -t,/7WP.No.33698 of 2024f)SS r,^ [(: ]-(.tt