Wp/33723/2024 Of Primary Agricultural Co Operativesociety Ltd v. The Income Tax Officer

HIGH COURT FOR THE STTE OF TELANGANAAT HYDEAD(Special Originalurisdiction) MONDAY,THE TWENTY EIHTH DAY OF APRILTWO THOUSAND ANTWENry FIVE PRESETTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICEARSING RAO NANDIKONOAWRIT PETTTION NO:3723 0F 2024 WRIT PETTTION NO: Between: PRIIMARY AGRICULTURAL CO OPRATIVESOCIETY LTD, Rep. by theCEO MALLESH THOTA, S/o- GANGNNA THOTA, Aged about 39 [years,]Occupation- Business, Rl/o- LOOR SARANGAPUR, ADILABAD5041 10, Telangana, lndia. AssessmeYear- 2018-19 ...PETITIONER AND 1. The Income Tax Officer, Ward [1, ][Ni]all lncome Tax Office, Nirmal, [Nirmal,]Hyderabad 504101, TelanganaHyderabad 504101, Telangana Hyderabad 504101, Telangana2. the Principal Chief Commission r sf [lncome ][Tax-Telangana ][and]AP,Hyderabad lT Towers , AC Guas, Masab Tank, Hyderabad [-5000028,]TelanganaAP,Hyderabad lT Towers , AC Guas, Masab Tank, Hyderabad [-5000028,]Telangana 3. The Central Board of Direct Taxes, [Re resented ][by ][its Chairman, Department]of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, [Go]rnment of lhdia, Secretariat Buildings,New Delhi [- ]110 001 [.]of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, [Go]rnment of lhdia, Secretariat Buildings,New Delhi [- ]110 001 [.]4. The National Faceless Assessmententer, lncome Tax Department, [New]Delhi.Delhi.5. The Union of lndia, Representedy its Secretary to the Government,Department of Revenue, [IVlinistry ]of [Fi]ance, New Delhi - [1 ]10 001 [.]Department of Revenue, [IVlinistry ]of [Fi]ance, New Delhi - [1 ]10 001 [.] ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Costitution of lndia [praying ]that [in ][the]circumstances stated in [the ][affidavit ][file]therewith, the High Court [maY ][be]pleased to issue an appropriate writ, ordeor direction more [particularly ][one ][in]the nature of Writ of Mandamus, [declaring]the order [passed ]by the lncome [Tax]Authorities (National Faceless E-Assessmet Centre) completed the assessmentUIS 147 r.w.s 144 read with [section ][1448]f the lncome-tax Act Date of [31-03-]2023, DIN ITBA/AST/S/1 [47 ]12022-231105150181(1) for the Assessment [Year]2018-19 determining the total income [of]s. 8,23,53,800/-. as arbitrary, [illegal,]bad in law, without [jurisdiction, ][void-ab-initi], [violative ][of the ][principles ][of ][natural] justice apart from being violative of Articles 1 4, 1 9(1 Xg) and 265 of [the]Constitution of lndia and Sec. [148A ]of the [lncome ][Tax ][Act, ][1961, ][and]set aside the same [in ][the ][interests ][of ][justice]consequently lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section ['1 ]51 CPC [praying ]that [in ][the ][circumstances ][stated]in the affidavit filed in support of the [petition, ]the [High ][Court may ][be pleased ][to]suspend the order Under section [147r.w.s ][144 ][read ][with ][section ][1448 ][of ][the]lncome-tax Act Date of 31-03-2023, 23t105175O181( 1 ) for the Assessment Year [2018-19 determining ][the ][total]income of Rs. 8,23,53,800/-. and Demand [notice u/s ]['1 ][56 ][of ][the ][lncome ][Tax ][act]1961, vide DIN & Notice No- ITBA/ASTlsl15612022-2311051750370(1)Dt- [31-03-]2023 for the assessment [year ]2018-19 [pending disposal ]of [the ][above ][Writ]Petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. THANNERU CHAITANYA Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1to4: Ms. J. SUNITHA (JUNTOR SC FOR INCOME TAX)B. MUKHERJEE MUKHERJEE [ ]SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR,DY. SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI B. MUKHERJEE MUKHERJEE [ ] The Court made the following: ORDER anr'1.1xta:rr,a.. THE HONOURABLE SRISTICE P.SAMKOSITYATHE HONOURABLE SRI J STICE NARSINGRAONANDINDA WRIT PETITION N .33723 0F 2024 QBDEB' @er [Hon'ble ][Sri ][Justtce ][Na]rstRao Nandikonda) Heard Mr.Thanneru Chaitya Kumar, learned counselfor the petitioner, Ms.J.Sunitha, Ied Junior Standing Counselfor the Income Tax Departmentr respondent Nos.l to 4 andMr. B. Mukherj ee, leamed counselresenting the Union of Indiafor respondent No.5. Perused theord. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. THANNERU CHAITANYA Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1to4: Ms. J. SUNITHA (JUNTOR SC FOR INCOME TAX)B. MUKHERJEE MUKHERJEE [ ]SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR,DY. SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI B. MUKHERJEE MUKHERJEE [ ] The Court made the following: ORDER anr'1.1xta:rr,a.. THE HONOURABLE SRISTICE P.SAMKOSITYATHE HONOURABLE SRI J STICE NARSINGRAONANDINDA WRIT PETITION N .33723 0F 2024 QBDEB' @er [Hon'ble ][Sri ][Justtce ][Na]rstRao Nandikonda) Heard Mr.Thanneru Chaitya Kumar, learned counselfor the petitioner, Ms.J.Sunitha, Ied Junior Standing Counselfor the Income Tax Departmentr respondent Nos.l to 4 andMr. B. Mukherj ee, leamed counselresenting the Union of Indiafor respondent No.5. Perused theord. 2. This is a writ petition whethe proceedings are eitherchallenged to the notices which we e istued under Section l48Aand 148 of the Income Tax Act, 19 I (for short 'the Act') or theassessment orders those have been passed under Section 147 ofthe Act which have been assailed 3. This writ petition is beingn up today only on one ofthegrounds, that the notices issueder Section 148A of the Actand the subsequent initiation ofprodings under Section 148 ofthe Act by the jurisdictional AssessOfficer, whereas in terms{of thqamendment that was broughtthe Income Tax Act by way of Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f., 01.04.2021 onwards, proceedingsunder Section 1484. ofthe Act as also under Section 148 ofthcAct ought to have also been issued and proceeded 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 148A and Section 148 ofthe Actnot being issued in a faceless manner, have already bcen dealt [with]and decided this Couft in the case of KANKANALAby RAVINDRA REDDY vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICERT decidedon 14.09.2023 whereby a batch of writ petitions were allowed andthe proceedings initiated under Section l48A as also under Sectioni48 of the Act were held to be bad with consequential reliefs on theground of it being in violation of the provisions of Scction I 5 I A ofthe Act read with Notification 1812022 dated 29.03.2022. The saidjudgment passed by this Court has also been subsequcntly followedin a large number of writ petitions which were allorved 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(20231 [156 ][taxmann.com ][178 ][(Telangana)l] 3 5. Down the line, we find thatth'e; sarno,issrtd,has also. beendecided against the Revenuevanous High Courts i.e.,by the Bombay High Court inthe case of HEXAWARETECHNOLOGIES LTD., vs. ASISTANT COMMISSIONEROF TNCOME TAX & OTHERS2,uhati High Court in the caseof RAM NARAYAN SAH vs.ON OF INDIA3, Punjab andHaryana High Court in the case ofATINDER SINGH BANGUvs. UNION OF INDIA4, and Telanana High Courl in the case ofSRI VENKATARAMANA REDDPATLOOLA vs. DEPUTYCOMMISSTONER OF INCOMETAX5 where the issue was inrespect of international taxation, Bobay High Court in the case ofABHIN ANTLKUMAR SHAH vsTNCOME TAX OFFTCE&INTERNATTONAL TAXATION6hich is again on internationaltaxation and central circle, High Cort of Himachal Pradesh in thecase of GOVIND SINGH vs. ICOME TAX OFFICERT,Gujarat High Court in thee of MANSUKTIBHAI ' [yzoz+1464 ] [430 (Bom)] 'L(2024) 156 taxmann.com 478 (Gauhat)l (t2024)[I]65 taxmanncom115[(P]unJab & Haryana)l56 1202 t20244))I1Et)I76taxmanntaxlnann ccoomm 67 4I I9(B(romangba l)l7 [2024) 165 taxmann.com 113 (HiruacI Pradesh)l tt ' [yzoz+1464 ] [430 (Bom)] 'L(2024) 156 taxmann.com 478 (Gauhat)l (t2024)[I]65 taxmanncom115[(P]unJab & Haryana)l56 1202 t20244))I1Et)I76taxmanntaxlnann ccoomm 67 4I I9(B(romangba l)l7 [2024) 165 taxmann.com 113 (HiruacI Pradesh)l tt DAHYABHAI RADADIYA VS. INCOME TAX OFFTCER,WARD 3(3X5)8, Jharkand High Court in the case of SUNDAR SAW vs. UNION OF INDIAe, Rajasthan High Court [in]the case of SHARDA DEVI CHHAJER vs, TNCOME TAXOFFICER & ANOTHER and batch of writ [petitionsro ]whichstood decided on 19.03.2024. Similar views have also [been taken]by the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in the [case ]ofGIRDHAR GOPAL DALIUIA vs. UNION OF INDIA & (M.A.T 1690 of 2023), decided on25.09.2024.6. Even though the sam'e issue having been decided by a largenumber of High Courts, we are still confronted with [large ][filing ]ofidentical rnatters on daily basis ranging between 5 to 10 [writ]petitions. That upon the instructions being sought fiom theDepartment, they have been taking a solitary [ground ]that thedecision of the Bombay High Court in the case of HexawareTechnologies Ltd., (2 supra) as also the one which [has ][been]decided by this Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra [Reddy] szozqSCC online Guj 4012" [2025 ] [Online ][Jhar ][287]'o 12023 [: ] [: ][49 ][84-DBl]" [2025 ] [Online ][Jhar ][287]'o 12023 [: ] [: ][49 ][84-DBl] '+; (1 supra) has been subjected tochallenge in a Special LeavePetition i.e., SLP No.3574 of 202before the Hon'ble SupremeCourt and the Hon'ble Supremeourt is seized of the matterIn addition, there are about 1200 SPs also filed arising out of thesame issue being decided by variouHigh Courts 7. To a query being put to the Icounsel for the Revenue,they have categorically acceptedfact that there is no interimorder granted by the Hon'ble Sureme Court in any of thesematters pending before it. Meanhile, fresh writ petitions ofidentical nature are being piled up bfore this Bench on daity basisand the pendency is getting increason matter which otherwischas already been dealt and decided bthis very High Court itself. 8. On the one hand, even thouthe order of this Court thatwas passed as early as on 14.09.203 and more 16 months havelapsed, till date, we do not find anremedial steps having beentaken by the Income Tax Departmet to take appropriate steps toeither hold back issuance of noticeder Section 148A and underSection 148 of the Act by the juctional Assessing Officer,rather the authorities concerned ine teeth of series of decisions by ail the major High Courts in [India ][are ][continuously still]initiating proceedings under Section [1484, ][of ][the ][Act ][and ][also]initiating [proceedings ][under ][Section ][148 ][of ][the ][Act ][in]contravention to the [amendments ][brought into the Income Tax ][Act]Finance [Act, ][2O2O as ][also ][the ][Finance ][Act ][2021']pursuant to the 9. Upon a query being [put ][as ][to why can't this ][writ ][petition ][be]disposed of in the teeth of [the decision ][rendered ][by ][this Court ][in]the case of Kanakala Ravindra [Reddy ][(l ][supra), ][leamed ][Standing]Counsel for the Income [Tax Depafiment ][contends that those ][would]unnecessarily burden the [Income ][Tax ][Department ][where ][they]would be required to file [equal ][number ][of ][SLPs ][before ][the]Hon'ble Supreme Coufi and it [would ][be further ][burdening ][the]exchequer of the Union of India. [It ][was also ][the contention ][of ][the]leamed Standing Counsel that [no ][prejudice ][would ][be ][caused ][to ][the]interest of the petitioners [in ][case ][if ][this ][writ ][petition ][is ][kept pending]till the hnalization of the SLPs [pending ][before ][the ][Hon'ble]Supreme Court and the fact that [the ][petitioner ][is ][already ][enjoying]the benefit of interim [protection. ][Nonetheless, ][on ][the ][earlier query]of this Court as to why the [Income ][Tax Department ][have ][not ][come]out with a mechanism to issue appropriate iUU*gi"i, [or ][to ][take] appropriate steps in ensuring that peedings under Section 148Aof the Act as also the assessmentrders under Section 148 of theAct are kept in a hold in the light othe decisions dedcided by thevarious High Courts, it was subtted by the learned StandingCounsel that the said steps can onlybe taken at the level of CBDTas any such steps would have to betaken Pan India and cannot belimited to any of these [jurisdictional]gh Courts. 10. As a result of which, what ware facing is steep increase oflitigation day in and day out evenugh various orders have beenpassed by this High Court allowingrit petitions on the very sameissue. The Income Tax authoritiesncemed are still even now in2025 also initiating proceedings inntravention to the provisionsof Section l5lA of the Act and as aresult by now, more than 600to 700 petitions have been alreadyot piled up before this HighCourt on an issue which otherwiseands squarely covered by thejudgment of this Court in the casef Kanakala Ravindra Reddy( 1 supra). What is also surprisingis the fact that though whileallowing the writ petitions in thecase of Kanakala RavindraReddy (1 supra), the Division Bencwhile reserving the right ofthe Revenue, [has ]also protectede interest of the petitioners .:-:i ;. [..: ]. l rl!J ii:t. f 'vhi rh rl irs gra-nted to the Revenue iorinitiating 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 Finance Act, 2021. The petitioner assessee would be entitled tochallenge or raise the other legal objections if the Rerenue initiatesthe Finance Act, 2021. The petitioner assessee would be entitled tochallenge or raise the other legal objections if the Rerenue initiatesfresh procecdings. The Department has made no endeavour inavailing the said liberty that was reserved for the Revenue. On thecontrary, thcy have been still sticking on to the stand, which thisHigh Court as weli es many other High Courts already held to bebad.availing the said liberty that was reserved for the Revenue. On thecontrary, thcy have been still sticking on to the stand, which thisHigh Court as weli es many other High Courts already held to bebad. 1 1. It appears that because of the aforesaid liberty that this HighCourt had [qranteci ]permitting the Revenue for 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 thern 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 Court confirmsCourt had [qranteci ]permitting the Revenue for 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 thern 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 Court confirmsthe decision taken by this High Court as also by the other HighCou:ts iir whic:r ['hq ]SI-Ps are still pending, the Income TaxtCou:ts iir whic:r ['hq ]SI-Ps are still pending, the Income Taxt Departmeqt would get the advantagof the liberty that is otherwiseprotected in favour of the Revnue for initiation of freshproceedings from the disposal ofthe matters at a much later stagewhich would be advantageous andeneficial to the Revenue andwould be equally disadvantageousd detrimental so far as interestof the assesses are concemed. As aconsequence, the Income TaxDepartment gets an extended periodof time for initiation of freshproceedings 12. The alarming trend of dockettrend of docketof docketdocket Departmeqt would get the advantagof the liberty that is otherwiseprotected in favour of the Revnue for initiation of freshproceedings from the disposal ofthe matters at a much later stagewhich would be advantageous andeneficial to the Revenue andwould be equally disadvantageousd detrimental so far as interestof the assesses are concemed. As aconsequence, the Income TaxDepartment gets an extended periodof time for initiation of freshproceedings 12. The alarming trend of dockettrend of docketof docketdocket The alarming trend of dockettrend of docketof docketdocketlosion in this Court, despitethe clear precedent set in Kanakalaavindra Reddy (1 supra), is amatter of grave concern. The IncomTa< Department's persistentinitiation of fresh proceedings, disreng the established judicialpronouncements, has led to anedented surge in litigationwith over 600-700 petitions pilingp on the same issue. Thisdeliberate approach not only unnes the principle of judicialprecedent but also strains the judicialresources unnecessarily. TheDepartment's strategy of awaiting theSupreme Court's decision onpending SLPs while continuinginitiate fresh proceedingsappears to be a calculated movebuy time and circumventlimitation periods, rather than. adhg to the established legal position. Such conduct raises serious questions about theadministrative efficiency and the respect for judicialpronouncements, particularly when this Court has already provideda balanced approach by preserving both the Revenue's rights andassesses interests. 13. Another aspect which needs to be considered is that in fact itshould have been realized by the lncome Tax Department itself andshould have found out via media in ensuring that proceedingsunder Sections 148-A. 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 out 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 Ineome Tax Department, has not been able to give aconvincing reply, except for the fact that such a decision if at all I I has to be taken, has to be taken fothe whole of India, and whichotherwise has to be by way of a pocy decision and that too at thelevel of Central Board of DirectTaxes. Though the learnedStanding Counsel for the IncomeDepartment contended thatthe Delhi High Court dismissed at petition of similar nature, onthe Delhi High Court dismissed at petition of similar nature, onthe one hand when the High Cois struggling to reduce itspendency, such notices which areunder challenge in this writpetition are forcing the assessee toknock the doors of this Highpendency, such notices which areunder challenge in this writpetition are forcing the assessee toknock the doors of this HighCourt resulting in filing of hundredsof new writ petitions which inthe long run not only affects the diosal of the writ petitions butalso consumes substantial time ofthe Bench in hearing thesematters again and again on daily bassAdmittedly, in spite of rhematter before the Hon'ble SupremeCourt having been taken onmany occasions, the Hon'ble SupreCourt which is seized of thematter has been reluctant in grantiany interim protection to theIncome Tax Department. Yet, theauthorities concemed at thethe long run not only affects the diosal of the writ petitions butalso consumes substantial time ofthe Bench in hearing thesematters again and again on daily bassAdmittedly, in spite of rhematter before the Hon'ble SupremeCourt having been taken onmany occasions, the Hon'ble SupreCourt which is seized of thematter has been reluctant in grantiany interim protection to theIncome Tax Department. Yet, theauthorities concemed at theState level are not ready to accept thverdict passed by a majorityof High Courts of different States othe same issue; and to makethings further worse, the Incomeax Department is showingof High Courts of different States othe same issue; and to makethings further worse, the Incomeax Department is showingaudacity by issuing notices continuou ly under Sections 148-4. and 148 through the [jurisdictional ]Assessing Officer whereas it oughtto have been only in the faceless manner. 14. In the case of BANK OF INDIA vs. ASSISTANTCOMMISSIONER, INCOME TAXl1, on an issue whether it wasjustifiable on the part of the Income Tax Department in notfollowing an order passed by the adjudicating authority only on theground that the appeals are pending, the Divisiou Bench of theHigh Court of Bombay held at paragraph No.25 as under, viz., : "25. Mr. Paridwalla has rightly drawn out attention to thedecision of this Court in Commissioner of lncome Tax vs. Smt.Godavaridevi Sarafl2 as atso the recent decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Samp F0rniture (P) Ltd. v. lTO13of which one of us (Justice G.S. Kulkarni) was a member, whereinthe Court categorically observed that the Revenue having not"accepted" the judgment of the High Court would not 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 Gorporation Ltd.r4, 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 relevantobservations made by the Supreme Court. 1' taxmann.com 422 (Bombay)l12 1t9781 113 ITR.589 (Bombay)" 1ZOZ41l65 [taxmann.com ][581/300 ][Taxman ][452 ][(Bombay)] 'o ltggZltaxmann.com [16/55 ] [433 (SC)] {. 1' taxmann.com 422 (Bombay)l12 1t9781 113 ITR.589 (Bombay)" 1ZOZ41l65 [taxmann.com ][581/300 ][Taxman ][452 ][(Bombay)] 'o ltggZltaxmann.com [16/55 ] [433 (SC)] {. '6. Sri Reddy is perhapsht in saying that theofficers were not actuatedby any mala fides inpassing the impugned oers. They perhapsgenuinely felt that the claimthe assessee was nottenable and that, if it wasccepted, the Revenuewould suffer. But what Sri Redy overlooks is that weare not concerned hereth the correctness ortenable and that, if it wasccepted, the Revenuewould suffer. But what Sri Redy overlooks is that weare not concerned hereth the correctness orotherwise of their conclusinorof any factualmalafides but with the fact thathe officers, in reachingin their conclusion, by-passedtwo appellate orders inmalafides but with the fact thathe officers, in reachingin their conclusion, by-passedtwo appellate orders inregard to the same issue whch were placed beforethem, one of the Collector (peals) and the other ofthe Tribunal. The High Courtas, in our view, rightlycriticized this conduct of thessistant Collectors andthe harassment to the assesscaused by the failureof these officers to grve ect to the orders ofauthorities higher to them in thappellate hierarchy. ltcannot be too vehemenlly ephasized that it is ofutmost importance that, idisposing of thethem, one of the Collector (peals) and the other ofthe Tribunal. The High Courtas, in our view, rightlycriticized this conduct of thessistant Collectors andthe harassment to the assesscaused by the failureof these officers to grve ect to the orders ofauthorities higher to them in thappellate hierarchy. ltcannot be too vehemenlly ephasized that it is ofutmost importance that, idisposing of thequasi.iudicial issues before the, [revenue ]officers [are]bound by the decisions of thappellate authorities.The order of the Appellte Collctor is binding on lheAssistant Collectors working wihin his [jurisdiction ]andthe order of the Tribunal is bining upon the AssistantCollectors and the Appellatellectors who functionunder the [jurisdiction ]of the Trinal. The principles ofjudicial discipline require thatorders of the higherappellate authorities should befollowed unreservedlyby the subordinate authorities.he mere fact that theThe order of the Appellte Collctor is binding on lheAssistant Collectors working wihin his [jurisdiction ]andthe order of the Tribunal is bining upon the AssistantCollectors and the Appellatellectors who functionunder the [jurisdiction ]of the Trinal. The principles ofjudicial discipline require thatorders of the higherappellate authorities should befollowed unreservedlyby the subordinate authorities.he mere fact that theorder of the appellate authorityis not "acceptable" tothe department - in itself anectionable phrase -and is the subject matter of anppeal can furnish nothe department - in itself anectionable phrase -and is the subject matter of anppeal can furnish noground for not following it unls its operation hasbeen suspended by a competecourt. lf this healthy 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 ["suslainable.]The notices so issued and the procedure adopted beingper se illegal, deserves to be and are accordingly setaside/quashed. As a consequence, all the impugnedorders getting quashed, the consequential orders passedby the respondent-Deparlmenl 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. 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 ["suslainable.]The notices so issued and the procedure adopted beingper se illegal, deserves to be and are accordingly setaside/quashed. As a consequence, all the impugnedorders getting quashed, the consequential orders passedby the respondent-Deparlmenl 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, permifted the Revenue to proceedunder the substituted provisions, and this Court allowingthe petitions only on the procedural flaw, the right 1: conferred on the Revenueuld remain reserved toproceed further if they sont from the stage of theorder of the Supreme Cort in the case of AshishAgarwal, supra.order of the Supreme Cort in the case of AshishAgarwal, supra. 18. We would would only further like tlike tt 18. We would would only further like tlike ttmake observations that sinoewe are inclined to dispose of the inant writ petition, conscious ofthe fact that the earlier order ofis High Court in the case ofKanakala Ravindra Reddy (lSUa) is subjected to challengebefore the Ho4'ble Supreme Couin SLP No.3574 ol 2024,preferred by the Income Tax Depament, we make it clear thatallowing of the instant writ petitiois subject to outcome of theaforesaid SLP preferred by the Revue against the decision of thisHigh Court in the case of KanakaRavindra Reddy (l supra).This, in other words, would mean tht either of the parties, if theyso want, may move an appropnatetition seeking revival of thiswrit petition in the light of the deciion of the Hon'ble SupremeCourt in the pending SLP on the veryame lssue 19. Accordingly, the instant writpetition stands allowed rnfavour of the assessee so far ashe issue of jurisdictionISconcemed. As- a consequence, te impugned notice underchallenge under Sections 148-A and48 stands set aside/quashed. I The consequential orcers, if any, also [stand set ][asidc/quasheo ][in]similar terms as have been [passed ][by this ][High ][Court in ][the ][case ][of] Kankanala Ravindra Reddy [(1 ]supra). [There shall ][be ][no order ][as] to costs Consequently, miscellaneous [petitions pending, ][if ][any, shall] stand ctosed SD/.A. s\srnur ffi //TRUE \'"' \ ; ffi:'"H ,*#il*ip;f,161':,:*t*Hffiffi t:ip;f,161':,:*t*Hffiffi t:'ir'ig"na*r**?i'Eil,'tr":'":;ffi""x'i:i'151"33[[i*'?"J'1iiffi ii"*"o6ini [- ][r ][to ][oot ]Assessment [center, ][rncome ][Tax ][Department' ][New]ii"*"o6ini [- ][r ][to ][oot ]Assessment [center, ][rncome ][Tax ][Department' ][New][[National ]][[Faceless]] To, 4. The [[National ]][[Faceless]]. ?f;I'rn'on [or ][lndia,]. ?f;I'rn'on [or ][lndia,] --ffimF;+i,Wu';df ht##'l:t**gill$g+:Iffi 9. Two [CD Copies] B M LS HIGH COURT DATED:2810412025 ORDERWP.No.33723 ot [2024] (ofi.[lllC ][5p]4l€/S(1{';!1{ il0 2ffi*cl,*-: /,:\. ALLOWING THE WRIT /4,.1./5/ 7k5