Wp/35361/2024 Of Sreedevi Seelam v. The Income Tax Officer Ward 11(1)

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE [P.SAM KOSHY]ANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE WRIT PETITION NO: 35361 [2024] Between: Sreedevi Seelam, Wo SeelamVasudeva Rao, Aged [about ][61 ]Years,Occupation. Business, Rl/o. [Plot]No.119 Vinayaka Nagar, [Gachibowli,]Hyderabad 500032, Telangana,lndia. PAN. , [Assessment]Year.2015-.16 ...PETITIONER AND 1. The lncome Tax Officer Ward [11(1), Hyderabad Signature Towers,]Sv.No.6(P) of Kondapur, Sv.37(P) [of Kothaguda, ][Opp. ][Botanical Gardens,]S6aingahiatty(M), R.R.Dis-trict, [Hyderabad ][5q0984' ][Telangana. ]. .Sv.No.6(P) of Kondapur, Sv.37(P) [of Kothaguda, ][Opp. ][Botanical Gardens,]S6aingahiatty(M), R.R.Dis-trict, [Hyderabad ][5q0984' ][Telangana. ]. .2. The Piinciial Commissioner [of ][lnCome ][Tax., ][Telang-ana ][gng ]4 [P' ][Hyderabad,]lT Towers, AC Guards, [Masab ][Tank, ][Hyderabad ][-50002-8, ][Telangana']lT Towers, AC Guards, [Masab ][Tank, ][Hyderabad ][-50002-8, ][Telangana'] 3. The Central Board of Direct [Taxes, Refresented ][by ][its ][Chairman, ][Department]of Revenue, Ministry of [Finance, Government ][of ][lndia, ][Secretariat ][Buildings,]New Delhi - 110 001. Iof Revenue, Ministry of [Finance, Government ][of ][lndia, ][Secretariat ][Buildings,]New Delhi - 110 001. I 4. ihe National Faceless Assessment [Center, ][lncome ][Tax ][Dgpartment, New]Delhi.Delhi. 5. The Union of lndia, [Represented by its Secretary to the Government,]Department of Revenue, [Ministry ][of ][Finance, New Delhi ][- ][, ]Department of Revenue, [Ministry ][of ][Finance, New Delhi ][- ][, ] ].1*O=OJ'O*O=*r, Petition under Article [226 ]ol [the constitution ][of ][lndia ][praying ][that in ][the]circumstances stated [in ][the ][affidavit ][filed ][therewith, ][the ][High ][court ][may ][be]pleased to issue a writ order, or Direction [more ][particularly ][one ][in the ][nature ][of]the [order passed ][by ][the ][lncome Tax Authorities ][(National][\ilandamus, declaring Faceless E-Assessment [centre ][completed ][the ][assessment ][u/s ][147 r.w.s ][144]read with section 1448 of [the ][lncome ][Tax ][Act, ][1961 ][vide DIN ][and ][Notice ][No.]dated 28103t2024 ITBA/ASTlsl147l2}23-2411063642579(',1 ) [for ][the ][assessment]year 2015-.16 determining the total [income ][of ][Rs 1,31,13,094/- as arbitrary, ][illegal,]bad in law, without [jurisdiction, void-ab-initio, ][violative ][of ][the ][principles ][of ][natural]justice apart from being violative of [Articles ]14, [19(1 ])(g) [and 265 ][of ][the] Constitution of lndia and Sec. 14gA of the. lncome Tax Act, 1g61, andconsequently set a:;ide the same in the interests of justiceconsequently set a:;ide the same in the interests of justice 1A NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section r 5 i cpc praying that in the circ umstances stated inthe affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased tosuspend the order Under section 147 r.w.s 144 read with :,;ection .1448 of thelncome Tax Act, 1 961 vide DIN and Notice No. dated 2BtO3l2O24ITBAiAST/si14r2023-24t1063642srg(1) for the assessm,3nt year 2015-16determining the totar income of Rs r,31 ,13,0g4r- and Demarrd notice u/s 156 ofthe lncome Tax act [.196.1 ], vide DIN and Notice NorTErA/AST/S/1 5 6t 2023_2411063642712(1) Dt. 2BlO3l2O24 for the assessmentyear 20 15-16 pendingdisposal of the above Writ petition. Counsel for the [petitioner: ]SRt THANNERU CHAITANYA KUMARCounset for the Respondent Nos.1 TO 4: M/s-. J.aUr.rrfXa, JUNTOR SC FOR 9gylj; "r [for ][the Respondent ][No. ][5 ][: ][sRt ][B. ]MUKH E-.jlE:S.l ff cE NrRALGOVT. The Court made the following: ORDER t THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRT JUSTICE NARSING RAONANDIKONDAWRIT PETITION No.35361OF 2024 ORDER (per IIon'ble Sn Justice Nar.sing Rao Nandikonda) Counsel for the [petitioner: ]SRt THANNERU CHAITANYA KUMARCounset for the Respondent Nos.1 TO 4: M/s-. J.aUr.rrfXa, JUNTOR SC FOR 9gylj; "r [for ][the Respondent ][No. ][5 ][: ][sRt ][B. ]MUKH E-.jlE:S.l ff cE NrRALGOVT. The Court made the following: ORDER t THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRT JUSTICE NARSING RAONANDIKONDAWRIT PETITION No.35361OF 2024 ORDER (per IIon'ble Sn Justice Nar.sing Rao Nandikonda) Heard Mr. Thanneru Chaitanya Kumar, learned counscl for the petitioner, Ms. J.Sunitha, leamed Junior Standing Counselfor thc Income Tax Department for respondent Nos.l to 4 andMr. B. Mukherjce, leamed counscl representing the Union of Indiafor rcspondent No.5. Perused the record 2. This is a writ petition where the proceedings are eithcrchallenged to the notices which were issued under Section 148Aand 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short'the Act') or theassessment orders those have been passed under Section 147 ofthe Act which have been assailed 3. This writ petition is being taken up today only on one of thegrounds, that the notices issued under Section l48A of the Actand thc subsequent initiation of proceedings under Section 148 ofthe Act by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, whereas in termsof the amendment that was brought to the Income Tax Act by way I of Financc Act, 2021 u,.e.f., 01.04.2021 onwards;. proceedingsunder Scction l48A of rhe Act as also under Secticn l4ll of theAct ought to lravc also been issucd and proceedec in a facelcssmanner4. The contention of the pctitioner is that thc issue contention of the pctitioner is that thc issue of the pctitioner is that thc issue the pctitioner is that thc issue pctitioner is that thc issue is that thc issue that thc issue thc issue issue proceedings being in violation of the Finance Act 2O2t i.e., theimpugned notices under Scction l48A and Section 14g of the Actnot being issued in a faceless nranncr, have already been dealt withand decided by this Courl in the case of Ir._{NK{NALARAVINDRA REDDY vs. INCOME-TAX OFFITIIERT decidedon 14.09.2(123 whereby a batch of writ petitions werc allowed andthe proceedings initiated under Section l48A as alsc undcr Section148 of the r\ct were hetd to be bad with consequentizrl [lrqlicls ]on theground of ir being in violation of the provisions of Sr.:ction l51A ofthe Act read with Norification l8l2o22 dated 29.03.2022. [.Ihe ]saidjudgment passed by this Court has also been subsequ:ntly Ib[orvedin a large number of writ petitions which were allor,,.ecl on similarterms. The contention of the pctitioner is that thc issue contention of the pctitioner is that thc issue of the pctitioner is that thc issue the pctitioner is that thc issue pctitioner is that thc issue is that thc issue that thc issue thc issue issue of 5. Dou,n the line, wc tlnd [that ][the ][same ][issue has also ][been]decidecl against the Revenue by various [High ][Courts ][i.e',]by the Bombay High Courr in [the ][casc ][of ] TECHNOLOGIES LTD., vs. ASSISTAIIT OF INCOME TAX & OTHERS2, [Gauhati ][High ][Court ][in the ][case]of RAM NARAYAN SAH [vs. ] [INDIA3, ][Punjab ][and]Haryana High Court in the case [of ] vs. UNION OF INDIA4, and [Telangana ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]SRI VENKATARAMANA [VS. ] COMMISSIONER OF INCOME [where ][the ][issue was in]respect of international taxation, [Bombay ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]ABHIN ANILKUMAR SHAH [VS. ] [OFFICER']INTERNATIONAL TAXATION6 [which ][is ]r [again ][on]intemational taxation [and ][central ][circle, ][High ][Court ][of ][Himachal]Pradesh in the case of GOWND [SINGH vs. INCOME ] OFFICERT, Gujarat [High Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ] 'Tzoz+1464 [430 ][(Bom)]'l(2024) [156 ][taxmann.com 478 ][(Gauhati)l]^ [(2024) [165 ][taxmann.com ][115 ][(Punjab ][& ][Haryana)]]' 12024) [167 ][taxmann.com ][4l ] [(Tetangana)l]" 12024) [166 ][taxmann.com ][679 ][(Bombay)l] '12024) [165 ][taxmann.com ] [l3 ][(Himachal ][Pradesh)l] '12024) [165 ][taxmann.com ] [l3 ][(Himachal ][Pradesh)l] DAHYABHAI RADADIYA vs. INCOME TA.X OFFICER,WARD 3(3X5)8, Jharkand High Court in the ca,;c of SHI'AMSUNDAR SAW vs. UNION OF INDIAe, Rajastlran High Courlin the case of SHARDA DEVI CHHAJER vs. I\COME TAXOFFICER & ANOTHER and batch of writ pctitionsro whichstood decided on 19.03.2024. Similar views have rrlso been takenby the Division Bench of Calcutta High Courl in the case ofGIRDHAR GOPAL DALMIA vs. UNTON OF INDIA & ORS(M.A.T 1690 of 2023), dccided on25.09.2024.6. Evcn though thc same issuc having been dcc ded by a largenumber of High Courts, we arc still confronted witlr large filing ofidentical matters on daily basis ranging between 5 to l0 writpetitions. That upon the instructions being sorght fiom theDepartment, they have been taking a solitary g; ound that thedecision of the Bombay High Courl in the case ol' IlexawareTechnologies Ltd., (2 supra) as also the one which has beendecided by this Court in the case of Kanakala Rlvindra Reddy t2024 SCC Online Guj 40 l2'2025 [Online ][Jhar ][287]'o 12023 [: ] [: ][4984-DBl] (1 supra) has becn subjccted to challenge in a Special LeavePetition i.c., SLP No.3574 of 2024 before the Hon'blc SupremeCourl and the Hon'ble Supreme Courl is seized of the matter.In addition, there are about 1200 SLPs also filed arising out ofthesame issue being decided by various High Courts7. To a query being put to the learned counsel for the Revenue,thcy have categorically accepted the fact that there is no interimorder granted by thc Hon'ble Supreme Court in any of thesematters pending before it. Meanwhile , fresh writ petitions ofidentical nahrre arc being piled up before this Bench on daily basisand the pendency is getting increased on matter which otherwisehas already been dealt and decided by this very High Court itself. I 8On the one hand, even though the order of this'Court thatwas passed as early as on 74.09.2023 and more 16 months havelapsed, till date, we do not find any remedial steps having beentaken by the Income Tax Department to take appropriate steps toeither hold back issuance of notice under Section 148-.{ and underSection 148 of the Act by the [jurisdictional ]Assessing Officer,rather the authorities concemed in the teeth of series of decisionswas passed as early as on 74.09.2023 and more 16 months havelapsed, till date, we do not find any remedial steps having beentaken by the Income Tax Department to take appropriate steps toeither hold back issuance of notice under Section 148-.{ 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 Courts in India are co:rtinuouslv stillinitiating proceedings under Section 148,4. of thr:: Act and alsotnrtratrng proceedings under Section l4g of the Acl incontravention to the amendments brought into the Irrcome Tax Actpursuant tc, the Finance Act,2020 as also the Financ,: Actl),0219. Upon a query being put as to why can,t this rvrit petition bedisposed o[ in the teeth of the decision rendered bi, this Court inthe case of Kanakala Ravindra Retldy (l supra), lerrmed Standingcounsel for: the Income Tax Department conte,ds that those wouldunnecessarily burden the Income Tax Deparlmer rt where theywould be required to file equal number of. SLI)s before theHon'ble Supreme Courl and it would be further hurdening theexchequer of the Union of India. It was also the contL4tion of thelearned Standing Counsel that no prejudice would b<: caused to theinterest of the petitioners in case if this writ petition ir kcpt pendingtill the finalization of thc SLps pending before the Hon,bleSupreme Court and the fact that the petitioner is alr,.:ady enjoyingthe benefit of interim protection. Nonetheless, on th<: earlier queryof this Coun as to why the Income Tax Department lave not colneout with a mechanism to issue appropriate instructions or to take appropnate steps in ensuring that proccedings under Section l48Aof the Act as also the assessment orders under Section 148 of theAct are kept in a hold in the tight of thc decisions dedcided by thevarious High Courts, it was subrnittcd by the leamed StandingCounsel that the said steps can only bc taken at the level of CBDTas any such steps would have to bc taken Pan India and cannot belimited to any of these jurisdictional High Courts.10. As a result of which, what wc are facing is steep increase oflitigation day in and day out even thor-rgh various orders have beenpassed by this High Court allowing writ petitions on the very sameissue. The Income Tax authorities conccrned are still even now in2025 also initiating proceedings in contravention to the provisionsof Section l51A of the Act and as a rcsult by now, morl than 600to 700 petitions have been already got pilcd up before this HighCourt on an issue which otherwise stands squarely covered by thejudgment of this Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy(l supra). What is also surprising is rhe fact that though whileallowing the writ petitions in thc case of Kanakala RavindraReddy (l supra), the Division Bench while reserving the right ofthe Revenue, has also protected thc interest of the petitioners insofar as the liberty whichwas granted to th u Rer.enue lorinitiating liesh proceedings strictly in accordance \.,,, th thc amendedinitiating liesh proceedings strictly in accordance \.,,, th thc amendedprovisions of the Act, as amended by the Financc Act. 2020 andthe Finance Act,202l . The petitioncr assessee wou d bc cntitled tothe Finance Act,202l . The petitioncr assessee wou d bc cntitled tochallenge ,tr raise the other lcgal objections if the R--vcnue initiatcsfresh proceedings. The Departmcnt has made n,.) endcavour inavailrng the said liberfy that was reserved for the R,.rvenue. On thecontrary, they have been still sticking on to the strrnd, u.hich thisHrgh Court as well as many other High Courts alr(rady held to bebadfresh proceedings. The Departmcnt has made n,.) endcavour inavailrng the said liberfy that was reserved for the R,.rvenue. On thecontrary, they have been still sticking on to the strrnd, u.hich thisHrgh Court as well as many other High Courts alr(rady held to bebad I l. It appears that because appears that because that because because of the aforesaid libeft.,,that the aforesaid libeft.,,that libeft.,,that r.his llighllighCourt had granted permitting the Revenue for initiating freshproceedings as a one-time measure in a faceles s [\ ]manner, theIncome Tax Department wants to take advantage r,f the same byprotracting these proceedings which would enable them to meel thelimitation that would otherwise come in the way. I rkewise,, if thewrit petition is kept pending for a considerable long periocl of timeand finally at a later stage if the Hon'ble Supreme (_ourt confirmsthe decision taken by this High Court as also by rhe other HighCourts in which the SLPs arc still pending, tht. Income ['Iax] It appears that because appears that because that because because of the aforesaid libeft.,,that the aforesaid libeft.,,that libeft.,,that r.his llighlligh Dcparlmcnt would gct thc advantage of the libcrty that is otherwiseprotected in favour of the Revenue for initiation of freshproceedings from the disposal ofthcse tnatters at a much later stagewhich would be advantagcous and beneficial to [the ]Revenue [and]would be equally disadvantageous and detrimental [so ][far ][as ][interest]of the assesses are concemed. As a consequence, [the ][Income ][Tax]Department gets an extended period of time [tbr ][initiation ]of [fresh]proceedings. It appears that because appears that because that because because of the aforesaid libeft.,,that the aforesaid libeft.,,that libeft.,,that r.his llighlligh Dcparlmcnt would gct thc advantage of the libcrty that is otherwiseprotected in favour of the Revenue for initiation of freshproceedings from the disposal ofthcse tnatters at a much later stagewhich would be advantagcous and beneficial to [the ]Revenue [and]would be equally disadvantageous and detrimental [so ][far ][as ][interest]of the assesses are concemed. As a consequence, [the ][Income ][Tax]Department gets an extended period of time [tbr ][initiation ]of [fresh]proceedings. 12. The alarming trcnd of docket explosion [in ][this ][Cour1, ][despitc]the clear precedent set in Kanakala [Ravindru ][Reddy ][(l ][supra), is ][a]matter of grave concern. The Income [Tax ][Department's ][persistent]initiation of fresh proceedings, disregarding [the established ][judicial]pronouncements, has led to an unprecedented su.g. ln [litigation]with over 600-700 petitions piling up on [the ][same issue. ][This]deliberate approach not only undermines [the ][principle ][of judicial]precedent but also strains the [judicial ]resources [unnecessarily. ][The]Department's strategy of awaiting [the ]Supreme [Coutt's ][decision ][on]pending SLPs while continuing to initiate fresh [proceedings]appears to be a calculated move to buy [time ][and ][circumvent]limitation periods, rather than [adhering ]to [the ][established ][legal] position. Such conduct raises serious questic,ns about theadministrative efficiency and the respect fbr j udioialpronouncements, particularly when this Court has aiready providedpronouncements, particularly when this Court has aiready provideda balanced approach by preserving both the Reveruc's rights andassesses rnterests.assesses rnterests. 13. Another aspect which needs to be considered is that in fact itshould have been realized by the Income Tax Department itself andshould har.e found out via media in ensuring that proceedingsunder Scctions 148-4 and 148 should not have bt:en issued in afaceless manner, at least titl the Hon'ble Supreme Ccurt clecide thehvelve hundred (1200) odd SLPs which it is already seized ofor, atleast the Income Tax Department should have fc,und out someremedial sleps to ensure that wherever the authorities intend toinitiate proceedings under Sections 148-4 and 148, rther rhan in afaceless manner, the proceedings should have been deferteilwithout precipitating the matter further intimating th: assessee thatthey shall initiate appropriate proceedings only after the SLp,s aredecided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the very same tssue.This again, the Income Tax Department, has not beerL able to gir.e aconvincing reply, except for the fact that such a der:ision 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 leamedStanding Counsel for the Income Tax Dcpartmcnt contended thatthe Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition of similar nature, onthe one hand when the High Court is struggling to reduce itspendency, such notices which are under challenge in this writpetition are forcing the assessee to knock the doors of this HighCourt resulting in 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 bqcn taken onmany occasions, the Hon'ble Supreme Courl which is seized of thematter has been reluctant in granting any interim protection to theIncome Tax Department. Yet, the authorities concerned at theState level are not ready to accept the verdict passed by a maj orityof 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 and 148 throu6lh the jurisdictional Assessing Offrcer wtrereas it oughtto have ber:n only in the faceless manner. 14. In lhe case of BANK OF INDIA vs. ASSISTANTCOMMISSIONER, INCOME TAXrr, on an issue whether it wasjustifiable on thc part of the Income Tax Deparlmcnt ln notfollor.ving an order passed by the adjudicating author rty only on theground that the appeals are pending, the Division Bench of theHigli Court of Bombay hcld at paragraph No.25 as urrder, viz., : "25. Mr. Paridwalla has righfly drawn out atten:ion to thedecision of this Court in Commissioner of lncome Tax vs. Smt.Godavaridevi Sarafl2 as also the recent decision lf the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Samp Furniture (p) Ltd. v. lTO13of which one of us (Justice G.S. Kulkarni) was a memb::r, 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 lobse itsbinding force. Referring to the decision of the Suprenre Court inUnion of lndia vs. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd.14, theCourt observed that the approach of the officials of Ftevenue of"not treating decisions being acceptable,, was criticizild by theSupreme Court. ln such decision, following are thir relevantobservatrons made by the Supreme Court. I I 11202S) [7rl ][raxmrnn.com ]422 tBombay)l'il9781 Ill ITR 589 1Bopgay) " lZOZll [165 ][taxmann.com ]581/300 Taxman 452 (Bombay) 'o TtggZl [taxmann.com ][l6155 ]ELT 433 (SC) I I 11202S) [7rl ][raxmrnn.com ]422 tBombay)l'il9781 Ill ITR 589 1Bopgay) " lZOZll [165 ][taxmann.com ]581/300 Taxman 452 (Bombay) 'o TtggZl [taxmann.com ][l6155 ]ELT 433 (SC) "6. Sn Reddy is 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 Revenuewould suffer. But what Sri Reddy overlooks is that weare not concerned here with the correctness ortenable and that, if it was accepted, the Revenuewould suffer. But what Sri Reddy overlooks is that weare not concerned here with the correctness orotherwise of their conclusion or of any factualmalafides but with the fact that the officers, in reachingin their conclusion, by-passed two appellate orders inregard to the same issue which were placed beforethem, one of the Collector (Appeals) and the other ofthe Tribunal. The High Court has, in our view, 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 lhgAssistant Collectors working within his [jurisdiction ]andthe order of the Tribunal is binding upon the AssistantCollectors and the Appellate Collectors who functionunder the [jurisdiction ]of the Tribunal. The principles ofjudicial discipline require that the orders of the higherappellate authorities should be followed unreservedlyby the subordinate authorities. The mere fact that theorder of the appellate authority is not ["acceptable" ]tomalafides 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 arebound by the decisions of the appellate authorities.The order of the Appellte Collector is binding on lhgAssistant Collectors working within his [jurisdiction ]andthe order of the Tribunal is binding upon the AssistantCollectors and the Appellate Collectors who functionunder the [jurisdiction ]of the Tribunal. The principles ofjudicial discipline require that the orders of the higherappellate authorities should be followed unreservedlyby the subordinate authorities. The mere fact that theorder of the appellate authority is not ["acceptable" ]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 its operation hasbeen suspended by a competent court. lf this healthybeen suspended by a competent court. lf this healthy rule is not followed, the result will only be undueharassment to assesses and chaos in adminis trationof tax laws.of tax laws. rule is not followed, the result will only be undueharassment to assesses and chaos in adminis trationof tax laws.of tax laws. 12. We have dealt with this aspect at some i:ngth,because it has been suggested by the karnedAdditional Solicitor General that the observationsrnade by the High Court, have been harsh <in theofficers. lt is clear that the observations of tht:, HighOourt, seemingly vehement, and apparentlyLrnpalatable to the Revenue, are only intended tc curb;r tendency in revenue matters which, if allouied totrecome widespread, could result in considr:rablel-rarassment to the assesses-public withoul any t:enefitto the Revenue. We would like to say thi;rt thecepartment should take lhese observations ir theproper spirit. The observations of the High Courtshould be kept in mind in future and the utmost r:gardshould be paid by the adjudicating authorities and theappellate authoritres to the requirements of jt.rdicialdiscipline and the need for giving effect to the orlersof the higher appellate authorrties which are b ndingon them." 15. What is worrying this Bench more is tht,r fact that an endeavour is being made whole heartedly to ensure rlot to generatefurther litigation on issues which have been laid to rest by a largenumber of High Courts all of whom have taken a c()nsistent standthat the action of the lncome Tax Department being [.iziolative ]of the Finance Act,2020 and Finance Act,202l . Now, in order to protectthe interest of the Revenue as also that of the assessee, it would betritc at this juncture, if we dispose of the writ petition with anobserwation/direction that the disposal of the instant writ petition interms of the judgment rendered by this High Court in the case ofKankanala Ravindra Reddy (l supra) shall however be subject tothe outcome of the SLPs which were filed by the Income TaxDepartment and which is pending consideration before the Hon'blcSupreme Court. 16. In the given facts and circumstances, this Bench is of theconsidered opinion that unless and until we do n.ot timely disposeof matters which are squarely covered by the decision of this Courtand which stands fortified by the decisions of the various otherHigh Courts on the very same issue, the pendency of this HighCourt would further be burdened which otherwise can be decidedand disposed of as a covered matter. 17 . So far as the interest of the Revenue is concemed, we are ofthe considered opinion that the interest of the Revenue has alreadybeen considered and protected, as has been observed in paragraphsthe considered opinion that the interest of the Revenue has alreadybeen considered and protected, as has been observed in paragraphs i l I l IIIIil 36,37 ancl38 olthe ordcr which, for ready referenr:e, is rt:proclucedhereunder: 36. For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugnerd noticesissued and the proceedings drawn by the re:;pondent_Department is neither tenable, nor sustainable..fhe notices so issued and the procedure adopted beingper se illegal, deserves to be and are accorclingly setaside/quashed. As a consequence, all the irnpugnedorders getting quashed, the consequential orders passedby the respondent-Department pursuant to thr: noticesissued under Section 147 and 14g would a iso getquashed and it is ordered accordingly. The re:lson weare quashing the consequential order is on the p rinciplesthat when the initiation of the proceedings itr,;elf wasprocedurally wrong, the subsequent orders a so getsnullified automatically_ 37. The preliminary objection raised by the peti:ioner issustained and all these writ petitions stands allowed onthis very jurisdictional issue. Since the impugned rlo{cesand orders are getting quashed on the p,6int 6fjurisdiction, we are not inclined to proceed furflrer anddecide the other issues raised by the petitioner whichstands reserved to be raised and contended in anappropriate proceedings. 37. The preliminary objection raised by the peti:ioner issustained and all these writ petitions stands allowed onthis very jurisdictional issue. Since the impugned rlo{cesand orders are getting quashed on the p,6int 6fjurisdiction, we are not inclined to proceed furflrer anddecide the other issues raised by the petitioner whichstands reserved to be raised and contended in anappropriate proceedings. 38Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in tire caseof AshishAgarwal, supra, as a one_timem easuteof AshishAgarwal, supra, as a one_timem easuteexercisingthe powers under Article 142r.rf theConstitution of lndia, permitted the Revenue to proceedunder the substituted provisions, and this Court allowingthe petitions only on the procedural flaw, tht: rightunder the substituted provisions, and this Court allowingthe petitions only on the procedural flaw, tht: right conferred on the Revenue would remain reserved toproceed further if they so want from the stage of theorder of the Supreme Court in the case of AshishAgarwal, supra.Agarwal, supra. 18. We rvould only further like to make observations that sincewe are inclined to dispose of the instant writ petition, conscious ofthe fact that thc earlier order of this High Courl in the case ofKunakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra) is subjected to challengebefore the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No.3574 of 2024, prcferred by the Income Tax Department, we make it clear thatallowing of the instant writ petition is subject to outcome of theaforesaid SLP pref'ened by the Revenue against the decision of thisHigh Court in thc case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (l stpra).This, in othcr words, would mean that either of the paSties, if theyso want, may move an appropriate petition seeking revival of thiswrit petition in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble SupremeCourt in the pending SLP on the very same issue 19. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands allowed infavour of the asscssee so far as the issue of jurisdictionISconcerned. As a conscquencc, the impugned notice underchallenge undcr Sections 148-4 and 148 stands set aside/quashed. f Thc consequential orders, if any, also stand set a,iide/quashed insimilar tenns as have been passed by this High Court in the case ofKankanala Ravindra Redcty (l supra). There shall be no order asto costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pendin1l, if any, shallstand close<l \\//TRUE COPYIIToa21. TheMinislry The lT SerlinSy.No.6 (P) of The lncome To Chairma Pwers, snncipaampalty(Mof FinaAC lCon,faxKo ndap Central G Officer mmissioner uards, ),n R ur, Sy.37(PBoard oMasab Tank, District Hyderabad 5000Ward of .1 f I1ncome Direct Taxes, 1), ) of HyderabadHKothayderabad -500028, Telangana.Tax. guda, Telangana and Department ,TE.Bla r: otanical Gardrganaof Towers,A.pRe , VCNUE,Hyderabad,ens,110 001 nce, Governme nt of lndia, Secretariat Builrlings, New Delhi -4. The National Faceless Assessment DelhiCenter Income Tax [)epartment, New5. The Secreta ry, to the Government6. OneMinistCC to SRt THryofFrnanceANNERU New Delhi CHAITANYA - 1 10 Union of 001IndiaDepartn.t enl of Revenue,B. 7. TwoOneCD CopiesCC to [vt/s. J SUNITHA, JUNIOR SC FOKUR INCOME MAR, Advoca te AX IOPUCPSKIG HIGH COURT DATED:2810412025 ---a':=ORDER.1.i- [t ]'^trr{WP.No.35361 of 2024$'I 1o slPzffi:,a-,'./St,a:=:a/- ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITIONWITHOUT COSTS d