Wp/4518/2025 Of Leelavathi Arava v. Income Tax Officer

HIGH COURT FOR AT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY,THE TWENTY TWO THOUSAND AND PRESENT THE HONOURABLE [JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY]AND THE HONOURABLE WRIT PETITION [N][O: 4518 OF 2025] Between: Leelavathi Arava. D/oRamaswamy Arava, [aged ][about ]years,-.Occ-66 Business Rl/o. H. [No.]10-2-199 Bluechip, [Endrenchment ][Road, ][1st ][Floor,]Nehru Nagar, EastMirredpally Secunderababd. [500026, ][Hyderabad,]Telangana .,.PETITIONER AND 1lncome Tax Officer, [Ward ][10(1), Hyderabad ][lT ][Tower, AC ][Guards' ][[Vasab]Tank, Hyderabad 500004Tank, Hyderabad 5000042Princioal Commissioner [of lncome ][Tax- ][1, lT ][Tower, AC Guards, ][lMasab]Tank,' Hyderabad 500004, [Telangana]Tank,' Hyderabad 500004, [Telangana]3The National ra"etes. [nsr"ssment centre, ][Income ][Tax Department ][IVlinistry]of Finance, Government [of lndia, New Delhi']of Finance, Government [of lndia, New Delhi'] ...RESPONDENTS Petition under [Article ][226 ][of ][lhe ][constitution ][of ][lndia ][praying ][that ][in ][the]circumstances stated [in ][the ][affidavit filed ][therewith, the ][High ][court ][may be ][pleased]o iii r.rr" a writ, [order or ][Direction ][more ][particularly, ][one, ][in ][the ][nature ][of ][writ ][of]lMandamus, declaring [the ][action ][of the ][Respondent ][No ][2 in ][passing ][an ][Order]dated .1 5.04.2022 u/a. 148A(d) and Notice u/s. 1 48 dated 1 5.04.2022 calling forincome for A.Y. [201 5-1 ][6 as illegal, arbitrary, bad ][in law and ][violative ][of ][Articles ][14,]"of 19 and 265 of the Constitution india (ii)'Set aside the Order daled 15.04 2022u1s. 148A(d) and Notice [issued ][by RespondentNo2 ][u/s ][148 ][of ][lncome ][Tax ][Act']1961 dated 15.O4.2)22calling [for ][the ][return ][of ][income ][of ][the ][Petitioner ][for ][A'Y']2015-16 and any proceedings including [the ][penalty ][proceedings ][as]in [jurisdiction ]"on.eqr"n1 [and ][(iii) Set ][aside ][the ][notices issued ][u/s 226 ][dated]lacking is.lzlzozq attaching [the ][bank accounts, deposits ][maintained ][with ][maintained with]state Bank of lndia, [Nariman Point, Mumbai, Bank ][of ][Baroda ][(Vijaya ][Bank) Bandra]Kurla Comptex, [I\rlumbai ][and ][Canara Bank, ] [Road ][Bangaloreas ][being ][illegal']arbitrary and contrary [to ][law lV ][set ][aside ][proceedings against ][the ][Petitioner ][for ] inlsla on the [grolnds ][of ][lack ][of ][jurisdiction ][of ][the AO ][to ][proceed ][since ][the] alleged income escaping assessment is less than Rs. 50 lakhs, in view of thelimitation imposed under Section i49(1Xb) of the lncome Tax Act, 1961limitation imposed under Section i49(1Xb) of the lncome Tax Act, 1961 lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under section i 5'1 cpc praying that in the crrcumstances stated inthe affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to directthe Department to lift the attachment and not to take any further ['coercive ]steps frecovery of demand and stay the recovery of demand pursuant to t Assessmentorder passed by the lncome Tax Department under section [,147 ]rlw section 1 44and Section 144B of the lncome Tax Act, ['19 ]dated2 6.03.2024 for Assessment year2015-16 and Penalty orders a direct the Department to not take any coercive stepsfor recovery demand Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. [pOLt(AMpALLy ]PAVAN KUMAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1&2: Ms. J SUNITHA (JUNIOR SC FORrNcoME TAX) Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR Dy.SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE [P.SAM ]KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE NARSING RAONANDIKONDA W.P.No.4518 OF 2025 9BDER, [(per ][Hon'ble ][Sri ][Justice ] [Sam ][Koshy)] Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. [pOLt(AMpALLy ]PAVAN KUMAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1&2: Ms. J SUNITHA (JUNIOR SC FORrNcoME TAX) Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR Dy.SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE [P.SAM ]KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE NARSING RAONANDIKONDA W.P.No.4518 OF 2025 9BDER, [(per ][Hon'ble ][Sri ][Justice ] [Sam ][Koshy)] Heard [Mr. ][Polkampally ][Pavan ][Kumar ][Rao, ]leamed counselfor the [petitioner and ][Ms. ][J.Sunitha, leamed ][Junior ][Standing]Counsel [for ][the Income ][Tax ][Department ][for ][respondent ][Nos.l ]and2. Perused [the ][record.] Z. This is a is a a [[writ ][petition where the ][proceedings ]][[petition where the ][proceedings ]][[proceedings ]]are eithereitherchallenged [to the ][notices ][which ][were ][issued ][under Section 1484]and [148 ][of ][the Income Tax ][Act, ][1961 ][(for ][short 'the ][Act') ][or ][the]assessment [orders ][those ][have ][been passed ][under Section ][147 ]ofthe [Act which ][have been assailed.] This is a is a a [[writ ][petition where the ][proceedings ]][[petition where the ][proceedings ]][[proceedings ]]are eithereither j. j. This writ [petition ][is being taken up today ]only on one of thegrounds, that [the ][notices ][issued ][under Section ][l48A ][of ][the Act]and the [subsequent ][initiation of ][proceedings under ][Section ][148 ][of]the Act [by ][the ][jurisdictional ][Assessing ][Officer, ][whereas ][in ][terms]of the [amendment ][that ][was ][brought ][to ][the Income Tax ][Act ][by way]of [Finance Act, ][2021 ][w.e.f., ][01.04.2021 onwards, ][proceedings]L under Section [l48A ofthe ][Act ][as ][also under Section ][148 ][ofthe]Act ought to [have also been ][issued ][and ][proceeded ][in ][a ][faceless]manner4. The contention contention of [[the ][petitioner ]][[petitioner ]][[is ][that ][the ][issue ][of]][[that ][the ][issue ][of]][[the ][issue ][of]][[issue ][of]][[of]]proceedings being [in ][violation ][of ][the ][Financ ][e ][Act, ][2021 ][i.e., ][the]impugned notices [under Section ][148,{ ][and ][Section ][148 ][of ][the ][Act]not being issued [in ][a ][faceless ][manner, ][have already ][been ][dealt ][with]and decided [by ][this ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ] RAVINDRA REDDY [vs. ] [decided]on 14.09.2023 [whereby ][a ][batch ][of ][writ ][petitions were allowed ][and]the proceedings [initiated ][under ][Section 148.{ ][as ][also ][under ][Section]148 of the Act [were held to ][be bad ][with ][consequential ][reliefs ][on ][the]ground of it being [in ][violation ][of ][the ][provisions ][of ][Section ][151A ][of]the Act read [with ][Notification ][1812022 ][dated29.03.2022. The said]judgment passed by this Court [has ]also been [subsequently ][followed]in a large number [of ][writ ][petitions ][which ][were ][allowed ][on ][similar]terms. The contention contention of [[the ][petitioner ]][[petitioner ]][[is ][that ][the ][issue ][of]][[that ][the ][issue ][of]][[the ][issue ][of]][[issue ][of]][[of]] 5. Down the line, we find that the same issue has also beendecided against the Revenue by various High Courts i.e.,by the Bombay High Court in the case of HEXAWARETECHNOLOGIES LTD., vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX & OTHERS2, Gauhati High Court in the caseof RAM NARAYAN SAH vs. UNION OF INDIA3, 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. ] COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX5 where the issue was [in]respect of intemational taxation, Bombay High Court in the case ofABHIN ANILKUMAR SHAH VS. INCOME TAX OFFICBR,INTERNATIONAL TAXATION6 which is again on intemationaltaxation and central circle, High Court of Himachal Pradesh in thecase of GOVIND SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERT,Gujarat High Court in the case of MANSUKHBHAI 'lzoz+1464 [430 ][(Bom)]'l(2024) [156 ][taxmann.com 478 ][(Gauhati)l]^l(2024) [165 ][taxmann.com ][115 ][(Punjab ][& ][Haryana)l]' 12024) [167 ][taxmann.com 411 ][(Telangana)l]" 12024) [166 ][taxmann.com 679 ][(Bombay)l]' [2024) [165 ][taxmann.com ][113 ][(Himachal ][Pradesh)]] DAHYABHAI RADADIYA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 3(3Xr8, Jharkand High Court in the case of SHyAMSTINDAR SAW vs. UNION OF INDIAe, Rajasthan High Courr inthe case of SHARDA DEVI CHHAJER vs. INCOME TAXOFFICER & ANOTHER and batch .of writ petitionsr0 whichstood decided oo 19.03.2024. Similar views have also been takenby the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in the case ofGIRDHAR GOPAL DALMIA vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS(M.A.T 1690 of 2023), deciiled on25.09.2024.6. Even though the same issue having been decided by a largenumber of High Courts, we are still confronted with large filing ofidentical matters on daily basis ranging between 5 to l0 writpetitions. 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 HexawqreTechnologies Ltd., (2 supra) as also the one which has beendecided by this Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy 82024SCC Online Guj 4012'2025 [Online ][llnr ][287]'o 12023 [: ] [:49 ][84-D ] l - (l supra) has been subjected to [challenge ][in ][a ][Special ][Leave]Petition i.e., SLP No.3574 of [2024 ][before ][the Hon'ble ][Supreme]Court and the Hon'ble [Supreme ][Court ][is ][seized ][of ][the ][matter.]In addition, there are [about ][1200 ][SLPs ][also ][filed ][arising out ][ofthe]same issue being decided [by various High ][Courts] 1. To a query being [put ]to [the ][leamed counsel ][for the ][Revenue,]they have categorically [accepted ][the ][fact ][that ][there ][is ][no ][interim]order granted by the [Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Court ][in ][any ][of ][these]matters pending before it. [Meanwhile, ][fiesh ][writ ][petitions ][of]identical nature are being [piled ][up before ][this ][Bench ][on ][daily ][basis]and the pendency [is ][getting ][increased ][on ][matter ][which ][otherwise]has already been dealt [and decided ][by this ][very ][High ][Court ][itself'] 8. On the one hand, even [though ][the order ][of this ][Court ][that]was passed as early as on [14.09.2023 ][and ][more ][16 ][months ][have]lapsed, till date, [we ][do not ][find ][any remedial ][steps ][having ][been]taken by the Income [Tax ][Department ][to ][take appropriate ][steps ][to]either hold back [issuance ][of ][notice under Section ][l48A ][and under]Section 148 of [the ][Act ][by ][the ][jurisdictional ][Assessing ][Officer,]rather the authorities [concemed ][in ][the teeth ][of ][series ][of ][decisions] r( by all the major High Courts in India are continuously stiliinitiating proceedings under Section r4gA of the Act and alsoinitiating proceedings under Section r4g of the Act incontravention to the amendments brought into the Income Tax Actinitiating proceedings under Section r4gA of the Act and alsoinitiating proceedings under Section r4g of the Act incontravention to the amendments brought into the Income Tax Actpursuant to the Finance Act,2020 as also.the Finance Act202l. r( by all the major High Courts in India are continuously stiliinitiating proceedings under Section r4gA of the Act and alsoinitiating proceedings under Section r4g of the Act incontravention to the amendments brought into the Income Tax Actinitiating proceedings under Section r4gA of the Act and alsoinitiating proceedings under Section r4g of the Act incontravention to the amendments brought into the Income Tax Actpursuant to the Finance Act,2020 as also.the Finance Act202l. 9. Upon a query being put as to why can,t this wnt petition bedisposed of in the teeth of the decision rendered by this Court inthe case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (1 supra), leamed StandingCounsel for the Income Tax Department contends that those wouldunnecessarily burden ihe lncome Tax Department where theywould be required to file equal number of SLps before theHon'ble Supreme Court and it would be further burdening theexchequer of the Union of India. It was also the contention of thelearned Standing Counsel that no prejudice would be caused to theinterest of the petitioners in case if this writ petition is kept pendingtill the finalization of the SLps pending before the Hon,bleSupreme Court and the fact that the petitioner is already enjoyingthe benefit of interim protection. Nonetheless, on the earlier queryof this Court as to why the Income Tax Department have not comeout with a mechanism to issue appropriate instructions or to take r appropriate steps in ensuring that [proceedings ][under Section ][148A]of the Act as also the assessment [orders ][under Section ][148 ][of ][the]Act are kept in a hold in the light ofthe [decisions dedcided ][by ][the]various High Courts, it was submitted by [the ][learned ][Standing]Counsel that the said steps can [only ][be ][taken ][at ][the ][level of CBDT]as any such steps would have to be [taken ][Pan ][India ][and ][cannot ][be]limited to any of these [jurisdictional High ][Courts.] 10. As a result of which, what [we ][are ][facing ][is ][steep ][increase ][of]litigation day in and day out even [though various ][orders ][have been]passed by this High Courl altowing writ [petitions ][on the ][very ][same]issue. The Income Tax authorities [concerned are ][still ][even ][now ][in]2025 also initiating proceedings [in ]contravention [to ][the ][provisions]of Section 151A of the [Act ][and ][as ][a ][result ][by now, ][more ][than 600]to 700 [petitions ]have been [already ][got ][piled up ][before this High]Court on an issue which otherwise [stands squarely covered ][by ][the]judgment of this Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy(1 supra). What is also surprising is the fact [that ][though ][while]allowing the writ [petitions ]in the [case ][of ][Kanakala ][Ravindra]Reddy (l supra), the Division [Bench ][while ][reserving ][the ][right ][of]the Revenue, has [also ][protected ][the ][interest ][of ][the ][petitioners] insofar as the liberty which was granted to the Revenue forinitiating fresh proceedings strictly in accordance with the amendedinitiating fresh proceedings strictly in accordance with the amendedprovisions of the Act, as amended by the Finance Act, 2020 andthe Finance Act,202l. The petitioner assessee would be entitled tochallenge or raise the other legal objections iIthe Revenue initiatesflesh proceedings. The Department has made no endeavour inavailing the said liberty that was reserved for the Revenue. On thethe Finance Act,202l. The petitioner assessee would be entitled tochallenge or raise the other legal objections iIthe Revenue initiatesflesh proceedings. 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 already held to bebad.High Court as well as many other High Courts already held to bebad. 11. It appears that because ofthe aforesaid liberty that.this HighCourt had granted 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 them to meet thelimitation that would otherwise come in the way. Likewise, if thewrit petition is kept pending for a considerable long period of timeand finally at a later stage if the Hon'ble Supreme Court confirmsthe decision taken by this High Court as also by the other HighCourts in which the SLPs are still pending, the Income Tax would [get the ][advantage ][of ][the ][liberty ][that ][is ][otherwise]Department in favour of [the ][Revenue ][for ][initiation ][of ][fresh]protected proceedings from the [disposal ][ofthese ][matters at ][a ][much later ][stage]which woutd be [advantageous ][and beneficial ][to ][the ][Revenue ][and]would be equally [disadvantageous ][and ][detrimental ][so ][far ][as ][interest]of the assesses [are ][concerned. As ][a ][consequence, ][the ][Income Tax]Department [gets ][an ][extended ][period ][of ][time ][for ][initiation ][of ][fresh]proceedings 12. The alarming [trend ][of ][docket explosion in this Court, ][despite]the clear precedent [setin ][Kanakala Ravindra ][Reddy ][(l ][supra), ][is ][a]matter of [grave concem. ][The ][Income ][Tax ][Department's persistent]initiation of fresh [proceedings, disregarding the ][established ][judicial]pronouncements, [has ][led ][to ][an ][unprecedented ][surge ][in ][litigation]with over 600-700 [petitions ][piling up on ][the ][same ][issue' ][This]deliberateapproachnotonlyunderminestheprincipleofjudicialprecedent but also [strains the ][judicial ][resources ][unnecessarily' The]Department's strategy [of ][awaiting the ][Supreme ][Court's decision ][on]while [continuing ][to ][initiate ][fresh ][proceedings]pending SLPs to be a [calculated ][move ][to ][buy time ][and ][circumvent]appears limitation [periods, rather ][than ][adhering ][to ][the ][established ][legal] position. Such conduct raises serious questions about theadministrative efficiency and the respect for judicialpronouncernents, 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 Income Tax Department itself andshould have found out via media in ensuring that proceedingsunder Sections 148-4 and'148 should not have been issued in afaceless manner, at least till the Hon'ble Supreme Court decide thetwelve hundred (1200) odd SLPs which it is already seized ofor, atleast the Income Tax Department should have found 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 Income Tax Department, has not been able to give aconvincing reply, except for the fact that such a decision if at all has to be taken, [has ][to ][be ][taken ][for ][the whole ][of ][India, ][and ][which]otherwise has to be [by way ][ofa ][policy ][decision ][and ][that too ][at ][the]level of Central [Board ]of [Direct ][Taxes. ][Though ][the ][leamed]Standing Counsel [for ][the ][Income ][Tax ][Department ][contended that]the Delhi High Court [dismissed ][a ][writ ][petition ][of ][similar ][nature, on]the one hand when [the ][High ][Court ][is ][struggling ][to ][reduce ][its]pendency, such notices [which ][are ][under challenge ][in ][this ][writ]petition are forcing the assessee [to ][knock the ][doors ][of ][this ][High]Court resulting [in ][filing ][of ][hundreds ][of ][new ][writ ][petitions ][which in]the long run not [only ][affects the disposal ][of ][the ][writ ][petitions ][but]also consumes [substantial ][time ][of ][the ][Bench ][in ][hearing ][these]matters again and again [on daily ][basis. ][Admittedly, ][in ][spite ][of ][the]matter before the Hon'ble [Supreme ][Court having ][been ][taken ][on]many occasions, the [Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Court which is ][seized ][of ][the]matter has been reluctant [in ][granting any ][interim ][protection ][to ][the]Income Tax Department' [Yet, the ][authorities ][concerned ][at ][the]State level are not [ready ][to ][accept the ][verdict ][passed ][by ][a ][majority]of High Courts of [different ][States ][on the ][same ][issue; ][and ][to ][make]things further worse, [the ][Income ][Tax ][Department ][is ][showing]audacity by issuing [notices ][continuously ][under ][Sections ][148-4 ][and] .......:'. 148 through the [jurisdictional ][Assessing ][Officer ][whereas ][it ][ought]to have been only in the faceless [manner.] 14. In the case of BANK OF [vs. ] COMMISSIONE& INCOME [TAXIr, ][on ][an issue ][whether ][it ][was]justifiable on the part ol the Income Tax Department in [not]following an order [passed ]by the [adjudicating authority ][only ][on ][the]ground that the appeals are [pending, ]the [Division ][Bench ][of ][the]I{igh Court of Bombay held at [paragraph ][No.25 ][as ][under, ][viz., ][:] "25. Mr. Paridwalla has rightly drawn [out ][attention ][to ][the]decision of this Court [in ]Commissioner [of ][lncome ][Tax ][vs. ][Smt']Godavaridevi Sarafl2 as also the [recent decision ][of ][the ][co-]ordinate Bench of this Court [in ]Samp [Furniture ][(P) ][Ltd. v. ][lTO13]of which one of us [(Justice G.S. Kulkarni) was ][a ][member, wherein]the Court categorically observed that [the ][Revenue ][having ][not]"accepted" the.iudgment of the High Court would [not mean that ][till]the same is set aside [in a manner known ][to ][law, it would loose ][its]binding force. Referring to the decision [of the Supreme Court ][in]Union of lndia vs. Kamlakshi [Finance Corporation ][Ltd.14, ][the]Court observed that the approach [of the ][officials ][of ][Revenue ][of]treating decisions being ["not ]acceptable" [was ][criticized ][by ][the]Supreme Court. ln such decision, [following ][are the ][relevant]observations made by lhe [Supreme ][Court.] " 11zozs; [170 ][taxmann.com 422 ][(Bombay)l] '' 1r9281 [113 ] [589 ][(Bombay)]t3 720241165 taxmann.com 581/300 Taxman 452 (Bombay) 'a ltggzltaxmann.com [16/55 ] [433 (SC)] ! / ,/, " 11zozs; [170 ][taxmann.com 422 ][(Bombay)l] '' 1r9281 [113 ] [589 ][(Bombay)]t3 720241165 taxmann.com 581/300 Taxman 452 (Bombay) 'a ltggzltaxmann.com [16/55 ] [433 (SC)] ! / ,/, "6. Sri Reddy is perhaps right in [saying ][that ][the]officers were not [actuated ][by any ][mala fides ][in]passing the impugned orders. [They ][perhaps]genuinely felt that the claim of [the ][assessee ][was ][not]tenable and that, [if ][it ][was ][accepted, ][the ][Revenue]would suffer. [But ][what ][Sri Reddy overlooks is that we]are not concerned [here ][with ][the ][correctness ][or]otherwise of their [conclusion ][or ][of ][any ][factual]malafides but with [the fact that ][the ][officers, in reaching]in their conclusion, [by-passed two appellate ][orders ][in]regard to the same [issue which ][were ][placed ][before]them, one of the [Collector (Appeals) ][and the ][other ][of]the Tribunal. The [High ][Court ][has, ][in our ][view' ][rightly]criticized this conduct [of the Assistant ][Collectors and]the harassment to [tie ][assessee caused ][by ][the failure]of these officers to [give ][effect ][to ][the ][orders ][of]authorities [higher to them ][in ][the appellate ][hierarchy ][lt]cannot be too [vehemently emphasized ][that ][it is ][of]ulmost importance [that, ][in ][disposing ][of ][the]quasUudicial issues before them, [revenue ][officers ][are]bound by the decisions [of ][the ][appellate ][authorities']The order of the [Appellte Collector ][is ][binding on the]Assistant Collectors [working within his jurisdiction and]the order of the [Tribunal is binding upon the Assistant]Collectors and the [Appellate ][Collectors ][who ][function]under the [jurisdiction of ][the ][Tribunal. ][The principles ][of]judicial discipline require that the [orders ][of ][the ][higher]appellate authorities [should be followed ][unreservedly]by the subordinate [authorities. ][The mere ][fact ][that the]order of the appellate [authority ][is ][not ]["acceptable" ][to]the department - [in ][itself ][an ][objectionable phrase ][-]and is the subject [mafter ][of ][an ][appeal can ][furnish ][no]ground for not following [it ][untess ][its ][operation ][has]been suspended [by ][a ][competent ][court. ][lf ][this ][healthy]/ rule is not followed, the result will only be undueharassment to assesses and chaos in administrationof tax laws. 12. We have dealt with this aspect at some length,because it has been suggested by the learnedAdditional Solicitor General that. the observationsmade by the High Court, have been harsh on theofficers. lt is clear tha( the observations of the HighCourt, seemingly vehement, and apparenflyunpalatable to the Revenue, are only intended lo curba tendency in revenue mafters which, if allowed tobecome widespread, could result in considerableharassment to the assesses-public without any benefitto the Revenye. We would like to say that thedepartment should take these observations in theproper spirit. The observations of the High Courtshould be kept in mind in future and the utmost regardshould be paid by the adjudicating authorities and theappellate authorities to the requirements of judicialdiscipline and the need for giving effect to the ordersof the higher appellate authorities which are bindingon them." I 5. What is worrying this Bench more is the fact that an endeavour is being made whole heartedly to ensure not to generatefurther litigation on issues which have been laid to rest by a largenumber of Fligh Courts all of whom have taken a consistent standfurther litigation on issues which have been laid to rest by a largenumber of Fligh Courts all of whom have taken a consistent standthat the action of the Income Tax Department being violative of the I 5. What is worrying this Bench more is the fact that an endeavour is being made whole heartedly to ensure not to generatefurther litigation on issues which have been laid to rest by a largenumber of Fligh Courts all of whom have taken a consistent standfurther litigation on issues which have been laid to rest by a largenumber of Fligh Courts all of whom have taken a consistent standthat the action of the Income Tax Department being violative of the Finance Act,2020 and Finance Act,2021. [Now, ][in order ][to ][protect]the interest of the Revenue. as also [that ][of ][the ][assessee, ][it ][would ][be]trite at this [juncture, ]if we dispose of [the ][writ ][petition ][with ][an]observation/direction that the disposal [of ][the instant ][writ ][petition ][in]terms of the [judgment ]rendered by [this ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]Kankanala Ravindra Reddy (l supra) [shall however be ][subject to]the outcome of the SLPs which [were ]filed by [the ][Income ][Tax]Department and which is [pending consideration before the ][Hon'ble]Supreme Court 16. In the given facts and circumstances, [this ][Bench ][is ][of ][the]considered opinion that unless and [until ][we ][do not ][timely ][dispose]of matters which are squarely covered by [the decision ][of ][this Court]and which stands fortified by the decisions of [the various ][other]High Courts on the very same issue, the [pendency ][of ][this ][High]Court would further be burdened [which ][otherwise ][can ][be ][decided]and disposed of as a covered matter. 17. So far as the interest of the [Revenue ][is ][concemed, ][we ][are ][of] the considered opinion that the [interest ][of ][the ][Revenue ][has ][already]been considered and protected, [as ][has ][been observed ][in ][paragraphs] 36, 37 and 38 of the order which, for ready reference, is reproducedhereunder: 36. For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned noticesissued and the proceedings drawn by the respondent-Department is neither tenable. nor SUstainable.The notices so issued and the procedure adopted beingper se illegal, deserves to be and are accordingly setaside/quashed. As a consequence, all the impugnedorders getting quashed, the consequential orders passedby the respondent-Department pursuant to the noticesissued under Seclion 147 and ['l ]48 would also getquashed and it is ordered accordingly. The reason weare quashing the consequential order is on the principlesthat when thq initiation of the proceedings itself wasprocedurally wrong, the subsequent orders atso 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-time measureexercising the powers under Article 142 of theConstitution of lndia, permitted the Revenue to proceedunder the substituted provisions, and this Court allowingthe petitions onty on the procedural flaw, the right confened 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. 38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the caseof Ashish Agarwal, supra, as a one-time measureexercising the powers under Article 142 of theConstitution of lndia, permitted the Revenue to proceedunder the substituted provisions, and this Court allowingthe petitions onty on the procedural flaw, the right confened 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. 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 ofKanukala Ravindra Reddy (1 supra) is subjected to challengebefore the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No.3574 of 2024,preferred by the lncome T4x Department, we make it clear thatallowing of the instant, writ petition is subject to outcome of theaforesaid SLP preferred by the Revenue against the decision of thisHigh Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra).This, in other words, would mean that either of the parties, if theyso want, may move an appropriate petition seeking revival of thiswrit petition in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble SupremeCourt in the pending SLP on the very same issue. 19. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands allowed1nfavour of the assessee so far as the issue of jurisdiction isconcemed. As a consequence, the impugned notice underchallenge under Sections 148-A and 148 stands set aside/quashed. {( The consequential orders, if any, also stand set asidduashed in similar terms as have been passed by this High Court in the case of Kankanala Ravindra Reddy (l supra). There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/. AHMED ABDULLAH KHAN ASSISTANT REGISTRAR REGISTRARsEKffi oFFrcER [I] //TRUE COPY' To, 1. lncome Tax Officer, Ward 10i1), Hyderabad lT Tower, AC Guards, MasabTank, Hyderabad 500004Tank, Hyderabad 500004 2. Principal Commissioner'of lncome Tax- 1, lT Tower, AC Guards, [It/asab]Tank, Hyderabad 500004, TelanganaTank, Hyderabad 500004, Telangana 4. The National Faceless Assessment Centre, lncome Tax Department Ministryof Finance, Government of lndia, New Delhi.of Finance, Government of lndia, New Delhi. 3. One CC to SRl. POLKAMPALLY PAVAN KUIVAR RAO Advocate 4. One CC to Ms. J SUNITHA (JUNIOR SC FOR INCOME TAX) AdvocateloPUClloPUCl 5. One CC to Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar, Deputy Solicitor General of lndia 6Two CD CopiesKKSTKa HIGH COURT DATED:2410412025 ORDERWP.No.4518 of 2025 ,/.^''\,,,r(/i [:)]r'i()0I SEP 2025rlI*.1)a);>..,. i. ri.t 1..y' ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITIONWITHOUT COSTS 4