Wp/5109/2025 Of Leelavathi Arava v. Income Tax Officer

HIGH COURT AT HYDERABAD(SPecial Original [Jurisdiction)] THURSDAY, ...- _TWOTHOUSAND AND TWENTY PRESENT THE HONOURABLE [JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY]ANDTHE HONOURABLE [SRI IUSTJd.iT'TNNSING RAO NANDIKONDA] WRIT PETITION[NO: ][510][90] [2025] Leelavathi [Arava, ][D/o: ][Rama-swamy ][, ][fraya ][aoed ][about ][66 ][years']Occ.Business, [ruo ][Uli.f;. ][f ][O)-f ][gS ][Bfu6chip, Enclreichment ][Road' ][1st ][Floor']Nehru [Nasar, ][r,ti ]['i7"t'r.Eo-pi[v ][-s""J"3"toiua' ][500026' ][Hvderabad']Telangana Between: ...PETITIONER AND 1lncome Tax [Officer, Ward ][8-(1), ][Hyderabad ][Signat.ure ][Towers' ][Sy ][No ][6(P) of]Kondour Kothaquda, [opp. ][d;i;;;A;idiroens"Serltingampally, ][R.R. District]iivoe|auao, [Telangana-500084]*Ga Kondour Kothaquda, [opp. ][d;i;;;A;idiroens"Serltingampally, ][R.R. District]iivoe|auao, [Telangana-500084]*Ga Principal [Commissioner ][ot ][lncome ][Tax- ][2' ][Signature ][Towers' ][Sv ][No ][6(P) ][of]rd-e nd [s ][e ][ri ][t ][i ][n ][g ][am ][pa ][l ][ly, ] [R' ][District]rd-e nd [s ][e ][ri ][t ][i ][n ][g ][am ][pa ][l ][ly, ] [R' ][District]Ko nct ou r Kothaq [ud ][a, ][u ][pp. ][g ][Jt ][n ][i;r ][r ]HvoeiaOaO, [Telangana-500084]HvoeiaOaO, [Telangana-500084] The National [Faceless Assessment ][Centre' ][lncome ][Tax ][Department ][Ministry]oi FinunC" [Govt. of lndia, New ][Delhi]oi FinunC" [Govt. of lndia, New ][Delhi] J ...RESPONDENTS Petition under [Article ][226 of ][the ][Constitution ][of ][lndia ][praying ][that ][in ][the]circumstances [stated ][in ][the ][affidavit ][filed ][therewith' ][the ][High Court ][may ][be]pleased to l. lssue [a ][Writ, Order ][or ][Direction more particularly' ][one' in ][the ][nature]of wrii of [Mandamus, declaring the action ][of ][the ][Respondent ][No ][2 in ][passing ][an]Order dated [2glX3l2l23u/s ][148A(d) ][and ][Notice ][u/s' ][148 ][dated ][31/03/2023 calling]for income [for ][A.Y. ][2016-17 ][as illegal' arbitrary' bad ][in law ][and ][violative of Articles]14, [1 ]9 [and ][265 ][of ][the ][Constitution ][of ][lndia ][ll' ][Set ][aside ][the ][Order ][dated]29lO3l2023ut [s. ][148A(d) ][and ][Notice ][issued ][by ][Respondent ][No'2 ][u/s' ][148 ][of]lncome [Tax ][Act, ][1961 ][dated ][3110312023 ][calling ][for the ][return ][of ][income ][of ][the]Petitioner for [A'Y. ][2016-17 ][and ][the ][consequent assessment ][order ][dated] 2610312024 and any consequent proceedings incruding penarty proceedings aslacking in jurisdiction and. Ir. set aside the notices issued u/s 226 dated2311212024 attaching the bank accounts, deposits maintained with maintained withstate Bank of lndia, Nariman point, Mumbai, Bank of Baroda (Vijaya Bank)sandra Kurla comprex, I\,4umbai and canara Bank, JC Road Bangarore as beingstate Bank of lndia, Nariman point, Mumbai, Bank of Baroda (Vijaya Bank)sandra Kurla comprex, I\,4umbai and canara Bank, JC Road Bangarore as beingillegal, arbitrary and contrary to law. lV. lA NO: 1 OF 202s Petition under section 1si cpc praying that in the circumstances stated inthe affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to directthe Department to lift the attachment and not to take any further coercive steps forrecovery of demand and stay the recovery of demand pursuant to the Assessmentorder passed by the lncome Tax Department under Section 147 rlw section .144and section 1448 of the rncome Tax Act, i96'1 dated26/o3r2o24 for AssessmentYear 2016-17 and penalty orders and direct the Department to not take anycoercive steps for recovery of demand. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI pOLKAMPALLY PAVAN KUMAR RAO counsel for the Respondents: MS. J suNrrHA (JUNroR sc FoR tNcoME TAx)The Court made the following: ORDER ] TIIE HONOURABLE [P.SAM ] ANDTIIE HONOURABLE NANDIKONDA W.P.No.5109 0F [2025] ORDER, [(per ][Hon'bte ][Sri ][Justice ][P-Sam ][Koshy)] Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI pOLKAMPALLY PAVAN KUMAR RAO counsel for the Respondents: MS. J suNrrHA (JUNroR sc FoR tNcoME TAx)The Court made the following: ORDER ] TIIE HONOURABLE [P.SAM ] ANDTIIE HONOURABLE NANDIKONDA W.P.No.5109 0F [2025] ORDER, [(per ][Hon'bte ][Sri ][Justice ][P-Sam ][Koshy)] Heard Mr. [Polkampally ][Pavan ][Kumar ][Rao, leamed counsel]for the [petitioner ][and ][Ms. ][J. ][Sunitha, ][learned ][Junior ][Standing]Counsel for [the ][Income ][Tax ][Department ][for ][respondent ][Nos'l ][and]2. 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, ][1961 ][(ior ][short 'the ][Act') ][or ][the]assessment [orders those ][have ][been ][passed ][under ][Section ][147 ][of]the Act which [have been assailed'] This writ [[petition ][is ][being taken ]][[is ][being taken ]][[being taken ]][[up ][today only ]][[today only ]][[on ][one ]][[one ]][[of ][the]][[the]] 3. This writ [[petition ][is ][being taken ]][[is ][being taken ]][[being taken ]][[up ][today only ]][[today only ]][[on ][one ]][[one ]][[of ][the]][[the]]that the [notices ][issued ][under Section ][148,{ ][of ][the ][Act]grounds, 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] ofFinanceAct,2O2lw.e.f',01'04'2021onwards'proceedings under Section 1484. of the Act as also under Section 14g of theAct ought to have also been issued and proceeded in a facelessmanner4. The contention of the petitioner is that the issue ofproceedings being in violation of the Finance Act,202l i.e., theimpugned notices under Section 14gA and Section l4g of the Actnot being issued in a faceless manner, have already been dealt withand decided by this Court in the case of KANKANALARAWNDRA REDDY vs. INCOME_TAX OFFICERT decidedon 14.09.2023 whereby a batch of writ petitions were allowed andthe proceedings initiated under Section r4gA as arso under Section148 of the Act were held to be bad with consequential reliefs on theground of it being in violation of the provisions of Section r51A ofthe Act read with Notificarion lgl2OZZ dated 29.03.2022. The saidjudgment passed by this Court has also been subsequently followedin a large number of writ petitions which were alrowed on similar terms. 'l(2023) 156 taxmann.com l7g (Telangana)l n 5. Down the line, [we ][find ][that ][the ][same ][issue ][has ][also been]decided [against ][the ][Revenue ][by ][various ][High ][Courts ][i'e'']the [Bombay ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ] by TECTINOLOGIES [LTD., ][VS. ] OF INCOME [TAX & ][OTHERS2, ][Gauhati ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case]of RAM [SAH vs' ][UNION OF INDIA3' ][Punjab ][and]Haryana [High ][Court ][in the ][case ][of ] vs. UNION [INDIA4, ][and Telangana ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]SRI VENKATARAMANA [VS. ] COMMISSIONER [where the ][issue ][was in]of [international taxation, ][Bombay ][High ][Court ][in ][the case ][of]respect ABHTN ANILKUMAR [VS. ] [OFFICER,]INTERNATIONAL [which is ][again ][on ][intemational]taxation [and ][central circle, ][High ][Court ][of ][Himachal ][Pradesh ][in ][the]case of [vs' ] [OFFICEI{']Gujarat High [Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ] 2 t20241464 ITR 430 (Bom)' iAnzil [1 ][56 ][taxmann'com ][478 ][( ][Gauhati)l]^iizozqj [165 ][taxmann'com ][115 ][(Punjab ][& ][Haryana)l]'lzoz+1167 [taxmann.com ][41 ] [(Telangana)l]"izozl) [66 taxmann.com ][679 ][(Bombay)l]'i;;t;;; [ioi ][iu*ro*.'om ] [l3 ][(Himachal ][Pradesh)l] 2 t20241464 ITR 430 (Bom)' iAnzil [1 ][56 ][taxmann'com ][478 ][( ][Gauhati)l]^iizozqj [165 ][taxmann'com ][115 ][(Punjab ][& ][Haryana)l]'lzoz+1167 [taxmann.com ][41 ] [(Telangana)l]"izozl) [66 taxmann.com ][679 ][(Bombay)l]'i;;t;;; [ioi ][iu*ro*.'om ] [l3 ][(Himachal ][Pradesh)l] DAITYABTIAT RADADIYA vs. INCOME TAx OFFICER,OFFICER,WARD 3(3)(18, Jharkand High Courr in the case of SHyAMSUNDAR SAW vs. UNION OF INDIAe, Rajasthan High Courr inthe case of SHARDA DEVI CHHAJER vs. INCOME TAXOFFICER & ANOTHER and batch of writ petitionsro whichstood decided on 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), decided 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 ofiCentical matters on daily basis ranging between 5 to l0 writby the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in the case ofGIRDHAR 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 decided by a largenumber of High Courts, we are still confronted with large filing ofiCentical matters on daily basis ranging between 5 to l0 writpetitions. That upon the instructions being sought ffom theDepartment, they have been taking a solitary ground that 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 beendecided by this Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra ReddyReddy '2024 [Online ]Guj 4012'2025 SCC Online Jhar 287I o 72023 [: ] [: ][498 ]4-DBl a has been [subj ][ected ][to ][challenge ][in ][a ][Special ][lrave](1 supra) Petition [i.e., ] [No'3574 ][of ][2024 ][before ][the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme]Court and [the ][Hon'bte ][Supreme ][Court ][is ][seized ][of ][the ][matter']In addition, [there ][are ][about ][1200 ][SLPs also ][filed ][arising ][out ][ofthe]same issue [being ][decided ][by ][various ][High ][Courts'] 7. To a query [being ][put ][to ][the ][learned counsel ][for ][the Revenue']have [categorically ][accepted ][the ][fact ][that ][there ][is ][no interim]they order [granted ][by ][the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Court ][in ][any ][of ][these]matters [pending before ][it' ][Meanwhile' fresh ][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 atready [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]till [date, ][we ][do ][not find ][any ][remedial ][steps ][having ][been]lapsed, taken by the [Income ][Tax ][Department to ][take ][appropriate ][steps to]either hold [back ][issuance ][ofnotice ][under Section ][148A ][and ][under]Section [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 Courls in India are continuously stillinitiating proceedings under Section l4gA of the Act and alsoinitiating proceedings under Section l4g of the Act incontravention to the amendments brought into the Income Tax Actpursuant to the Finance Act,2020as also the Finance Act202l.9. Upon a query being put as to why can,t this writ petition beinitiating proceedings under Section l4gA of the Act and alsoinitiating proceedings under Section l4g of the Act incontravention to the amendments brought into the Income Tax Actpursuant to the Finance Act,2020as also the Finance Act202l.9. Upon a query being put as to why can,t this writ petition bedisposed of in the teeth of the decision rendered by this Court inthe case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (I supra), learned StandingReddy (I supra), learned StandingCounsel for the Income Tax Department contends that those wouldunnecessarily burden the Income Tax Department where theywould be required to file equal nurnber of slps before theHon'ble theywould be required to file equal nurnber 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 theleamed Standing Counsel that no prejudice would be caused to theleamed Standing Counsel that no prejudice would be caused to theinterest of the petitioners in case ifthis writ petition is kept pendingtill the finalization of the SLps pending before rhe Hon,bleSupreme Court and the fact that the petitioner is already enjoyingtill the finalization of the SLps pending before rhe Hon,bleSupreme Court and the fact that the petitioner is already enjoyingthe benefit of interim protection. Nonetheless, on the earlier queryof this Court as to why the Income Tax Department have not comeof this Court as to why the Income Tax Department have not comeout with a mechanism to issue appropriate instructions or to take .1 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 ] as any such [steps ][would ][have ][to be taken Pan ][India ][and cannot ][be]limited to [any of ][these ][jurisdictional High ][Courts'] l0.Asaresultofwhich,whatwearefacingissteepincreaseoflitigation [day in ][and day ][out ][even ][though various ][orders ][have ][been]passed by [this ][High ][Court ][allowing ][writ ][petitions ][on ][the very ][same]issue. [The Income ][Tax ][authorities ][concemed are ][still ][even ][now ][in]2025 also [initiating ][proceedings ][in ][contravention to the provisions]of Section [151,{ ][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 ][Ravindta]Reddy (l [supra), ][the ][Division ][Bench ][while ][reserving the ][right ][of]the Revenue, [has also ][protected ][the ][interest ][of ][the ][petitioners] insofar as the riberty which was granted to the Revenue forinitiating fresh proceedings strictry in accordance with the amendedprovisions of the Act, as amended by the Financ e Act, 2020 and.the Finance Act,202r. The petitioner assessee would be entitled tochallenge or raise the other legal objections if the Revenue initiatesfresh proceedings. The Department has made no endeavour inavailing the said liberty that was reseryed 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. insofar as the riberty which was granted to the Revenue forinitiating fresh proceedings strictry in accordance with the amendedprovisions of the Act, as amended by the Financ e Act, 2020 and.the Finance Act,202r. The petitioner assessee would be entitled tochallenge or raise the other legal objections if the Revenue initiatesfresh proceedings. The Department has made no endeavour inavailing the said liberty that was reseryed 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. I 1. It appears that because of the aforcsaid liberty that this Highcourt had granted permitting the Revenue for initiating freshliberty that this Highcourt had granted permitting the Revenue for initiating freshproceedings as a one_time measure in a faceless manner, themanner, 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 Highprotracting 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\\ Department [would ][get ][the advantage ][of ][the ][liberty ][that ][is ][otherwise]protected in [favour ][of ][the ][Revenue ][for ][initiation ][of ][fresh]proceedings [from ][the ][disposal ][ofthese ][matters at ][a ][much later ][stage]which [would ][be ][advantageous][ 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 ][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 ][Thx ][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]deliberate [approach ][not ][only ][undermines ][the ][principle ][ofjudicial]but [also strains ][the ][judicial ][resources ][unnecessarily' ][The]precedent Department's [strategy ][of ][awaiting the ][Supreme ][Court'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 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 tnterests. 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 tnterests. 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 14g should not have been issued in afaceless manner, at least till the Hon,ble Supreme Court decide thetwelve hundred (1200) odd SLps whichit is already seized ofor, atleast the Income Tax Department should have fbund out someremedial steps to ensure that wherever the authorities intend toinitiate proceedings under Sections l4g-A and 14g, 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 ,'1 has to be [taken, ][has ][to ][be ][taken for the ][whole ][of ][India' ][and ][which]otherwise [has ][to ][be ][by ][way ][of ][a ][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]theonehandwhentheHighCourtisstrugglingtoreduceitspendency, [such notices ][which ][are ][under ][challenge ][in ][this ][writ]are [forcing ][the ][assessee ][to knock ][the ][doors ][of ][this High]petition 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]matterbeforetheHon,blesupremeCourthavingbeentakenonoccasions' [the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Court ][which ][is seized ][of ][the]many 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-A ][and] 148 through the.jurisdictional Assessing Officer whereas it oughito have been only in the faceless manner.to have been only in the faceless manner. 14. In the case of BANK OF INDIA vs. ASSISTANT coMMrssIoNER, INCOME TAxrl, 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 Division tsench of theHigh Court of Bombay held at paragraph No.25 as under, viz., : 148 through the.jurisdictional Assessing Officer whereas it oughito have been only in the faceless manner.to have been only in the faceless manner. 14. In the case of BANK OF INDIA vs. ASSISTANT coMMrssIoNER, INCOME TAxrl, 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 Division tsench of theHigh Court of Bombay held at paragraph No.25 as under, viz., : "25. Mr. [paridwalla ]has righfly drawn out attention to thedecision of this Court in Gommissioner 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. 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 wourd not mean that tirlthe 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 Corporation Ltd.r4, theCourt observed that the approach of the officials of Revenue oftreating decisions being [.not ]acceptable,, was criticized by theSupreme Court. In such decision, following are the relevantobservations made by the Supreme Court. '' ',', l?!321 .t.t3 *mann.com 42 2 ( B om bay) l[978] I t3 ITR 5891Bombay)[978] I t3 ITR 5891Bombay) ','. 720241 [65 ]taxmann. com 5 [g ]I /3 00 T axman 4 52(Bombay) 'o lq9z1taxmann.com 16/55 ELT 433 (SC) \ '6. Sri Reddy is [perhaps ][right ][in' ][qaying ][that ][the]officers [were]not actuated [bY any ][mala]fides inperhapspassing theimpugned [orders. ][TheY]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]the correctness [or]are not [concerned ][here ][with]otherwise of [their ][conclusion]or of anY [factual]malafides [but ][with ][the ][fact ][that ][the ][officers' in reaching]in their conclusion, [by-passed ][hvo ][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 the ][assessee caused ][by the ][failure]of these [officers ][to ][give effect ][to ][the ][orders ][of]authorities [higher ][to ][them ][in ][the appellate ][hierarchy ][lt]cannot be [too ][vehemently emphasized ][that ][it ][is ][of]utmost importance [that, ][in ][disposing ][of ][the]quasijudicial [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 ][.lurisdiction ][and]the order of [the ][Tribunal is binding upon ][the ][Assistant]Collectors and [the ][Appellate Collectors ][who ][function]under the iurisdiction [of ][the ][Tribunal ][The principles ][of]iudicial [discipline require that ][the ][orders ][of ][the ][higher]authorities [should be followed ][unreservedly]appellate by the subordinate [authorities ][The ][mere ][fact ][that the]order of the [appellate authority ][is ][not ]["acceptable" to]the department - [in itself an ][objectionable phrase ][-]and is the subject [matter of an appeal can furnish ][no]ground for not [following ][it ][unless ][its ][operation ][has]been suspended [by ][a ][competent ][court ][lf ][this ][hellthy] I rule is nol followed, the result will only be undueharassment to assesses and chaos in administrationof tax laws. I rule is nol 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 that the observations of the HighCourt, seemingly vehement, and apparenflyunpalatable to the Revenue, are only intended to curba tendency in revenue matters which, if allowed tobecome widespread, could result in considerableharassment to lhe assesses-public without any benefitto the Revenue. We woulC like to say that thedepartment should lake these observations in theproper spirit. The observations of the High Courtshould be kept in mind in future anl 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." 15' what is worrying this Bench more is the fact that anendeavour is being made whole heartedly to ensure rot to generatefurther litigation on issues which have been laid to rest by a largenumber. of High Courts all of whom have taken a consistent standthat the action of the 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]observatior/direcrion [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]and [which ][is pending consideration before ][the ][Hon'ble]Department Supreme Court. 16. In the [given facts ][and ][circumstances, ][this ][Rench ][is of ][the]considered opinion [that ][unless and ][until'we ][do not ][timely ][dispose]ofmatterswhicharesquarelycoveredbythedecisionofthisCouttand which stands [fortifred ][by ][the ][decisions ][of ][the various ][other]High Courts on [the ][very ][same issue, ][the ][pendency ][of ][this ][High]Courtwouldfurtherbeburdenedwhichotherwisecanbedecidedof [as ][a ][covered matter']and disposed So far as the far as the as the the [[interest ]][[of ][the Revenue ][is ][concemed, ]][[the Revenue ][is ][concemed, ]][[is ][concemed, ]][[concemed, ]][[we ][are ][of]][[are ][of]][[of]] 17 . So far as the far as the as the the [[interest ]][[of ][the Revenue ][is ][concemed, ]][[the Revenue ][is ][concemed, ]][[is ][concemed, ]][[concemed, ]][[we ][are ][of]][[are ][of]][[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 cfthe trciei" wiich, for ready reference, is reprod;ceci hereunder: 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 setasideiquashed. As a consequence, all the impugnedorders getting quashed, the consequential orders passedby the respondent-Department pursuant to lhe noticesissued under Section 147 and l4Bwould 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 getsnullifi ed automatically. 36,37 and 38 cfthe trciei" wiich, for ready reference, is reprod;ceci hereunder: 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 setasideiquashed. As a consequence, all the impugnedorders getting quashed, the consequential orders passedby the respondent-Department pursuant to lhe noticesissued under Section 147 and l4Bwould 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 getsnullifi ed automatically. 37. The preliminary objection raised by the petitioner issuslained 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 raisedand contended in anappropriate proceedings. 38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the caseofAshish Agaruval, supra, as a one-time measureexercising the powers under Article 142 of theConstitution of lndia, permifted the Revenue to proceedunder tlie substituted provisions, and this Court allowingthe petitions only on the procedural flaw, the right conferred on the [Revenue ][would ][remain ][reserved to]proceed further if they so want [from the ][stage ][of ][the]order of the Supreme [Court ][in ][the ][case ][ofAshish]Agarwal, supra. 18. We would only [further ][like ][to make ][observations ][that ][since]we are inclined to [dispose ][of ][the instant ][writ ][petition, ][conscious ][of]the fact that the [earlier order ][of ][this ][High Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]Kanakala Ravindra [Reddy ][(l ][supra) ][is ][subjected ][to ][challenge]before the Hon'ble [Supreme ][Court ][in ][SLP No'3574 ][of ][2024']preferred by the Income [Tax Department, we ][make ][it ][clear ][that]allowing of the [instant ][writ ][petition ][is ][subject ][to ][outcome ][of ][the]aforesaid SLP [preferred by the Revenue against the decision ][of this]High Court in the [case ][of ][Kanakala Ravindra ][Refuly ][(l ][supta)']This, in other [words, ][would ][mean ][that either ][of ][the parties, ][if ][they]so want, may move [an ][appropriate ][petition ][seeking ][revival ][of ][this]writ petition in [the ][light ][of the ][decision ][of ][the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme]Court in the [pending ] [on ][the ][very ][same issue'] 19. Accordingly, [the ][instant ][writ ][petition ][stands ][allowed ][in]favour of the assessee [so ][far ][as ][the ][issue ][of ][jurisdiction ][is]concerned. As. a [consequence, ][the ][impugned ][notice ][under]under [Sections 148-A and ][148 stands set ][aside/quashed']challenge I( The consequential orders, if any, also stand set aside/quashed insimilar 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/.MOHD. ISMAILDEPUTY REGISTRAR6rr-SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, 1lncome Tax Officer.. War.t B(.1 ), Hyd^erabad Signature Towers, Sy. No. 6(p) of[;!! %'Ji:: T3g1tl "?ryd [r??t; ]["i ][i ][c;;#;'"s'" ][lf; ][i,t ][5,,,, ][rv ][n ] [o ][iii,rc ][i' ][-']lncome Tax Officer.. War.t B(.1 ), Hyd^erabad Signature Towers, Sy. No. 6(p) of[;!! %'Ji:: T3g1tl "?ryd [r??t; ]["i ][i ][c;;#;'"s'" ][lf; ][i,t ][5,,,, ][rv ][n ] [o ][iii,rc ][i' ][-'] 2Principal Commissioner of I"'Principal Commissioner of I"'f Rr* [*dn?jll ]#S[r*f+j*Ui:'i,Ar,r-, [H"?,'3'S?lly;3#ffi ][,,i; ]#S[r*f+j*Ui:'i,Ar,r-, [H"?,'3'S?lly;3#ffi ][,,i; ] JJiE A/inisrry[*T3jf:sff:,i:R?Tffi?; [centre, ][Income ][rax ][Deparrment ]JiE A/inisrry[*T3jf:sff:,i:R?Tffi?; [centre, ][Income ][rax ][Deparrment ] stand closed. SD/.MOHD. ISMAILDEPUTY REGISTRAR6rr-SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, 1lncome Tax Officer.. War.t B(.1 ), Hyd^erabad Signature Towers, Sy. No. 6(p) of[;!! %'Ji:: T3g1tl "?ryd [r??t; ]["i ][i ][c;;#;'"s'" ][lf; ][i,t ][5,,,, ][rv ][n ] [o ][iii,rc ][i' ][-']lncome Tax Officer.. War.t B(.1 ), Hyd^erabad Signature Towers, Sy. No. 6(p) of[;!! %'Ji:: T3g1tl "?ryd [r??t; ]["i ][i ][c;;#;'"s'" ][lf; ][i,t ][5,,,, ][rv ][n ] [o ][iii,rc ][i' ][-'] 2Principal Commissioner of I"'Principal Commissioner of I"'f Rr* [*dn?jll ]#S[r*f+j*Ui:'i,Ar,r-, [H"?,'3'S?lly;3#ffi ][,,i; ]#S[r*f+j*Ui:'i,Ar,r-, [H"?,'3'S?lly;3#ffi ][,,i; ] JJiE A/inisrry[*T3jf:sff:,i:R?Tffi?; [centre, ][Income ][rax ][Deparrment ]JiE A/inisrry[*T3jf:sff:,i:R?Tffi?; [centre, ][Income ][rax ][Deparrment ] 4One CC to Sri polkampally pavan Kumar Rao, Advocate tOpUCJtOpUCJ One CC to Azls. J. Sunitha (JUN|OR SC for tncome Tax) [OpUC][OpUC] 6.Two CD CoptesTJeGJPTJeGJP , t{ HIGH COURT DATED:24104t2025 g Tl-lE 5 -'i--,ri ORDER(e[o]i^\'c^\.,:-WP.No.5109 of 2O2S10 sEP 2wtih/- ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITIONWITHOUT COSTS I