Wp/753/2025 Of Anusha Kamishetti v. Income Tax Officer

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF APRILTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION NO: 753 OF 2025 Between: Anusha Kamishetti, W/o. Kamishettivenkateshwar Rao Aged about 42 [years,]Occ.Business, R/o. 1 -8-462-A-1, Beside Venkateswara Temple Chikkadpally,Hyderabad 500020, Andhra Pradesh, lndia Pan. BKYPK19BTK ...PETITIONER , AND 1. lncome Tax Officer, Ward 4(1), Hyderabad lT Towers, AC Guards, MasabTank Hyderabad, Telangana, 500004Tank Hyderabad, Telangana, 500004 2. The Principal Commissioner of lncome Tax - l, Hyderabad lT Towers, MasabTank, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500004.Tank, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500004. 3. The National Faceless Assessment Centre, lncome Tax Department [Ministry]of Finance Govt. of lndia, New Delhi.of Finance Govt. of lndia, New Delhi.4. Union of lndia, Ministry of Finance Rep. by its Secretary, 166-8 North Block,New Delhi - 110 001 ' ...RES'.NDENTSNew Delhi - 110 001 ' ...RES'.NDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India [praying ]that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may [be]pleased to i. lssue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly, one, in the natureof Writ of Mandamus, declaring the order [passed ]by the Respondent [No.2 ][in]passing the Order dated 0710412022 uls. 14BA(d) and Notice issued by theRespondent No.2 under Section 148 ot the lncome Tax Act, 1961dated0710412022 as illegal, arbitrary, bad in law, void ab initio, violative of the [principles]of natural [justice.and ]being violative of Articles 14,19 and 265 of the Constitutionof lndia and consequently, ii. Set aside the Order dated 07tO4l2O22 u/s. 148A(d)and Notice issued by the Respondent No.2 under Section 148 of the lncome TaxAct, 1961 daled O7lO4t2O22 calling for the return of income of the Petitioner forAY 2015-16 and any consequent [proceedings ]including [the ][penalty ][proceedings]as lacking in [jurisdiction. ]iii. Set aside the [notices issued ][u/s ][226 ][dated] ' 18t12t2024 attaching the bank [accounts, ][deposits ][maintained ][with ][Kotak]Mahindra Bank and HDFC Bank [Ltd as ][being ][illegal, arbitrary and contrary ][to ][law.] lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC [praying ][that ][in ][the ][circumstances ][stated ][in]the affidavit filed irr support of [the ][petition, ][the ][High Court may ][be ][pleased ][to]direct the Department to [lift ][the ][attachment ][and ][stay ][the ][recovery ][of ][demand]pursuant to the Assessment order [passed ]by the lncome [Tax ][Department under]Section 147 rtw Section [144 ][and ][Section ][1448 ][of the ][lncome Tax ][Act, ][1961 ][dated]24t0112024 for Assessment [Year ][2015-16 ][and ][penalty ][orders ][Uis.271(1)(c) ][and]271(1)(b) dated 1510712024 and [1110712024, ][and ][direct ][the ][Department ][to ][not]take any coercive steps [for ][recovery of demand.] COUNSEI fOr thE PEtitiONET: Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.1 [3: M/s' ] [REDDY, ][Jr. ] counset ror the Responoent [No.4: ][sRt ][B.MUKHE-iff$tt"J[=J#r*o,]GOVT. The Court made the following: THE HONOT]RABLE [P.SAM ] ANDTHE HONOURABLE NANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION[No.753 ][O] ORDER, [(per ][Hon'ble ][Sri ][Justice ][Narsing ][Rao ][Nandikonda)] Heard Mr. [Polkampally ][Pavan ][Kumar ][Rao' ][learned ][counsel]for the [petitioner, ][Ms. ][B. ][Sapna ][Reddy' ][leamed ][Junior ][Standing]Counsel [for ][the Income ][Tax ][Department ][for ][respondent ][Nos'1 ][to ][3]and Mr. [B. ][Mukherjee, ][leamed counsel representing ][the ][Union ][of]India for [respondent ][No.4' ][Perused the ][record] counset ror the Responoent [No.4: ][sRt ][B.MUKHE-iff$tt"J[=J#r*o,]GOVT. The Court made the following: THE HONOT]RABLE [P.SAM ] ANDTHE HONOURABLE NANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION[No.753 ][O] ORDER, [(per ][Hon'ble ][Sri ][Justice ][Narsing ][Rao ][Nandikonda)] Heard Mr. [Polkampally ][Pavan ][Kumar ][Rao' ][learned ][counsel]for the [petitioner, ][Ms. ][B. ][Sapna ][Reddy' ][leamed ][Junior ][Standing]Counsel [for ][the Income ][Tax ][Department ][for ][respondent ][Nos'1 ][to ][3]and Mr. [B. ][Mukherjee, ][leamed counsel representing ][the ][Union ][of]India for [respondent ][No.4' ][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 ][(for ][short 'the ][Act') ][or ][the]assessment [orders those have been ][passed ][under Section ][147 ][of]the Act which [have been assailed'] 3. This writ [petition ][is ][being ][taken up ][today ][only ][on one ][of ][the]that the [notices ][issued ][under ][Section 1484 ][of ][the ][Act]grounds, and the subsequent [initiation ][ofproceedings ][under Section ][148 ][of]the Act by tht [jurisdictional ][Assessing ][Officer' ][whereas ][in ][terms]oftheamendmentthatwasbroughttothelncomeTaxActbyway of Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f., 01.04.2021 onwards. proceedingsunder Section 1484 of the Act as also under Section 14g of theAct ought trt have also been issued and proceeded in a facelessmanner. 4. The <:ontention of the petitioner is that the issue <:ontention of the petitioner is that the issue of the petitioner is that the issue the petitioner is that the issue petitioner is that the issue is that the issue that the issue the issue issue ofproceedings being in violation of the Finance Act, 2021 i.e., theimpugned notices under Section 148,{ and Section l4g of the Actnot being isstred in a faceless manner, have already been dealt withand decided by this Court in the case of KANKANALARAVINDRA REDDY vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICERI decidedon 14.09.202:i whereby a batch of writ petitions were allowed andthe proceedinl;s initiated under Section t48A as also under Section148 of the Act were held to be bad with consequential reliefs on theground of it be:ing in violation of the provisions of Section l51A ofthe Act read with Notification 18/2022 dated 29.03.2022. The said.judgment passr:d by this Court has also been subsequently followedin a large number of writ petitions which were allowed on similarterm s. The <:ontention of the petitioner is that the issue <:ontention of the petitioner is that the issue of the petitioner is that the issue the petitioner is that the issue petitioner is that the issue is that the issue that the issue the issue issue of 'l(2023) 156 tax:mann.com 178 (Telangana)l rl -1/z 5. Down the line, [we ][f,rnd ][that the ][same ][issue ][has also ][been]decided [against ][the ][Revenue ][by ][various ][High ][Courts ][i'e'']by the Bombay [High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ] TECHNOLOGIES [LTD., ][VS. ] OF INCOME [& ][OTHERS2, ][Gau[rati ][High Court ][in the ][case]of RAM [SAH vs' ] [INDIA3' ][Punjab ][and]Haryana [High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ] vs. UNION [INDIA4, ][and ][Telangana ][High Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]SRI VENKATARAMANA [PATLOOI,A ][VS. ] COMMISSIONER [where ][the ][issue rvas in]respect of international [taxation, Bombay ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]ABIIIN ANILKUMAR [vs' INCOME ] [OFFICER']INTERNATIONALTAXATI0N6whichisagainoninternationaltaxation [and ][central ][circle, ][High ][Court ][of ][Himachal ][Pradesh ][in ][the]case of GOVIND [vs' ] [OFFICERT']Gujarat High [Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ] ' [pozq464 ] [430 ][(Bom)].-ilzozil 156 (Gauhati)lQxmann.com 478 " [(202,4) [165 ][iix]nann.com ][1 ][15 ][(Punjab ][& ][Haryana)l]'12024) [167 ][taxmann'com ][41 ][1 ][(Telangana)l]"12024) [166 ][taxmann.com ][679 ][(Bombay)l]'izOz+) [165 ][taxmann.com ][1 ][13 ][(Himachal ][Pradesh)l] DAHYABHAI RADADIYA vs. INCoME TAx OFFICER,WARD 3(3X5)8, Jharkand High Court in the case of SHyAMSUNDAR SAW vs. UNION OF INDIAe, Rajasthan High Court inthe case of SHARDA DEVI CHHAJER vs. INCOME TAXOFFICER ,& ANOTHER and batch of writ petitionsro whichstood decide,l on 19.03.2024. Similar views have also been takenby the Diviliion Bench of Calcutta High Court in the case cfGIRDHAR GOPAL DALMIA vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS(M.A.T 1690 of 2023). decided o.r 25.09.2024.6. Even ttrough the same issue having been decided by a largenumber of High Courts, we are still confronted with large filing ofidentical matt ers on Caily basis ranging between 5 to l 0 iv-ritpetitions. That upon the instructions being sought from theDepartment, they have been taking a solitary ground that thedecision of ttLe Bombay [iigh Court in the case of HexawsreTechnologies Ltc., (2 supra) as also the one which has beendecided by this Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy'zoz+ [s&brline ]Guj 4o12'2025 SCC Online lhar 2g7'oy2oz3 [: ][RJ-JD:4.984-DBl] (l supra) has been subjected to challenge in a Special LeavePetition i.e., SLP No.3574 of 2024 before the Hon,ble SupremeCourt and the Hon'ble Supreme Court is seized of the matter.In addition, there are about 1200 SLps also filed arising out ofthesame issue being decided by various High Courts.7. To a query being put to the leamed counsel for the Revenue,they have categorically accepted the fact that there is no interimorder granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in any of thesematters pending before it. Meanwhile, fresh writ petitions ofidentical nature are being pited 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. 8. On the one hand, even though the order of this Court thatwas passed as early as ol 14.09.2023 and more 16 months havelapsed, till date, we do not find any remedial steps having beentaken by the lncome Tax Department to take appropriate sreps roeither hold back issuance of notice under Section l4gA 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 l{igh Coufts in [India ][are ][continuously still]initiating prcceedings under [Section ] [of ][the ][Act ][and ][also]initiating proceedings under Section [148 ][of ][the ][Act ][in]contravention to the amendments [brought into the ][Income ][Tax ][Act]pursuant to the Finance Act,2020 as also the [Finance ][Act202l.]9. Upon a query being [put ]as to [why ][can't this ][writ ][petition ][be]disposed of in the teeth of the decision [rendered ][by ][this ][Court ][in]the case of Kanakala Ravindra [Reddy ][(l ][supra), leamed ][Standing]Counsel for the Income Tax Department [contends that those ][would]unnecessarily burden the Income Tax [Department ][where ][they]would be required to file equal number of [SLPs before ][the]Hon'ble Supreme Cou( and it would be [further burdening ][the]exchequer of the Union of India. It [was ][also ][the contention ][of ][the]leamed Standing Counsel that no [prejudice would ][be ][caused ][to ][the]interest of the petitioners in case if this [writ ][petition ][is ][kept pending]till the finalization of the SLPs [pending ][before ][the ][Hon'ble]Supreme Court and the [fact ][that ][the petitioner ][is ][already ][enjoying]the benefit c,f interim protection. [Nonetheless, ][on the ][earlier ][query]of this Courr. as to why the [Income ][Tax ][Department have not ][come]out with a rnechanism to issue appropriate [instructions ][or ][to ][take] ..l ..l appropnate steps in ensuring that proceedings under Section r4gAof the Act as also the assessment orders under Section l4g of theAct are kept in a hold in the light of the decisions dedcided by thevarious High Courts, it was submitted by the leamed StandingCounsel that the said steps can only be taken at the level of CBDTas any such steps would have to be taken pan India and cannot belimited to any of these jurisdictional High Courts. 10. As a result of which, what we are facing is steep increase oflitigation day in and day odi even though various orders have beenpassed by this High Corirt allowing writ petitions on the very sameissue. The Income Tax authorities concerned are still even now in2025 also initiating proceedings in contravention to the provisionsof Section l5lA of the Act and as a result by now, more than 600to 700 petitions have been already got piled up before this HighCourt on an issue which otherwise stands squarely covered by thejudgment of this Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy(l supra). What is also surprising is the fact that though whileallowing the writ petitions in the case of Kanakala RavindraReddy (1 supra), the Division Bench while reserving the right ofthe Revenue, has also protected the interest of the petitioners insofar as the liberty which was granted to the Revenue forinitiating frt:sh proceedings strictly in accordance with the amendedprovisions of the Act, as amended by the Finance Act, 2020 andthe Finance Act,202I. The petitioner assessee would be entitled tochallenge or raise the other legal objections if the Revenut initiatesfresh procet:dings. The Department has made no endeavour inavailing the said liberty that was reserved for the Revenue. On thecontrary, the:y have been still sticking on to the stand, which thisHigh Courl rts well as many other High Courts already held to bebad.11. It appears that because ofthe aforesaid liberty that this HighCourt had 6Jranted 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 lrnally 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 .J Department would get the advantage of the liberty that is otherwiseprotected in favour of the Revenue for initiation of freshproceedings from the disposal of these matters at a much later stagewhich would be advantageous and beneficial to the Revenue andwould be equally disadvantageous and detrimental so far as interestof the assesses are concemed. As a consequence, the Income TaxDepartment gets an extended period of time for initiation of fteshproceedings.12. The alarming trend of docket explosion in this Court, despitethe clear precedent setin Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra), is amatter of grave concern. The Income Tax Department's persistentinitiation of fresh proceedings, disregarding the established judicialpronouncements, has led to an unprecedented surge in litigationwith over 600-700 petitions piling up on the same issue. Thisdeliberate approach not only undermines the principle of judicialprecedent but also strains the judicial resources unnecessarily. TheDepartment's strategy of awaiting the Supreme Court's decision onpending SLPs while continuing to initiate fresh proceedingsappears to be a calculated move to buy time and circumventlimitation periods, rather than adhering to the established legal position. Such conduct raises sedous [questions ]about [ttie]administrative efficiency and the [respect ][for ][judicial]pronouncenrents, particularly when this Court [has ][already ][provided]a balanced approach by [preserving ]both [the ][Revenue's ][rights ][and]assesses intorests.administrative efficiency and the [respect ][for ][judicial]pronouncenrents, particularly when this Court [has ][already ][provided]a balanced approach by [preserving ]both [the ][Revenue's ][rights ][and]assesses intorests. 13. Another aspect which needs to be considered [is that ][in ][fact ][it]should have been realized by the lncome [Tax Department ][itself ][and]should havr: found out via [media ]in [ensuring ][that ][proceedings]under Sections 148-A and 148 should [not ][have been issued ][in ][a]faceless mailner, at least tili the Hon'ble Supreme [Court ][decide ][the]twelve hundred (1200f odd SLPs which it is already [seized ][of ][or, ][at]least the Income Tax Department should [have ][found ]out [some]remedial steps to ensure that wherever the authorities [intend ][to]initiate proceedings under Sections 148-A and [148, ]other [than ][in ][a]faceless mirnner, the proceedings should have been [deferred]without pre<:ipitating the matter further intimating the [assessee ][that]they shall initiate appropriate [proceedings ]only after [the SLP's ][are]decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the [very ][same ][issue']This again, :he Income Tax Department, has not been able to [give ][a]convincing reply, except for the fact that such a decision if at all I .hps 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 leamedotherwise 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 Department 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 frling of hindreds 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 been taken onmany occasions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court which is seized of thematter has been reluctant in granting any interim protection to thethe 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 frling of hindreds 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 been taken onmany occasions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court which is seized of thematter has been reluctant in granting any interim protection to theIncome Tax Department. Yet, the authorities concemed at theState level are not ready to accept the verdict passed by a 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 andState 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 through [the ][jurisdictional ][Assessing ][Officer ][whereas ][it ][ought] to have been [only ][in ][the ][faceless ][manner'] 148 through [the ][jurisdictional ][Assessing ][Officer ][whereas ][it ][ought] to have been [only ][in ][the ][faceless ][manner'] 14. In the [case ][of ] [OF INDIA vs' ] COMMISSIONER, [TAXIr' ][on ][an ][issue ][whether ][it ][was]justifiable on the [part ][of ][the ][Income ][Tax ][Department ][in ][not]following [atr ][order ][passed ][by ][the ][adjudicating authority only ][on ][the]that [the ][appeals ][are ][pending' ][the Division ][Bench ][of ][the]ground Court [of ][Bombay held ][at ][paragraph ][No'25 ][as ][under' ][viz'' ][:]High "25. Mr. Paridwalla [has ][rightly ][drawn ][out ][attention ][to ][the]decisiorr of [this Court ][in ][Commissioner of ][lncome ][Tax ][vs' ][Smt']Godavaridevi [Saraf'2 ][as ][also ][the ][recent ][decision ][of ][the ][co-]ordinatr: [Bench ][of this Court ][in ][Samp ][Furniture ][(P) ][Ltd' ][v' ][lTO13]of which [one ][of ][us ][(Justice ] [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 sarne [is ][set ][aside in ][a ][manner known ][to law' ][it ][would ][loose its]force. [Referring ][to ][the decision ][of ][the Supreme Court ][in]binding Unionoflndiavs.KamlakshiFinancecorporationLtd.lo,theCourt cbserved [that the ][approach ][of ][the ][officials ][of ][Revenue of]treatinr] decisions [being ]["not ][acceptable" ][was ][criticized ][by ][the]Court. [ln ][such ][decision' following ][are ][the ][relevant]Supretne obsen,ations [made ][by ][the ][Supreme ][Court'] " [[(2025) ][170 ][taxmann.com ][422 ][(Bombay)l] '' iiszsl [l3 ][lrR ][589 ][(BombaY)] " izozqll55 [taxmann.com 581/300 Taxman ][452 ][(Bombav)] 'o 1l99z1taxmann.com [16155 ] [433 (SC)] /t' " [[(2025) ][170 ][taxmann.com ][422 ][(Bombay)l] '' iiszsl [l3 ][lrR ][589 ][(BombaY)] " izozqll55 [taxmann.com 581/300 Taxman ][452 ][(Bombav)] 'o 1l99z1taxmann.com [16155 ] [433 (SC)] /t' "6. Sri 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 orotherwise of their conclusion or. of any factualwould 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 inin 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, rightlythem, one of the Collector (Appeals) and the other ofthe Tribunal- The High Court has, in our view, rightlycriticized this conduct of the Assistant Collectors andthe harassment to the assessee caused by the failureof these officers to give effect to the orders ofauthorities higher to them in the appellate hierarchy. ltcannot be too vehemently emphasized that it is ofutmost importance that, in disposing of thequasijudicial issues before them, revenue officers arethe 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 theAssistant Collectors working within his jurisdiction andthe order of the Tribunal is binding upon the AssistantAssistant 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 theunder 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 deparlment - 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 noi foilowed, [the ][resi,it ][will ][only ][be ][undue]harassment to [assesses ][and ][chaos ][in ][administration]of terx laws. rule is noi foilowed, [the ][resi,it ][will ][only ][be ][undue]harassment to [assesses ][and ][chaos ][in ][administration]of terx laws. 12. [\Ne ]have dealt [with this ][aspect ][at ][some ][length,]because it has [been ][suggested ][by the ][learned]Additional Solicitor [General ][that ][the ][observations]ma,le by the High [Court, have been harsh ][on ][the]offir;ers. lt is clear [that the ][observations ][of ][the ][High]Corrrt, seemingly [vehement, ][and ][apparently]ungralatable to the [Revenue, are only intended ][to ][curb]a tendency in revenue [mafters ][which, ][if ][allowed ][to]ber:ome widesprea.q, [could ][result ][in ][considerable]harassmenl to [the ][assesses-public ][without ][any ][benefit]to the Revenue. [We ][would like ][to ][say that ][the]should [take these ][observations ][in ][the]department The observations [of ][the ][High ][Court]prcper spirit. should be kept [in ][mind ][in ][future ][and ][the ][utmost regard]should be [paid ][by ][the ][adjudicating authorities ][and ][the]appellate authorities [to ][the ][requirements ][of ][judicial]discipline and the [need for giving effect ][to the ][orders]of the higher appellate [authorities ][which ][are ][binding]on them." 15. [What ][is ][worrying ][this ][Bench ][more ][is ][the ][fact ][that ][an]endeavour [i:; ][being ][made ][whole ][heartedly ][to ][ensure ][not to ][generate]further [litigation ][on ][issues ][which ][have ][been ][laid to ][rest ][by ][a ][large]number of lligh [courts ][all ][of ][whom ][have taken a consistent ][stand]that the action of the Income [Tax Department being ][violative ][of ][the] Finance Ac| 2020 and Finance A ct,.2021 . Now, in order to protectthe interest of the Revenue as also that of the assessee, it would betrite at this [juncture, ]if we dispose of the writ petition with anobservation/direction that the disposal of the instant writ petition interms of the [judgment ]rendered by this fligh Court in the case ofKunkanala Ravindra Reddy (l supra) shall however be subject tothe outcome of the SLPs which were filed by the lncome TaxDepartment and which is pending consideration before the Hon'bleSupreme Court. 16. In the given facts and circumstances, this Bench is of theconsidered opinion that unless and until we do not timely 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 of the considered opinion that the interest of the Revenue has alreadybeen considered and protected, as has been observed in paragraphsbeen considered and protected, as has been observed in paragraphs 36,37 and 38 ofthe order [which, for ][ready ][reference, ][is ][reproduced]hereunder 36. For all the aforesaid reasons, the [impugned ][notices]iss;ued and the proceedings drawn by the [respondenl]Department is neither tenable, nor [sustainable.]Tl're notices so tssued and the [procedure ]adopted [being]pe,r se illegal, deserves to be and are accordingly setaside/quashed. As a consequence, all [the ][impugned]orlers getting [quashed, ]the consequential [orders passed]by the respondent-Department [pursuant ]to the [notices]iss;ued under Section 147 and 148 would also [get]qLashed and it is.ordered accordingly. The reason weare quashing the consequential order [is on ]the [principles]thi:t when the initiation of the [proceedings ][itself ][was]prrcedurally wrong, the subsequent orders also [gets]nu llifi ed automatically. 36. For all the aforesaid reasons, the [impugned ][notices]iss;ued and the proceedings drawn by the [respondenl]Department is neither tenable, nor [sustainable.]Tl're notices so tssued and the [procedure ]adopted [being]pe,r se illegal, deserves to be and are accordingly setaside/quashed. As a consequence, all [the ][impugned]orlers getting [quashed, ]the consequential [orders passed]by the respondent-Department [pursuant ]to the [notices]iss;ued under Section 147 and 148 would also [get]qLashed and it is.ordered accordingly. The reason weare quashing the consequential order [is on ]the [principles]thi:t when the initiation of the [proceedings ][itself ][was]prrcedurally wrong, the subsequent orders also [gets]nu llifi ed automatically. 3;'. The [preliminary ]objection raised [by ][the petilioner ][is]sustained and all these writ [petitions ]stands [allowed ][on]this very [jurisdictional ]issue. Since the impugned [notices]ard orders are gefting [quashed ]on the [point ][of]jurisdiction, we are not inclined to'proceed further andde,cide the other issues raised by the [petitioner ][which]stilnds reserved to be raised and contended in [an]ap,propriate [proceedings.] 3t). Since the Hon'ble Supreme [Court ]had, [in ]lhe [case]of Ashish Agarwal, supra, as a one-time measureexercising the [powers ][under ][Article ]142 of [the]Constitution of lndia, [permitted ][the ][Revenue ][to ][proceed]urrder the substituted [provisions, and this Court ][allowing]the petitions only [on the ][procedural ][flaw, ][the ][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 would only further like to make observations that since we are inclined to dispose of the instant writ petition, conscious ofthe fact that the earlier order of this High Court in the case ofKanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra) is subjected to challengebefore the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLp No.3574 of 2024,preferred by the Income Jax Department, we make it clear thatallowing of the instan! writ petition is subject to outcome of theaforesaid SLP preferred by the Revenue against the decision ofthisHigh Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindru Reddy (l sryra).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.Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra) is subjected to challengebefore the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLp No.3574 of 2024,preferred by the Income Jax Department, we make it clear thatallowing of the instan! writ petition is subject to outcome of theaforesaid SLP preferred by the Revenue against the decision ofthisHigh Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindru Reddy (l sryra).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 allowed infavour of the assessee so far as the issue of jurisdictionlsconcerned. As a consequence, the impugned notice underchallenge under Sections 148-4 and 148 stands set aside/quashed. The consequential orders, if [any, also ][stand ][set ][aside/quashed ][in] similar termsi as have been [passed ][by ][this High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of] Kankanala Ruvindra [Reddy ][(1 ][supra)' ][There shall be no order ][as] to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous [petitions pending, ][if ][any, ][shall] stand closed Sd/. A.H.S. ASSISTANT //TRUE SEN OFFICER 19. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands allowed infavour of the assessee so far as the issue of jurisdictionlsconcerned. As a consequence, the impugned notice underchallenge under Sections 148-4 and 148 stands set aside/quashed. The consequential orders, if [any, also ][stand ][set ][aside/quashed ][in] similar termsi as have been [passed ][by ][this High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of] Kankanala Ruvindra [Reddy ][(1 ][supra)' ][There shall be no order ][as] to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous [petitions pending, ][if ][any, ][shall] stand closed Sd/. A.H.S. ASSISTANT //TRUE SEN OFFICER to ,. " ,n"o." Tax C'fficer, Ward 4('l I Hyderabad lT Towers' AC Guards' Masabiant< HyOeratrad, The Principat HyOeratrad, Telangpna' [[of ]][[lncome ]]500004 [[lncome ]]r-.. [[Tax - ]], [[l' ]]r[[Hyderabad lT ][Towers' ]][[Towers' ]]iant< HyOeratrad, The Principat HyOeratrad, Telangpna' [[of ]][[lncome ]]500004 [[lncome ]]r-.. [[Tax - ]], [[l' ]]r[[Hyderabad lT ][Towers' ]][[Towers' ]] 2. iant< HyOeratrad, The Principat HyOeratrad, [commilsi6fier ]Telangpna' [[of ]][[lncome ]]r-.. [[Tax - ]], [[l' ]]r[[Hyderabad lT ][Towers' ]][[Towers' ]][Masab]- i;;i, livd'eraoad, Telansana - 5000041l rhe Nationar rr""r"iJitl'llt|.iJft"6"ntt"' [lncome Tax ][Department ][Ministry]" oi FinJn"" Govt. of lndia' New Delhi'- i;;i, livd'eraoad, Telansana - 5000041l rhe Nationar rr""r"iJitl'llt|.iJft"6"ntt"' [lncome Tax ][Department ][Ministry]" oi FinJn"" Govt. of lndia' New Delhi'4. The Secret"nl, [unio,1"oiinii', ][rvfi"itil.v of ][Finance 166-8 ][North ][Block' ][New] . H'J'iJi3 [[3l{l ]]PAVAN [RAo, ][Advo-ca.te ]Lq?.ucl6. one cc one cc cc [[to M/s. ]]"o.*rrALLy [[BOKxiio'si-piu ]][[neooV-.tr. ]][[sc ][FoR ] ][[FoR ] ][ ][ ]6. one cc one cc cc [[to M/s. ]]"o.*rrALLy [[BOKxiio'si-piu ]][[neooV-.tr. ]][[sc ][FoR ] ][[FoR ] ][ ][ ] PAVAN . H'J'iJi3 [[3l{l ]]6. one cc one cc cc [[to M/s. ]]"o.*rrALLy [[BOKxiio'si-piu ]][[neooV-.tr. ]][[sc ][FoR ] ][[FoR ] ][ ][ ]TOPUCI6. one cc one cc cc [[to M/s. ]]"o.*rrALLy [[BOKxiio'si-piu ]][[neooV-.tr. ]][[sc ][FoR ] ][[FoR ] ][ ][ ]TOPUCIz. b",i""c"i [to ] [B.MUKHERJEE, SC ][FoR ] [GOVT loPUCl] B. Two [CoPres] PSK.PVL YV HIGH COURT DATED:2810412025 ORDERWP.No.753 of 2025 ALLOWING THE WITHOUT COSTS *6410*4"<-) r' ,/--. [i ][i1l- ][li ][i-.it]r4: ()i':, [':]3Il)29AIJEM)'1.*+ti:-5r. i::_ _:_-_:;I '',i