Wp/9558/2025 Of Sanjeeva Mekala v. The Income Tax Officer

HIGH coURT FoR THE IAT H YDESJfJiDOF (Speciat originar ji;iiiiction)AT H YDESJfJiDOF (Speciat originar ji;iiiiction) THURSDAY,THE TWENT\ TWENT\rwo ino-uin-rv; i^ifffilil*y [or ][ApRrL] PRESENT THE HONOURABI- rH E Ho N o u RAB LE s Rr r r:.:Hr[[l;'# :^::;" _ r^WRIT PETITION NO: 9558 OF 2025 Between: [3447 | E:iff ii},!,,;:,8:[%?:j[1il,"k:x,1n.*t"",ijo,r,?fi r'o*,R1,t"J] AND ..PETITIONER 1.vd [e ][ra ][b ][a ]d, r r ro we r, A c G ua rd s, Ma s a bvd [e ][ra ][b ][a ]d, r r ro we r, A c G ua rd s, Ma s a b2.ili#!!:.rtr?rl{"ft [Y.ili ][B6?.H ]3.+l"iriL'.:Hffi [1[:#4:ltri;':,9:ru^ue;ift ][BBB.^.'[hF"rc.]A ss Kamp. Jawahartat e s s m e n t ce n t ie, Nehru oe ri Stadium.betni_iiijoob.."",,i, if, ,i,,$i^9iplr 9,?""? [fl ][$il,,\, ]" iitTl. [Fi".""i ]: E:3.+l"iriL'.:Hffi [1[:#4:ltri;':,9:ru^ue;ift ][BBB.^.'[hF"rc.]A ss Kamp. Jawahartat e s s m e n t ce n t ie, Nehru oe ri Stadium.betni_iiijoob.."",,i, if, ,i,,$i^9iplr 9,?""? [fl ][$il,,\, ]" iitTl. [Fi".""i ]: E: ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 0f the constitution of rndia praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may bepleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particurarry one in thenature of writ of ft/andamus, decraring the Assessment order dt. 13.03.2024passed by the 3rdrespondent u/s 147 r.w.s 14411448 of the lncome-tax Act for4.Y.2o16-17 vide DtN No. |rBA/ASTlst147l2o23-24r1o6zs1rog2(j), consequentto the order passed u/s 148A(d) dt. 21 .O3.2O23 vide DtN No.|rBA/AST/F/148A12022-23t10s1068s50(1) and the notice u/s 148 dt. 28.03.2023vide DIN No. lrBA/AST/sl14B_1tzo22-23110514 s697s(1), issued by the JA0(1strespondenl) instead of FAo(3rd respondent) and consequential penalty orders4.Y.2o16-17 vide DtN No. |rBA/ASTlst147l2o23-24r1o6zs1rog2(j), consequentto the order passed u/s 148A(d) dt. 21 .O3.2O23 vide DtN No.|rBA/AST/F/148A12022-23t10s1068s50(1) and the notice u/s 148 dt. 28.03.2023vide DIN No. lrBA/AST/sl14B_1tzo22-23110514 s697s(1), issued by the JA0(1strespondenl) instead of FAo(3rd respondent) and consequential penalty orderspassed vide order u/s 271F of the Act dt. 09.09.2024 and order u/s 271(1)(b) of of lncome-to [the ][Provisions]ice the [Act ][dt ][0e ][0s 2024 ]:' ;"::"[::::,ilil,T::]tax [Act ][and ][contrary to the]IAN[[O:][ 10] ][[ 10] ][ ][[o25]] IAN[[O:][ 10] ][[ 10] ][ ][[o25]]the [circumstances stated ][in]tion ['l ][51 ] [PraYing ][that ][in]Petition [under Sec]h Court [maY ][be ][Pleased ][to]rt of [the ][writ ][Petition' ][the ][Hig]ent [Order ][dt ][13 ][03 2024]the [affidavit ][filed ][in ][suPPo]ursuant [to ][the ][AsseSsm]staY[all ][f ][urther ][Proceedings ][P]of [the ][lncome-tax ][Act ][{or]u/s [147 r.w ][s ][144/1448]passed [bY ][the ][3rdresPondent]411062517O92(1 [)and ][maY]tTBA/Asr/s/1 [4 ][7 ][t2023-2]A.Y2016-17 [vide ] [No]ms [fit ][and ][ProPer ][in ][the])[a]s the [Hon'ble ][Court ][dee]titioner [would ][be ][Put ][to]pass [such ][other ][order(s]as [otherwise ][the ][Pe]iustice 'interests [of ][substantial]irreparable [loss ][and ][severe iniury'] 8:il::l [B: ][l[:'.::x:ffi: ]":ll [?l*ts"HlmiT#] ]: t'"1 t'"1 [[$'5""i;: ][i: ][lffi,lffi''o ]][[i: ][lffi,lffi''o ]][[lffi,lffi''o ]][[*o ]]= [*] RE ?f, : t'"1 t'"1 [[$'5""i;: ][i: ][lffi,lffi''o ]][[i: ][lffi,lffi''o ]][[lffi,lffi''o ]][[*o ]] THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYrHE HoNorrRA*.n r$T?rrrcE NARSTNG RAoNANDIKONDA W.P.No.95580F 2025 ORDER, (per Hon,ble Sri.tustice p.Sap1 1165py1 Heard Mr. Dundu Manmohan. leamed counsel for the petitioner and Ms. B.Sapna Reddy,leamed Junior StandingCounsel for the Income Tax Department for respondent Nos.l& 2. Perused the record. 8:il::l [B: ][l[:'.::x:ffi: ]":ll [?l*ts"HlmiT#] ]: t'"1 t'"1 [[$'5""i;: ][i: ][lffi,lffi''o ]][[i: ][lffi,lffi''o ]][[lffi,lffi''o ]][[*o ]]= [*] RE ?f, : t'"1 t'"1 [[$'5""i;: ][i: ][lffi,lffi''o ]][[i: ][lffi,lffi''o ]][[lffi,lffi''o ]][[*o ]] THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYrHE HoNorrRA*.n r$T?rrrcE NARSTNG RAoNANDIKONDA W.P.No.95580F 2025 ORDER, (per Hon,ble Sri.tustice p.Sap1 1165py1 Heard Mr. Dundu Manmohan. leamed counsel for the petitioner and Ms. B.Sapna Reddy,leamed Junior StandingCounsel for the Income Tax Department for respondent Nos.l& 2. Perused the record. 2. This is a writ petition is a writ petition a writ petition writ petition petition where the proceedings the proceedings proceedings are eithereitherchallenged to the notices which were issued under Section 14gAand 148 of the Income Tax Act, 196l (for short .the Act,) or theassessment orders those have been passed under Section 147 ofthe Act which have been assailed. This is a writ petition is a writ petition a writ petition writ petition petition where the proceedings the proceedings proceedings are eithereither 3. This writ petition is being taken up today only writ petition is being taken up today only petition is being taken up today only is being taken up today only being taken up today only taken up today only up today only today only only on one of theof thethegrounds, that the notices issued under Section l4gA of the Actand the subsequent initiation ofproceedings under Section l4g ofthe Act by the jurisdictional Assessing officer, whereas in termsof the amendment that was brought to the Income Tax Act by wayof Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f., 01.04.2021 onwards, proceedings This writ petition is being taken up today only writ petition is being taken up today only petition is being taken up today only is being taken up today only being taken up today only taken up today only up today only today only only on one of theof thethe under [Section 148A ][of ][the ][Act ][as also ][under ][Section ][148 ][of ][the]Act ought [to have ][also ][been ][issued and proceeded ][in ][a ][faceless]manner.4. The [contention ][of ][the ][petitioner ][is ][that ][the ][issue of]proceedings [being ][in ][violation ][of ][the Finance Act' ][2021 ][i'e'' ][the]impugned [notices ][under Section ][148A ][and ][Section ][148 ][ofthe ][Act]not being [issued ][in ][a ][faceless ][mannerl ][have ][already ][been dealt ][with]and [decided ][by ][this ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ] RAVINDRA [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]of [it ][being ][in ][violation ][of the provisions of Section ][i ][5 ][1A ][of]ground the Act [read ][with ][Notihcation ][l8l2}22 ][dated ][29'03'2022' ][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 ' [(2023) ][1 ][56 ][taxmann.com ][178 ][(Telangana)l] ' [(2023) ][1 ][56 ][taxmann.com ][178 ][(Telangana)l] 5. Down the line, we find that the same line, we find that the same we find that the same find that the same that the same the same same issue has also beenalso beenbeendecided against the ftsysnus by various High courts i.e.,by the Bombay High Court in rhe case of HEXAWARETECHNOLOGIES LTD., vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX & OTIfERS2, Gauhati High Court in the caseof RAM NARAYAN SAH vs. UNION OF INDIA3, punjab andHaryana High Court in rhe case of JATINDER SINGII BANGUvs' UNION oF INDIA4, and Telangana High court in the case ofSRI ITNKATARAMANA REDDY PATLOOLA vs. DEPUTYCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX5 where the issue was inrespect of international taxation, Bombay High Court in the case ofABIITN ANILKUMAR SHAH vs. INCOME TAx OFFTCER,INTERNATIONAL TAXATION6 which is again on intemationaltaxation and central circle, High Court of Himachal pradesh in thecase of GOVIND SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER?,Gujarat High Court in the case of MANSUKHBIIAI2lzoz+1464 ITR 430 (Bom)'LQ024l I56 taxmann.com 478 lGauhati)l'[(2024) 165 raxmann.com 115 (punjab & Haryana)] Down the line, we find that the same line, we find that the same we find that the same find that the same that the same the same same issue has also beenalso beenbeen ' 12024) I 67 taxmann.com 41 1 (Telangana)l"12024) 166 taxmann.com 679 (Bombay)l '[2024) 165 taxmann.com l 13 iHimachaipradesh)] DAHYABHAI [VS. ] [OFFICER,]WARD [3(3X5)8' ][Jharkand ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ] SUNDAR [vs' ] [INDIAe' ][Rajasthan ][High ][Court ][tn]the [case ][of ][SI{ARDA ] [CHHAJER vs' ] OFFICER [& ] [and ][batch ][of ][writ ][petitions'o which]stood [decided ][ort ][19'03'2024' ][Similar views ][have also ][been taken]the [Division ][Bench ][of ][Calcutta ][High Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]by GIRDHAR [vs' UNION ] [& ] 1690 [of ][2023)' ][decided ][ot25'09'2024'](M.A.T 6. Even though [the same ][issue ][having been ][decided ][by ][a large]number [of ][High ][Courts, ][we ][are ][still ][confronted ][with ][large ][filing ][of]identicalmattersondailybasisrangingbetween5tot0writpetitions. [That ][upon ][the ][instructions ][being ][sought ][from ][the]Department, [they ][have been ][taking ][a ][solitary ][ground ][that ][the]decision [of ][the ][Bombay ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ][Hexswsre]Technologies [Ltd., (2 ][supra) ][as ][also ][the ][one ][which ][has ][been]decided by [this Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ][Kunakula Ravindra ][Reddy] 'zoz4 [scc online ][Guj ][4012]'2025 [Online ][lhar287]ro 72023 : RI-JD :4984-DBl (1 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 Suprerng Court is seized of the matter.In addition, there are about 1200 SLps also filed ansing out ofthesame issue being decided by various Higb Courts. 7. To a query being put to a query being put to query being put to the leamed counsel for the Revenue,for the Revenue,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. N,{eanwhile, fresh writ petitions ofidentical nafure are being piled up before this Bench on da,y 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 on 14.09.2023 and, more 16 months havelapsed, till date, we do not find any remedial steps having beentaken by the Income Tax Department to take appropriate steps toeither hold back issuance of notice under Section l4gA and underSection 148 of the Act by the jurisdictional Assessing Offrcer,rather the authorities concemed in the teeth of series.of decisions To a query being put to a query being put to query being put to the leamed counsel for the Revenue,for the Revenue,the Revenue, To a query being put to a query being put to query being put to the leamed counsel for the Revenue,for the Revenue,the Revenue, alt the [major ][High ][Courts ][in ][India][ are ][continuouslY ][still]by under [Section ][148,\ ][of ][the ][Act ][and ][also]initiating Proceedingsunder Section [148 ][ol ][the ][Act ][in]initiating [proceedings]contravention [to the ][amendments ][brought ][into ][the ][Income Tax ][Act]to [the ][Finance ][Lct' ][2020 as ][also ][the ][Finance ][Act2021 ][']pursuant g. 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 ][Kanakalu Ravindra ][Reddy ][(l ][supra)' ][learned Standing]Counsel [for ][the ][Income'fax ][Department contends ][that ][those ][would]unnecessarily [burden ][the ][Income ][Tax ][Department ][where ][they]would be [required ][to hle ][equal ][ntilnber ][of ][SI.Ps before ][the]Hon'b1e Supreme [Court and ][it ][would ][be ][further ][burdening ][the]exchequer of the Union of [India. ][It ][was aiso ][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 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 ][query]of this Court as to why the Income Tax Department have not comeout with a mechanism to issue appropriate instructions or to take appropriate steps in ensuring that proceedings under section 14gAof the Act as also the assessment orders under Section l4g of theAct are kept in a hold in the Iight ofthe 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 out even though various orders have beenpassed by this High Court allowing writ petitions on the very sameissue. The Income Tax au{horities concerned are still even now in2025 also initiating proceedings in contravention to the provisionsof Section l51A of the Act and as a result by now, more than 600to 700 petitions have been already got piled up befbre this HighCourt on an issue which otherwise stands squarely covered by thejudgment of this Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy(1 supra). what is also surprising is the fact that though whileallowing the r*rit petitions in thp case of Kanakaru RavindraReddy (l supra), the Division Bench while reserving the right ofthe Revenue, has also protected the interest of the petitioners insolar [as ][the ][liberty whi;h' ]['was ][granted ][to ][the ][Revenue ][for]initiating [fresh ][proceedings ][strictly ][in ][accordance ][with ][the ][amended]provisions [of ][the ][Act' ][as ][amended ][by ][the Finance ][Act' ][2020 ][and]the Finance [Lct,2021'The ][petitioner ][assessee ][would ][be ][entitled ][to]challenge [or ][raise ][the other ][legal ][objections ][if ][the Revenue ][initiates]fresh [proceedings' ][The ][Department has ][made ][no ][endeavour in]availing [the ][said ][liberty ][that ][was ][reserv][ed ][for ][the ][Revenue][. ][On ][the]contrary, [they have ][been ][still ][sticking ][on ][to ][the ][stand' ][which ][this]High [Court ][as ][well ][as ][many ][other ][High ][Courts already held ][to ][be]bad.11. It [appears ][that ][because of ][the ][afoYesaid ][liberty ][that ][this ][High]Coufi had [granted ][permitting ][the ][Revenue ][for ][initiating ][fresh]proceedings [as ][a ][one-time ][measure ][in ][a ][faceless ][manner' ][the]Income [Tax ][Department ][wants ][to ][take ][advantage ][of ][the ][same ][by]protracting [these ][proceedings ][which would ][enable them ][to ][meet the]limitation [that ][would ][otherwise ][come ][in ][the ][way. ][Likewise, ][if ][the]writ petition [is ][kept pending ][for ][a ][considerable ][long period ][of time]and finally [at alatet ][stage ][if ][the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Court ][conf,trms]the decision taken [by ][this High Court ][as ][also ][by ][the ][other ][High]Courts in which the SLPs are still [pending, ]the Income [Tax] Department would get the advantage of the liberty that is otherwiseprotected in favour of the Revenue for initiation of freshprotected in favour of the Revenue for initiation of freshproceedings from the disposal of these matters at a much later stagewhich would be stagewhich would be advantageous and beneficial to the Revenue andwould be equally disadvantageous and detrimental so far as interestof the assesses are concerned. As a consequence, the Income TaxDepartment gets an extended period of time for initiation of fieshproceedings.would be equally disadvantageous and detrimental so far as interestof the assesses are concerned. As a consequence, the Income TaxDepartment gets an extended period of time for initiation of fieshproceedings. 12. The alarming trend of docket explosion in this Court, despitethe clear precedent set in Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra), is amatter of grave concern. Jf,e.,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 rhe same issue. Thisdeliberate approach not only undermines the principle ofjudicialprecedent 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 Il position. Such [conduct raises serious questions ][about ][the]administrativeefficiencyandtherespectfbriudicialpronouncements, [particularly ][when ][this Court ][has ][already ][provided]a balanced [approach ][by ][preserving ][both the ][Revenue's ][rights ][and]assesses interests Il position. Such [conduct raises serious questions ][about ][the]administrativeefficiencyandtherespectfbriudicialpronouncements, [particularly ][when ][this Court ][has ][already ][provided]a balanced [approach ][by ][preserving ][both the ][Revenue's ][rights ][and]assesses interests 13. Another [aspect ][which ][needs ][to ][be considered ][is that in ][fact ][it]should have [been ][realized ][by ][the ][Income ][Tax ][Department ][itself ][and]should have [found ][out ][via ][media ][in ][ensuring ][that ][proceedings]under Sections [148-4 ][and ][148 should not ][have ][been ][issued ][in ][a]faceless manner, [at ][least ][till ][the ][Hon,ble ][Supreme ][Court ][decide the]twelve hundred [(1200) ][odd ][SLPs ][wtrlctr it is ][already seized of ][or' ][at]least the [Income ][Tax ][Department shoutd ][have found ][out ][some]remedial [steps ][to ][ensure ][that ][wherever ][the ][authonties intend ][to]initiate [proceedings under Sections ][148-A ][and ][148' ][other ][than ][in ][a]faceless [manner, ][the ][proceedings ][should ][have ][been ][deferred]without [precipitating ][the ][matter ][further intimating ][the ][assessee ][that]shall [initiate ][appropriate proceedings ][only ][after ][the ][SLP's ][are]they decided [by ][the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Cburt on the very ][same issue']This again, [the ][Income ][Tax Departrnent, ][has ][not ][been ][able ][to ][give ][a]convincing [reply, ][except ][for ][the ][fact ][that such a decision ][if ][at ][all] ;:'a: has to be taken, has to be taken for the whole of India, and whichotherwise has to be by wayof 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 filing of hundreds of new writ petitions which inthe long run not only affects the.disposal of the writ petitions butalso consumes substantial time of the Bench in hearing thesematters again and again on daily basis. Admittedly, in spite of thematter before the Hon,ble Supreme Court having 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 majorityof 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 l4g_A and 148 through [the ][jurisdictional: ][Asssssing ][Offrcer ][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]on [the ][part ][of ][the ][lncome ][Tax ][Department ][in ][not]justifiable following [an 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 148 through [the ][jurisdictional: ][Asssssing ][Offrcer ][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]on [the ][part ][of ][the ][lncome ][Tax ][Department ][in ][not]justifiable following [an 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]decision [of ][this Court in ][Commipsioner of lncome ][Tax ][vs, ][Smt.]Godavaridevi [Saraflz ][as ][alEo ][tle ][rPcent ][decision ][of ][the ][co-]ordinate [Bench ][of ][this ][Court ][in ][Samp ][F+rniture ][(P) ][Ltd' ][v' ][lTOl3]of which [one ][of ][us (Justice G S',Kulkarni) was a member' wherein]the Court [categorically ][observed ][that ][the ][Revenue ][having ][not]"accepted" the [judgment ][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 Co(poration ][Ltd'14' ][the]Court observed [that the approach ][of ][the officials ][of ][Revenue ][of]treating [decisions being ]["not ][qcceptable" ][was ][criticized ][by ][the]Supreme [Court. ][ln ][such ][decision' following ][are the ][relevanl]observations [made ][by ][the Supreme Court'] I [t7ozsl ][77o ][taxmann.com ][a22 ]@onbay)l,,, [Ite78l ][r ][r3 ][rTR ][589 ][(Bombay)],,, [Ite78l ][r ][r3 ][rTR ][589 ][(Bombay)],,ireez ,)' [tzozll ]j,u*,,nii,*;:;;;-,";r:r;::rrffi452(Bombay) [65 ][taxmann.com ]: "6. Sri Reddy is perhz-;;';r:l,t risht in savins that theoffi""r. *u,u not passing the ,rrrnn",'"t"0 [by ][any ][mala ][fides ]ino'ou" genuinely They perhapsfelt that the tenable and ",1, ot ,n" assessee was notthat, if it ,"'' accepted' the Revenuewould suffer. But what suas *"oo'overlooks are not concerned is that wen"nt' *"n the correctness otherwise of their .onl lusion or of any factuarorin marafides but their conclusion, with the or-o". fact tn"t the officers' in reachingregard to the same ,r"ru't"o rvhich two appellate were praced beforeorders inthem, one of the corector (APPeals) and the other ofthe Tribunar. The High n", in our view, righflycriticized this conduct "o o, ,n'n Assistant corectors andthe harassment to the asse or rhese officers ro ;;,:-Til'["t.:']:J:'':;authorities higher to them in ,cannot be too vehemenry ffij#:Hf[,|] Jutmost importanbiri [.ihat. ]in disposing of thequasijudicial issues befoie Ibound by the decisions ffi::The order of the Appellte Co ector ",li]"rrlll[ is binding on theAssistant 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 hisherappellate authorities should be followed unreservedlyby the subordinate authorities. The mere fact that theorder of the appellate authority is not [,.acceptable,, ]lothe department - in itself 2n objectionable phrase _and is the subject mafter of an appeal can furnish noground for not following it unless its operation hasbeen suspended by a competent court. lf this healthy ' -^r [('tllowed ][the ][resr-tlt ][will ][only ][be ][undue];'":l:.;' [tl ]'"'""""" and chaos [in ][administration]of tax [laws] ' -^r [('tllowed ][the ][resr-tlt ][will ][only ][be ][undue];'":l:.;' [tl ]'"'""""" and chaos [in ][administration]of tax [laws] 12. [Wehave dealt ][with ][this aspect ][at ][some ][length']because [it ][has been ][suggested ][by thb ][learned]ooi,o"""' [Solicitor ][General ][that ][the ][observations];r; t ' [the ][High ][court' ][have ][been ][harsh ][on ][the];;;;r, lt is [clear ][that ][(he observations ][of ][the ][High]a.rn [seemingly ][vehement' ][and ][apparently]unpalatable [to ][the Revenue' ][are ][only intended to curb],,"nO"n"y [in ][revenue mafters ][which' ][if ][allowed ][to]O""om" [*id""pread' ][could ][result ][in ][considerable]harassment [to ][the ][assesses-public without any benefit]to the [Revenue ][We ][would ][like ][to ][say ][that ][the]department [should ][takglihese ][observations ][in ][the]proper spirit. [The ][obsqrvations ][of the ][High ][Court]should [be kept ][in ][mind in future arid ][the ][utmost regard]should be [paid by ][the ][adjudicating authorities and the]appeltate [authorities ][to ][the ][requirements ][of ][iudicial]discipline [and the need ][for ][giving ][effect ][to ][the ][orders]of the higher [appellate authorities which ][are ][binding]on them." 1 5. What [is ][worrying ][this ][Bench ][more ][is ][the ][fact ][that ][an]endeavour [is being ][made ][whole ][heartedly ][to ][ensure ][not ][to ][generate]further litigation [on ][issues ][which ][have ][been ][laid ][to ][rest ][by ][a ][latge]number of High Courts all of whom [have ][taken ]a consistent standthat the action of rhe Income Tax Department being violative Of the Finance Act, 2020 and Finance Act, 2021. Now, in order to protectthe interest of the Revenue as also that of the assessee, it would befrite at this juncture, if we dispose of the writ petition with anobservation'/direction that the disposar of the instant writ petition interms of the judgment rendered by this High Court in the case ofKankanala Ravindro Re,ddy (l supra) shall however be subject tothe outcome of the SLps which were filed by the Income TaxDepartment and which is pending consideration before the Hon,bleSupreme Court. 16. In the given facts and circumstances, this Bench is of theconsidered opinion that unleis and until we do not timely disposeof matters which are squarely covered by the decision of this Courrand which stands fortified by the decisions of the various otherHigh Courts on the very same issue, the pendency of this HighCourt would further be burdened which otherwise can be decidedand disposed of as a covered matter. 17. So far as the interest of the Revenue is concemed, we are ofthe considered opinion that the interest of the Revenue has alreadybeen considered and protected, as has been observed in paragraphs 36, 37 [and ][38 ][ofthe ][order ][which' ][for ready reference' ][is ][reproduced] hereunder: 36. [For ][all the aforesaid reasons' the impugned notices]issued [and ][the ][proceedings ][drawn by ][the ][respondent-]Department [is ][neither tenable' ][nor ][sustainable']The [notices ][so ][issued and ][the ][procedure adopted being]p", iff"g,f' [deserves ][to ][be and ][are ][accordingly set]"" aside/quashed [As ][a ][consequence' ][all ][the ][impugned']orders [getting quashed; the consequential orders passed]the [respondent-Department ][pursuant ][to ][the ][notices]by issued [under ][Section ][147 ][and ][148 ][would ][also ][get]and [it ][is ][ordered ][accordingly ][The ][reason ][we]quashed are [quashing the consequential ][order ][is ][on ][the ][principles]that when [the ][initiatiori:'6f ][the ][proceedings ][itself ][was]procedurally [wrong, the.subsequeqt ][orders ][also ][gets] nullified [automaticallY'] \ nullified [automaticallY'] \ 37. The [preliminary obiLction raised by ][the ][petitioner ][is]sustained [and ][all ][these writ petitions stands ][allowed ][on]this very [jurisdictional ][issue since ][the impugned notices]and orders [are ][gettlng ][quashed ][on the ][point ][of]jurisdiction, we are not inclined [to ][proceed further ][and]decide the other [issues raised ][by ][the ][petitioner ][which]stands reserved to [be ][raised ][and ][contended ][in ][an]appropriate [proceedings.] 38. Since [the ][Hon'ble Supreme Court ][had' ][in the ][case]of Ashish [Agarwal, ][supra, ][as ][a ][one-time ][measure]the [powers ][under ][Article ][142 ][of ][the]exercising Constitution of lndia, permitted [the ][Revenue ][to ][proceed]under the substituted provisions, and this Court allowingthe petitions only on the procedural flaw, the right \ conferred proceed ,rnl o'nl Reve.qu would remain reserved toorder of ,nlt: " [tn"' ][so ][want ][from ][the stage ]of theAgarwar, .ro=o "'o'"" [court ][in ][the ][case ][of ]Ashish Reve.qu would remain reserved toto 18. We would only further Iike to make observations that sincewe are inclined to dispose of the instant lv.it p"titioo, conscious ofthe fact that the earlier order of this High Court in the case ofKqnakala Ravindra Reddy (1 supra) is subjected to challengebefore the Hon,ble Supreme Court in SLp No.3574 of 2024,preferred by the Income Tax Department, we make it clear thatallowing of the instant writ petition is subject to outcome of theaforesaid SLp prefened by the Revenue against the decision of thisHigh Court in the case of Kanakola Ravindra Reddy (1 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 alrowed stands alrowedlnfavour of the assessee so far as the issue of jurisdictionlsconcerned. As a consequence, the impugned notice underchallenge under Sections l4g-A and 14g stands set aside/quashed I) Ji The [consequential orders' ][if ][any' ][also stand ][set ][aside/quashed ][in]similar [terrns ][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'] D/. L. SI //TRUE SECTION SECTION To,Twer, [Guards, ][lvlasab]1The lncome [Tax Officer, Ward 9(1) HYderabad' ][I]Tank, [HYd][erabad. ][Telangana-500004]P and [TS, ][10th Floor, ] 1The lncome [Tax Officer, Ward 9(1) HYderabad' ][I]Tank, [HYd][erabad. ][Telangana-500004]P and [TS, ][10th Floor, ] 2. The [PrinciP][ al ][Chief ][Comm][ issioner ][of][ lncome ][Tax]Block, l.T. [Towers, ][10-2-3, A.C.][ G ][uard][s, ][Hyd][erabad-s00004]Block, l.T. [Towers, ][10-2-3, A.C.][ G ][uard][s, ][Hyd][erabad-s00004]3. The [Asses][sment ][Unit, ][lnco][rne ][Tax ][DeP][artmenr., ][N][aticnal ][Faceless]Assessment [Centre, ][Delhi,][ Ministry][ of ][Finance,][ Room No. ][4][01 ][, ][2nd ][Floor, ] Ramp,[Jawa][ harlal Nehru ][S][tadium, ][D][elhi-1 ][10003.]Assessment [Centre, ][Delhi,][ Ministry][ of ][Finance,][ Room No. ][4][01 ][, ][2nd ][Floor, ] Ramp,[Jawa][ harlal Nehru ][S][tadium, ][D][elhi-1 ][10003.]4. One [C]Cto [S][RI. ] [ N ,Advocate ][ ]5. One [to ][tt4s]BOKARO SAPNA [(Jr. ] [TAX)]toPUCl5. One [to ][tt4s]BOKARO SAPNA [(Jr. ] [TAX)]toPUCl6. Two CD [CoPies]B I\,1GJPn^YrB I\,1GJPn^Yr Ili HIGH DATED:2 [41O4t2025] 1'r/rrc;+((o'.aJ1E [2ffi]r;\. '.,'rORDER-ry' WP.No.9558 [of ][2025] ALLOWING (Y -il,T:{il.