Wp/9829/2025 Of M/S. The Large Sized Cooperative Society Limited v. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD(Special Originat Jurisdiction) THURSDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF APRILTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION NO: 9829 OF 202s Between: Y{: I!-,9 [Large Sized Cooperative Society Lrmited, ][rep.. ]by rts Secretary, [\/rPitla Shivaji, Pothangal, Kolagiri. Nizamabid-s0j zOz, tetahgana ..PETITIONER AND '1 . Assessment Unit, rncome_T_ax Department, Nationar e-Assessment center,Room No.401, 2nd Froor, E-Ramp, Jawahariar Nehru Stadium,-ru"* oa-rnl-Tro003. Assessment Unit, rncome_T_ax Department, Nationar e-Assessment center,Room No.401, 2nd Froor, E-Ramp, Jawahariar Nehru Stadium,-ru"* oa-rnl-Tro0032. lncome Tax_9tf,"pr, Ward - 1, Aayakar Bhavan, 6-2_15613, Subhash Nagar,Nizamabad 503002.Nizamabad 503002. 3. Principal chief commissioner of rncome Tax, Andhra pradesh andTqqlgunu, [Hyderabad. ][i0-2-3. ][Room ][No ][922, ][gtn ][Fooi, ]b ero;[,-iii;*;rr,AC Guards. Guards. Hyderabad-S0O 004Tqqlgunu, [Hyderabad. ][i0-2-3. ][Room ][No ][922, ][gtn ][Fooi, ]b ero;[,-iii;*;rr,AC Guards. Guards. Hyderabad-S0O 004 AC Guards. Guards. Hyderabad-S0O 0044 9I9n of .lndia, rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Finance. Government of rndia,3 Floor, Jeevan Deep Building. Sansad Marg, New Delhi_1 10 001....RESPONDENTS3 Floor, Jeevan Deep Building. Sansad Marg, New Delhi_1 10 001....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of rhe constitution of lndia praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High cou.t may bepleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ. order ordirection declaring the notice issued by the 2nd Respondent under Section148A(b) dated 02.02.2024, bearing DtN. tTBA/AST/F/148A(SCNy2023_24l1060427539(1) and order passed by 2nd Respondent under Section 148A(d)dated 21 .3.2024, bearing DtN. trBA/ASTtFt148At2o23-24t 1063079959(.1 ) andnotice under Section 148 of the lncome Tax Act, 1961, dared 22.3.2024, bearingDlN. |rBA/ASTlsll49-112023-241 106314s8i i(1)for the assessment year 2o2o-2'l as being without jurisdiction and contrary to faceless assessment procedurelaid down in Section 1448 of the rncome Tax -Act 'rg6 r and consequen y and(b)to set-aside (i) the consequentiar notice issued by the r.t Respondent, under section 142(1) ot the rncome Tax Act, 1961, dateJ 28.o2.202s bearing05.11.2024, bearing DtN, |TBA/ASr Ft142(1)t2024-2it1DtO11 7086( 1). and (ii)the consequentiar order issued by the 1"r Respondent, r.nder Section 147 readwith Sections 144 and Section 1448 of the lncome Tax Act, .196.1 dated28 2 2025 bearing DrN rrBA/AST/S/147t2024-25r1013834530(1) for , theassessment year 2020-21 as being without Jurisdiction,.rbitrary, iregar, bad inlaw, void-ab-initio, apart from being violative of Artictes 14, l9(1)(g) and 265 ofthe Constitution of lndia and contrary to faceless asser,;smenl procedure larddown in section 1448 of the rncome Tax Act 1g61. and r;onsequenry set-asidethe same in the interests of justice. lA NO: 1 oF 2025 Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances statedin the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High CoL-,rt may be pleased togrant stay of all further proceedings, including any reco v,ery, pursuant to theimpugned order dated 28.2.2025 issued by the 1"r Respr.,ndent. under Section147 read with Sr:ctions 144 and 1448 of the lncome Tax A:;t, .1g61, bearing DlN.lrBA/AST/s/'r47,t2o24-25r1o73s34530(1) for the assessment year 2o2o_21,pending disposar of the writ petition as otherwise the pe titioner wil| be put tosevere loss and ha rd sh ip. Counsel for the petitioner: SRt. S. VIJAY ADITHYA counsel for the Respondents: Ms. J. SUNITHA (JUNloR s(.; FoR lNcoME TAx)The Court made the following: ORDER -) THE HONOT'RABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSTIYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSTNG RAONANDIKONDAW.P.No.9829 OF 2025 ORDER, (per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy) Heard Mr. s.Vgay Adithya, learned counsel for the Counsel for the petitioner: SRt. S. VIJAY ADITHYA counsel for the Respondents: Ms. J. SUNITHA (JUNloR s(.; FoR lNcoME TAx)The Court made the following: ORDER -) THE HONOT'RABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSTIYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSTNG RAONANDIKONDAW.P.No.9829 OF 2025 ORDER, (per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy) Heard Mr. s.Vgay Adithya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. J.Sunitha, leamed Junior Standing Counsel forthe Income Tax Department for respondent Nos.2 and 3. Perusedthe record. 2. This is a writ petition where the proceedings are eitherchallenged to the notices which were issued under Section 1484.and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [(for ]short'the Act') or theassessment 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 thegrounds, that the notices issued under Section l48A of the Actand the subsequent initiation ofproceedings under Section [148 ]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 under Section 148,4 of the Act as also under Sec,,ion 148 of theAct ought to have also been issued and proceede,d in a facelessmanner4. The contention contention of the petitioner is thai the issue ofthe petitioner is thai the issue ofpetitioner is thai the issue ofis thai the issue ofthai the issue ofthe issue ofissue ofofproceedirrgs being in violation of the Finance Act, 2021 i.e., theimpugne,J notices under Section l48A and Sectior: 148 of the Actnot being issued in a faceless manner, have alreadl been dealt withand decided by this Court in the case of KANKAN,\LARAVINDRA REDDY vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICERI decidedon 14.09.2023 whereby a batch of writ petitions wrre allowed andthe proceedings initiated under Section 148A as alsro under Section148 of th,: Act were held to be bad with consequent al reliefs on theground o- it being in violation of the provisions of ilection 151A olthe Act read with Notification 1812022 dated 29.03.2022. The saidjudgment passed by this Court has also been subsequently followedin a large number of writ petitions which were allrwed on similarterms. The contention contention of the petitioner is thai the issue ofthe petitioner is thai the issue ofpetitioner is thai the issue ofis thai the issue ofthai the issue ofthe issue ofissue ofof '[(2023) [156 ]taxmann.com [178 ](Telangana)] 5. Down the line, we find that the same issue has also beendecided against the Revenue by various High Courts i.e.,by the Bombay High Court in the case of HEXAWARETECHNOLOGIES LTD., vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX & OTHERS2, Gauhati High Court in the caseof RAM NARAYAN SAH vs. UNION OF INDIA3, Punjab andHaryana High Court in the case of JATINDER SINGH BANGUvs. UNION OF INDIA4, and 1'elangana High Court in the case ofSRI VENKATARAMANA REDDY PATLOOLA vs. DEPUTYCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX5 where the issue was inrespect of intemational taxation, Bombay High Court in the case ofABHIN ANILKUMAR SHAH vS. INCOME TAX OFFTCER,INTERNATIONAL TAXATION6 which is again on internationaltaxation and central circle, High Court of Himachal Pradesh in thecase of GOVIND SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERT,Court in the case of MANSUKHBHAIGujarat High ' lzoz+1464 [ITR 430 (Bom)] ' [(2024) [156 ][taxmann.com ][478 (Gauhati)]] ^[(2024) [165 ]taxmann.com [l5 ][(Punjab ][& ][Haryana)]] '12024) [167 ]taxmann.com [411 (Telangana)l] "12024) [166 ]taxmann.com 679 [(Bombay)l] ' [2024) 165 taxmann.com I l3 [(Himachal ][Pradesh)]] ' lzoz+1464 [ITR 430 (Bom)] ' [(2024) [156 ][taxmann.com ][478 (Gauhati)]] ^[(2024) [165 ]taxmann.com [l5 ][(Punjab ][& ][Haryana)]] '12024) [167 ]taxmann.com [411 (Telangana)l] "12024) [166 ]taxmann.com 679 [(Bombay)l] ' [2024) 165 taxmann.com I l3 [(Himachal ][Pradesh)]] DAHYABHAI RADADIYA vs. INCOME T,,\X OFFICER,WARD 3(3X5)8, Jharkand High Court in the case of SHYAMSUNDAR SAW vs. UNION OF INDIAe, Rajasth:,Ln l{igh Courl inthe case of SHARDA DEVI CHHAJER vs. INCOME 'IAXOFFICER & ANOTHER and batch of writ p:titionsr0 whichstood decided on 19.03.2024. Similar views have also been takenby the Division Bench ol Calcutta'rHigh Court in the case ofGIRDHAR GOPAL DALMIA vs. UNION OF ITNDIA & ORS(M.A.T 1690 of 2023), decided on25.09.2024.6. Even though the same issue having been de,.:ided by a largenumber of High Courts, we are still confronted with targe hling ofidentical matters on daily basis ranging betweerr 5 to 10 writpetitions. That upon the instructions being so:rght from theDepartment, they have been taking a solitary 6rround that thedecision of the Bombay High Court in the casr, of HexawareTechnologies Ltd., (2 supra) as also the one v. hich has beendecided try this Court in the case of Kanakala A'avindra Reddy szozqSCC Online Guj 4012'2025 Online Jhar287to 72023 [: RJ-JD ][:4984-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 matterIn 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 learned 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 olidentical nature are being piled up before this Bench on daily basisand the pendency is getting increased on matter which otherwisehas already been dealt and decided by this very High Court itself.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 Departmeflt to take appropriate steps toeither hold back issuance of notice under Section l48A and underSection 148 of the Act by the jurisdictional Assessing Ofhcer,rather the authorities concerned in the teeth of series of decisions by all the major High Courts in India are cr',ntinuously stillinitiating proceedings under Section 1484. of the Acr and alsoinitiating proceedings under Section 148 o I- the Act incontravention to the amendrnents brought into the I ncome Tax Actinitiating proceedings under Section 1484. of the Acr and alsoinitiating proceedings under Section 148 o I- the Act incontravention to the amendrnents brought into the I ncome Tax Actpursuant to the Finance Act,2020 as also the Finan,.;e ,\ct 2021.9. Upon a query being put as to rvhy can't this writ ltetition be9. Upon a query being put as to rvhy can't this writ ltetition bedisposed of in the teeth of the decision rendered by this Court inthe case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (1 supra), I,.:arned StandingCounsel Jbr the Incorne Tax Deparlment contends that those wouldthe case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (1 supra), I,.:arned StandingCounsel Jbr the Incorne Tax Deparlment contends that those wouldunnecessarily burden the Income Tax Departrnt.nt rvhere theywould be required to file equal number of Sl,Ps before theHon'ble Supreme Court and it would be further burdoning thewould be required to file equal number of Sl,Ps before theHon'ble Supreme Court and it would be further burdoning theexchequer of the Union of India. It was also the c,.rntention of thelearned Standing Counsel that no prejudice would tre caused to theinterest ofthe petitioners in case if this writ petition is kepr pendingtill the linalization of the SLPs pending beforo 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 Departmenl have not comeinterest ofthe petitioners in case if this writ petition is kepr pendingtill the linalization of the SLPs pending beforo 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 Departmenl have not comeout with il mechanism to issue appropriate instrucrions or to take .i,,.. appropriate steps in ensuring that proceedings under Section 148Aof the Act as also the assessment orders under Section 148 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 out even though various orders have beenpassed by this IJigh Court allowing writ petitions on the very sameissue. The lncome Tax authorities concemed 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(1 supra). What is also surprising is the fact that though whileallowing the writ petitions in the case of Kanakala RavindraReddy (l supra), the Division Bench whiie resewing the right ofthe Revenue, has also protected the interest of the petitioners insofar irs the liberty which was granted to the Revenue forinitiating fresh proceedings strictly in accordance u ith the amendedinitiating fresh proceedings strictly in accordance u ith the amendedprovisions of the Act, as amended by the Financr.: Act, 202[) andthe Finance Act,202l. The petitioner assessee wou ld be entitled tothe Finance Act,202l. The petitioner assessee wou ld be entitled tochallengc or raise the other legal objections if the Fl.evenue initiatesfresh proceedings. The Department has made r o endeavour inavailing t.he said liberty that was reserved for the Revenue. On thecontrary, they have been still sticking on to the sr and, which thisHigh Court as well as many other High Courls aheady held to bebadavailing t.he said liberty that was reserved for the Revenue. On thecontrary, they have been still sticking on to the sr and, which thisHigh Court as well as many other High Courls aheady held to bebad 11. It appears that because of the aforesaid liberv that this HighCourt had granted permitting the Revenue for initiating lreshproceedings as a one-time measure in a facele:;s manner, theIncome 1'ax 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. L,ikeu,tse, if thewrit petition is kept pending for a considerable lon1,; period of timeand hnally at a later stage if the Hon'ble Supreme Court confirmsthe decision taken by this High Court as also by the other l{ighCourts in which the SLPs are still pending, tlLe Income Tax '-&i.: Department would get the advantage of the liberty that is otherwiseprotected in favour of the Revenue for initiation of freshproceedings lrom the disposal ofthese matters at a much later stagewhich would be advantageous and beneficial to the Revenue andwould be equatty 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 freshproceedings. 12. The alarrning trend of docket explosion in this Court, despitethe clear precedent set in Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra), is amatter of grave concern. The Income Tax Department's persistentinitiation of fresh proceedings, disregarding the established [judicial]pronouncements, 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 ]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 legalI position. Such conduct raises serious questions about theadministrative efficiency and the respect for judicialpronoun,lements, pa(icularly when this Court has rrlreadl, providedadministrative efficiency and the respect for judicialpronoun,lements, pa(icularly when this Court has rrlreadl, provideda balanced approach by preserving both the Reve.nue's rights andassesses rnterests.assesses rnterests. position. Such conduct raises serious questions about theadministrative efficiency and the respect for judicialpronoun,lements, pa(icularly when this Court has rrlreadl, providedadministrative efficiency and the respect for judicialpronoun,lements, pa(icularly when this Court has rrlreadl, provideda balanced approach by preserving both the Reve.nue's rights andassesses rnterests.assesses rnterests. 13. Another aspect which needs to be considered is that in fact itshould have been realized by the Income Tax Depar-tment itself andshould have found out via media in ensuring that pr,tceedingsunder Sections 148-4 and 148 should not have t,cen issued in afaceless rnanner, at least till the Hon'ble Supreme [( ]'ourt decide thetwelve hundred (1200) odd SLPs which it is alreadt,, seizcd of or, atleast the Income Tax Department should have l ound ,)ut someremedial steps to ensure that wherever the authrrrities intend toinitiate proceedings under Sections 148-A and 148. other than in afaceless manller, the proceedings should have bcen deferredwithout precipitating the matter further intimating tfre assessee thatthey shalL initiate appropriate proceedings only aftt:r the SLP's aredecided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the v,.)ry sarne issueThis again, the Income Tax Department, has not ber:n ablc to give aconvincing reply, except for the fact that such a dlcision if at all { 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]the one hand when the High [Court ][is ][struggling ][to ][reduce its]pendency, such notices [which ][are under challenge ][in ][this writ]petition are forcing the assessee [to ][knock ][the ][doors ][of ][this ][High]Court resulting in filing of [hundreds ][of ][new ][writ ][petitions which ][in]the long run not only alfects [the disposal ][of ][the ][writ ][petitions but]also consumes substantial time [of ][the ][Bench ][in ][hearing ][these]matters again and again [on ][daily ][basis. ][Admittedty, in ][spite ][of ][the]matter before the Hon'ble Supreme [Court ][having ][been taken on]many occasions, the Hon'ble [Supreme ][Court ][which ][is seized ][of ][the]matter has been reluctant in [granting any ][interim ][protection ][to ][the]Income Tax Department. Yet, [the ][authorities ][concerned ][at ][the]State level are not ready [to ][accept ][the verdict ][passed ][by ][a ][majority]of High Courts of different [States ][on ][the ][same issue; and ][to ][make]things further [worse, ]the [Income ][Tax ][Department ][is ][showing]audacity by issuing [notices ][continuously under ][Sections ][148-.4 ][and] 148 through the jurisdictional Assessing Officer r','hereas it oughtto have been only in the faceless manner.to have been only in the faceless manner. 14. In the case of BANK OF INDIA vs, ASSISTANTCOMMISSIONER, INCOME TAXrr, on an issu.: whether it wasjustifiable on the part of the Income Tax Depaflment ln notfollowing an order passed by the adjudicating autht,rity only on theground that the appeals are pending, the Divisiorr llench of theHigh Court of Bombay held at paragraph No.25 as rrnder, viz., : 148 through the jurisdictional Assessing Officer r','hereas it oughtto have been only in the faceless manner.to have been only in the faceless manner. 14. In the case of BANK OF INDIA vs, ASSISTANTCOMMISSIONER, INCOME TAXrr, on an issu.: whether it wasjustifiable on the part of the Income Tax Depaflment ln notfollowing an order passed by the adjudicating autht,rity only on theground that the appeals are pending, the Divisiorr llench of theHigh Court of Bombay held at paragraph No.25 as rrnder, viz., : "25. Mr. Paridwalla has rightly drawn out atte,rtion to thedecision of this Court in Commissioner of lncome I ax vs. Smt.Godavaridevi Sarafr2 as also the recent decisior of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Samp Furniture (P) l.-td. v. lTO13of which one of us (Justice G.S. Kulkarni)was a member, whereinthe tlourt categorically observed that the Revenue having not"accepted" the judgment of the High Court would not rnean that tillthe same is set aside in a manner known to law, it wcrrld loose itsbinding force. Referring to the decision of the Supre me Colrrt 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 critic zed by theSupreme Court. ln such decision, following are the relevantobservations made by the Supreme Court. ll [trzOzsl ][170 ][taxmann.com 422 ][(Bombay)l]" lt979l I tJ ITR 589 (Bombay)" 12OZ+1165 [taxmann.com ][581/300 Taxman ][452 (Bomlray)]'o 1t99z1taxmann.com [t6155 ] 433 [(SC)] -"BY ll [trzOzsl ][170 ][taxmann.com 422 ][(Bombay)l]" lt979l I tJ ITR 589 (Bombay)" 12OZ+1165 [taxmann.com ][581/300 Taxman ][452 (Bomlray)]'o 1t99z1taxmann.com [t6155 ] 433 [(SC)] -"BY "6. Sri Reddy is perhaps right in saying that theofficers were not actuated by any mala fides inpassing the impugned orders. They perhapspassing 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 lheir conclusion or of any factualmalafides but with the fact that the officers, in reachingin their conclusion, by-passed two appellate orders inwould suffer. But what Sri Reddy overlooks is that weare not concerned here with the correctness orotherwise of lheir conclusion or of any factualmalafides but with the fact that the officers, in reachingin their conclusion, by-passed two appellate orders inregard to the same issue which were placed beforethem, one of the Collector (Appeals) and the other ofthe Tribunal. The High Court has, in our view, 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. ltthe 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 thequasiiudicial issues before them, revenue officers areutmost importance that, in disposing of thequasiiudicial issues before them, revenue officers arebound by the decisions of the appellate authorities.The order of the Appellte Collector is binding on theThe order of the Appellte Collector is binding on theAssistant Collectors working within his jurisdiction andthe order of the Tribunal is binding upon the AssistantCollectors and the Appellale Collectors who functronunder the [jurisdiction ]of the Tribunal. The principles ofjudicial discipline require that the orders of the higherappellate authorities should be followed unreservedlythe order of the Tribunal is binding upon the AssistantCollectors and the Appellale Collectors who functronunder the [jurisdiction ]of the Tribunal. The principles ofjudicial discipline require that the orders of the higherappellate authorities should be followed unreservedlyby the subordinate authorities. The mere fact that theorder of the appellate authority is not ["acceptable" ]tothe department - in itself an objectionable phrase -and is the subject mafter of an appeal can furnish noground for not following it unless its operation hasbeen suspended by a competent court. lf this healthyorder of the appellate authority is not ["acceptable" ]tothe department - in itself an 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 rule is not followed, the result will only be undueharassment to assesses and chaos in administrationof tax laws. rule is not followed, the result will only be undueharassment to assesses and chaos in administrationof tax laws. 12. We have dealt with this aspect at some length,because it has been suggested by the l,::arnedAdditional Solicitor General that the obseniationsmade by the High Court, have been harsh on theofficers. lt is clear that the observations of thr,: HighCourt, seemingly vehement, and appirrenflyunpalatable to the Revenue, are only intended trr curba tendency in revenue matters which, if allov.,ed tobecome widespread, could result in considr:rableharassment to the assesses-public without any tr.enefitto the Revenue. We would like to say that thedepartment should take these observations ir theproper spirit. The observations of the High Courtshould be kept in mind in future and the utmost r3gardshould be paid by the adjudicating authorities ard theappellate authorities to the requirements of jr dicialdiscipline and the need for giving effect to the (:rdersof the higher appellate authorities which are bildingon them." 15. Whrlt is worrying this Bench more is tht: fact that anendeavour is being made whole heartedly to ensure rlot to generatefurther litigation on issues which have been laid to rest b1, a largenumber of High Courts all of whom have taken a c,)nsistent standthat the action of the Income Tax Department being ,..iolative of the Finance Act, 2020 and Finance Act,202l . Now, in order to protectthe interest of the Revenue as also that of the assessee, it would 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 High Court in the case ofKankanalq Ravindra Reddy (l supra) shall however be subject tothe outcome of the SLPs which were filed by the Income TaxDepartment and which is pending consideration before the Hon'bleSupreme Court 16. In the given facts and circumstances, this Bench is of the considered opinion that unless and until we do not timely disposeof matters which are squarely covered by the decision of this Courland which stands fortified by the decisions of the various otherHigh Courts on the very same issue, the pendency of this Highof matters which are squarely covered by the decision of this Courland 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 ofas a covered matter. 17. So far as the interest of the Revenue is concerned, we are ofthe considered opinion that the interest of the Revenue has alreadybeen considered and protected, as has been observed in paragraphs 36,31 and 38 ofthe order which, for ready referen<:e, is reproducedhereunderr: 36. For all the aforesaid reasons, lhe impugnr]d noticesissued and the proceedings drawn by the respondent-Department is neither tenable, nor . su stainable.The notices so issued and the procedure adot,ted beingper se illegal, deserves to be and are accor,Jingly setaside/quashed. As a consequence, all the mpugnedorders getting quashed, the consequential orders passedby the respondent-Department pursuant to th3 noticgsissued under Section 147 and 148 would :llso getquashed and it is ordered accordingly. The reason weare [quashing ]the consequential order is on the trinciplesthat when the initiation of the proceedings itself wasprocedurally wrong, the subsequent orders rlso getsnullified automatically- 37. The preliminary objection raised by the p€rtitioner issustained and all these writ petitions stands a lowed onthis very [jurisdictional ]issue. Since the impugnerd noticesand orders are getting quashed on the point ofjurisdiction, we are not inclined to proceed further anddecide the other issues raised by the petitioner whichstands reserved to be raised and contendr,rd in anappropriate proceedings. 37. The preliminary objection raised by the p€rtitioner issustained and all these writ petitions stands a lowed onthis very [jurisdictional ]issue. Since the impugnerd noticesand orders are getting quashed on the point ofjurisdiction, we are not inclined to proceed further anddecide the other issues raised by the petitioner whichstands reserved to be raised and contendr,rd in anappropriate proceedings. 38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the caseof Ashisharwal, supra, as a one-time measureexercising the powers under Article 142 of theConstitution of lndia, permitted the Revenue tc proceedunder the subslituted provisions, and this Cour: allowingthe petitions only on the procedural flaw, ihe rightconferred on the Revenue would remain res;erved to proceed further if they so want from the stage oF theorder of the Supreme Court in the case ofAshishAqarwal, supra.order of the Supreme Court in the case ofAshishAqarwal, supra. 18.We would only further like to make observations that sincewe are inclined to dispose of the instant writ petition, conscious ofthe fact that the earlier order of this High Court in the case ofKanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra) is subjected to challengethe 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 Tax Department, we make it clear thatallowing of the instant writ petition is subject to outcome of theaforesaid SLP preferred by the Revenue against the decision ofthisHigh Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (l stpra).This, in other words, would mean that either of the parties, if theyaforesaid SLP preferred by the Revenue against the decision ofthisHigh Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (l stpra).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,bte SupremeCourt in the pending SLP on the very same issue.Court 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 jurisdictionISconcerned, As a consequence, the impugned notice underchallenge under Sections 148-4 and 148 stands set aside/quashed. j The consequential orders, if any, also stand set [aside/quashed in] similar terms as have been [passed ][by ][this ][High ][Cou ][rt ][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/. ][B. ] STRAR //TRUE COPY// ' sEcfloN oFFrcER To, \1. The Assessment Unit, [lncome ][Tax ][Departmeh{]l\ationial e-AssessmentCenter, Room No.401, [2nd ][Floor, E-Ramp, Jawaharl]al Nehru Stadium, NewDelhi-1 10 003.003.1. The Assessment Unit, [lncome ][Tax ][Departmeh{]l\ationial e-AssessmentCenter, Room No.401, [2nd ][Floor, E-Ramp, Jawaharl]al Nehru Stadium, NewDelhi-1 10 003.003. Delhi-1 10 003.003.2. The lncc,me Tax Officer, [Ward ][- ][1, ][Aayakar ][Bhavi.rn, 6-2-15613' ][Subhash]Naoar. Nizamabad 503002.Naoar. Nizamabad 503002. 3. Th; Principal Chief Commissioner of [lncome ][Tax ][Andhra Pradesh ][and]Telangarra, Hyderabad 10-2-3, [Room No.922, ][9th ][Floor, ] [Block, ][lT ][Towers,]AC Guards, Hyderabad-SOO 004Telangarra, Hyderabad 10-2-3, [Room No.922, ][9th ][Floor, ] [Block, ][lT ][Towers,]AC Guards, Hyderabad-SOO 004+. fne sei.etury, Union l"dA, [N/inistry ][of ][Finance, ][(]overnment ][of ][lndia, ][3'd]"i "i Floor, JeevanDeep Building, Sansad [Marg, ][New ][Dell'i-1 ]['10 ][001 ][.] 5. One CC to SRl. S. VIJAY [ADITHYA, Advocate ] 6. One CC to SRI J SUNITHA [(JUNIOR SC FOR ][INCOI'4E ][TAX) ]IOPUC]7. Two CD CopiesBM7. Two CD CopiesBM GJP iII HIGH COURT DATED:2410412025 /'-,rr. .:r:a]$r.,/; i c' ['']!'r" "/Q.-):)l tii sEP 206.1",/,!?r '.., , [,n ]).rl/ ORDER WP.No.9829 of 2025 5. One CC to SRl. S. VIJAY [ADITHYA, Advocate ] 6. One CC to SRI J SUNITHA [(JUNIOR SC FOR ][INCOI'4E ][TAX) ]IOPUC]7. Two CD CopiesBM7. Two CD CopiesBM GJP iII HIGH COURT DATED:2410412025 /'-,rr. .:r:a]$r.,/; i c' ['']!'r" "/Q.-):)l tii sEP 206.1",/,!?r '.., , [,n ]).rl/ ORDER WP.No.9829 of 2025 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS I