M/s Bhawa Constructions Private Lim'rted ' 8-2-N3t83.tN1 to 3' Plot v. Tolrn.ane Room N

Petition under Artrcle 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circur.nstances stated in the ffidavit filed therewith' the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ' Order or passed u/s 148A(d) of the Act' Direction. declaring- a the order dated 27 '04'2023' videDlNandNoticeNo.ITBA/ASTlFt14BN2o23-2411o52407422(1),bythelSt Respondent. for the Assessment Year 2016 '17 and b' the notice dated 27 .04 .2023 , issued try the 1 't Respondent' u/s 148 of the lncome Tax Act' 1 961 ' videDlNandNotice-ITBA/AST/S/148_1t2o23-2411052407550(1),forthe Assessment Year 2016 - 17 as arbitrary' illegal' bad in law' void-ab-initio' violative of the principles of natural justice apart from being violative of Articles 14, 19(1Xg) and 265 of the Constitution of lndia and Sec. 148A of the lncome Tax Act, 1 961 , and consequently set aside the same in the interests of justice IA NO: 10F 2025 ' Petition under section 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings, including any recovery, pursuant to the notice dated 27ro4r2023' issued by the 1'r Respondent, u/s 148 0f the rncome Tax Act, 1961, vide DrN & Notice- rrBA/AST/s/14 8-1t2023-2411052407550(1), tor the Assessment year 2016 _ 12,. pending disposal of the above Writ petition Counset for the petitioner: SRl. A V A SIVA KARTIKEYA Gounsel for the Respondents: Ms. BOKARO SAPNA REDDY (Jr. sC FoR tNcoME TAXI The Court made the foltowing: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTTCE P'SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION No.204 oF 2025 ORDER' (per Hon'ble Sri Justice Narsing Rao Nandikanda) HeardMr.ThanneruChaitanyaKumar,leamedcounsel for the petitioner and Ms' B' Sapna Reddy' learned Junior Standing Counsel for the lncome Tax Department for the respondents' Perused the record.

2. This is a writ petition where the proceedings are either challenged to the notices which were issued under Section l48A and t48 of the [ncome 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 grounds, that the notices issued under Section 148A of the Act and the subsequent initiation ofproceedings under Section 148 of the Act by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer' whereas in terms of the amendment that was brought to the Income Tax Act by way of Finance Act, 7021 w.e'f', 0l'04'2021 onwards' proceedings 2 under Section l4gA of the Act as also under Section l4g 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, Z02l i.e., the impugned notices under Section I4gA and Section l4g of the Act not being issued in a faceless manner, have already been dealt with and decided by this Court in rhe case of KANKANALA RAVINDRA REDDY vs. TNCOME_TAX OFFICERT decided on 14-09.2023 whereby a batch of writ petitions were allowed and the proceedings initiated under Section l4gA as arso under Section 148 of the Act were held to be bad with consequential reliefs on the ground of it being in violation olthe provisions of Section l51A of the Act read with Notificarion lgl2022 dated 29.03.2022. The said. judgment passed by this Court has also been subsequently followed in a Iarge number of writ petitions which were alrowed on similar 'tQ023) 156 taxmann.com l7g (Telangana)l 3

5. Down the line, we find 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 HEXAWARE TECHNOLOGIES LTD', vs' ASSISTANT COMIVtrSSIONER 3' Punjab and oFINCOMETAx&OTHERS2,GauhatiHighCourtinthecase of RAM NARAYAN SAH vs' UNION OF INDIA'^ Haryana High Court in the case of JATINDER SINGH BANGU vs. IINION OF INDIA4, and Telangana High Court in the case of SRI VENKATARAMANA REDDY PATLOOLA VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER O[' INCOME TAX5 where the issue was in respect of intemational taxation' Bombay High Court in the case of ABHIN ANTLKUMAR SHAH VS. INCOME TAX OFFICE& INTERNATIONAL TAXATION6 which is again on internatioflal taxation and central circle, High Court of Himachal Pradesh in the case of GOVIND SINGH vs' INCOME TAX OFFICEFf' Gujarat High Court in the case of MANSUKHBIIAI ' lzozql464 ITR 430 (Bom) 'i2ozil 156 taxmann.com 478 (Gauhati)l ^ l(2024) 165 taxmann.com I I 5 (Punjab & Haryana)l '12024) 167 taxmann.com 4I1 (Telangana)l " IZOZ+1 166'tikmann com 679 (Bombay)l - 'iZOZ+j165 taxmann.com I l3 (Himachal Pradesh)l 4 DAITYABHAI RADADIYA vS. tNCoME TAx OFFICER, WARD 3(3X5)8, Jharkand High Court in the case of SHyAM SUNDAR SAW vs. UNION OF INDIAe, Rajasrhan High Courr in the case of SHARDA DEVI CIIHAJER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER & ANOTHER and batch of writ peritionsro which stood decided on 19.03.2024. Similar views have also been taken by the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in the case of GIRDHAR GOPAL DALMTA vs. UNrON OF INDIA & ORS (M.A.T 1690 of 2023), decided on25.09.2024. 6. Even though the same issue having been decided by a large number of High Courts, we are still confronted with large filing of identical matters on daily basis ranging between 5 to l0 writ petitions. 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 Hexaware Technologies Ltd., (2 supra) as also the one which has been decided by this Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy 'z\z4 SCCOnLine Guj 4012 '2025 SCC Online JharZgT 'o 12023 : RI-JD :4984_DB l 5 (1 supra) has been subjected to challenge in a Special [rave Petition i.e., SLP No.3574 of 2024 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court is seized of the matter' In addition, there are about 1200 SLPs also filed arising out ofthe same issue being decided by various High Courts'

7. To a query being put to th" t"u*"d counsel for the Revenue' they have categorically accepted the fact that there is no interim order granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in any of these matters pending before it' Meanwhile' fresh writ petitions of identical nature are being piled up before this Bench on daily basis and the pendency is getting increased on matter which otherwise has already been dealt and decided by this very High court itself' E. On the one hand, even though the order of this Court that was passed as early as on t4'09'2023 and more 16 months have lapsed, tilt date, we do not find any remedial steps having been taken by the lncome Tax Department to takc appropriate steps to either hold back issuance of notice under Section 148A and under Section 148 of the Act by the jurisdictional Assessing officer' rather the authorities concerned in the teeth of series of decisions 6 by all the major High Courts in India are contrnuously still initiating proceedings under Section l4gA of the Act and also initiating proceedings under Section l4g of the Act in contravention to the amendments brought into the Income Tax Act pursuant to the Finance Aci-, 2020 as also the Finance Act 2021. 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 (I supra), learned Standing counsel for the Income Tax Department contends that those would unnecessarily burden the Income Tax Department w.here they would be required to file equal number of SLps before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and it would be further burdening the exchequer of the Union of India. It was also the contention of the learned Standing Counsel that no prejudice would be caused ro the interest of the petitioners in case if this writ petirion is kept pending till the finalization of the SLps pending before the Hon,ble Supreme Court and the fact that the petitioner is atready enjoying the benefit ofinterim protection. Nonetheless, on the earlier query of this court as to why the Income Tax Department have not come out with a mechanism to tssue appropriate instructions or to take 7 appropriate steps in ensuring that proceedings under Section 148A of the Act as also the assessment orders under Section 148 of the Act are kept in a hold in the light of the decisions dedcided by the various High Courts, it was submitted by the learned Standing Counsel that the said steps can only be taken at the level of CBDT as any such steps would have to be taken Pan lndia and cannot be limited to any of these jurisdictional High Courts' 10. As a result of which, what we are facing is steep increase of litigation day in and day out even though various orders have been passed by this High Court allowing writ petitions on the very same issue. The Income Tax authorities concerned are still even now in 2025 also initiating proceedings in contravention to the provisions of Section l51A of the Act and as a result by now' more than 600 to 700 petitions have been already got pited up before this High Court on an issue which otherwise stands squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in the case ol Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (1 supra). What is also surprising is the fact that though while allowing the writ petitions in the case of Kanakala Rsvindrs Redd.y (l supra), the Division Bench while reserving the right of the Revenue, has also protected the interest ol the petitioners 8 insofar as the liberty which was granted to the Revenue for initiating fresh proceedings strictly in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act, as amended by the Financ e Act, 2020 and, the Finance Act,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 reserved 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. I l. It appears that because ofthe aforesaid Iiberty that this High Court had granted pennitting the Revenue for initiating fresh proceedings as a one_time measure in a faceless manner, the lncome Tax Department wants to take advantage of the same by protracting these proceedings which would enable them to meer the limitation that would otherwise come in the way. Likewise, if the writ petition is kept pending for a considerable long penod of time and finally at a later stage if the Hon,ble Supreme Couft confirms the decision raken by this High Court as also by the other High Courts in which the SLps are still pending, the Income Tax 9 Department would get the advantage of the liberty that is otherwise protocted in favour of the Revenue for initiation of fresh proceedings from the disposal of these matters at a much later stage which would be advantageous and beneficial to the Revenue and would be equally disadvantageous and detrimental so far as interest of the assesses are concerned' As a consequence' the Income Tax Department gets an extended period of time for initiation of fresh proceedings.

12. The alarming trend of docket explosion in this Court' despite the clear precedent set in Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra)' is a matter of grave concern' The Income Tax Department's persistent initiation of fresh proceedings' disregarding the established judicial pronouncements, has led to an unprecedented surge in litigation with over 600-700 petitions piling up on the same issue' This deliberate approach not only undermines the principle of judicial precedent but also strains the judicial resources unnecessarily' The Department's sffategy of awaiting the Supreme Court's decision on pending SLPs while continuing to initiate fresh proceedings appears to be a calculated move to buy time and circumvent timitation periods, rather than adhering to the established legal 10 administrative efficiency and the posltion. Such conduct raises serious questions about the respect for judicial pronouncements, 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 I4g_A and l4g should not have been issued in a faceress manner' at least tilr the Hon'ble Supreme court decide the twelve hundred (1200) odd SLps which it is already seized ofor, 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 14g_A and l4g, other than in a faceless manner, the proceedings should have been deferred without precipitating 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, the Income Tax Department, has not been able to give a convincing reply, except for the fact that such a decision if at all 11 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 learned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department contended that the Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition of similar nature' on the one hand when the High Court is struggling to reduce its pendency, such notices which are under challenge in this writ petition are forcing the assessee to knock the doors of this High Court resulting in filing of hundreds of new writ petitions which in the long run not only affects the disposal of the writ petitions but also consumes substantial time of the Bench in hearing these matters again and again on daily basis' Admittedly' in spite of the matterbeforetheHon,bleSupremeCourthavingbeentakenon 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 concemed at the the verdict passed by a majority State level are not ready to acc€pt of High Courts of different States on the same issue; and to make things further worse, the Income Tax Department is showing audacity by issuing notices continuously under Sections 148-A and t2 148 through the jurisdictional Assessing Officer whereas it ought to have been only in the faceless manner. 14. In the case of BANK OF INDIA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, INCOME TAXil, on an issue whether it was justifiable on the part of the lncome Tax Department in not following an order passed by the adjudicating authority only on the ground that the appeals are pending, the Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay held at paragraph No.25 as under, viz., : "25 Mr. paridwara has righry drawn out attention to the decision of this Court in Commissioner of lncome Tax vs. Smt. Godavaridevi Sarafr2 as also the recent decision of the co_ ordinate Bench of this Court in Samp Furniture (p) Ltd. v. lTO13 of which one of us (Justice G.S. Kurkarni) was a member, wherein the court categoricaly 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 Corporation Ltd.14, the Court observed that the approach of the officials of Revenue of treating decisions being "not acceptable" was criticized by the Supreme Court. ln such decision, following are the relevant observations made by the Supreme Court. l] ttto_l:, t70 taxmann.corn 422 (Bombay)l ',' 11978) I l3 ITR 589 (Bombay) t,j,1ZOZ+1 165 taxmann.com 5g l/300 Taxman4L2(Bombay) 719927 taxmann.com l6155 ELT 4j3 (SC) 13 "6. Sri Reddy is perhaps right in saying that the officers were not actuated by any mala fides in passing the impugned orders' They perhaps genuinely felt that the claim of the assessee was not tenable and that, if it was accepted' the Revenue would suffer. But what Sri Reddy overlooks is that we are not concerned here with the correctness or otherwise of their conclusion or of any factual malafides but with the fact that the officers' in reaching in their conclusion, by-passed two appellate orders in regard to the same issue which were placed before them, one of the Collector (Appeals) and the other of the Tribunal. The High Court has' in our view' rightly criticized this conduct of the Assistant Collectors and the harassment to the assessee caused by the failure of these officers to give effect to the orders of authorities higher to them h the appellate hierarctry lt cannot be too vehemently emphasized that it is of utmost importance that, in disposing of the quasijudicial issues before them' revenue officers are bound by the decisions of the appellate authorities' The order of the Appellte Collector is binding on the Assistant Collectors working within his iurisdiction and the order of the Tribunal is binding upon the Assistant Collectors and the Appellate Collectors who funct'lon under the iurisdiction of the Tribunal' The principtes of judicial discipline require that the orders of the higher appellate authorities should be followed unreservedly by the subordinate authorities' The mere fact that the order of the appellate authority is not "acceptable" to the department - in itself an objectionable phrase - and is the subiect matter of an appeal can furnish no ground for not following it unless its operation has been suspended by a competent court lf this healthy 14 rule is not followed, the result will only be undue harassment to assesses and chaos in administration of tax laws.

12. We have dealt with this aspect at some length, because it has been suggested by the leamed Additional Solicitor General that the observations made by the High Court, have been harsh on the officers. lt is clear that the observations of the High Court, seemingly vehement, and apparenfly unpalatable to the Revenue, are only intended to curb a tendency in revenue matters which, if allowed to become widespread, could result in considerable harassment to the assesses_public without any benefit to the Revenue. We would like to say that the department should take these observations in the proper spirit. The observations of the High Court 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 lhe 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 is being made whole heartedly to ensure not to generate further litigation on issues which have been laid to rest by a large number of High Courts all of rvhom have taken a consistent stand that the action of the Income Tax Department being violative of the 15 Finance AII,ZOZO and Finance Act,Zo}l. Now, in order to protect the interest of the Revenue as also that of the assessee' it would be trite at this juncture, if we dispose of the writ petition with an observation/direction that the disposal of the instant writ petition in terms of the judgment rendered by this High Court in the case of Kankanqla Ravindra Redd'y (l supra) shall however be subject to the outcome of the SLPs which were filed by the Income Tax Department and which is pending consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

16. In the given tacts and circumstances' this Bench is of the considered opinion that unless and until we do not timely dispose of matters which are squarely covered by the decision of this Court and which stands fortif,red by the decisions of the various other High Courts on the very same issue' the pendency of this High Court would further be burdened which otherwise can be decided and disposed of as a covered matter'

17. So far as the interest of the Revenue is concerned' we are of the considered opinion that the interest ofthe Revenue has already been considered and protected, as has been observed in paragraphs L5 36,37 and38 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 per se illegal, deserves to be and are accordingly set aside/quashed_ As a consr orders gettins quashed,,n. ;;.";T;;: I:.::::::: by the respondent-Department pursuant to the notices issued under Section 147 and 14g would also get quashed and it is ordered accordingly. The reason we are quashing the consequential order is on the principles that when the initiation of the proceedings itself riras procedurally wrong, the sul lsequent orders also gets nurified automaticary.

37. The preliminary objection 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 getting 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 of Ashish Since the Hon,ble Supreme Court had, in the case Agarwal, supra, as a one-time measure the powers under Article 142 exercising of the Constitution of lndia, permifted the Revenue to proceed under the substituted provisions, and this Court allowing the petitions only on the procedural flaw, the right \7 confer, ed on the Revenue would remain reserved to proceed further if they so want frorn the stage of the order of the Supreme Court in the cas6 of Ashish Agarwal, supra.

18. We would only further like to make observations that since we are inclined to dispose of the instant writ petition' conscious of the fact that the earlier order.of this High Court in thecase of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra) is subjected to challenge before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No'3574 of 2024' prefen'ed by the [ncome Tax Department, we make it clear that altowing o[ the instant writ petition is subject to outcome of the aforesaid SLP preferred by the Revenue against the decision of this HighCourtinthecaseolKanakalaRavindraRefuIy(lsupra). This, in ottrer words, would mean that either of the parties' if they so want, may move an appropriate petition seeking revival of this writ petition in the tight ol the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the pending SLP on the very same issuo'

19. Accordingty, the instant writ petition stands allowed in favour of the assessee so far as the issue of jurisdiction is concerned. As a consequence, the impugned.notice under challengeunderSectionsl48.Aandl48standssetaside/quashed. I I 18 The consequential orders, if any, atso stand set aside/quashed in similar terms as have been passed by this High court in the case of Konkanala Ravindra Reddy (l supra). There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, niscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPYII S D/- T. VIJAY KUMAR {lw REGIsTRAR ECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Deputy Commissioner of lncome Tax Circle (1), No.- 722,7th Floor, lT Towers, AC Guard s, Masab Tank 004, 2. The Hyderabad, Room , Hyderabad - 500 Telangana. Principal Chief Commissioner of lncome Tax, Andhra pradesh and Telangana- Room No.- 922, 9th Floor, B Block, l.T.Towers, 10-2-3, AC Guards, Hyderabad - 500 004. Teta ngana Towers, AC Guards, Masab Tank,

3. The Assistant Commissioner of I ncome Tax. Circle 1(2), Hyderabad, lT 4. Assessrnent Unit, lnmme Tax Deparlment. National e-Assessment Center New Delhi, Room No.- 4O1,2nd Floor. E-Ramp. Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, New Delhi - 1,10 003 yderabad - 500 004, Tetangana H

5. One CC to SRl. A.V .A .SIVA KART|KEyA. Advocare tOpUCl 6. One CC to Ms. BOKARO SAPNA REDDY (Jr. SC' FOR '|NCOME 7. Two CD Copies IoPUCI TAX) BM GJP HIGH COURT DATED:2810412025 ORDER WP.No.20 4 of 2025 RTIi )iA 22 llUE M f, , /, \1 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS )o