Sri Bramaramba Mallikharjuna Swamy Temple v. 1. The lncome Tax Officer

challenged to the notices which rvere issued under Section l48A 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. 'lhis writ petition is being taken up today only on one of the grounds, that the notices issued under Section l48A of the Act and the subsequent initiation of proceedings under Section 148 of the Act by the jurisdictional Assessing Ofhcer, whereas in terms of the amendment that was biought to the lncome-Jpx Act by way of Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f.,01.04.2021 onwards, proceedings 2 under Section 148,{ 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 thal the issue of proceedings being in violation of the Finance AcL, 2021 i.e., the impugned notices under Section l48A and Section 148 of thc Act not being issued in a faceless manner, have already been dealt u,ith and decided by this Court in the case of KANKANALA RAVINDRA REDDY vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICERI decided on | 4.09.2023 whereby a batch of writ petitions wcre allorved and the proceedings initiated under Section 148A as also under Section 148 of the Act were held to be bad with consequenlial reliefs on the ground of it being in violation of the provisions of Section I 5 I A of the Act read with Notification 1812022 dated29.03.2022. The said judgment passed by this Court has also been subsequently lollowed in a large nurnber of writ petitions which were allowed on similar tenns. '[(2023) 156 taxmann.com 178 (Telangana)] i J

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 Courl in the case of HEXAWARE TECHNOLOGIES LTD., vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSTONER OF INCOME TAX & OTHERS2, Gauhati High Court in the case of RAM NARAYAN SAH vs. UNION OF INDIAs, Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of JATINDER SINGH BANGU vs. UNION OF INDIA4, and Telangana High Court in the case of SRI VENKATARAMANA REDDY PATLOOLA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX5 where the issue was in respect of intemational taxation, Bombay High Court in the case of ABHIN ANILKUMAR SHAH vS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION6 which is again on intemational taxation and central circle, High Court of Himachal Pradesh in the case of GOVIND SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERT, Gujarat High Court in the case of MANSUKHBHAI 'lzoz+1464 ITR 430 (Bom) ' l(2024) 156 taxmann.com 478 (Gauhati)l ' [(2024) 165 taxmann.com 1 I 5 (Punjab & Haryana)] '12024) 167 taxmann.com 411 (Telangana)l " [2024) 166 taxmarur.com 679 (Bombay)] '12024) 165 taxmann.com 113 (Himachal Pradesh)l \ ,._ 4 DAHYABIIAI RADADIYA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3Xr8, Jharkand High Court in the case of SHYAM SUNDAR SAW vs. UNION OF INDtAe, Rajasthan High Court in the case of SHARDA DEVI CHHAJER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER & ANOTHER and batch of writ petitionsro 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 DALMIA vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS (M.A.T I69t) of 2023), decided on25.09.2024.

6. Even though the same issue having been decidcd by a large number of Fligh Courts, we are still confronted with large filing of identical matters on daily basis ranging between 5 to i 0 u,rit petitions. That upon the instructiops 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 Lld., (2 supra) as also the one which has bcen decided by this Court in the case of Kanakalo Ravindro Reddy 8202+ SCC online Guj a\D "2025 SCC Online lhar 287 12023, RI-.n ) :49 84-DB l o ' a'1 5 (1 supra) has been subjected to challenge in a Special Leave 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 the learned counsel for the Revenue, they have categorically accepted the fact that there is no interirn 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'

8. On the one hand, even though the order of this Court that was passed as early as on 14.09.2023 and more 16 months have lapsed, till date, we do not find any remedial steps having been taken by the Income Tax Department to take 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 concemed in the teeth of series of decisions 6 by all the major High Courts in India are continuously still initiating proceedings under Section 148,{ 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 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 Kanakda Ravindra Reddy (l supra), leamed Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department contends that those would unnecessarily burden the Incorne Tax Department where 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 leamed Standing Counsel that no prejudice would be caused to the interest of the petitioners in case if this writ petition is kept pending I tili the finalization of the SLPs pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the fact that the petitioner is already enjoying the benefit of interim protection. Nonetheless, on the earlier query of this Courl as to why the Income Tax Department have not come out with a mechanism to issue appropriate instructions or to take appropriate steps in ensuring that proceedings under Section l48A 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 decided by the various High Courls, 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 India and cannot be timited to any of these jurisdictional High Courrs.

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 151A of the Act and as a result by now, more than 600 to 700 petitions have been already got piled up before this High Courl on an issue which otherwise stands squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of Kanskala Ravindra Reddy (1 supra). What is also surprising is the fact that though while allowing the writ petitions in the case of Kanukula Ravindra Reddy (1 supra), the Division Bench while reserving the right of the Revenue, has also protected the interest of the petitioners 8 insofar as the liberry which was granted to the Revenue lor initiating fresh proceedings strictly in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act, as amended by the Finance 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 liberly that was reserved for the Revenue. On thc contrary, tl'rey 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 ofthe aforesaid liberty that this High Court had granted permitting the Revenue for initiatir.rg fresh proceedings as a one-time measure in a faceless manner, the Income Tax Department wants to take advantage of tl-re sarne 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 a later stage if the Hon'ble Supreme Court confirms the decision taken by this High Court as also by the other High Courts in u,hich the SLPs are stitl pending, the Income Tax -l 9 Dcpartment would get the advantage of the liberty that is otherwise protected 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 concemed. As a consequence, the lncome Tax I)epaftment 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 (1 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 strategy of awaiting the Supreme Court's decision on pending SLPs while continuing to initiate fresh proceedings appears to be a calculated. move to buy time and circumvent limitation periods, rather than adhering to the established legal \ 10 position. Such conduct raises serious questions about the administrative efficiency and the respect firr judicial pronouncements, particularly when this Court has already provided a balanced approach by preserving both the Revenue's rights and assesses ln tcrests.

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 tl.rat proceedings under Sections 148-4 and 148 should not have bcen issued in a faceless manner, at least till the Hon,bte Supreme Court dccide the twelve hundled (1200) odd SLps which it is already seized of or, at least the Income Tax Department should have lound out some remedial steps to ensure that wherever the authorities intend to initiate proceedings under Secrions l4g-A and 14g, othcr than in a faceless manner, the proceedings should havc been deferred without precipitating the matter further intimating thc assessee that they shall initiate appropriate proceedings only after rhe SLp,s are decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the very same issue. This again, the Inbome Tax Department, has not been able to give a convincing leply, except for the fact that such a decision if at all r ( r-) 7L 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 Ievel of Central Board of Direct Taxes. Though the leamed Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department contended that the Dethi 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 hling of hundreds of new writ petitions which in the long mn 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 matter before the Hon'ble Supreme Courl 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 concemed at the State level are not ready to accept the verdict passed by a maj ority 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 -I 12 r 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 TAXrr, on an issue whether it was justifiable on the part of the Income Tax Depaftment 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. Paridwalla has righ y drawn out attention to the decision of this Court in Commissioner of lncome Tax vs. Smt. Godavaridevi Sarafl2 as also the recent decision of the co_ ordinate Bench of this Court in Samp Furniture (p) Ltd. v. lTO13 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 Corporation Ltd.11, 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. t,'"|<zOzs) " [978] I l3 ITR 589 (Bombay) 170 l.axmann.com 422 (Bombay)l

1.3 120241165 taxmann.com 5gl/300 Taxman 452 (Bombay) 'o ]lO9z1taKnann.com 16155 ELT433 (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 correotness 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 in the appellate hierarchy. lt cannot be too vehemently emphasized that it is of utmost importance that, in disposing of the quasijudicral 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 jurisdiction and the order of the Tribunal is binding upon the Assistant Collectors and the Appellate Collectors who function under the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The principles of judicial discipline require that the orders of the higher appellate authorities should be followed unreservedly by the subordinate auihorities. The mere fact that the order of the appellate authority is not "acceptable" to the department - in itsetf an objectionable phrase - and is the subject matter of an appeal can furnish no ground for not following it unless its operation has been suspended by a competent court. lf this healthy 74 t 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 learned Additional Solicitor General that the observations made by the High Court, have been harsh on the offrcers. 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 the need for giving effect to the orders of the higher appellate authoriiies which are binding on them."

15. What is wolrying 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 whom have taken a consistent stand that the action of the Income Tax Department being violative of the 15 Finance Act, 2020 and Finance Act,202l . 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 Kankanala Ravindra Reddy (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 Cour1.

16. In the given facts 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 fortified 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 of the Revenue has already been considered and protected, as has been observed in paragraphs 76 I 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 per se illegal, deserves to be and are accordingly set aside/quashed. As a consequence, all the impugned orders getting quashed, the consequential orders passed by the respondent-Department pursuant to the notices issued under Section 147 and 148 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 was procedurally wrong, the subsequent orders also gets nullified automatically.

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 poinl 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 exercising the powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of lndia, permitted the Revenue to proceed under the substituted provisions, and this Court allowing the petitions only on the procedural flaw, the rght -J./ L7 Gonferred on the Rdvenue would remain reserved to proceed further if they so want from the stage of the order of the Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Agarwal, supra.

18. We would only further Iike to make observations that since we are inclined to dispose of the instant writ petition, conscious of the fact that the earlier order of this High Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra) is subjected to challenge before the Hon'ble Supreme Courl in SLP No.3574 of 2024, prefer-red by the Income Tax Department, we make it clear that allowing of the instant writ petition is subject to outcome of the aforesaid SLP preferred by the Revenue against the decision ofthis High Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra). This, in other words, would mean that either of the parties, if they so want, may move an appropriate petition seeking revival ofl this writ petition in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the pending SLP on the very same issue.

19. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands allowed in favour of the assessee so far as the issue of jurisdiction IS concerned. As. a consequence, the impugned notice under challenge r.rnder Sectioirs 148-4 and 148 stands set aside/quashed I I 18 I The consequential orders, if any, also stand set aside/quashed in similar terms as have been passed by this High Court in the case ol Ktnkonala Ravindra Reddy (l supra) There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shatl stand closed. //rRUE coPY/' f,:s{*t. sD(-K.BHAVANI SW *to't' lusecrtoruorrr To

1. The lncome Tax Officer, W_ard .l ^ Veerabhadra Nagar,.New Bus Stand,Sangai6OOy, fetangana_50)OOt. 2. The Principar chief commissioner oitnco'ie iii, np anci'rs, idtn-Froor, ^ 9lo.[, t.T. Towers, 1O_2_3, A.C. Guards, ftvOeriOrO_SOOOO+. 3. The Assessment Unil lncome Tax Oepirt,i,eni, National Fiieless , Sangareddy, lnln/ne Tax Office, Assessment.Centre, Dethi, Ministry_of Fin;;;,'noo,.n ruo. +oi, Z-na ffoor, Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, O"tf,i_iiOOOS ! One CC to SRt DUNpg.vlryMonAN, Aovocat. topucl 5. One CC to Ms. J.SUN,THA (JUN,OR SCIO[iNb-Or,rre rnXl Advocate loPUCl ,*o CD Copies aOU. GJPIA } v-*, att\ AMY RAR CER E. HIGH COURT I DATED:2910412025 I ,,1': r!. /. o (_) :I: T EIJ C l't i,r{ It 10 JUr 20ffi h i\ l) r rr.-'l eD * 7 a) ORDER WP.No.13062 of 2025 ALLOWING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. (hCts