lv1rs. Sameena Begum v. the proceedings initiated under Section l48A as alsr under Section

telms. '[(2023) 156 taxmann.conr 178 ('felangana)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 Courl in the case of HEXAWARE TECHNOLOGIES LTD., vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & OTHERS2, Gauhati High Court in the case of RAM NARAYAN SAH vs. UNION OF INDIA3, Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of .IATINDER SINGH BANGU vs. UNION OF INDIA', and Telangana High Court in the case of SRT VENKATARAMANA RE,DDY PATLOOLA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX5 where the issue was in respect of international taxation. Bombay High Court in the case of ABHIN ANILKUMAR SHAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTBRNATIONAL TAXATION6 which is again on intemational taxation and central circle, Iligh Court of Himachal Pradesh in the case of GOVIND SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERT, Gujarat High Court in the case of MANSUKHBHAI ' lzoz+1464 I'r'R 4Jo (Bonr) 'l(2024) 156 taxmann.corn :l7tl (Ciauhati)l " [(2024) 165 taxmann.conr I l5 (['unjab & IIaryana)] '[2024) 167 taxrnaap*com 'l l I ( I'clan-tlana)] " 12024) 166 taxmann.conr 679 (Bomba1.')l '[2024) 165 taxmann.com l l3 (Himachal Pradesh)] 4 DAHYABHAI RADADIYA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3X5)n, Jharkand High Courl in the ca;c of' SHYAM l SUNDAR SAW vs. UNION OF INDIAe, Ra.jastha r IIigh Court in the case ol SHARDA DEVI CHHAJER vs. |f'ICOME TAX OFFICER & ANOTHER and batch ol urir pr,titionsr(' which stood decided on 19.03.2024. Similar views have irlso been taken by the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in the case of GIRDHAR GOPAL DALMIA vs. UNION Ot' lNl)IA & ORS (M.A.T 1690 of 2023), decided on25.09.2021

6. Even though the same issue having bccn decidcd by a large number of High Courts, we are still conti'onted witlr lalge Iiling of identical matters on daily basis ranging betweerr -5 to l0 writ petitions. That upon the instructions being sotrght liorn the Department, they have been taking a solitary grou nd that the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case <ti He-raware Technologies Ltd., (2 supra) as also lhe onc u,rich has been decided by this Court in the case of Konakolo Rrvindra Reddy '2024 SCC on[.inc Guj 4012 '2025 SCC OnLine Jhar 287 12023 : RI-JD :4984-DI) | o ' ] 5 (1 supra) has been subjected to challenge in a Special Leave Petition i.e., SLP No.3574 ol 2024 belore the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Suprcme Court is seized of the matter. ln addition, there are about 1200 SI-Ps also filed arising out of the same issue being decided by various High Courts.

7. To a query being put to the lcarned counsel for the Revenue, they have categorically acceptcd the lact that there is no interim order granted by the Hon'blc Supretne Clourl in any of these matters pending before it. Meanwhile, tiesh writ petitions of identical nature are being piled up bcfbre this Bench on daily basis and the pendency is getting increased on matter which otherwise has already been dealt and decided by this very Iligh Court itself'

8. On the one hand, even though the order of this Court that was passed as early as on I 4 09.2021 and more 16 months have lapsed, tilt date, we do not find any remedial steps having been taken by the Income Tax Department to takc appropriate steps to either hotd back issuance ol notice under Section l48A and under Section 148 of the Act by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, rather the authorities concerned in the teeth ol series of decisions 6 by all the rnajor High Courts in India are continuously still I initiating proceedings under Section l48A of tht: r\c[ and also initiating proceedings under Section 148 of rhc Act in contravention to the amendments brought into the Incou.rc 'fax Act pursuant to the Finance Act,2020 as also the Financc ,,\ct 201 I

9. Upon a query being put as to why can't 1[i5 rrrir pcrition be disposed ol in the teeth of the decision renderecl b1' Lhis ('ourt in the case of Kanakalu Ravindra Reddy (l supra), lcarrrcd Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department contends tlrat those would unnecessarily burden the Income Tax Departmc,tt wherc they would be required to file equal number of SI I,s helirre the Hon'ble Supreme Court and it would be further brrrdcning the exchequer ol the lJnion of India. It was also the contcntion of the leamed Standing Counsel that no prejudiie would b.'caused ro the interest olthe petitioners in case ilthis writ petition s kcpt pending till the finalization of the SLPs pending beforc thc I lon'bte Supreme Courl and the fact that the petitioner is al,'cady enjoying the benefit of interim protection. Nonetheless, on the earlier query Of this Court as to rvhy the Income Tax Department hirve not cotre out with a mechanism to issue appropriate instructions or to take \' \ \ ,-7 ,/ 7 -r 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 subrnitted by the learned Standing Counsel that the said steps can only be taken at thc level of CBDT as any such steps would have to be taken Pan India and cannot be limited to any of these jurisdictional High Courts.

10. As a result of which, what rve arc t'acing is stecp increase of litigation day in and day out even though various orders have been passed by this High Court allowing w'rit petitions on the very same lssue The Income Tax authorities concemed are still even now in 2025 also initiating proceedings in contravention to the provisions of Section l5lA of the Act and as a rcsult by now, more than 600 to 700 petitions have been already got piled up belore this High Court on an issue which otherwise stands squarely covcred by the judgment of this Court in the case of Kanakala krvindra Reddy ( I supra). What is also surprising is the lact that though while allowing the writ petitions in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra), the Division Bench while reserving the right of the Revenue, has also protected the interest ol- the petitioners 8 L insolar as the liberty which was granted to thc' Revenue lor initiating fresh proceedings strictly in accordance wi .h the amendcd provisions of the Act, as amended by the Finance Act, 2020 and the Finance Act, 202 l. The petitioner assessee woull be entitlcd to challenge or raise the other legal objections if the Rt'venue initiates fresh proceedings. The Department has made nc endeavour in availing the said liberty that was reserved for the Rcvenue. On the contrary, they have been still sticking on to the stand, rvhich this F{igh Court as well as many othcr High Courts alrcady held to be I I . [t appears that because of the aforesaid tiberty that this High Court had granted permitting the Revenue fbr initiating frcsh proceedings as a one-time measure in a facelcs; tnanner, tltc lncome Tax Department wants to take advantagc c,f the same bv protracting these proceedings which would enable thern to nleet thc lirnitation that would otherwise come in the way. I ikew.ise, if thc writ petition is kept pending for a considerable long period of tinrc and finally at a later stage if the Hon'ble Supreme (lourt confirrns the decision taken by this High Courl as also by the other I'ligh Courts in u'hich the SLPs are stitl pending, tht' Income .fax ,/ 9 Department would get the advantage of the liberty that is otherwise protected in fbvour of the Revenue fbr initiation of lresh proceedings from the disposal olthese matters at a much later stage which would be advantageous and beneficial to the Rcvcnue and would be equally disadvantageous and detrimental so far as interest of the assesses are concemed. As a consequence, the Inconre '['ax Department gets an extended periodof time for initiation of fiesh proceedings.

12. The alarming trend of docket explosion in this Court, despite the clear precedent set in Kanakalo Ravindra Redtly ( I supra), is a matter of grave concem. The Income Tax Departmcnt's persistent initiation of lresh proceedings, disregarding the established judicial pronouncements, has led to an unprecedented surgc in litigation with over 500-700 petitions piling up on the same issue. This deliberate approach not only undermines the principle of .iudicial precedent but also strains the judiciat resources unnecessarily. 'l'he Department's strategy of awaiting the Supreme Courl's decision on pending SLPs while continuing to initiate fiesh 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 questiolts about the administrativc efficiency and the respect lirr judiciat pronouncemcnts, particularly when this Court has allcady provided a balanced approach by preserving both the Revenrc's rights and assesses interests

13. Another aspect which needs to be considered is that in fact it should have bccn realized by the lncome Tax Depaft rent itself and should havc lbund out via media in ensuring that proceedings under Sections 148-4. and 148 should not have been issued in a facelcss manner. at least till the Hon'bte Supreme Court decide the trvelve hundred ( 1200) odd SLPs which it is already ieized of or, at least the Income Tax Department should have found out some remedial steps to ensure that wherever the authorities intend to initiate proceedings under Sections 148-A and 148, rther than in a faceless manner, the proceedings should have recn det-ened without precipitating the matter further intimating the asscssee that they shall initiate appropriate proceedings only after the SLP's arc decided by thc Hon'ble Supreme Court on the verv same issue This again, the Income Tax Department, has not beer able to give a convincing reply, except for the fact that such a decision if at all 71 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 lcamed 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 lligh Court is struggling ro reducc irs pendency, such notices which are under challenge in this writ petition are forcing the assessee to knock the doors ol this l{igh Court resulting in fiting of hundreds of new writ petitions which in the long run not only afGcts the disposal of the writ petitions but also consumes substantial time of the Bench in hearing these rnatters again and again on daily basis. Admittedly, in spite of the matter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court having been takcn on many occasions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court which is seizcd ol the matter has been reluctant in granting any interim protection to the lncome Tax Department. Yet, the authorities conccrned at thc State level are not ready to accept the verdict passed by a rnajority of High Cou(s of different States on the same issue; and to make things further worse, the lncome Tax Department IS showing audacity by issuing notices continuously under Sections 148-A and t2 148 through the jurisdictional Assessing Officer wht:t'eas it ought to have been only in the laceless manner

14. In the casc ol IIANK OF INDIA vs' ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, INCOME TAXrr, on an issue ivhcthcr it was justifiabte on the part of the Income Tax Department in not following an order passed by the adjudicating authority only on the ground that the appeals are pending, the Division Bcnch of the I{igh Court of Bombay held at paragraph No'25 as undcr' r'iz'' : "25. Mr Paridwal{a has rightly drawn out attent on to the decision of this Court in Commissioner of lncome Tax vs' Smt' Godavaridevi Saraf'? as also the recent decision )f the co- ordinate Bench of thrs Court in Samp Furniture (P) Ltd' v' lTO13 of which one of us (Justice G.S' Kulkarni) was a membr;r' wherein the Court categorically observed that the Revenue raving not "accepted" the judgment of the High Court would not mean that till the same is set aslde ln a manner known to law' it would loose its binding force. Referring to the decision of the Suprenre Court in Union of lndia vs' Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd'14' the Court observed that the approach of the officials of flevenue of treating decisions being "not acceptable" was critici:'ed by the Supreme Court. ln such decision, following are tlle relevant observations made by the Supreme Court' '11ZOZS1 170 taxmann.com 422 (Bombay)l 21tezs1 I l3 ITR 589 (llombay) t IZOZ+1165 taxrnann.com 58l/300 Taxman 452 (Bomhar') ' 1tOOZl taxntann.corn l6i 55 tlLT 433 (SC) \ -----7 t 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 wrth the fact that the officers, rn 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 lhe 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 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 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 rule is not followed, the result will only be ttndue harassment to assesses and chaos in administ'ation of tax laws. \ 'the

12. We have dealt with this aspect at some lerngth, because it has been suggested by the le,rrned Additional Solicitor General that observ:)tions made by the Hrgh Court, have been harsh o'r the officers. lt is clear that the observations of the High Court, seemrngly vehement, and apparently unpalatable to the Revenue, are only intended tc curb a tendency in revenue matters which, if allow3d to become wrdespread, could result in conside,rable harassment to the assesses-public without any benefit to the Revende. We would like to say that the departmenl should take these observations ir) the proper spint. The observations of the High 3ourt should be kept in mind in future and the utmost rogard should be paid by the adjudicating authorities and the appellate authorities to the requirements of JUdicral discipline and the need for giving effect to the crders of the higher appellate authorities which are bilding on thern." i 5. What is r.r,orrying this Bench more is the lact that an endeavour is being made whole heartedly to ensure rol 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 c,tnsistent stand that the action of the Incomc Tax Department being', iolative of the \ 15 Finance Act,2020 and Finance Act,2021 . 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 observ ation/direction that the disposal of the instant writ petition in terms o[ the judgment rendered by this High Court in the case of Kankrnda Rtvindru Reddy (l supra) shall however be subject to the outcome of the SLPs which were filed by the Income Tax Depaftment and which is pending consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

16. ln 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 lbrtified by the decisions of the various other . High Courts on the very same issue, the pendency of this High Court would lurthcr be burdened which otherwise can be decided and disposed of as a covered matter.

17. So far as the interest of the Revenue is concemed, we are of the considered opinion that the interest of the Revenue has already been considered and protected, as has been observed in paragraphs 16 36,37 and 38 ofthe order which, lbr ready referencc, is reproduced .i .\l \ hereunder:

36. For all the aforesard reasons, the impugned notices issued and the proceedings drawn by the respondent- Department is neither tenable, nor su:;tainable. The notices so issued and lhe procedure adop ed being per se illegal, deserves to be and are accorc ingly set astde/quashed. As a consequence, all the inpugned orders getting quashed, the consequential orders passed by the respondentDepartment pursuant to tho notices issued under Section 147 and 148 would z lsc get quashed and it rs.ordered accordingly. The reason we are quashing the consequentral order is on the principles thal when thd rnitiation of the proceedings ttself was procedurally wrong, the subsequent orders elso gets nullified automatically

37. The preliminary objection raised by the pelitioner is sustained and all these writ petitions stands allcwed on this very jurisdictional issue. Since the impugned notices and orders are getting quashed on the point of ,uflsdiction we are not rncltned to proceed further and decide the other issues rarsed by the petition()r which stands reserved to be raised and contendeJ rn an appropriate proceedings.

38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the case of Ashish Agarwal, supra, as a one{ime rreasure exercising the powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of lndia, permrtted the Revenue to proceed under the substituted provisions, and this Court allowing the petitions only on the procedural flaw, the right ) 17 conferred on the Revenue 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 Aganrval, supra.

18. We would only I'unher like to make observations that since we are inclined to dispose of the instant writ petition, conscious of the lact that the earlier order ol' this High Court in the case of Kanukala Ravindra Reddy (l supra) IS subjected to challenge before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No.3574 of 2024, preferred by the lncome 'fax Department, we make it clear that I allowing of the instant.writ petition is subject to outcome of the aforesaid SLP preferred by the Revenue against the decision of this High Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (l srpra). This, in other 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 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 ls concemed. As a consequence, the impugned notice under challenge under Sections 148-A and 148 stands set aside/quashed 1fi The consequential orders, if any, also stand set a:;ide/quashed in similar terms as have been passed by this High Cour in the case of Kankanalo Ravindra Reddy (l supra). There shall be no order as to costs Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending. if an1 , shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/- L. VIJAYA LAXMI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SEC Sfr-" FFICER To,

1. The Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessmerrt Centre, lncome Tax Department, Ministry of Finance, Room No. 4O1 , 2nd Floor, E-Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium. Delhi 110 003

2. The lncome Tax Officer, Ward 15(1), l.T. Towers. A ,l. Guards, f\rlasabtank, Hyderabad - 500004

3. One CC to SRI A.V.RAGHU RAM, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to SRI K.SUDHAKAR REDDY, Sr. SC FOR lT [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies BSR G o *.f'. HIGH COURT DATED:2610612025 I ,iia Si ',\., 0 2 sEF t02t /.-., .., \ /.'-^. /, :) ii .-.rti-\j.-,\ u-., r.:.\ ORDER WP.No.18020 of 2025 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT.COSTS