The High Court · 2025

(per Hon'ble Sri lttstict P.Smn KoslLy) Hearcl Mr. S.Vijay Aclithya, learned counsel for tl-rc petitioner ancl Ms. J.Sunitha, Iearnecl Senior Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Departrnent appearing for the responclent Nos.1 to 3, and Mr. G.Narcsh, learned counsel represcnting Mr. Gadi Prave'en Kumar, leamed Deputy Solicitor General of India, appearing for respondent No.4- Perusecl the recorcl

2. This is a writ petition where the proceedings are either challenged to the notices which were issued under Section 148A and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short'thc Act') or the assessment ordcrs tlrose have becr-r passec'l under Scction 1.47 of the Act wl-rich have been assa iled

3. 'l-his writ petition is beirrg taken up today only on one of the grounds, that the notices issued under Section 148,4. of the Act and the subsequent initiation of proceedings under Section 148 of the Act by the jurisdictional Assessing Of(icer, whereas in terms of the amenclment that was blought to the Income Tax Act by way of Finance Act, 2027 w.e.f ., 01.04.2021 onwards, proceedings under Section 1484. 2 of the Act €rs also uncler Section l4[i of the Act ought to have also been issued and lrrocL'eLlecl iu a faccless nlanllct'

4. The <--or-rtt r-rtiorr of the petitioner is that the ts iu(,. of proceedings being in violation trf the Finance Act, 2021 i.e., thc' inrpugned notices uncler Sectror-r l48A arrd Section 148 of the Act trol beinl; issuecl in a faceless manncr, havc alreacly becn clealt with ar r-l clt'citled by this Court in the casc of KANKANALA RAVINT)I(A REDDY vs. INCOME-I'AX OFITICER1 dccitlecl orr '14.09.2023 u'he-reby a batch of writ petitions u clc' arlkrrvcd ancl the proceerlings ir-ritiatcd under Scction l48A as als,o untler Sc.ction 148 of thc. Act lve rc' lt lti to bc bacl with consequentral lr:licfs on the grouncl of it bcing irr violation of the provisions ,rf Sc.i:tion 15lA of the Act lead u,ith Nrrtilication 18/2022 clak'cl 29.03.2022. '[he saicl juclllmcnt passcd L]y this (,ourt lias also boen subsequer-rtly follow'erl ir-r a large rrumlrcr of writ pe,itions which were allowcd on similar terr-ns

5. Down thc lir-rc, we find Lhat the sarne issuc has arlso bcen decicled against the Reverruc by rrarious High Courts i.e., by thg Ilornbay l-Iigh Court in thc case of HEXAWARE TECHNOL()GIES LTD., vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T,\X & OTHERS" Gauhati Hi6lh Court in the casc. of RAM NARAYAN SAH vs. UNION ' [(202]) 156 taxrnann.conr 178 ('l clangana)] 'lzoz+1464 t'ft( .t3o ltlonr) -. ,;i$x{. 3 OF INDIA3, Punjab ancl Haryana High Court in the casc of fATINDER SINGH BANGU vs. UNION OF INDIAI, and Telangana High Court in the case of SRI VENKATARAMANA REDDY PATLOOLA vs' DEPUTY COMMISSIONEIT OF INCOME TAX5 where the issue was in respect of internatiotraI taxation, Bornbay High Court in the case of ABHIN ANILKUMAR SHAH VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION6 n'hich is again on international taxation and central cir.cle, IJigh Court of Himaclral Pradcsh in the case of GOVIND SINGH vs' INCOME TAX OFFICERT, Gujarat High Court in the case of MANSUKHBHAI DAHYABHAI RADADIYA vs' INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3X5)8, Jharkancl High Court in the case of SHYAM SUNDAR SAW vs. UNION OF INDIAe, Rajasthan I{igh Court in the casc of SHARDA DEVI CHHA}ER vs' INCOME TAX OFFICER & ANOTHER at.rc1 batch of writ petitionsr(rwhich stood decic{ec1 on 19.03.2024. Similal views have also been taken by the Division Bench of Calcutta lligh Court in the case of GIRDHAR 'l(2024) 156 taxmann.corn 478 (Cauhati)l ^ [(2024) 165 taxrnann.corn I l5 (Puniab & l{alyana)] ' 12024) 167 taxmam.com 4l I (Telangana)l " [2024) 166 taxrnann.corn 679 (l]ornbay)l '12024) 165 taxtnann.corn I l3 (Himachal Pradesh)l t2024 SCC Onlirle Guj 4012 '2025 SCC Online Jhar 287 'n12023, RJ-JD:4984-DBl ,ai,& .tl$#, 4 GOPAL DALMIA vs. UNION OF INDIA & OIIS (Nl.A.T 1.690 of 2023), cleciclecl <tn 25.09.2024.

6. Irven thougl-r llrer same issuc having been c ct-ic]c.c1 by a large rlulrrbcr of lJigh Courts, u/c are still confron te cl r,.itlt largc filing of itlentical nr.rttet s orr rlailv basis rartrling Lrclrvccr-r 5 t , I0 rvrit petitior-rs. That uporr thc rnstructiorrs [-,ein[j sought from tltt' l)cpartntent, they havc beerr takitrll a solitary ground that the clccisi.rrr of thc Bombay I ligh Corrlt in the case ctf I I cxoruarc 'I-echnologias Ltl., (Z supla) as also tlrc. orre wlrtch has becrr tlecicled by Lhis Court il1 th( (.,lse o[ Kqtnkalq Roaindra Reddy (1 supra) has Lrccn subjcctecl kr challcr-rgr-: in a Special Lcave Petitjon i.c-.., SI-l' No.3574 of 2024 before thc I lor.r'ble Supreme Court ancl the Iftrrr'Lrlc Suprernc. Court is scizr,Ll of thc rnatter. ln adc'litio., thcr.c are about 1200 SLI,s aiso filc-d arisirrrl out of thc same issue being rlecitlcd L-ry various High Cour.ts.

7. 'I'o a quely beins 1-lut to the learned courrsc_,I for. th,, Revcnue, they have catcgorically acceptcd the [.rct thaI tlrer.e is rto interirn orcier granted by the FIon'ble Suprer.ne Court in an), of thcs.. ntatters pending before it. Meanrvhile, fresh wr.it petitions of icientical naturc are being pilecl up bclole this []er-rch on ciaily basis ancl the pt rrtlenc.y is getting itrcreased or1 lratte,. which othern,ise has alreatlv bec^ dealt arrd decided bv this vc.r1, I ligh Court itseif. 5

8. On the one hancl, even tlrough the order of this Court that was passcd as early as on 74.09 -2023 and more 16 months have lapsed, till date, we do not find any remeclial steps having been taken by the Income Tax Departmerrt to take appropriate stePs to either hold back issuance of notice undcr section l48A arrd undcr section 148 0f the Act by the jurisdictional Assessing of ficer, rather the authorities concerned in the teeth of series of decisions by all the major High Courts in India are continuously still initiating proceedings under Section 1484 of the Act and also initiating proceeclings uncler Scction 148 of the Act in contravention to the amendments brought trto the Income Tax Act pursuant to the Finance Act,2020 as also the Finance Act 202'L ' g. Upon a query being put as to rvhy can't this rvrit petition be disposed of in the teeth of the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Kanakala Rattindra Reddy (1, supra), learned Standing Counsel for the lncome Tax Department contencls that those would unnecessalily burden the Income Tax Department where they would be required to file equal uumber of SLPs before the Hon ble Supreme Court and it woulcl be further burclening the exchequer of the union of India. It was also the contention of tl-re learned standing Counsel that no prejudice would be caused to the interest of the petitioners in case if this writ petition is kept pencling till the finalization of .the SLPs 6 pending beforc the Hon'ble Supr.erne Court and the fact that t1-re petitioner is alreacly enjoying tl-re benefit of ir-rtcrim protection. Nonethelesr;, on the eallier query of this Court as lo why the Income Tax Departmcnt have not corne out with a mr,cltanism to issue approl-rliate ir-rsh'uctions ol to take appropriatc stc1,5 i11 cnsur.ing that proceedings; uncicl Section 148,4 of thc Act as also thc assessment orders urde'r' scc tior-r 148 of the Act ale kept in a hokl i. the light of the decisions dr:cidc:cl by the valious I Iigh Cour.ts, it wa,; submittecl by the Ieamecl Stanclinc Counsel that the saicl ste|s can or.l1' be taken at the Ievel of cB[)l as ary such sie ps woulcl have to bc tal<c^ Iran India arc] cannot be lirniietl to any of these jurisdictional I Iigh C our.ts.

10. As a resuli of which, what w,c are facing is steep incr.ease of Iitigation clay in and day out ever-r though various or-ders have been passec'l b1, t)ris liigh Court allowine writ petitior.rs .n thc ver.y samc issuc. Ihe Incolne Tax authorities corrceLned are still e\rcn no\ / in 2025 also initiatir-rg ploceeclings in contravention to the prorrisions of section 151 A of the Act a.d as a result by now, more tha. 600 to 700 petitio,s have been ah'cacly got piled up before this Fligh C.ourt on an issue wl-rich otherrvise sta,ds squarely co'ered by the juclgrnent of this Court in the case of lQttmlcala Raaindra Reddy (1, supra). What is also t".!lj:i"g is thc' f;rct thar though while ailowing the n,.rr petirions in tl.rc . 1_. 7 //,/ case of Kanakala Raaindra Reddy (1 supra), the Division Bench while reserving the light of the Revenue, has also protcctcd the interest of the petitioners insofar as the liberty which was granted to the Revenue for initiating fresh proceeclings strictly in accordance with tl-re amended provisions of tl-re Act, as amended by the Finance Act, 2020 and the Finance Act, 2027. Thc prglill6nsr assessee would be entitled to challenge or raise the other legal objections if the Rcvenue initiates fresh proceedings. The Department has made no enclcavour in availing the said libelty that was reserved for tl're Revenue. On the contrary, they have been still sticking on to the stanc'I, n,hich tl-ris High Court as wcll as many other High Courts already held to be baci "1L. It appears that becausc of the aforesaicl liberty that this High Court hacl granted perrnitting thc Revenuc for initia ting frcsh procccclings as a one-time measure in a faceless manrler, the lncome Tax Department wants to take aclvantage of the same by protracting these proceedings which woulci cnable them to meet the limitatior-r that would otherwise come in the way. Likewise, if the writ petition is kept pending for a considerable long period of time ancl finally at a later stage if the Hon'ble Supreme Court confirms the decision taken by this I{igh Court as also by the other l{igh Courts in which the SLPs are still pending, the Income Tax Deparhnent would gct the advantage of the 8 Iiberty that is otherwise plotectecl in favour of the Reverrue for initiation of fresh procceclings from the disposal of these matiers at a rnuch later stage which r,'.ould be advantageous and beneficial o the Rcverrue anci would be equallv disadvantaqeous anc{ detrintcnt.ll io far as intcrest of thc asscsse,s are concernetl. As a coltscrluencc the Incoruc Tax Depa116g111 gets an extt nrlerl periocl of tirne for itritiation o[ fresh proceedinl3:;

72. Thc alarr-nir-rg trencl of clocket explosion in this Coult, clcspite tl-re clear precetlcnt set in Kanakala Raoittdrs Rafuly (7 suprtr), is tr rnattcr of grave concern. 'lhe Income 'l ax Departmcnt's pL'rirstent initiation of fresh pnrcecdings, disregarding the esta blished juclicial pronourlc('nr en ts, has lecl to an unprecedentecl surgc rn litigation with over' 600-700 ptLitions piling up on the sarlc' issL c. This dtliberak: approach rrrrt only urrclermir-rcs the principle of jucllcial prccederrt but also strains tht' juclicia I rcsources unnecessarily. re I)epartr-nent's strategy of awaiting thc Supreme Court's clecision on pcnclitlll SLPs while contirruinlg to irritiatc frcsh ploceedings appean; to bc a cal<:ulatccl move to buy Lime and circumvent limitation pc; iods, t-athcr thal-r aclhering to thc tsiablishecl legal position. Such con,luct laises serious questions aL-,ou t the administrative efficiency arld thc r(.spect for iuclicial lrl'onoutlccrneuts, particularly when this Court has already provirlcrl a 9 balanced approach by preserving bcth the Revenue's rights and assesses interests

13. Another aspect which needs to be cor-rsiclercd is that in fact it should have been realizecl by the Incomc Tax Departrnent itself and should have found out via media in ensuring that prrocecclings uncler Sections 148-4 and 148 should not have beer-r issuecl in a faceless manner, at lcast till the Hon'blc Supreme Court cleciclc thc. trvelve hunclrecl (1200) oclcl SLPs which it is already seizec-l o[ or, at lcast the Incomc. T'ax Department shoulc'l lrave founcl out sorre rcurerlial stcps to ensurc that wherever tl-re authorities intencl to initiate proceedings under Sections 148-4 ancl L48, other than in a faceless manner, the proceedings should have been deferred witl-rout precipitating the matter further intimating the assessee that they shall initiate appropriate p'rroccedings only after the SLI"s are decided by the I lorr'ble Supreme Court on the very same issue. 'fl-ris again, the lncomc'fax Department, has not been able to give a convir-rcing reply, except for the fact that such a clecision if at all has to Lre taken, has to be takc.n for the whole of India, and which otherwise has to be by way of a prolicy decision and that too at the level of Central Board of Direct Taxes. Though the learned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Dcpartment contended that the Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petitior-r of sirnilar nature, on 10 the one harLd when the Iligh Coult is struggling to rr'tlttce its pendency, such notices rvhrch al'c utldel challenge in this writ Pt'lition are forcing the assesser: to knoi:k thc cloors of this l{igh Court rr'sttltitrg in l-iling of hundrcds c,f nt'n, n,rit pctitions rvhich in the lonl; r Lttt tlot ol-rly affects the disposal ol:thc. rvrit petitions but also collsttmes strbsLrntial tirne of the Bench iL'r hcaring thcsc tnattcrs agaiu attel a1l.rrrr da il',, [6r1t Admitteclly, in sf-ritc of thc tuattcr before the I Iot-t':,lt' Suprrctne Court having trcen ta kcn ()n nrany occasions, the I lon'l,it' Sttprer.utt Court r,r,hiclr is serzet{ of the nratter lras becn reluctaut in r1 arrtinq ar-ry interim protection to tlrc Inconre 'fax Dcpaltnetrt. Yt t, thc .luthorities concernecl ,rt thc Sta tc lcvcl are not rcady to accePt LIrt' r'crclict passecl b), a maiority of I Iigh Courts of different States orl llrt' satne issue; and to make tlrings tulther worsLr, the lncome lax Dt-'p,rrlrner-rt is showing auclacitlr bf issuing noticcs continuously uncler Se:ctions 148-A and 148 through th,: i'.tlisdictional Assessiug Officer whereits it ought to have bccrr onlv in thr' l-acclt:ss lllattlncr

74. ln Lhe case of BANI( OF INDIA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONEI(, INCOME TAX1I, on an issue whethel i[ rvas justifiablc on thc fralt of thc'Income Tax Departrnent itr uot foliowing arr order passe'cl b),tlic acijudicatingJ authority only or-r hc gror-rud that the " 11202s) 110 ta.ruranu.conr,122 (Bombay)] -:ir.:ri1*a6' t 11 appeals are pending, the Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay held at paragraph No.25 as under, viz., : "25. Mr. Paridwalla has rightly dtawn out attention t() th(' clccision of this Court in Commissioncr of Income 'Iax vs. Smt. Godavaridevi Sarafl2 as also the recent clecision of the co-ordinate Botrch of this Court in Samp Furniturc (l') Ltd. v. ITOIr of rvhich one of us (Justicc G.S. Kulkarni) was a member, whcrcir.t the Court catcgorically obscrvcd that the Revcnue having not "acceptcd" the juclgmer.rt of tht' [{igh Court noulcl not mcan that till thc same is set asidc in a mattttet kr.tou't.t to law, it would loose its bintlirrg force. Referring to the decisiotr of the Supremc Court in Union of India vs. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd.ta, tl-re Conrt oLrsen etl that tlrc ag.rploach of thc officitris of Rcvt'rtuc of treating tlccisions [r('ing "not accoptablc" was criLicizccl by the Supremc Cotrrt. In such ciecision, follou,ing are the relevant obscrvatiot.ts maclc by the Supreme Court, "6.Sri Reddy is pcrhaps right in saying that the officcrs rvere no[ actuatecl by any n-rala ficies in passing thc iml.rugnccl orders. 'fhcy perhaps gcnuinely ielt that the claim trf thc assessee was not tenable and that, if it was acceptetl, thc Revenue woukl suffcr. But what Sri Reclcly ovcrlooks is thttt we are rlot concc'rncd here r,r,ith tht'correctness or otherr,r'ist' of their conclusion or of any factual rnalaficlt's but with the fact that the officers, in reaching in their conclusion, by- passed hvo appcllate orders in regard to the same issutr which were placcci bcfore them, onc of thc Colle-ctor (Appcals) and the otl-rer of the Tribunal. The }{igh Court has, in our view, rightly criticized this conduct of the Assistant Collectors and the harassment to the assessee causecl b1,the '2 1t9281 I l3 trR 589 (Bombay) " 120241165 taxmann.conr 581/300 Taxrnan 452 (llornbay) 'o llggzl taxmann.com l6115 ELT 431 (SC) 72 failurc of these officers to give effect to thc rrrdcls of arrlholitics highcr to them iu thc appellatc hicr.u:lrr.. It cannot be loo vchemently emphasizcd that it is oi uttnost inrportancc lhaL, irr cLsposing of the rlrrasijucl ti.rl issues l.refole thcnr, rcvcnue officcrs are bound b1, the r ct'rsions of the appcllatr. authoritics. The ordcr of the n pfroll L.('ollcctor is binctinll orr thc Assistant Collectols rvolkinll rvithin his jurisdir-tron anrl thc ordcr of Lhe l-ribunal is [rintlinli rrprorr the r\;sisLanI Collt.ctors ancl tlte Appellate Collc trus rvhcr functron untlcr thc juriscliction of the Tlibu ral The principk,s r,I juclicial discipline requile that thc or'.lcls of the highet airpl'll;111'.rutholiLies should be followcd ur lcscrvt:dly L.rr []re subrrrtlin.rt!'auLltorities. I'he mele fact that thc orcicr o[ the appr'llat(. aLrthority is ltot ".rccoptalrl,," to the d€p.rr[nrcnl - irr itsclf a r-r objectior.rable phrasc - atrLl is thc subicct m.r[t('r ol an appreal can furnish no grou rrl for not fo lorving it unltss its opcration ltas lrccn suslrcr.lLd bv a .orrrpctL'nl r'ourt. I[ this healthl. rule is not lol orr,ed, thc result r^.-ill onl\, lrc untluc harassnrent to asscsscti ar ,r{ r lraos irr acl min istra Lion of tax lau's. l2 Wt' Iravc rlcalt r'r,ith this aspcct at somc lcngth, bc(tause it has been su111,,cstt,cl bv thc lcaneci Aclc{itional Solicibr Ct ner'.rl that the obst'rv;rtions macle lrv the I Iigh Corrl 1, 1r.,r-" l.re,:r.r halsh on tht. officcrs. It is clear that thc obscr valions of the lligh Cirurt, seeminglt, vehement, ancl ;rpparently unpalatablc t() th() I(cvonue, are only intendcd to cr.rr.b a terrclc'rrcv in rt,venrrc rnatters which, if allowecl lo lrecttrle wi.{esp;catl, coulcl resulL in considerablc harassmL,nt to thc asscssr:s- P u lrlic \^,ithout any her-refit to the Rcvorrut'. \Ve u,cultl Iike to sn) that the dcparhnent shoulc{ t.rkc these oL.rservatiorrs in thL' prol)er spilit. Thc obselvatirrrrs of thc Hil3h CoLrrt slrotrlcl lrc kc1.rt ir-r mir-rd in futurc alld th(, Lrtr]rost ''*tw L3 regard should be paid by thc adjudicating authorities and the appellate authorlties to the requirements of judicial disciplino and the need for giving effect to the orders of the higher appellate audrorities which arc binding on them."

15. What is worrying this Bench more is the fact that an endeavour is being rnacle whole heartcdly to ensure not to generate further litigation on issues which have been laid to rest by a large number of IIigh Courts all of whom have taken a consistent stand that the action of the Income Tax Department being violative of the Finance Act, 2020 and Finance Act, 2021. 5'o11,, in order to protect the interest of tl-re Rever-rue as also that of the assessee, it would be trite at this juncture, if we dispose of the writ petition with an observa tiorr/ direc tion that the disposal of the instant writ petition in terms of the judgment rendered by this High Court in the case of Kankntaln Raoinilra Reddy (1 supra) shall hora,ever be subject to the outcome of the SLPs which were filecl by the Income Tax Department and which is pending consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court

76. In the given facts and circumstances, this Bench is of the considered opinion that un-less 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 14 be burdened u,hich otherwise can be decided antl tlisposed of as a covered ma.tter

17. So far as the interest of the Revcnue is concerned, rve are of the considered opinior-r that the itt terest of the Revetruc' l-ras already been cor-sideled ancl protectecl, as has bcen observecl ir palagraphs 35,37 and 38 ol- tl-re orcler which, for ready refelcrcc, IS reprocluced hereunder: "16 [or all thc aforesaid tcasotts' thc ir-nPugngcl n.Licr:s issucd and the prrrcccclir-rgs clrau.n bv the rcsponclcnt- )t'Parttnct.tt is rueithel tenablc, uor sustainable. The uotices so i)srrell and thc procedure acloplcd being prsr sc illegal, eleset'ves to be trtrd are accorclingly set asicle,/quasht'd. As a corrscqtlence, all the i;npugnerd orders gelting quashed, the couseq.rential otrlers p'asser{ b1' thc Iesponrlent-Department ptll-suar-rt tc, tht' noticcs i:;suec1 uncicr Scction 1,i7 ar-rci 1-l[il r,r,ouid also 1;et rluashc'd ilncl it ir; olclerert accordingly. Thc reasott r,l'e al.e (luashin!l tlre consecluerrtial ordcr is on the principles tllat r.t'herr tlrc initiation r-'f the 1,r'occ,.:tlirrgs itself r,vas proccdurally rvror-rg, thr: subscclucnt olrlers also gcLs nullified autourtrticall. . :\7. The prclintr-urv objectktn raisecl by tht' pcLitionel rs sustainecl and all thesc writ petitions stands alior'vecl on this r en. julisdictional issu.'. Since the impugned notices aud ordcrs arc gctting rluash,-'d on thc g.roint of juriscliction, 1a'g n1g not inclinecl Lo proceed further and decide the othcr ir;sues raised b1' the peLitiouer r'r'hich stancls rescrved to bc raised rucl conterrdecl in .rll .lpl r()l)riJ te pro,1\'LIirrgs. 15

38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the case of Ashish Agarwal, supra, as a one-timc measurc ercrcising the powels under Article 142 of the Constitution of Inclia, permitted the Revenue to proceeC under the substituted provisions, iurd this Court allowing thc petitions only on the procodural flaw, the rigirt ccnferrccl on the Revenue woulcl rernain reservecl to proceed further if they so -want from the stage of Lhe orc{er of the Srrprcmt' Corrrt in the case of Ashish Agaru,arl, supra."

18. We would only further liki: to make observations th.at since we are inclinecl to ciispose of the instant writ petition, conscious of the fact tlrat the eariier order of this High Court in the case t:f Kanakala Raoindra Redfu (L supra) is subjected to challenge before ttre Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No.3574 oi 2024, preferred by the Income Tax Department, we make it clear that allor,ving of the instant writ petition is subject to outcome of the aforesaid SLP prefeffed by the Rcvcnue against the decision of this Lligh Court in the case of lianaknla Raoindra Reddy (l supra). This, in other rvords, would mean that either of the parties, if they so want, may move an appropriate petition seeking revival of this writ petrtiorl in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the pending SLP on the verv same issue.

19. Accordingly, the instant Writ Petition stands allowed in favour of the assessee so far as the issuc of jurisdiction is concerned. As a consequence, the impugned notice under challenge under Sections 148- L6 A arrd 148 :itancls set aside/quasheci. The conscquential orders, if any, also stand set aside/quashed in sirnilar teLms as ha,,c. been passed by this High Court in the case of Kartkanaln Raoirtdru Reddy (l supr.a). There shall be no olcler as to costs. Conse,quently, miscellaneous pctitiorls pencliLrg, if any, shall stand closed SD/. AHME:D ABDULLAH KHAN ASSiISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECT o N OFFICER To,

1. The Assessment Unit, lncome Tax Department, Nationzrl e-Assessment Center, Room No.401, 2nd Floor, E-Ramp, Jawaharlal rlehru Stadium' New Delhi-1 10 003. 2. The Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax, Circle 1, Aayakar Bhavan, 6-2- 156/3, Subhash Nagar, Nizamabad - 503002'

3. The Principal Chief bommissioner of lncome Tax, Andirra Pradesh and - f"Lngunr, Hyderabad 10-2-3, Room No 922, 9th Floor'"B' Block' lT Towers' AC Guards, HYderabad-S00 004. 4. ihe Secretary, Union of India, N4inistry of Finance, Government of lndia' 3rd Floor, Jeevan Deep Building, Sansad fvlarg, New Delhi 110 001'

5. One CC to SRI S.VIJAY ADITHYA, Advocate lOPUCl O. One CC to I\ils.J.SUNlTHA (SR SC FOR INCOM TAX) tOPUCl 7. Two CD CoPies. BSK LS ( 1 0 sEP 2025 '",r:/ I I I HIGH COURT DATED:1810712025 ORDER WP.No.20854 of 2025 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS q /.s 1g,B ,/zf