Writ Petition No. 20926 of 2025 · The High Court · 2025

Heard Mr. T.Chaitarrya Kumar, learnecl counsel fol the petitioner and Ms.B.Sapna Reddy, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department appearing lor the respondent Nos.1 ancl 2, and Mr. G.Vcnkateswarlu, learned counsel representing Mr. Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor Gcneral of Irrclia, appearing for respondent No.3. Perused thc record.

2. This is a writ petition where the proceedings are either challenged to the notices which were issucd under Section 1484. and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for sl-rort'the Act') or the assessment orders those have been passod undel 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 14BA of the Act ancl the subsequent initiation of proceeclings under Section 148 of the Act by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, whereas in tenns of the amendment that was brought to the Income Tax Act by way of Finance Act, 202L w.e.t., 01.04.2021 onwards, proceedings undel Section 148,4 2 of the Act as aiso unc{er Section 148 of the Act ought tc lravc also been issued and pro,:eeded in a faceless manner

4. 'Ihe contcntion of the petitionel is that thc issu.r o1' L-,roceedings beirrg in violation of the Finance Act, 202L i.e., thc' rr rougrecl noticcs uncler Scction 14EA and Section 148 of the Act not l-,'ir-rg issucci in a faceless nlann( r, havc alreacly been dealt with ancl clecidecl by this Coult in tlre case of KANI(ANAI,A RAVIND I A RITDDY vs. INCOMIT-TAX OFF-ICERT decided on 74.09.2023 rvlr :rcby a batch oi writ petitions v,rete allor,r,ecl and the proceedings ini[i.'t:'d ultt]er Section 14EA as also t nclcr Section 148 of the Act wcte hclc to btr Lrad with consequential reliefs on thc ground of it being in violation of the provisions of liection 151r\ of the Act read rvith NoL'fication 18 / 2022 clatccl 29.03.2022. Tlne saici judgment passed by this C.rr-rrt hirs also been subseclucntly f rllowed in a large numbcr of wlit L)e'L lrons rnrhit:h welc allowcd on sir ilar terms

5. Do'rvn l"lre line, we {ind that the satne issue has a so bc,-'n rlccidcd against the Re,,enue by various High Courts i.e., br' l. rc Ilornbay Lligh Court in tl-re case of HEXAWARE TECHNOLC(IIES LTD., VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA\ & OTHERS2, Gauhati High tlourt in the case of RAM NARAYAN !:;AH vs. UNION ' [(2023) 156 taxrnann.com l T8 (Telangana)] ' lzoz+y4c{ lr[- 430 (Born) l ' i l :i 3 OF INIDIA3, Punjab and Haryana High Coult in the case of JATINDER. SINGH BANGU vs. UNION OF trNDIA4, and Telangana High Court in tl're case of SRI VENKATARAMANA REDDY PATLOOLA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX5 where the issuc was in respect of international taxation, Bornbay High Court in the case of ABHIN ANILKUMAR SHAI{ VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION6 whicl-r is again on intemational taxation and central circle, High Court of Himachal Pradesh in the case of GOVIND SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERT, Gufalat l{igh Court in the case of MANSUKHBHAI DAHYABHAI RADADIYA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE& WARD 3(3X5)3, Jharkand High Court rn the case of SI{Y.'\N.{ SUNDAI{ SAW vs. UNION OF INDIA', Rajasthan High Court in the case of SHARDA DEVI CHHAIEF. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER & ANOTHER and batch of writ petitions()n'hich stood decided on 19.A3.2024. Similar views have also been taken b1, thg Division Bencl-r of Calcutta High Court in the case of GIRDHAI{ '[(2024) 156 taxmann.corn 478 (Gauhati)] '[(2024) 165 taxtnam.corn 115 (Punjab & Har.yana)] ' [2024) 167 taxrnann.corn 4l 1 (Telangana)] " [2024) 166 taxrnann.com 679 (Bombay)] ' [2024) I 65 taxmann.corr 1 13 (Hirnachal Pradesh)] 82024 SCC online Guj 4012 "2025 SCC Online lhar287 012023, RJ-JD :4984-DBl ' 4 GOPAL DALMIA vs. UNION OF INDIA & Ol{5 (M A T 7690 oI 2023), cieciclecl on 25.09.2024.

6. Evcn thouch the same issue having been ci,:, idecl by a large nur-nber of IIigh Courts, we are still confronted rvri.h 1ar1ie filing of iclentical mat[crs on daily basis rarrgir-rg between 5 tc, 10 writ lrctitions That upron thr: instluctions being sought from thc I.)cpaltmcnt, they have been takirrg a solitary ground that the decisio r of the Bornbay Higlr Cotrrt in tht' case of llexazoare Tccfurologies L i. (2 supra) as also the onc which has been decided by this Coult in the .:ast: ol Konakala Ratlirtdnr Rcdtlrl (l supra) has been subjectcd to cha 1r'ngr-' in a Special Lcavc Pctitic',rr i.c., SLP No.3574 of 2024 before thc llon'ble Supreme Court and tl- c I Iorr'ble Supreme Court is seize:t of lhe matter h-r ;rclclitiorr, th:r'c arre about 1200 SLPs also filcd arisjn l out,rf thc samc issuc being clt:t.itlcd by valious I{igh Courts

7. l'o a quc ry bcing put to the learned counsel fol thc Rc.rcnuc, they have categolir:ally acceptcd the fact that there is r ro intelirn order grtrntt-.d by t1-rc IIorr'ble Supreme Court in any of thcsc mattcrs pcnding before it. Meanlvl-riie, frcsl-r writ petitions of identice I nature arc being pilecl up before this Bench on daily basis and the pr:, rcleno, is getting incleased on matter which otherwise has alreadl been clealt ancl decidccl by thir; vcry High Court itself. I 5

8.- On the one hanc1, even though the order of this Court that was passed as early as on 14'09 '2023 and rnore 16 months have lapsed' till date, we do not fincl any remcdial steps havir-rg been taken by the Incotnc' 'l'ax Departrnent to take appropriate steps to either holcl back issuance of notice under Section 148,4. and under Sc'ction 148 of thc Act by the iurisdictional Assessing Officer' rather the authorities concerned in thc teeth of series of decisions by all the major Fligh Cor-rrts in lndia are continuously still irritiating proceedings uncler Section 148A of the Act and also initiating procecdings uuder Section 148 of the Act in contraven tion to the amendments brought into thc Income 'fax Act pursuant to the Finance Act,2A20 as also the Finance Act 2021' ' g. Upon a query being Put as to why can't tl-ris writ petition bc disl-rosc'cl of in the teeth of the dccision lenclerecl t')' this Court in the case of Katnkala Raaindra Refuty (L supra)' lealued Stancling Courrsel for the Income l ax Department contencls tira t those q'ould unnecessarily burden the Income Tax Department lvhere the)' woulcl be requirecl to file equal number of SLPs before the Hon'ble Su;'rreme Court and it would be further burdening the exchequer of the Union o[ lndia. lt was also tl-re contention of the lcarnecl Stanclirrg Counsel that no prejudice would be caused to the interest of the petitioners in casc if this writ petition is kept pending till the finalization oi the SLPs ,, I I I i I I E I t I I ; I I ! I\ I I I I i 6 pending bt-.forc thc Hon'ble Suprcme Court and ,ire fact that thc petitionef is alrr.ady cnjoving the benefit of Lrri,:ritn Protection. Nor-retheless, r,rr lltc earlier query of this Court as Lrr rvhy lhc lncorne 'l'ax I)c.partrnr'rrt Itarrc ltot come out tvitlr a mc--ranistrr [o issuc appropriatp instt'uctiolls or to take appropr-iate stef , i11 r:r.tsuring that Proccedings Lutd('r Sectio)-l 148A of the Act as all,o thc .rssessr.r.rc.n I orrk-.rs undcr St't-tion 148 of tl-re Act are kept in a holrl n thc. light of thc. clccisior-ts clccirlctl by thc. various High CourLs, it was .trbrniLted by thc lcarner,l Starrclirtrl Counscl that the said steprs can orrt. be tirkcn at thr- l<:vel of C'BI)'l' as ,rny such steps would havc to be tall .n pan ltrclia anrl c.lm()t [,c lirniL..rl to arry of these.iurisclictional I{igh C,:rrrts

10. As a res u lt of which, ra,hat 'n,c are facing is : teepr increase of litigtrLiorr llay . arrrl ciay out even though var.ious l.;-ders h.tve becn passecl br this llirllt Court allowing writ petitious o r tlrt \rcry saute issue. I'hc Inconrc Iar authorities concerned are still -,\,en ltow irt 2025 also irritiatirrr; [,r'o,. t,r'dirrgs i1 co1traveltiol to the pr.cr isiols of Sectiol 151,,\ of thc AcL and .rs a lcsult by l1ow, mole thau (r( (, to 700 petitions havc lreen allcatlt' eot pilecl up before this High Cc,urt <tn an issuc wirich othcrwisc stancls squarely covcred by the judgr rr:nt of this Court in tlrc casc t>[ litrualcala Raoindra Reddy (1 supra ) . Wha[ is also surprising is tlrr: lar:t that though while allon ing the n' .r.- petitions in thc 7 case of Kanakala Raaindra Reddy (L supla), the Division Bench while reserving the right of the Revenue, has also protected the irrterest of the petitioncr.s insofar. as the liberty which was granted to the Revenue for initiating frcsh proceedings strictly in accordance witl-r the amended provisions of the Act, as amended by the Finance Act' 2020 and thc FinarrceAct,202"L.Thepetitionerassesseewouldbcerrtitledto challenge or raise the other legal objections if the Revenue initiates flesl-t proceeclings- The Departmeni has made no endeavour in availir-rg the said liberty that was reserved for the Revenue On the contraly' they have bcen still sticking on to the stand, which this High Cottrt as'arell as many other High Courts already held to be bad'

11. It appears that because of the a foresaid liberty tha t this High Coutt had granted permitting the Revenue for initiating fresh proceedings as a one-time lrleasure in a faceless manner' the Income Tax Department wants to take advantage of the same by protracting tl-rese proceedings which would enable them to meet the limitation that wouldotherwisecomeintheway.Likewise,ifthewritpetitioniskept pending for a consiclerable long period of time and finally at a later' stage if the I,Ion ble supreme Court confirms the decision takel1 by this Iligh Court as also by th.e other High Courts in which the SLPs are still pending, the Income Tax Department would get the advantage of the 8 liberty that is otherwise protected in favour of the Rcvr:nue fol initiation of flesl-r plocer:dings from thc disposal of these mattcr; at a much later \t n stage which would be advantageous and beneficial to Lhe Revcnue and rvoulcl be ccluallv clisaclvantageous and cletrimental sr iar as interest of thc assesscs ,r rc concernecl. As a consequence, l.he Income Tax Deprartmi:nt gets an extenclcd pcriocl of time for ilitiation of fresh proceedings

12. 'Ihe alarL-ning trend of docket explosion in this ( ourt, despite the clear Lrrececierrt set in Katmlcala Raairrdra Rcddy (1 ;.rpra), rs a lnatter of grave concenl. The Incorne ['ax Departmcnt's pcr:i;tent initiation of fresh procc:clings, disregarding the est.r.llishecl judicial prorlouncernerrts, lras ]ed to an unprecedented sulgc irr litigation with over 600-700 rctrtions piling up on the same issuc. This deliberate approacir not nly undermines the principle of jucli-.al precedent but also s trains the juclicial resou rces unnecessalily. fIe I)erpartment's strategy r)[ art aitinc the Suprerne Court's decision (,n pending SLPs while continui.-rg Lo initiatc flesh plocceclings appear: :o be a calculated move to buy time ancl circumvent limitation pcr i rcls, rather than adhering to tl-rc cstablishecl lcgai position. Such conrl .Lct raises serious questions abou t the administrative efficicncy and the :r:spect for judicial pronourlcerncr ts, partic_q]arly r,r,hen this Coult has a ! :ady plorrided a I I i I I i I 9 balanced approach by preserving both the Revenuc's rights ancl assesses interests

13. Another aspect whicl-r needs to be cor-rsidered is that in fact it should ha.re bccn realizecl by thc Incorne Tax Departmcnt itsclf and shoulcl have found out via media in ensuring that proceedings uncler Sections 148-4 and 148 should not have been issued in a facelcss manner, at least till the Hon'ble Supreme Court decide the twelve hundred (1200) odd SLPs which it is already seized of or, at least the Income 1'ax Department should have found out some remedial steps to ensure that wherever the authorities intend to initiate proceedings uncler Sections 148- A and 148, other than in a faceless manner, the proceedings should have been deferred without precipitating the matter further intimating the assessee that they shall initiate a ppropriate proceedings oniy after the SLP's are decided by tl-re Hon'ble Supreme Court on the very same issue. Tl-ris again, the Income Tax Departrrtent, has not been able to give a convincing reply, except for the fact that such a decision 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 tl-re level of Central Board of Direct Taxes. Though the learned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department contencled that the Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition of similar nature, cn the one hand r,,hen the High Court is struggling to lcIuce its pendency, f. 10 such noticcs which ale undcr challenge irr this wlit l c,trtion are forcing thc assessee to knocl< thc cloors of this High Court lcsrrlting in filing of hundrecls o[ n::r,r, r.vrit petitions which irr ihe long rL 1l not or-rly affects the disposal of thr: wlit pctitions bLrt also coltsumes :,rrbstar-rtial time of the Bench in hearing these matters again ancl aga I r olt daily basis Adrnittedly, ir spite of thc matter belore the Flon'bkr Supreme Court having becn laker-L on many occasions, the I Ion'ble Suplcmc Court which is seizccl ol Lhc matter has bec,n rcluctant in gril rting any interim protection io tlrc lucorne I'ax I)cparhnent. Yt:t. thc au thor.ities concerned at tlr r--. Statc level are not l'eady to accept il.e verriict prassed by a majoritv of I iigh Courts of cliffererrt Statcs on llt sarne issue; and to mal<e thingr. fLtrther worse, the Income Tax Depaltrtrcnt is showing audacity by issuing llotices corrtinuousll, under Sectiors 148.A and 148 through the iurisrlictional Assessing Officel wherca: it ought to have beetr only in th:: facclcss mannel'

14. In the casc. of BANI( OF INDIA vs,. ASSISTANT COMMISSIOI{EI(, INCOME TAXrI, on an issuo vvhether it was justifiablc on tl-Le palt of the Incomc Tax Department in not foJlowing an order passcc{ by tire aCjudicating authority only on tle ground that the 11ZOZS1 i70 tarmann.conr 422 (I3ornbay)l 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 drawn out attention to the decision of this Coult in Commissioner of Incomc Tax vs. Snlt. Codavaridevi Sarafr2 as also the rccent dc'cision o[ the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Samp Furniture (I') Ltd. v. lTOrr of which one oi us (Justicc G S. Kulkarni) u'as a membcr, wherein tI-re Coult categorically observecl that the Rcvenue having noi "accepted" the judgment of the High Court would not meau that tilt tl-re same is set aside in a manner known to [aw, it u,ould loose its binding force. Referring to the dccision of the Supreme Coult in Union of India vs. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd.1a, thc Court obselvccl that the approacl.r of the officials of Revenue of treatir-rg clecisions being "not acceptablc" ll'as criticized bv the Supreme Court. In such decision, follor.T,ing are the relcvant observations made by the Supreme Court. "6.Sri Reddy is perhaps right in saying that thc officers were not actuated bJ, any mala fides in passing the impugned orders. They perhaps gertuinety felt that the claim of tl-re assesscc was not tenable and that, if it was accepted, the Revenuc r.r,ould suffer. But what Sri Reddy overlooks is that we are not concerned here with thc correctness or otherwise of thcir conclusion or of any factual malafides but with the fact that the officets, in rcaching in their conclusiory by- passcd trno appellate ordcrs in regarcl to the same issue which rvere placcd before them, one of the Collector (Appeals) and the other of the Tribunal. The High Court has, in our vicw, rightly criticizcd this conduct of the Assistant Collectors and tl.tc harassment to the assessee caused by the 1t9z81 113 ITR 589 (Bombav) L " 7202+1 165 taxrnann.com 581/300 Taxman 452 (Bombay) 'o J19921 taxmann.com 16155 FLT 433 (SC) 12 failure of thcsc officers to give effect Lo the ritlers ol authoritics highel to them in thc appellate ltcrr:hy. Tl cannc t be too vchcnlenlly emphasized that it is : ' utmost iurportance that, il ilisposing o[ the c;uasijuclci,rl issur:s br:forc them, r'cvcnue officers ate Lrouncl bv LIte tlt t isior.ts rlf thc appcl[atc authorities. Thc orcler of thc Appclltt -ollcckrt' is bilclurg otr the Assistant Collcctors rn'orking ivilhin his julisclictitrn;rncl thc orclcr of the Tril.uLr.rl is [',in.lirrr Lprrn Lhe Assislant Collcctols and thc Appellatc Collt'chrls rvl.Lil function uncler thc jurisdiction of lhe l-r'ibtrrrl. Thc prirrciplcs of luclcial disi:ipline rcclr-riri: that the olc i s of the highcr appcllatc audroriLies shoulcl be follorveci tttr r ';t:tvt:dJy by th,r sLrholtlirate authoritics. The melc fact that ll: tucl,:L of tt'e appcllatc authority is not "acccfrtabl,:" to thc clepar tmctrt - in itsc'lf an objcr'tiolLable phr.rsc - rrrrtl is thc subie( t m.ltLer of an appcal can furnish tro grottrLLi fot nol Iollov,inll it urrless ils opcraLion has bccu susP('rL( cd lrv a competent court. If Lhis hcalthy rule is not follr Vccl, the result will onlv bc ur.tdue harassmcnt to asscsscs trud chaos rrr admirtshaLion of tax lar,r's.

12. V/c have clealt it,itl.r this aspect at sotne lengtlr, [ ]cause it has bcen suggestcd lri' l"he learnecl Aclclitiona Solit:itor Genelal that the observations rnacle by thc High C..l.trt, harrt' been halsh on the c-,[Iicols. It is clear that the obscr r .rtior-rs ,:rf the J-Iigh Court, secmingly vehcmcnt, ancl iLl,parently unpalattrble to the Rcvcnue, are ouly intendecl t, culb a tcnclencl irr rcvcnuc matters which, if allowed lt Lrccrltnc wic{u;prcad, coulcl result in considelable harasstrrc rl to the assesr;es-public without any bcnefit to the Rer'et''tre. Wr: u'oull lil<e to sav tha t thc .lePartmellt shoulcl i <e thcsc observations in tlrc plopcr spirit. Thc observaLiorrs o[ the IJigh Coult shoulcl be kept in mild in luture and 1i ,'utmost ! .l I i I I t I I I i I I I 13 regard should be paid by thc atliudicating authorities and thc arppellate authoritics to the rcquirements of judicial disciplinc and tl.rc nccd for giving cffcct to thc orders of the higher appellate authorities which ale i.rindir-rg on them." .1.5. \{hat is v,'olrving this Bcnch lrore is t[-.c fact that an enclcavour is being rracle rvholc hearterclly to ct'r-<urc' not to generate further litigation on issues which l-rave becrr laicl to rest by a large number of High Courts all of whorn have taken a consistellt stand that the action of the Income Tax Dc1-rartrnent being violative of the Finance Act,2020 and Finance Act, 2021 . Now, in order to Protoct the ir-rterest of the Revenue as also that of the assessce, it woulci be tlite at this iuncture, i[ lve dispose of the writ petition with an obscrvation/ directiou that the disposal of the instant writ petition in terms of the judgment rendered by this High Court ir, the case of Kankannln Raoiulrn Reddy (7 supra) shall however be subicct to the outcomc of the SL['s which werc filed by the lncome 'fax Depat tment arrd which is pending consideration before the FIon'ble Supren-re Court. 1,6. lrr the given facts and circumstances, this Bench is of the considercci opinion that urrless ar-rcl ut-rtil rvc do not timely dispose of matters which are squarely coverecl by the decision of this Court and which stands fortified by the decisions of the various other High Courts on the very sarnc issue, the pendency of this High Court would further 74 be burdenccl ,r,lrich otheru.ise can be decicled anrl lisl-roscd of as a corr crc:cl matter

77. So fal as the interest oI tlrc Revenue i-. conccl I '11, \\,(' atc of thc con:;irl,:t'etl oP nion tlrat thc intclcst of thc Reverru(. ].rs .lllcacly bccl-r cottsicleretl .llt(l PIotcctcLl, as ltas been obst:r'ved in 1 rraa.rapJrs 36,37 ar-rcl 38 of tl c olcler which, for reaclv teferen, L, is lc.produced helcurrder "3(r. Iiol all thc aforcsaid rc;rstrrrs, the intPugnccl r.('i,tcs isl,Lr(,({ autI tltt' l.rtclcet.clitrl;s drarr,r'r lrv the 1r'sl.rorrclcnt-[).',)rt]r)a'1t is ucithlr tcna[.r[c, nor sustarn;rblc. Thc noticcs so i.: r .,tl ,urr] tlrt. ptt,cc-lulr. adoptctl bcirrg ,PcI sc illeg;rl, tl,.,servcs I) l.c anLI .rrc accor'(linlliv set aside/tluashccl. As a conse(IrL,r',,, all thc im1:tu1,,nr,tl orciers gctting cluashc.rl, the conseclrr,'rLial orrlcr.s j l'v the rcs|ondent- I)t'paltmcnt pr.llsuant Lr Lltc nirtircs l.riLssr: issttcrl urrtlel Section 147 ancl 148 r.vould also get rlt , .rrt r[ ant] it is oIlc;t,d nccorc{inglv. 'l'he leason w(r .lre rJr,t.ilting tltc cottsc'-;rrcntial orrlcr is on Lhc plinciplcs that rvhcn 1 L initlttion oI tlu' l.rloceeclir-rgs iLself rvas prlocetluLally r, ron11, Lhc snbsr.-1rrtnt olders also gt'ts null;ficcl atrtonraticalh .

37. rt, preliminarv objcction raist:el lry thr, I ,titirrncr. rs sus[;rirrerl ancl alI these \.r't it pc[itions st:urcls all, r t,r-{ rrn [his vcrv jrrlisclicLional issue. Sincc thc imprrllrcti noti( (. .)rtri or(l('rs arc 1,,'lting cluashccl on th(] point of jurisclictinn, \\c arc n()[ inclirr-,t[ to proccetl furthel anrl t{eciclc thc other iss r q raiseJ bv the pcLitioner which stancls lcst,Lvcci to [r raiseci .]r ( ontcral(-d irt art r 1rp11rpr;61e prr,,t't'Jirri,,s. ./ 15

38. Since the Hon'bk Suprcnrc Court had, in the case of Ashish Agarwal, supra, as a onetirno nrcasure exercisilg the pol,r,ers under Article 142 of thc Constitution of India, permitted the Revenue to proceetl undcr the substituted provisions, and lhis CoulL allorvinS thc pctitions only on the procetlural flarv, tl.re rigirL corrfellt.rl on the Revenue ra,ould rcmain resclvcd kr proccccl furtl.rc'r' if thoy so wirnt from thtr stage o[ the order of the Supremc Court in the case of Ashish Agarwal, supra."

18. We n ould only further like to make observations that since we are inclined to dispose of the ilstant writ pctition, conscious of the fact tl-rat tlre earlier orCer of this High CourL in the case of Kanakala ( ( Raoiulra Reddy (7 supra) is subjected to cl'rallcnge before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No.3574 of 2024, preferrecl by the Income Tax Department, we make it clear that allowing of the instant writ petition is subject to outcome of the aforcsaicl SL,l) preferred by the Revenue against tl-re decision of tl-ris High Court in the case of Kanakala Ilaahulra Reddy (7 supra). This, in other w,ords, would mean that either of the parties, l! they so 'want, nrily lrcve an aFpropriatc petition seeking revival of this rvrit petition in the light of the decision of the Ilon'ble Supreme Court ir-r the pending SI-P on the very same issue

79. Accorclinglir, the instant Writ Petition stands allowed in favour of tlre assessee so far as the lSSUE of jurisdiction is concerned. As a consequence, the impugned notice under challcnge under Sections 148- 16 A ancl 148 starLcls set aside/quashecl. T'he cot-rsequetlt rI orclels, if any, 11 6 .H also starrd sct rsitle/ q uashec't in sin-rilar lerl'tls as harvt' bt'e'tr passecl by tlris Higlr Cottit in the case of l(artkttrtln Raztittdnr ileddrT (1 supra) 'fhcrc shall bc rro oLdet as to costs- Consctlucntly, rlisccllaneous pctitions pendirr 1. if arry, shall stanrl closccl \ To, <: /- L. VIJAYA LAXMI A5 :ils ANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY' ECTION OFFICER Assessmen: Unit, National Faceless Assessment Cbnrr: lncome Tax Ouoatr"nt, Ministry of Finance, Room No. 401 ' 2nd 1: -''or' E-Ramp' Jawaharlal .,lehru Siadium, Delhi - 1 10 003. Thelncometaxofficerwardl,Warangal/lncomeTax{.)ffice,D.No'1-8-610' SiJfioo; r'vlayuri Compiex, Opp. Tsnp=dcl Bhawan, N: lrkalagutta, Teiangana- 506001 The Secret:1ry tvlinistry of Finance North Block, Union c]. lndia. New Delhi-,1 10 001 One CC to SRl. THANNERU CHAITANYA KUIVAR p( vocate [OPUC] OneCCtoSRI.GADIPRAVEENKUIUARDeputySoi':r:orGeneraloflndia [oPUC] One CC to l\,4s B SAPNA REDDY SR SC FOR ITD I()PUCI 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 KKS GJ Two CD Cc pies o . I : i i I I i i I I i I I I I HIGH COURT DATED:1810712025 ORDER WP.No.20926 of 2025 i \. /a -'l ,, " ' r'-_\ i.. \\. 'c)^'\ ,\i 10 r. : iqfi \../ * -\- n./ '.,, ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS