[[ffin:[l"Jo"'"' v. Union of lndia'

Petition under section 'r51 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to stay the proceedings u/s.148A(d) dated 2Br7 r2o22 for asst. year 2013-14 bearing DrN No.lrBA/colVr/Fr17r2o22-23ri044229s44(1) and arso the notice u/s 148 dated 281712022 for asst year 2013-14 bearing pANo. AACCHgTg2H on the petitioner and be pleased to stay all other consequential proceedings. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Between 1 Principal Chief Commrssioner of lncome_tax, Andhra pradesh and Telangana State. Hyderabad.

2. lncome{ax Off icer, Ward-2(1), Hyderabad. ...VACATE PETITIoNER/RESPoNDENT No.2 AND ...VACATE PETTTTONER/RESpONDENT No.3 1 Hyperron Enterprises pvt t_td., Sultan Bazar Hyderabad, Rep Deepa Bhattad ' by rts Director 2 #iflll " lndia, Rep. by its Secretary Finance Department, North Btock, New ...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENTS Petition under section 15'l cpc praying that in the circumstances stated rn the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to vacate lnterim Order granted on 10 10.2022 in W.p No. 37 B2g/2O22. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI y.RATNAKAR Counsel for the Respondents No.1&2 : Ms.J.SUNITHA, SC for IT DEPT counserror the Respondent No.3 , Tr"a"i$rlr$fllfftdr. couNSEL) W.P.N o.2 173 30 F2 o25 Be -"*',};;*;::,t?:xt'lilF'il,::'?,il:ix,-'*.'Y:*i AND Ward - 10(1), lT Towers' A C. Guards' Masabtank' ...RESPONDENTS lF:i:8S" ir,3Ji*' Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the filed therewith' the High Court may be circumstances stated in ;" ;;';*- o'd"' o' direction' especially one in the nature of WRIT OF TVIANDAMUS holding that the order passed by Respondent u/s 14BA(3) of the Act' pleased to pass 'n *" ITBAJAST/F/1 48A12025- 2611077497323(1) OU'OlU t"ued under section 148 of the Act wlth DIN and dt23-06 2?25with DIN '"0'*"'O" for the assessment year and the notice dated Notice No lrBo'o"'''1otl tl':2o'u]26't0"4g7474(1) and passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice without application of mind' and consequently set aside the same' 2O2O-21, as being ittegar' -arUitrary " IAN O:1 OF 2 025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying t the affidavit filed in support of the petition' the H to suspend the operation of the notice issued O", dt 23 06 2025 for the assessment y *o ,ruo,o"t' sI14a 1t2O25- 26t1077497474(1\ thereto. in the circumstances stated in Court may be Pleased Pleased the ResPondent u/s 148 of the 2O2O-21 with DIN Notice d all consequential Proceedings Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI A'V'RAGHU RAM Counsel for the Respondents: Ms'B'SAPNA REDDY' Sr.SC for lT DEPT ! t I I TI t I t I W.P.No.218't 5 0F 2025 Between: Excellent rnsurance Broking servrces Ltd. A company incorporated under the comp-anies'Act 1955.^Having its negiiiereo onii" ano ptate orousness !i1 ' 8-2-269rLMr301 and 302, lrlrd Froor iumn-rni n,lirr noao No.-2., sanJaiJi,ir. Hyderabad _ 500034 1 etangana. ano nepieseni;A by,t, j;ih"?ta' ldil;i, Mr. Atmakur tvladh u sud hani Rao ...PETITIONER union of lndia lr,4inrstry of Finance, rncome Tax Department, New Derhi - 100 011 The Office of Commissionel l.19oqr9_T-ax Department, Ministry of Finance, office of the lncome Tax officel circleg('r), Hyderabad signature Towers, sv No. 6(P) of Kondapur Sy No 37(p) orXcitnagJoi, b;; B"i;;i";iG;;;;n; ", Serilingampatty (M) RR Drstrict AVO"rrOrO, itfrng-al-;;, SOOOaa emait_ hyderabad. dcit8. 1 @ incometa x gov in phone- OqO:ilhiiio The National Faceless Assessment Centre, lncome Tax Department, Ministry of Finance, Government of lndia, New Delhi - f OO Of f- AND 1 2 4 ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Artrcre 226 of the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or direction or order more particularly in the nature of a writ of certiorari calling for the records and quashing the (i) lmpugned order bearrng DIN and Notice No |rBA/AST/F/148At2025-26t10777sg464(1) dated 25 06 202s for the AY 2020 - 2021 rssued by the Respondent No. 3 under section r4gA(3) of the lncome Tax Act, 196'l , and (ii) lmpugned Notice bearing DIN and Notice No. ITBA/AST/S/148_1 12025-26t1077763814(1)dated 25.06.2025for the Ay zo2o - 202 1 issued by theRespondent No 3 under Section 148 of the lncome Tax Act, 196'l as being illegal and in violation of applicable law and consequently set-aside all consequent/subsequent notices/orde rs/pen alties and further restrain the Respondents from making any assessment, reassessment or re-computation or otherwise proceeding against the Petitioner on the basis of the aforementioned lmpugned Order and Notice dated 25.06.2025. lA NO: 3 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petitron, the High Court may be pleased pleased to suspend all further proceedings pursuant to (i) lmpugned Order bearing DIN & ", dated 25 06 2025 for the Notice No ITBA/AST/F/14 8A12025-2611077759464(1\ -'::"j,:;"::ltl'i:1]':t ff AY 2o2o - 2o21'"u'a oltn'o"'oono"nt Y t rncome rax Act. '1e61, and (ii) lmpusned t"'"".::i;;', "".',* ot zozo - dated 25 062025 for the AY 2020 2021 issued by theRespon'dent No 3 under Section 148 of the lncome Tax Act' tTBAJAsT/s/14 u-t''2o,2u'Jito)77utu''ottl notices/orders/penalties' 1 961 including "tt "ont"qu"nUsubsequent IA NO: 10F 2025 Petltlon under Section 1 51 CPC PraYing th the affidavit filed in suPport of the Petition' the Hig to disPense with the filing of certified coPies of (i) Notice No ITBA/AST/F 2021 issued by theRespondent No 3 un AY 2020 and (ii) lmPugned Notice lncome Tax Act' 1961 ' -26t 10777 63814(1) dated 2 ITBA/AsT/S/1 4 8 -112025 2021 issued bY the ResPondent No 3 under Section at in the circumstances stated in h Court may be Pleased Pleased ugned Order bearing DIN & I 1 48 Al 2025 -26 I 1 o7 7 7 59 464(1 ) dated 25 06 2025 for the der Sectiorr 148A(3) of the bearing DIN & Notice No 5.06.2025for the AY 2020 148 of lncome Tax Act' 1961 IA NO: 20F2025 ITBA/AST/F/148A t in the circumstances stated in Court may be Pleased Pleased bearing DIN & Notice Nc 25.062025 for the AY 2020 ction 14BA(3) of the lncome Tax DIN & Notice No. 2O25fot the AY 2020 8 of the lncome Tax Act' penalties Petition u nder Section 1 51 CPC PraYing tha the affidavit filed in suPPort of the Petition' the High to stay the oPeration of(i) lmPugned Order 12025-261 I 07 77 59464( 1 ) dated 202'1 issued bY th eRespondent No 3 under Se lmpugned Notice beartng- Act, 1961 ' and ( dated 25 06 ITBA/AST/S/ 1 4 B _1 I2O2 5-26t1O77763814(1) 2021 issued bY the ResPondent No 3 under Section 14 1961 including all consequ ent/subsequent notices/orders/ Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI SHEETAL SRTKANTH counser ror the Respondent No'1 ' Ti;";S'itJlflXtlt'd", couNSEL) Counsel for the Respondents No'2to4 : Ms'J'SUNITHA' SC for lT DEPT The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER 0 I I It ;" l 1t I I I I ! I I -\ f I @ H N' JUSTICE SRI APARESHK UMAR SINGH AND THE HON'B LE SRI JUSTI EP.SAM KOSHY WRIT PET ITION Nos. 3 7a29 of 2O2 a.o 1733 aad 2L 815 ot 2025 coMMON ORD ER: Learned counsel Sri y.Ratnakar petitioner in W.p.No.3ZB29 of 2022. Sri A.V.Raghu Ram W.P.No.2 t 733 Sri Sheetal Srikanth

2025. appears for the petitioner 1n Learned counsej appears for the petitioner in appears for the Learned counsel W.P.No.2t815 of 2025. Ms. J.Sunitha, learned Senior Stalding Counsel, appears for Income Ta_r Department in W.p.Nos.37g29 of 2022 and 21815 of 2025. Ms. Bokaro Sapna Reddy, learned Senior Standing Counsel, appears lor Income Tax Department in W.p.No.2 lZ33 ol 2025. Ms. B.Kavitha yadav, learned Central Government counsel, appears for respondent No.l in W.p.No. 3T829 of 2022 and Sri B. Mukherjee, learned counsel representing Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar, iear-ned Deputy Soiicitor General 2 of Inclia, appears for resPondent No.1 in W.P.No'21815 of 2025 2 Regard being had to the similitude of the Questious involved in these writ petitions' the matters were analogouslY heard' s

3. In these writ Petitions, the were issue d under challenge is either to Section 14BA of the notices r'vhich tnlo-. Tax Act, 196 1 (hereinafter referred to as' "the Act")' or to the assessment orders which have been passed under Section 147 of the Act'

4. Learned counsel for the parties' during the course of hearing, fairly submit that the issue involved in these writ petitions was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.2 6304 of 2024' uide order dated 28'04'2025' and the said order squarelY covers the Present wrlt petitions as well 5 . The relevant extract of the order d'ated 2B'O4 '2025 assed in W.P.No.263O 4 of 2024 reads as under: lp, \ q I J the Finance Act, Nolr., in order to '15. What is worrying this Bench more is the fact.i that an endeavour is being made whole heartedly to ensLrre not to generate lurther litigation on issues which have been laid to rest by a large nbtite. or High Courts all of whom have ta ker1,:5,6onsistent stand that the actlon of the [ncome .I.ax Department being violative of 2O2O and Finarrce Act, 2O2l protect the interest of the Revenue as also that of the assessee, it would be trite at this juncture, if we dispose of the vvrit petition with an observation/direction that the disposal of the instant u,rit petition in terms of the judgment rendered by this High Court in the case of Kankanalq. Rauindra Reddg a. Income_ Tqx OfJicer 12023) 156 taxmann.com ITB (Telangana)] shafl howevcr be subject to the outcome of the SLps u,hich u.ere liled by the [ncome Tax Department and u,hich is pending consideration before the Hon,ble S upreme Court. 76. In the given facts and circumstances, this Bench is of the considered opinion that unless and until u.e 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 thc vcry same issue, the per-rdency of this High Court u.ould further be burdened q,hich otherwise can be decidecl and disposcd of as a covered matter. :l far as the interest of thc Revenue ls 77. So d, we arc of the considered opinion that concerne the interest of the Revenue has already been considered and protected, as has been observed tn paragraphs 36. 37 and 38 of the ordcr which' for ready referencc, is rcproduccd hereuuder:

36. For all the aforesaid reasorrs' the ltoliccs issucd and the Lornn.a o.J."-"ai"*. drawn by the respondent- is ncither tenable nor b"prrt-"n, The notices so issued and the adoprcd being per s9 i.llesal, ".,Ja-""bf.. ;;;;i"..' a"."ru." to bc and are accordingly set aside/quashed. As a consequence' all the tr";;il;J ordcrs gctting quashed' fre .oi".tr"",i"f ordeis Passed bY thc .""po,-,d",-tt- D,'pa rl mcnt pursuant to the issued undcr Section ;.J;" -iii-^.a 148 would also get quashed and it- is ordercd accordingly The reason rve are thc consequential order is on the ;;;;;.* Jri""f pf"t that when thc iniiialion of the nroceedines itself was procedurally wrong' il;'";;",';,,,..1 orders also gets nullified automaticrallY' 3?."' ia,, p-reliminary'' objection raised by the nclitrr)ncr ts sustained and aU these r-ir 'p.ririon. 311nds i[erved on this very issue since the impugned t"r*i.li."rl '.rotl""" and orders are getting quashed on it. poi"t of jurisdiction; we ar9 lot i;;r"'J to procled further ald decide the ;;;;'; i""t.s raised bv the petitioner whicn slands reservcd lo -he ralsed aro contended in an appropriatc proceedin-gs' aA. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in thc case ofAshish Agarwal ' supra' as a one time measure exercising the rrowers unclcr Article 142 of E.,.rstlrurion of India. permilted the n"r"rr]-," lo proccecl under the subslituted provisions, Lnd this Court allowing the ietitio.r" only ou the procedural flzrw' the iilr.t .o,-tt".i"d on the Revenue would j t'#.' "*:*. ;", #'" AgarwaJ, supra-- " ";1n: :,i;'ili;l ilrc case ol Ashish -,

19. We would further like to make obse.ations ,r_ru, "r.o"'' rhe insrant *.,, ;,;;r:;ilH: ;..;::ffiri the earlier order of I High court in the case of Kankanara aorrri. o r n c.o m e. r qx orJi c e r K2 o 2 3), r.,1;.:; !!*,," " is subjected to ch " ltctangana)J belore the Hon'ble supreme Court in art"t'*t No 3574 of 2024' preferred by the Income Tax Dt that alowing o, ,h" ,n'ot '^r, , wt: r,akc it crear nt writ petition is subject to outcome of the aJ SLP. preferred bv the Revenue against dr. o,ll,".1l of this High court in the case of *or,oor=t'"ton "X) :;'I:^,: ::: r r"; ro* ,,:".o "fir; ;;;;; (Telangana) j. This, in ot. *oto"' rvould mean that either of the parties, ,r,ntt u'a,t' may move an "o appropriate petition revi'al of this writ ""tn"' petitr'on in the right or,tu'tt 'nt decision of the Hon'ble supreme court in ,n. Pending SI-P on the very same issue- ^o I I 1 I l I I i \ L9 . Accordingly, the i ariowed in favour of ,h. ofjurisdiction r, impugned notice underLed' r4g-A and r4g stands t"t writ petition s[ands so far as the issue As a consequence, the challenge under sections set aside/quashed. "o.raaaou"""ssee The 6 t consequential orders, if any' also stand seL aside/quashed in similar terms as have been passed by this High Court in the case of Ka.ttkanala Rauindra ReddA u' Incotne-Tax Offtcer [(2023) 156 taxmann com 178 (Tclangana)l' Therc shall be no order as to cosLs' Consequently, misccllaneous petitions pending, if anY, shall stand closed'" In view of the consensus arrived at' these writ 6. petitions are also disposed of in terms of the order dated 2a.O4.2O25 passed in W'P'No'26304 of 2024' However' there shall be no order as to costs' Miscellarreousapplicationspending,ifany,shall stand closed. D/.P. Pcitttla rRtsuua STA NT REGISTRAR /,TRUE COPY// SEGTION OFFICER To, 1 2 Delhi. The Secretary Finance Department' Union of lndia' North Block' New The Principal Chief Commissioner of Incometax' Andhra Pradesh and i"irng"ni' strte, HYderabad The lncome-tax Officer, Ward-2('l)' Hyderabad' il:",,Xini.ilx},3[l"it##d E:?"..:roil':?'i"t?i,^ffi"8,,":n, - 10(1)' rr rowers' Ac Guards' Ministry or Finance' Iito ???'n'ent'

4. ! 5.' 6 lng$Ep;u*:*ti,l1:t1,#ffifu iA;*13tki"A#' hydera-bad. d cit8. 1 @ i ncome Dep a rt m e n t ' ilffi . ff :? ??1, i B:: B:i" A.;::? T,",*,8.il$ o,J,.# T io o, 81, B One CC to SRt SHEETAL SR|KANTH, Advocate. [OPUC] 9. One CC to SRt A.V.RAGHU RAM, Advocate. [OPUC] '10.One CC to SRt y.RATNAKAR, i 1. One CC to Ms.J.SUNITHA, SC for Income Tax Department IOPUC] to Ms B.sAPNA REDDY, sc for rncome Tax Department. " ,o&r3," " 33tr33.rti#'rB,*"HA YADAV (sc FoR .ENTRAL Gow 14 Two CD CopieJ Advocate. [OPUC] $!"1?"Yi1:,3.333,' " the order, dated 2a'04-2025 in w p No 26304 or BSK BS a w '; HIGH COURT DATED:28 t07t2025 j:_:-.::\\ 1 \" :. .S ;4 rr'-:\{- f.o( 22 NB M (\ !1 a: (i (i COMMON ORDER WP.No.37829 of 2022, 21733 & 21815 0F 2025 DISPOSTNG OF THE WRIT PETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS 'LT) \q THE IIONOURABLE SRT JUSTTCE P'SAM KOSHY rHE IroNou*'iH#3ffiT8 NARSING RAo P ETI TTONNo.26304 OF 2024 ORDER' (per Hon'ble Sri Justice Narsing Rao Nmdikonda) Heard Mr'Thanneru Chaitanya Kumar' leanred counsel for the petitioner, Ms' B'Sapna Reddy' leamed Juntor Counsel for the Income Tax Depafiment ior the resPondents' Standing 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 148 of the Income Tax Act' 196t (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 of proceedings 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 Lct, 2021 w'e.f', 0l'04'2021 onwards' proceedings 2 under Section I4gA oft Act ought to have arso t manner. Act as also under Section 148 of the reen issued and proceeded in a faceless

4. The contention of the petitioner is that the issue of proceedings being in violation of the Financ e Act, 2021i.e., the impugned notices under Section 14gA and section I4g of the Act not being issued in a faceless manner, have already been dealt with and decided by this Court in the case of KANKANALA RAVINDRA REDDY vs. TNCOME_TAX O}FICERT decided on 14.09.2023 whereby a batch of writ petitions were allowed and the proceedings initiated under Section l4gA as also under Section 148 of the Act were held to be bad with consequential reliefs on the ground of it being in violation of the provisions of Section l5lA of the Act read with Notificarion lg/2022 dated 29.03.2022. The said judgment passed by this Court has also been subsequently followed in a large number of writ petitions which were allowed on similar terms. '(2023) 156 taxmann com 178 (Telangana)l 3

5. Down the line, we hnd that the same issue has also been decided against the Revenue by various High Cour-ts i'e ' by the Bombay High Court in the case of HEXAWARE TECHNOLOGIES LTD., VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER oFINCoMETAx&OTHERS2,GauhatiHighCourtinthecase of RAM NARAYAN SAH vs' UNION OF INDIA3' Punjab and HaryataHigh 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 international taxation' Bombay High Court in the case of ABHTN 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' TNCOME TAX OFFICERT, Gujarat High Court in the case of MANSUKTIBHAI ' yzoz+1 464 ITR 430 (Bom) 'i1Ozi) 156 taxmann.com 478 (Gauhati)l ^iizozql165 taxmann.com 115 (Punjab & Haryana)l ' 12024) 167 taxmann.com 41 1 (Telangana)l " 12024) 166 taxmann.com 679 (Bombay)l 'iioiqi 165 ru*-u*."om I13 (Himachal Pradesh)l 4 DAIIYABHAT RADADIYA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3X5)8, Jharkand High Court in the case of SHyAM SUNDAR SAW vs. UNION OF INDIAe, Ralasthan High Court in rhe 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 DALMTA vs. UNION OI.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 10 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 '2024 SCC Online Guj 4012 '2025 SCC Online lhar 2g7 12023 : RI- JD :49 8 4-DB l Io 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' To a query being put to the leamed counsel for the Revenue' 7 . 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 o f 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 courr itserf. 8. On the one hand' even though the order of this Courl 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 'fax Department to take appropriate steps to either ho'ld back issuance of notice under Section 148,\ and under Section 148 of the Act by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer' rather the authorities concerned in the teeth of series of decisions 5 by all the major High Courts in India are continuously still rnitiating proceedings under Section 148.4 of the Act and also rnrtrating proceedings under Section l4g of. the Act in contravention to the amendments brought into the Income Tax Act pursuant to the Finance Act,2020 as also the Finance Act202l. 9' upon a query being pur as ro why can.r this writ petition be disposed of in the teeth of the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra), Iearned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department contends that those would unnecessarily burden the Income Tax Department where they would be required to file equar 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 counser that no prejudice would be caused to the interest of the petitioners in case if this writ petition is kept pending till 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 Court as to why the Income Tax Department have not come out with a mechanism to issue 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 ofthe 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 India and cannot be limited to any of these jurisdictional High Courts' l0.Asaresultofwhich,whatwearefacingissteepincreaseof litigation day in and day out even though various orders have been passed by this High Court allowing writ petitions on the very same 't'ax authorities concemed are still even now in issue. The Income 2025 also initiating proceedings in contravention to the provisions of Section 15lA of the Act and as a result by now' more than 600 toT00petitionshavebeenalreadygotpiledupbeforethisHigh Court on an issue which otherwise stands squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (1 supra). What is also surprising is the fact 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 of the petitioners 8 4 insofar as the tiberty which was granted to the Revenue for initiating fresh proceedings strictry in accordance u,ith the amended provisions of the Act, as amended by the Finance Act, 2020 and the Finance Act,2021. The petitioner assessee vyould 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 reseryed for the Revenue. On the contrary, they have been still sticking on to the stand, which this High Coun as well as many other High Courts already held to be 1 1. It appears that because of the aforesaid liberty that this High court had granted permitting the Revenue for initiating fresh proceedings as a one-time measure in a faceless manner, the Income Tax Department wants to take advantage of the same 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 which the SLps are still pending, the Income Tax 9 Department wouid get the advantage of the liberty that is otherwtse protected in favour of the Revenue for initiation of fresh proceedings from the disposal of these matters at a much iater stage which would be advanmgeous 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 io 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 withover600-T00petitionspilinguponthesameissue.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 white 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 IO 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 presen,ing both the Revenue,s rights and assesses tnlerests

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 14g_A and l4g should not have been issued in a faceless manner, at least till the Hon,ble Supreme Court decide the twelve hundred (1200) odd SLps which it is arready seized ofor, ar least the Income. Tax Department shourd have tbund out some remedial steps to ensure that wherever the authorities intend to initiate proceedings under Sections l4g_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 appropriare 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 tevel of Central Board of Direct Taxes Though the leamed Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department contended that the Delhi High Courl dismissed a writ petition of similar nature' on the one hand when the High Cou( 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 disposat 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 Court having been taken on many occasions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court which is seized of the matterhasb€enreluctantingrantinganyinterimprotectiontothe Income Tax Depaftment' Yet' the authorities concerned 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 fuither worse, the [ncome Tax Department is showing audacity by issuing notices continuously under Sections 148-A and 12 148 through the jurisdictional Assessing Officer whereas it ought to have been only in the faceless manner.

14. In the case of BANK OF INDIA r.s. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, INCOME TAXil, on an issue wherher it was justifiable 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 Bench of the High Court of Bombay held at paragraph No.25 as under, viz., : "25 Mr. paridwara has righty 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 Cc of wh ch one of us (rr..*':.':.til:rilT]J:j::::1, ;r::; 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 lo the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of lndia vs. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd.r4, the court observed that the approach of the officiars 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. I I 1 r^o_r"?t,,, j 1r. l.l maru,. com 422 ( B omba y | | '' [978] I I] ITR 589 (Bombay) '' [2024] 165 raxmann.com 5g l/300 Taxman 452 (Bombay) t' ltggZl taxmann.com 16/55 ELT 433 (SC) L3 "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 wo 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 o{ the quasi.ludicial 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 ilpon the Assistant Cdllectors 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 authoritles 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 sub.iect 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 undue harassment to assesses and chaos in administration of tax laws 1) We have dealt with this aspect at some length, because it has been suggested the learned Additional Solicitor General that 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 widespreQd, 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 Cou( 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 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 whom have taken a consistent stand that the action of the Income Tax Department being violative of the 15 Finance Act,202}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 observatiorVdirection 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 hled by the Income Tax Department and which is pending consideration before the Hon'b1e Supreme Court.

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 fortifled 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 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 76 36,37 and.l8 of the 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_ Departmenl 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 1 47 and .l4g would also get quashed and it is erdered accordingly. The reason we are quashing the consequential order is on the principles that when the iniliation of the proceedings itsetf was procedurally wrong, the subsequent orders also gets nullified automatically.

37. The pretiminary 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. Since ttre Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the case of Ashish Aganval, supra, as a one{ime 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 right t7 confened 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 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 the case of Kanakalu Ravindra Reddy (1 supra) is subjected to challenge belore the Hon'ble SuPreme Court in SLP No'3574 of 2024' preferred by the Income Tax Department' we make it clear that atlowing of the instaot 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 (1 supta)' This,inotherwords,wouldmeanthateitheroftheparties'ifthey 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 concemed. As a consequence, the impugned notice under 1S challenge under Sections 148-4 and 148 stands set aside/quashed 18 L The consequential orders, if any, also stand set aside/quashed in similar tems as have been passed by this High Court in the case of Kankanala Ravindra Retrdy (r supra). There shall be no order as to costs Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed P.SAM KOSHY, J NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA, J

28.04.202s Lrkm