Courts i.e., by the Bombay High Court in the case of HEXAIVARE TECHNOLOGIES LTD v. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OTHBRS

Heard Mr.T.Chaitanya Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.G.Venkatcshvarlu, leamed counsel appearing fbr respondent Nos. I & 3 and Ms. B.Sapna Reddy, leamed Senior Standing Counsel for the Incomc Tax Department appearing for the respondent No.2. Perused the record

2. This is a writ petition where the proceedings are either challenged to the notices which r.vere issued under Section 148A and 148 of the Income I'ax Act, 196l (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 onty on one of the grounds, that the notices issued under Section l48A of the Act and the subsequent initiation ofproceedings under Section 148 of the Act by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, whereas in terms of the amendment that. was brought to the Income'l'ax Act by way 2 of Finance Act, 2021 w'e'f'' 01'04'2021 onwards' proceedings under Section 1484 of the Act as also under Section 148 of the Act ought to have also been issued and proceeded in a faceless manner

4. The contention of the petitioner is that the issue of proceedings being in violation of the Finance Act' 2011 i'e ' the impugned notices under Seclion 148A and Section 148 of the Act not being issued in a f-aceless manner'' have already been dealt with and decided by this Court in the case of KANKANALA RAVINDRA REDDY vs' INCOME-TAX OFFICERT decided on 14.09.2023 whereby a batch ol writ petitions were allowed and the proceedings initiated under Section 148A as also under Section 148 of the Act were held to be bad with consequential reliels on the ground of it'being in violation of the provisions of Section l51A of the Act',:ead u'ith Notitication l8l2l22 dated 29'03 1022 The said judgment passed by this Court has also been subsequeLrtty tbllowed in a large number of writ petitions which were allowed on similar ternls ' I(2023) I itj taxmann'com t 7 8 (Telangana)l 3

5. Down the line, we find that the same issue has also treen decided against the Revenue by various High Courts i.e., by the Bombay High Court in the case of HEXAIVARE TECHNOLOGIES LTD., vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & OTHBRS2, Gauhati Iligh Courr in the case of RAM NARAYAN SAH vs. UNION OF INDlAr, Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of JATINDER SINGH BANCU vs. UNION OF INDIA4, and Telangana High Courl in the case of SRI VENKATARAMANA REDDY PATLOOLA VS. DI]PUTY COMMISSIONER OF'INCOME TAX5 where the issue was in respect of intemational taxation, Bombay High Court in the case of ABHIN ANILKUNIAR SHAH vs. INCOME TAX OFI.-ICER, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION6 which is again on intemational taxation and central circle, High Court of Himachal Pradesh in the case of GOVIND SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFlttCERT, Gujarat High Courl in the case of MANSIJKHBIIAI 2 7zoz11464 ITR 430 (Bom) 'l(2024) 156 taxmann.com 478 (Gauhati)l " l(2024) 165 taxmann.com 115 (Punjab & Ilaryana)l '12024) 167 taxmann.com 41 I (Tclangana)l " [2024) 166 taxmanrfcoin 679 (Bombay)l ' [2024) 165 taxmann.com 1 l3 (]Iimachal Pradesh)l 4 DAHYAIIHAI RADADIYA VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER' WARD 3(3X5)8, Jharkand I{igh Court in the case of SHYAM SUNDAR. SAW vs. UNION OF INDIAe, Rajasthan t{igh Court in the casc ol SHARDA DEVI CHHAJER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER & ANOTHER and batch of writ pelitionsro which stoo<l decided on 19.03.2024. Similar views have also been taken by the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in the case o I- GIR.DHAR GOPAL DALMIA vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS (M.A.T 169O 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 fiting ol identical nlatters on daily basis ranging between 5 to 10 writ petitions. 'fhat upon the instructions being sought from the l)epartmenr, they have been taking a solitary ground that the decisior.r of the Bombay High Court in the case of llexaw'tre Teclrnologies Lld., (2 supra) as also the one whicl.r has bccn decided by this Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Redd-y E2024 S(lC {lnl-ine Guj 4012 q l0l5 SCC$nIine Jhar 287 12023, RI-JD : 49 84-DBl n ' 5 (1 supra) has been subjected to challenge in a Special Leave Petition i.e., SLP No.3574 of 2024 before the t{on'blc Suprerne Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court is seized of the matter. In addition, there are about 1200 SLPs also filed arising out o['the same issue being decided by various High Courts

7. To a query being put to the learned counsel fbr the Revenue, they have categorically accepted the fact that there is uo intelirn order granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in any of these matters pending before it. Meanwhile, fresh writ petitions of identical nature are being piled up before this Bench on daily basis and the pendency is getting increased on matter whictr otheru,ise has already been dealt and decided by this very High Court itself.

8. On the one hand, even though the order of this Court that was passed as early as on 14.09.2023 and more 16 months have lapsed, till date, we do not find any remedial steps having been taken by the Income Tax Department to take appropriate stcps to either hold back issuance of notice under Section l48A and under Section 148 of the Act by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, rather the authorities concemed in the teeth of series of decisions 6 by att the major High Courts in India are continuously still initiating proceedings under Section l48A of the Act and also initiating proceedings under Section 148 of the Act in contravenlion to the amendments brought into the Incotne Tax Act pursuant to the Finance Act,2020 as also the Finance Act 2021

9. Upon a query being put as to why can't this writ petition be disposecl ol in the teeth of the decision rendered by this Court in the sase of Kannkala Ravinilra Reddy (l supra), leamed Standing Cor-rnsel for the Income'Iax Department contends that those would runnecessarily burden the Income Tax Department where they would be required to file equal number of SLPs before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and it would be further burdening the exchequer of the Union of India. It was also the contention of the learned Standing Counsel that no prejudice would be caused to the interest of the petitioners in case if this writ petition is kept pending titl the finalization of the SLPs pending before the Hon'ble Suprerne Court and the fact that the petitioner is already enjoying the benefit of interim protection. Nonetheless, on the earlier query of this Courl as to why the Income Tax Department have not come out with a mechanism to issue appropriate instructions or to take 7 appropriate steps in ensuring that proceedings under Section l48A of the Act as also the assessment orders under Section t48 of the Act are kept in a hotd in the light of the decisions dedcided bv the various High Courts, it was submitted by the learned Standing Counsel that the said steps can only be taken at the level ol CBDT as any such steps would have to be taken Pan India anil cannot be limited to any of these jurisdictional High Courts.

10. As a result of which, what we are facing is steep incrcase ol Iitigation day in and day out even though various orders have been passed by this High Court allowing writ petitions on the verv same issue. The Income Tax authorities concemed are sti[[ even norv in 2025 also initiating proceedings in contravention to the proi,isions of Section I 5l A of the Act and as a result by now, more than 600 to 700 petitions have been already got piled up before this lligh Court on an issue which otherwise stands squarely covereil by the judgment of this Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddv (1 supra). What is also surprising is the fact thar though while allowing the writ petitions in the case of Kantkalu Ravindra Reddy (1 supra), the Division Bench while reserving rhe right of the Revenue,, has also protected the interest of the petitioners \ 8 insofar as the tiberly which was granted to the Revenue for initiating flesh proceedings strictly in accordance with the amended pro'risions of the Act, as amcnded by the Finance Act' 2020 and th" Finun,,,t Act,2021' The petitioner assessee would be entitled to challenge or raise the other legal objections if the Revenue initiates tiesh proceedings' The Department has made no endeavour in availing the said tiberty that was reserved for the Revenue' On the contrary, they have been stitl sticking on to the stand' which this High Court as well as.many other High Courts already held to be It appears that because of the aforesaid liberty that this High 1 i. Court liad granted permitting the Revenue for initiating fresh proceeding:; as a one-time measure in a faceless manner' the Income Tar Department wants to take advantage of the same by protractir-rg these proceedings which would enable them to meet the limitation that would otherwise come in the way' Likewise' if the rvrit petition is kept pending for a considerable long period of time and finatly at a later stage if the Hon'ble Supreme Court confirms the decision taken by this High Court as also by the other High Courtsinv,.hichtheSLPsarestillpending,thelnco.neTax ,/.\ 9 Department would get the advantage of the liberty that is otherwise protected in favour of the Revenue for initiation of iiesh proceedings from the disposal ofthese matters at a much later siage which would be advanlageous and benehcial to the l{evenue and would be equally disadvantageous and detrimental so I'ar as interest 'fax of the assesses are concemed. As a consequence, the Income Department gets an extended period of time for initiation of liesh proceedings.

12. The alarming trend oldocket explosion in this Court, despite the clear precedent set in Kanakala Ravindra Reddy \l supra)' is a matter of grave concem. The Income Tax Department's persistent initiation of lresh proceedings, disregarding the established judicial pronouncements, has led to an unprecedented surge in litigation with over 600-700 petitions piling up on the same issue' 'fhis deliberate approach not only undermines the principle of judicial precedent but also strains the judicial resources unnecessarily The Deparlment's strategy of awaiting the Supreme Court's decision on pending SLPs while continuing to initiate fresh proceedings appears to be a calculated move to buy time and circumvent limitation periods, rather than adhering to the established legal ) I 10 \ position. Such conduct raises serious questions about the administrative efficiency and the respect for judicial \ prollouncements, particularly when this Court has already provided a balanced approach by preserving both the Revenue's rights and assesses rnterests.

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 148-4 and 148 should not have been issued in a faceless ffranner, at least till the Hon'bte Supreme Court decide the twelve hundred (1200) odd SLPs which it is already seized of or, at least the Income Tax Department should have found out some rernedial steps to ensure that wherever the authorities intend to initiate proceedings under Sections 148-A and 148, other than in a faceless manner, the proceedings should have been deferred without precipitating the matter lurther intimating the assessee that they shall initiate appropriate proceedings only after the SLP's are decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the very same lssue. 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 level of Central Board of Direct Taxes. Though the learned Standing Counsel for the Income 'I'ax Department contended that the Dethi High Court dismissed a writ petition of similal nature, on the one hand when the High Court is struggling to reduce its pendency, such notices which are under challenge in this wrlt petition are forcing the assessee to knock the doors of this High Court resulting in fiting of hirndreds of new writ petitior-rs which in the long run not only affects the disposal of the writ petitions but also consumes substantial time of the Bench in hearing these matters again and again on daily basis. Admittedly, in spite of the matter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court having been taken on many occasions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court which is seizcd ol-the matter has been reluctant in granting any interim protection to the Income Tax Department. Yet, the authorities concelned at the State level are not ready to accept the verdict passed by a majority of lJigh Courls of different States on the same issue; and to make things further worse, the Income Tax Department ls showing audacity by issuing notices continuously under Sections 148-.4 and L2 148 through the jurisdictional Assessing Officer whereas it ought to have been only in the laceless manner. \,\t\

14. [n the case of BANK OF INDIA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, INCOME TAXIr, on an issue whether it was j ustifiable on the part of the Income Tax Department ln 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 undcr, viz., "25. ltilr. Paridwalla has rightly drawn out attention to the decision of this Court in Commissioner of lncome Tax vs. Smt. Godavaridevi Saraflz as also the recent decision of the co- ordinate Bench of this Court in Samp Furniture (P) Ltd. v. lTOl3 of which one of us (Justice G.S. Kulkarni) Was a member, wherein the Court categorically observed that the Revenue having not "accepted" the judgment of the High Court would not mean that till the same is set aside in a manner known to law, it would |oose its bincling force. Referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of lndia vs. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd.14, the Court observed that the approach of the officials of Revenue of treating decisions being "not acceptable" was criticized by the Supreme Court. ln such decision, following are the relevant observations made by the Supreme Court. " 11Zozs; [70 taxmann.com 422 (Bombay)l r' 1ts781 t ll ITR 589 (Bombay) 'r 120241 165 taxmann.com 581i300 Taxman 452 (Bombay) J1s921 taxmann.com l6155 EI-T 433 (SO--- . 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 Sn Reddy overlooks is that we are not concerned here with the correctness or otheruvise of thelr conclusion or of any factual malafides but with the fact that the officers, in reaching in their conclusion, by-passed two appellate orders in regard to the same issue which were placed before them, one of the Collector (Appeals) and the other of the Tribunal. The High Court has, in our view, rightly criticized this conduc! of the Assistant Collectors and the harassment to the assessee caused by the failure of these officer;s to give effect to the orders of authorities higher to them in the appellate hierarchy. lt cannot be too vehemently emphasized that it is of utmost importance that, in disposing of the quasrjudicral 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 undue harassment to assesses and chaos in administration of tax laws.

12. \Ne have dealt with this aspect at some length, because it has been suggested by the learned Additional Solicitor General that the observations made by the High Court, have been harsh on the officers. lt is clear that.the observations of the High Court, seemingly vehement, and apparently unpalalable to the Revenue, are only tntended to curb a tendency in revenue matters which, if allowed to become widespreaSl, could result in considerable harassment to the assesses-public without any benefit to the Revenue. We would like to say that the department should take these observations in the proper spirit. The observations of the High Court should be kept in mind in future and the utmost regard should be paid by the adjudicating authorities and the appellate authorities to the requirements of .ludicial discipline and the need for giving effect to the orders of the higher appellate authorities which are brnding on them." 1 5. W'hat is worrying this Bench more is the fact that an endeavour is being made whole heartedly to ensure not to generate flrther litigation on issues which have been laid to rest by a large number of Fligh Courts all of whom have taken a consistent stand that the action of the Income Tax Department being violative of the 15 Finance Act,2O20 and Finance AcL,202l. Now, in order to protect the interest of the Revenue as also that of the assessee, it rvould be trite at this juncture, if we dispose of the writ petition with an observation/direction that the disposal of the instant writ petition in terms of the judgment rendered by this High Coun in the case of Kankanala Ravindra Reddy (l supra) shall however be subiect to the outcome of the SI-Ps which were filed by the Incorne Tax Department and which is pending consideration before the Hon'ble 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 fortified by thc decisions of the variotrs other High Courts on the very same issue, the pendency of this l-{igh Court would further be burdened which otherwise can be decided and disposed ofas a covcred 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 of the order which, for ready reflerence, is reproduced hereuncler:

36. For all the aforesaid reasons, the rmpugned notrces issued and the proceedings drawn by the respondent- Department is neither tenable, nor sustainable. The notices so issued and the procedure adopted being per se illegal, deserves to be and are accordingly set aside/quashed. As a consequence, all the impugned orders getting quashed, the consequential orders passed by the respondent-Department pursuant to the notices issued under Section 147 and 148 would also get quashed and it is oldered accordingly The reason we are quashing the consequential order is on the principles that when the,lnitiation of the proceedings itself was procedurally wrong, the subsequent orders also gets nullified automatically.

37. The preliminary objection raised by the petitioner is sustained and all these wflt 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 lncltned to proceed further and decide the other issues raised by the petitioner which stands reserved to be raised and contended rn an appropriate proceedings.

38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the case of Ashish Agarwal, 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 thrs 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 Agarwal, supra.

18. We would only furlhe r like to rnake observations that since we are inclined to dispose of the instant writ petition, conscious ol the fact that the earlier order of this High Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindru Reddy (l supra) ls subjected to challenge belore the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No.3574 of 2024, preferred by the Income Tdx Departmcnt, wc make it clear that allowing of the instant'writ petition is subject to outcome of the aforesaid SLP preferred by the Revenue against the decision of this High Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindru Reddl' (1 supra). This, in other words, would mean that either ol the parties. if they so want, may move an appropriate petition seeking rev ival of this writ petition in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the pending SLP on the very satne issue. 19 . Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands allowed in favour of the assessee so far as the issue of jurisdiction IS concemed. As a consequence, the impugned notice under challenge under Sections 148-A and 148 stands set asitle/quashed. 18 The conscquential orders, if any, also stand set aside/cluashed in similar tetms as have beerr passed by this High Court in the case of Kankunaln Ravindra Reddy (l supra). There shall be no order as to costs Clonsequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closg,l //TRUE COPY// SD/.S. MALLIKARJU NA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR t-'- SECTION OFFICER Assessment Unit, Nationpl Faceless Assessment-Centre' lnc-ome Tax ij;;;;il;;i, rvrinl'strv ot rlnanie, Room-No-' 401' 2nd Floor' E-Ramp' irtin"nrt Nehru Siadium, Delhi - 1'10 003' The lncome tax officer, ward 1, Warangal lncome Tax Office' D No' '1-8-610' 3[ii;;, M;ilti corbrer,bpp fsnptct Bhawan' Nakkalasutta' relansana- 506001 The Secretary Union of lndia' Ministry of Finance North Block' New Delhi-110 001 One CC to SRl. THANNERU CHAITANYA KUMAR Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRI G VENKATESHVARLU Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Ms B. SAPNA REDDY SC FOR ITD [OPUC] Two CD CoPies To, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 KKS GJP HIGH COURT DATED:1710712025 r. ii-rL u i;t 2 5 JUL 202s .r' t-r ,) r. r9 ::9 * ORDER WP.No.20700 of 2025 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 7 /. ,'n ' / r./ 7./1 'i il ::