A REDDy v. INCOME-TAX OFFICERI clecitled on

ORDER: (per Hon'hlc. Sri lustice P.Snnt Koslrtl) I{eard Mr. T.Ctraitanya Kumar, leanred courlsel for the petitioner and Ms.B.Sapna Redclv, learnecl Senior Stancling Counsel for the Income Tax Depaltmer-rt appealirrg for thc. respondent Nos.1 and 2, and Mr'. G.Ver-rkateswat lu, lcarnc'cl courscl replesenting Mr. Gadi Praveen Kumar, learnecl Deputy Solicitor General of India, appearing for respondet-rt No.3. Pcrusecl the rccorc{

2. This is a writ petition where the proceeclings are eitirer challenged to the notices which wcre issucd uncit:r Section 148A and 148 of the lncome 1'ax Act,'1961 (ftrr sholt'the Act') or the assessment orders those have bect.t passetl ulltler Scction 147 of the Act rt'hich have been assailed.

3. This writ petition is being takcn up today only on one of thc grounds, that the notices issuecl unclel Section 1484 of the Act and the subsequent initiation of proceedings unclei Section 148 of the Act by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, rvhcreas ilr terms of the amendment that was brought to the Income Tax Act by way of Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f ., 01 .04.2021 onwards, proceedings uncler Section 148A 2 of the Act as also unc{cr Section 148 of tt-re Act ought to have also been issuecl and procecc-led in a faceless nlanncr.

4. The contcntior-r of the petitioner is that the is;ur: of procccclir-rgs beirrg in violation of thc Finance Lct,2021 i.e., the iurpugr-rccl notices uncler Section 148.{ and Section 148 of the Act not bcing issuccl in a faceless llrannel", liavc alreacly becn clealt n,ith ar d decicled by this Court in the case of KANKANALA RAVINfTI{A REDDy vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICERI clecitled on 14.09.2023 uhr:rctry a bartch of rt'rit petitions rvere allowed ancl thc procecclinss iniiiatccl u nc1er. sr:c tiorr [48A as also tr.rlc.r Scction 148 of the Act rvcre held to be bacl r,vith consequential relicfs on the grountl of it bcing irr violation of the provisions of Scction 1514 of the Act read .n,ith Notiiic.rtion lS/ZOZ2 clatec'l 29.03.2022. 'fhe said judgrncnt passcci by this c ourt has als. beer-r subsecluently followed in a large nurnber of *,rit pclitiuns n,lriclr n,ele alloi,r,c.cl orr similar ter.rns.

5. Dot'. the line, wc find that the same issu. has als. beerr dcciciecl agaiLrst the Revenue by var.ious High Courts i.e., by tltt: Bonrbav I{igh Court in the case of HEXAWARE TECHNOLCTGIES LTD., vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER oF INCOME TI\X & OTHERS,, Gauhati Fligh Coult in the case of RAM NARAYAN SAH vs. UNION '[(2023) [56 taxnrann.corn 178 (Tclangana)] 'yxtz+1464 [r( 430 (Bonr) ( ,r:'- OF INDIA3, Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of ]ATINDER , SINGH BANGU vs. UNION OF INDIA4, and Telangana I-Iigh Court in the case of SRI VENKATARAMANA REDDY PATLOOLA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXs wirere the issue was in respect of international taxation, Bombay I Iigh Coult in the casc of ABHIN ANILKUMAR SHAH VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION6 which is again on international taxation and cenh'al circle, I-ligh Court of Hirnachal Pradcsh in the case of GOVIND SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERT, Gujarat High Coult in the case of MANSUKHBHAI DAHYABHAI RADADIYA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3X5)3, Jharkand I ligl-r Court in the case of SHYAM SUNDAR SAW vs. UNION OF INDIAe, Rajasthan Higl-r Court in the case of SHARDA DEVI CHHAIER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER & ANOTHER anci batch of rvrit petitior.rsro rvhich stoocl clecided on 19.03.2024. Similar views have also bccn taken by the Division Bench of Calcutta I{igh Coult in the case of GIRDHAR '[(2024) 156 taxmann.corn 478 (Gauhati)] ^ [(2024) 165 taxrnann.com I l5 (Punjab & Haryana)] ' 12024) 167 taxmann.corn 4 I 1 (Tetangana)l "[2024) 166 taxrnam.corn 679 (Bombay)] '12024) 165 taxmann.com 113 (Flirnachal Pradesh)l 82024 SCC Online Guj 4012 "2025 SCC Online Jhar287 I o y2023 : RJ-J D :49 84-DB l 4 COPAL DALMIA vs. UNION OF INDIA & O[:S (NI A.T 16 2023), clecicletl on 25.09.2024

6. Even thoush thc samc issue having been dccicled by a Iarge nurnber of Iligh Courts, !\re are still confror-rtecl v'ith large filing of iclcntical rnatt('r's on claily basis ranging between 5 t I 10 \^,1'it pctiiions 'l'hat upon the ir-rsh'uctions being sought from the Deparh-r-rent, they havc. been takins a solitary grouncl that tl-re tlecisior-r of thc Llornbay High Court in ihe casc o( Hexauare Tcclttrologies Ltt., (2 supra) as also tlre one which has bccn cleciclecl by this Court irr tht,itase of Karutkala Rtrzt ulro tlcddry ( supra) has beeu subjectecl to cha llcuge. in a Spccial Leave Petitiorr i.e., SLP No.3574 of 2024 bcforc the I lon'irle SuPrernc Court ancl tlre Flon'ble Suprerne Court is seiz( c1 of the rnatter L-r acld itior-r, Lhurt: arc about 1200 SLi's also filecl alisirtr,, or,rt of thc same issuc beit-r11 tk:cirlecl b1, r,311uut iligh Cou rts

7. lo a qr-rL'ry being put to the leamed counscl fot thc Rc.vcnuc, they harre caterlorically acceptecl the fact that thele is no interim orrler glanted by thc. I Iorf ble Supleme Coult in anv of thel.e nlattcrs pcnding befole it. Meanwhile, fresh wlit petitions of identic;rl nature are bcing pilecl up bcforl: tl-ris Bench on daily basis and the p,-.r1L1enc)/ is getting increasccl on nlatter n,hich otl-rerwise has alreacl'. been clealt ancl dccidecl b1. this vely I Iigh Court itself 5

8. On the one hand, even though the order of this Court that nas passed as early as on 14.09.2023 and more I6 rnonths have lapsecl, rill date, we do not find any remeclial steps having becrr taken by the Income 'I'ax Departnrerrt to take appropriatc steps to either hold track issuancc of notice under Section 148A and under Section 148 of the Act by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, rathcr the authorities concerned in the teeth of series of decisions by all the major I-lig3h Courts in lnciia aLe continuously still initiating proceeclings utrder Sc'ction 14UA of the Act anci also initiating proceeclings undel Scction 148 of thc Act irr contravention to the amendments brought into thc lttcourc Tax Act Irursuarrt to the Finance Act, 2020 as also the Ijinaucc Act 2021

9. Upon a query being put as to why can't this writ petition be clisposed of in the teeth of the tlecision renclcrcc{ by this Coult in the case of Ka akala Raoindrn Reddy (1 supra), learrrecl Stantling Counsel for the h-rcorne Tax Department contencls that those u'ould unneccssarily burden the lncome Tax Departtnent whcle thet'rvoulcl be required to file equal nurnber of SLPs bcfore thc Hon'trle Supreme Court and it would be further burdening the excheqr-re r of the Union of india. It was also the contention of the learned Star-rr-ling Counsel that r-ro prejudice would be caused to the interest of the petitioners in case if this writ petition IS kept pending till the fir.ralization of .the. SLPs pencling beforc the Ilon'ble Suprerne Coult ancl thc fact that the ##+"''" 6 pretiiioner IS alreacly cnjoying tl'rc bcncfit of irtcrir.r-r protection. Nonethclcss, on thc ea rlier query of this Court as to v,,[], the Income Tax Departnrent havt llot colnc out with ii tnr,clranisrn to issue app-rt o1'r5i;1tg instructions or to take apPropriaLc stc; s rrr cnsttring that procccclings unrlc.r St ctiorr 14.9,{ ol the Act as ;rlso thc assessrnent orc{ors undcr Sectior.r 148 of the Act are kept in a holtl in thc light of the clecisiotrs clccitlcd b1, thc valkrus High Courts, I t wa ; subtlitterl brr the lcaurccl Standing Corrnscl that the saicl steps can onl_\, be. takcn at the lcvcl of Ci]D-l' as anr srrch stcl)s r^rorllc'l havc to bc' takt'r l'an lnllia ancl cartrrot be linriLt rl to anv ol the.se iurisdictionaI lligh ( orrrts

10. As a rcsult oi r.r,hicl-r, r'vhat w,e are facing is steeP incrcase of litig.ltion tlay in arnd clay out cven though various olrlels havc bcen passccl by this t li13h Court allorving wlit petitiolls ()n [hL. ver]/ samc ISSUC Thc lncontc I ax autlrorities cotlcerned ale still c\ cit tlow in 2025 also initiatins l,rocccrlinlls in contlavention to tlre Pr,tvisicrns of Section 'l5lA of the;\r:t antl as a ru.sult by lro\,\r, lnole than (rtX) to 700 pe.titions have bccn alrcatly rlot pilecl up befole this I ligh ( -ourt on an issuc: which othenvise stancls stluarely covcred by the juclgntt.nt of this Court in tlre case ctl l(artakalt llaz-titrdra Reddy (l supra). \Vhai is also surprising is the fact tltat thour;h rvl-rilc allowing the r,r rit pctition-< irr the II E i ' { ; I i I . i l ' : I l i I I l: I , ' case of Kanakala Raz.tindra Reddy (7 supra), the Division Bench while leserving tire right of the Revenue, has also protected the interest of the petitioners insofar as the liberty which was granted to the Revenue for initiating fresh proceedings strictly in accordance r.r,ith thc amcndecl provisions of the Act, as amended by the Finance Act, 2020 and the Finance Act, 2027. The petitioner assessee woulcl be entitled to challenge or raise the other legal objections i[ the Revenue initiatcs fresir proceedings. The Department has macle no endeavoul in availing the said liberty that rvas rcsen ed for thc Revenue. On tl-,e contrary, they have been still sticking on to the stancl, which this High Court as wcll as rnany other l{igh Coults already held to be bad 7L. It appc.ars that because of the aforesaid liberty tl-rat this High Court lracl granted permitting the Rcvenue for initiating fresh proceedings as a one-time measure in a (aceless manner, tltc Incornc -fax Deparhnent wants to take aclvantage of the same by proh'acting 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 otl.rer High Courts in which the SLPs are still pencling, the Income Tax Department would get thc advantagc of the 8 liberty that is otl'rerwise protected in favour of the lle',,enue for initiation of fresh ploceeclings flom the disposal of these mattils at a mttch later \{.*' stagc which woulcl be advatrtergeous and beneficial to the Revenue and woulcl be ecluirill. cl isacl va n tageous and detritnental :;o far as intcrest of thc assesses erlc conccrncd. As a consequcucc, the Income fax Department gets an extendecl period of time for initiation of fresh proceeclings 1,2. The al.rrLning trcntl of clocket explosiorr in this Coult, despite the clear preccclcrlt scrt in Kanakala Raoitdra Raldy (1 supra), is a matter of glave corlccll. Thc lncomc Itrx Departrnellt's pcl jistent initiation of fresh proceeclings, ciisregarcling the establtsheci juclicial pronounccmcr.r [s, has lecl to an unpreccdented surgr-' in litigation with ovcr 600-700 petiiions piling up on the same issre. I'hrs dcliberate approach not ot'rly urrclermines the 1-rr[1]6[plg o1' judicial precec{cnt but also strains tlrc juclicial resources unnecessarily. fhe Departrnent's shategy o[ ar'r,aiting the Suprerne Court's clecisiou on penciing SLPs while continuing to initiate fresl-r proceeclin[Js appear; kr be a calculatccl move to buy tir-r-re and circumvent lirnitation pc riods, rather than adhering to t[-re cstablished legal position. Such con,fuct raises serrous questions about the aclministrative efficicncy ancl the rcsPect for judicial pronounccllcnts, p.rrticularly whcn this Coult has ; h'eady plovicled a t $r $ , , 'I '', t i I I I I a i i l l 9 balancecl approach by preserving botir the Revenue's rights and assL.sses interests

13. Another aspect which needs to be considerecl is that in fact it sl-roulcl have becn realized by the l:rcome Tax Departn-reni itself ancl shouid have found ou t via meclia in ensuring that proceeclings uncler Sectior-rs 148-4 and 148 sl-rould not have been issue d in a faccless rranner, at least till thc Hon'ble Supreme Court decide the twclve hunclrecl (1200) octcl SLPs which it is alreacly seizecl of or, ;it lc.ast the Income Tax Department shoulcl have found out some remcdial steps to cnsLll e that wherever the autholities intend to initiate pr.ocecclings under Scctions 148-4 and 148, other than in a faceless manner, the proceeclings should have been deferrcd without precipitating the ma ttcr furthcr intima ting the assessee that thcy shall initiate a[-propriatc procccrlings only after the SI-P's are decided by the l{on'ble Supreme Court on tl-re very same issue. This again, the Income Tax Dcpartment, has not bccn able to give a convincing reply, except for the fact that suclr a clecision if at all has to be taken, has to be taken for the r,vhole clf Inclia, ancl which otherwise has to be by way of a policy decision ancl that too at the level of Central Board of Direct Taxes. Though tl-re learnecl Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Departmcnt cotrtended tha t tl-re Delhi I Iigh Court dismisscd a writ petition of similar naturc, on 'i 10 , -' . '-:=:r the one hancl u.heLr thc lligh Court is sh'uggling to lcduce its pendency, such notices r'r,hich are unclet' challetrge in this writ LreLition ale forcing the assessee to knock ihe-' cloors of this Fligh Coult resultir-rg in filing of hunclrcds of nr:rv rvrit petitions which in the long l Lrn nol ouly affccts thc disposal oI the n,riI petitions bui also collsumes sr-rbsterntial tirne of the Bench iu healing thcsc rlattcrs again ar-rd agair on daily basis Aclmittedly, iLr spitc of thc nratter before the i-Ion'rlc Supretne Court havins bt:cn t:rken on rnany occasions, thc Hon'L,le Supleme Court lvhicl'r is seizod of thc nlattcr has becn leluctant irr g anting auy interitn protectioll to Lhc lrrcorne Tax Dcpartmcnt. Ye t, tlrc authorities concernecl a[ lhc State ler.el are not reaclv to accept the verclict passecl by a majori$ of I ligli Courts ol clifferent Siates on the samb issue; and to r-nakc thinr,,s l.urLlrer' \\rorse, lhe Lrcorne Tax Dcp;rltLlcnt is showing audacity by issu ing rroticc.s cor.rlinuouslv under Se'ctions '] ;lB-A and 148 through the julisclictional Assessir-rg Officer n,hcrctrs it ought to have beerr only in tlre f.rcclcss nlanlrer

1.4. In thc casc of BANI( OF INDIA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, INCOME TAXl1, on an issur: nhether it was justifiable on thc part of tl-re Lrcotne Tax Department in t-rot follorving an order passecl b), the adiudicating autl-rority onlv on lhe ground that the L(2025) 170 rrrxruann.com 422 (tlomtray)] '., I I i i I i I I I 11 appeals are pending, the Divisicn Bench of the High Court of Bombay held at paragraph No,25 as under, viz., : "25. Mr. Paricft,r,alla has rightly drarvn out attention to thc dccision o( this Ccurt in Con.rmissioner of Income Tax vs. Smt. Godavaridevi Saraf,: as also thc rccent elecisior.r of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Samp Furniture (P) Ltd. v. ITOI' of which onc of us (Justice G.S. Kulkarni) was a mcmbcr, lr4rerein lhe Court categorically observed that thc Revenuc h:rving not "acccptod" the judgrnent of the High Court woulcl not trean that fill the san.re is set;rside in a rnanner knor.vn to law, it r'vould loo:;c its bir.rdirrg force. Refen ing to the decision of thc Suprenre Court in Union of India vs. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd.1l, thc\ Coult oroservecl that the al.ploach of tire officials oI Revt,nue of treating ciecisions beir.rg "rrot accepttrble" r,r,as cliticizecl by the Supreme Court. In such decision, follor,r,ing are t[..c rclcvant observations mac{e by the Supreme Court. "6. Sri Redrlv is pcrhaps right in saying that the officers ra,ere not actualcd by any mala fides in passing the impugncd ordcrs- ihcv perharrs genuinely felt that the claim of thc assesscc \.vas not tt naLrle antl that, if iL was accepted, the R,-'r,e nuc u,oulcl suffer'. But r.vhat Sri Recldy ovellooks is that u,e airc llot concerneci hele r,r.ith the corlectness or otherwiset of theil conclusion or of trny factual malafides but with the fact that thc officcrs, in reaching ir', theil conclusion, by- passed hto appellate orders in regarcl to the same issue r'r,hich rvcrc placecl before thcm, one of the Collector (Appeals) and thc other of the Tribunal. Ttre High Court has, in our r.iew, rightly criticized this conduct of the Assistant Collectors ancl the harassment to the assessee caused by thc '' Jt9781 ll3 ITR 589 (Bombay) 1ZOZ.I1l65 taxmann.corn 581/300 Taxnian 452 (Bornbay) " 719921taxrrann.corr l6155 EL 1433 (SU) f I l L2 failule of these officcrs to givc effect to thc orders of autholitics highcr to thern in the aprpellate hie.arr:hy. It cannol bc too r.chemcnth, r:mphasizcd tl-rat it is of uhnost impor'tance thaL, in disprosing of thc cluasijudi:i;rl issues befolc thcm, revcnue officcrs a re L.rouncl bv t[.Lc cl.:cisions of the appclltrtc aulhoritics. Thc orclel ol the Appclit: Colltr:tol is birrrlirtg on thc Assist;rnt Colltctors rvorkinc rvithin l-Lis juriscliction and Lhe ortlct of the Tlibunal is binLl[r1; rrprot the Assistant Citlkrtors ancl the r\ppellarte Collet tols lr,ho f unction ur.rrlcr tlrc jur.isclictiorr of the Triburral. 'lhe principles of jutlicial discipline require tltal. [hc orricrs of Lhe higher appellatc authorilics should be follor,r,ec{ un.escrvcLlly by thc srtbolrlinetc autllori[res. T]rt mcr.r, fact that thc or.cicr of the appellatc author.itt rs not ";rcccptable', to the .leparlrncrlt - in itself an o[.rjt,ctionablc pht.asc - iir.rcl is thc. subject Dratter tl1 atl appeal can furnisl.r r.ro glourd for not Iollor'r,ing it unless its opcr.ation has becn suspcr de.[ b\. a compolcnt court. If this he;rlthv rule is r-rot {oll,xa,,r:cl, the result rt rll onlv be uncluc harassnterrt to assesscs an-l chaos ir-r adminisLt arlion of tax lar,r,s.

12. \{c Itave dealt u,ith this aspect at sornc k:ngt[.r, )ecaus(: it has been suggcstecl bv thc lear.ncd Adclitionai Solir:iror Cenelal that thc obsc'rvations mac{c Lr_r, Lhc High Corrrt, h.rr.e becn harsh or.r tlre officers. It is cli.ar that the obser...;rlions of the IIigh Court, seepi;rj,ly yclrcmelt, aucl a rparcllll, uttpallLablc. to the Revtllue, art, on[_r, intenclctl [o curb ;r lcndcncv in rtvcnuc matlcrs rvhich, it allorvcd [r, L.rccome rvidr:s;r lt'a cl, coulcl r.esult in consic.leraLrle harassmr nl to thc assesscs puhlic lvithout any boncfit to the Rever uc. Wt: rt oulci like to s.rrr that Lhc clopartment should tarke ll.rcse olrsely;11i,r.r" in the propcr. spirit. Thc obscr.vatio rs of thc I.Iigh Coult shouid be kept ru mind in future and tl c rLtmost I I i r i : I ! . ,|, 13 regarcl should be paicl b1, thc adjtrdicattrg authorities and the appcllate autholitit's to the requircmcnts of judicial cliscipline ancl thc rreerl for givirrr; effect to tl-re orclcrs of the l-righor aPpcllak'autholities rvhich are binding on them." I5. What is lvon'yir1g this Bct-rch more is the fact that an encleavour is treing nrarlc. n,hok lrc.arterllv to ensure not to generate further litigation on issues rr,hich have been laicl to rest by a large number of I{igh Courts all of whorl havc. takc.n a cot-tsistent stand that the action of the Incomc Tax Departmcrrt treing violative of the Finance Act,2020 ancl Finance Act, 202.1. Now, irr order to }rrotect the intcrest of tl-re Revenue as also that of thc.rsscssce, it w,oulcl rcc tritc at this juncturc, if lt,e dispose of thc rvrit pctition with an ol,scn,a tion/ tlirec tion that the clisposal of the instant writ petition in tet'tns of thc judgment rendered by this High Court in tlre casc <tf Karrlstnlo llaoirdra Reddy (7 suPra) shall however [s 5p[-rject to the outconte of the SLI']s which were filed by thc' Irrcorne Tax Departnrcnt anrl rvhich is Pe6glint consideration before thc Hon'ble Supleme Cout t

16. h-r the givcn facts arrd circumstances, tiris llench is of the consiclercci opiniorl that unlcss ancl until we do not timely dispose of matters which are squarely covered by the decision of this Court and which stancls fortifiec[ by the rlecisions of the various other High Courts on the vcry satnc issue, tlrc pc'nclency of this I{igh Court would further ..]l I -14 be buldcrrcd r,r,hich otherwisc can bc decided antl clisPosecl cove rcti tla ttt, r {r}!

4.*tciiiffi \

17. So far as tht: i.rt.r'c.st of the Rc'e,uc. is concer .ec.l, *,c arc. of tl-re consitlcrctl oPini()n that the interest of the Rcr.'errrr. has alrc.acly bccr-r cor-tsirlurccl antl Protcclt,cl, as has been ol.rserverl in paracral]hs 3(r, 37 ar-rd 38 of thc orclol which, for reacil, rcfelt:nt.c, is r.cpr.ocluccrl herc u nrl cr: "3(r. lior all tlrc .rl olcs:r icl tcitsol-rs, the iltpul;ncrl r otrcts issucrl .urrl lll(' l)r()('(.c(lin1;s clrau,n ht' thc, r.csironJcnt- l)..Itr rtlron I is nr,itlr,r lcnablr'. lt()l srrst.tit't.t[)le. fht, :toticts so is:.rr,-l anti thc pr'()cr.(lurc acloptctl being 7rr,r.sc illcgtr[, tleserrcs tr be anti arc accorLlinlily sct asi,-le/11uasJ1cd. As a conscrltr c r.tr:r,, ali thc int1,r11,111.ql olclcrs ,;ettin,q tluashed, ttre conscrluctrl.ial ot.rlt,rs []assc(l l)\, thc Ies [rontlen t, [)al]a l tntC;tt ]rLtrSrLlrri to tlre rrrr, -es issut'ti trrrclol Scr'tion l4Tanrl I.lg rr.otrlrl ;rlso r;et tlr,rslx:rl antl it is olrlt'rctl .tccolrlir.rglv. -l'he rr,ason \1re .ll(. al rashin1,, tlte a()ns(.rlLr(,trttitl oltlt.i is tur lht: prrillsjpigl; that rr.ht,n ltc initratiOn oI tltr, procct,dinils itsc,l( rvas l.rroct clriralh, rr r.rn1;, tltt, sub:;crl Lrcnt or tL:r's a lso gr,ts nrrllifieci automaticallr..

37. 'l lre Plt'linrirrarv objr:ction laiscci [,r. thL. ri..trliorrcr is sust.tirrt,cl arrtl all Llrosc rllit pctitirrtrs stancls allo,,t,tl rrn fhis vt'rl.jrrlisrlictional issut:. Sincc t[rr. int1.ru1;nt-.cl notrc-c. .trrcl ortlt,Ls arc t1'ttinll tluashc'c1 on Lhc l.roint of jrrliscliction, \r(,arc lot inclinctl t,r pr-rr'r'ccl furtht,r.ancl clt.cicL, tht cLhcr issuL,s r.aisocl [.], thc pt:liIioncr lr,hic]r stancls rt'serveci tc, be raiscd .rn,l crlntcnclccl in an ayrgrrrtpriatc pr.ocoetlin1,,s. ::..;rt xxx,:..t' .t5 3U. Sincc the Hon'ble Suprcme Cou(t had, in the case of Asl-rish Agarr,.,al, supra, as a or,e-time Incasure exercisin[J t]re poi,r'ers uncler Article .l42 rf tl-re Constitution of India, pcrmitted tht-- Revenuc' lo procced urlder the isubstituted provisions, and this C,-rurt allo"t,ing the 1,'ctitions only on the 1-roceclur';rl i[av;, thc right torrferrt'd on the Revenue ra,ould r0nrain rcscrvecl to procec,-l fLrlther if the_y so want from the stage of the ortler cI tire Suprt,mc Cr-urt in the case of Ashish Agarwal, sup.rra."

18. We lvculcl orrly furtl-rel like to rr,ake observations that since we ale inciinc..i 1o ctispose of the instant h,rit petition, conscious of the fact that tlre earlier or.l.er of this High Cor:rt in the casc of Kanakaln Rao rdra Reddy (-I supra) is subjectct'i to chailense beforc thc fJon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No.-?574 of 2C24, Preferred by the Income Tax Departrr.ent, we make it clcar that alion,ing oi the instant wlit Pe1111s. is subject to outcome o[ t]re afotcsaid SLP Prcferlccl by the Revenue against the decision of ti-,is High Court in the case af l(analcala Raoitrlra lleddy (1 supra). I his, ir r other rvords, would mean tl-rat either of the parties, if ihey so want, nlay rrove an aPPropriate petition seeking revival oi this writ petrLion in the light of the decision of the I-Ion'ble Suprenle Court in the pending SI-P or-r the very same issue

19. Accordingly, the instant iA/rit Petition stancls alloweC in favour of the assessee so far as thc issue of jurisdiction is conccrned. As a consequence, the irnpugned tlotice uncler challenge under Sections 148- I I . : 'I I I i { I 76 A and 148 stancls set asicre/quashed. Thc conscqucntial orcrels, if any, also stand set as ic-le/ quashecl in sirnilar tenns as have bcen passecl by this lligh Court in the case of l(anlcarnla llaztirtdrt llcd.ty (1 supra). Iherc sl-rtrlI be no ot c]cr. as to costs ConsequcnLly, rnisccllaneous pctitions pcnclinu, il any, shall stancl closed //TRUE GOPY// SD/.S. M ALLIKARJUNA RAO ASSISTANT REGIS RAR SECTI ICER To, The Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessmenttentre lncome Tax n;;;;;;--"t. l\4inis1rv of FinanCe, Room No 401, 2nd F|ror' E-Ramp' Jrt[inaart Nehru Sladium, Delhi -1 10 003' The lncome tax officer, ward '1 , Kothagudem/ lncome Tax Office' 6-12-38' c;il;;1;;;i", ci",i.n i"rfte Haaii Road, Kothasucem' relansana- 507101 2

3. Th 11 e Secretary, tr/inistry of Finance, Union of lndia' Nort-r Block' New Delhi- 0 001

4. One CC to SRI THANNERU CHAITANYA KUIVIAR' Advocate [OPUCI 5. One CC to SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, (Deputy Soli:itor General of lndia)' " His; b;.;; ioit" strte of Telansana at Hvderabad ICPUCi 6. One CC to Ms B.SAPNA REDDY' SC for lncome Tax Erepartment [OPUCI 7. Two CD CoPies BSK LS YT<- HIGH COURT DATED:1810712025 I z'.,'.' t'z \' '.'N i. ,l 10 Si:P zffi :./ ORDER WP.No.20769 of 2025 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS q.@ Y,,rt*