SRI A v. RAGHU RAM

counsel for the Respondent Nos.l and2: sRI K. SUDHAKAR REDDY SC FOR TNCOME TAX DEPENTTUEUT Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRt GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF TNDIA lT PETITION NO:2't622OF 2025 Between: r'r T,' Sutara Roads and lnfra Limited., a company registered under the Comp4nies Act,2013 having its registered office at 156-159, Paigah House, Sardar Patel Road, Secunderabad - 500003 represented by its Authorized Signato:ry Sri Ravi Kumar Dharba, S/o. Subramanyam Gopalaiah, aged about 61 years, R/o. Sir Nilayam Street No.8, Op. Lane to Park No. 2, Gandhinagar, Secunderabad, Telangana. AND lncome Tax Officer, Ward - 3(1),727 , Signature Towers, Sy. No. 6(P) of Kondapur, Sy. 37(P) of Kothaguda, Opp. Botanical Gardens, Serilingampally (M), R.R. District, Hyderabad, Telangana- 500084. ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of a writ of Mandamus declaring the order dated 19-06-2025 bearing DIN No. ITBA/AST/F/148A12025-2611077236865(1 ) passed u/s. 148A(3) of the lncome Tax Act,'1961 and the consequent notice dated 19-06-2025 bearing DIN No. ITBA/AST/S/148 112025-2611077238651(1) issued u/s. 148 of the Act by the Respondent for the Asst. Year 2021-22 as being without jurisdiction, arbitrary, illegal, bad in law, void ab initio, apart from being violative of provisions of the lncome Tax Act and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently set aside the same. 1A NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings pursuant to the order dated 19-06-2025 bearing DIN No. ITBA/AST/F/148A12025-2611077236565(1) passed u/s. 148A(3) ofthe Act and the consequent notice dated 19-06-2025 bearing DIN No. ITBA/AST/S/148_112025- 2611077238651( 1 ) issued u/s. 148 of the Act by the Respondent for the Asst. Year 2021-22. nsel for the Petitioner: SRI K. PRABHABATI ft.. +. Counsel for the Respondent: MS. BOKARO SAPNA REDDY, SC FOR INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT WRIT N NO: 2163s oF 202s Between: 'Veera Venkata Rajesh Y_endamuri, S/o: y. Veerabhadra Rao, I9?ls.:_Occ: Employee, 2gA, Rd. No.05, Shaikpet, Jubilee Hil 500035 aged about 40 ls, Hyderabad, ...PETITIONERS AND

1. lncome Tax officelwqrd.'!2(1), Hyderabad Aayakar Bhavan, opp. LB Stadium, Basheer Bagh, Hycieiabad, Telangan'a SOOOO+ ' r-r-. -- 2. The.Principalcommissioner of lncome Tax I Hyderabad, lr rowers, Masab Tank, Hyderabad

3. The National Faceless Assessment.Centre, lncome Tax Department Ministry of Finance Govt. of lndia, New Delhi

4. Union of lndia, tMinistry of Finance Rep. by its Secretary, 166-8 North Block, New Delhi ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to i. lssue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly, one, in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, setting aside the order passed by the Respondent No.1 under Section 148A(d) and Notice issued u/s 148 of the lncome Tax Act, 1g61 dated 30.08.2024 for AY 2018-19, as being without jurisdiction illegal, arbitrary, bad in law, void ab initio, and being violative of the principles of natural justice and Articles 14,19 and 265 of the Constitution of tndia as the same is issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer i.e. Respondent No.1 after introduction of the faceless assessment of lncome escaping assessment scheme, and any consequent proceedings as lacking in jurisdiction, ii. and/or pass ounselforthe Petitioners: SRI P. SRIKANTH RAO /1.t' Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.1 to 3: MS. BOKARO SAPNA REDDY (sENtoR sc tNcoME TAX) Gounsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUW SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA WRIT PETITION NO:2 1641 0F 2025 Between: !/9. (o1qtruqt-Realty lndia Private Limited, Having its Registered Office at S- 9-191, F.No.3O'l , Brindavan Complex, Chirag Ali-Lane, Abids, Hyderabad - 500001. Bep., Py its Director, .Sri M. Jagadishwar Rao, S/o. Sri M. Pulla Rao, Aged about 67 years, R/o. Hyderabad. ENI' [cqqg_Ta1 Officer, Ward-2(1), Signature Towers, Sy.No.6(p) of Kondapur, Sy.37(P) of .Kothaguda, pp: Botanicat Gardens, Seritingampaity (M), R.Fi. District, Hyderabad, Telangana - 50.0084. ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of a writ of Mandamus declaring order dated 2glOSt2O2S bearing DIN No. ITBA/AST/F/I48A12025-2611076546145(1) passed u/s. 1484(3) of the Act and consequent notice dated 2910512025 bearing DIN No. ITBA/AST/S/148_1l2O2S- 26/1076546964(1) issued u/s. 148 of the Act by the Respondent for the Asst. year 2021- 22 as being without jurisdiction, arbitrary, illegal, bad in law, void ab initio, apart from being violative of provisions of the lncome Tax Act and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of lndia. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section '151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to stay l I further proceedings pursuant to the order dated 2910512025 bearing DIN N4: ITBA/AST|F|148A|2O21-2611O76546145(1) passed u/s. 1484(3) of the Act consequent notice dated 2910512025 bearing DIN No. ITBA/ASTlsl148_112A?.5- *r 2611076546964(1) issued u/s. 148 of the Act by the Respondent for the Asst. Year 2021- 22. 'v Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI A. V. RAGHU RAM Counsel for the Respondent: J SUNITHA (SR SC FOR TNCOM TA)() WRIT PETITION NO: 21643 OF 2025 Between: [\/adavaram Rama Rao, S/o. Sri M. Jagadishwara Rao, Aged about 39 years, Occupation Business, R/o. Plot No. 227, Vivekananda Nagar Cblony, Ku katpally, Ti rumalagiri, Hyderabad - 50007 2. Telangana. AND lncome Tax Officer, Ward- 1'l(1), Signature Towers, Sy. No. 6(P) of Kondapur, Sy. 37(P) of Kothaguda, Opp Botanical Gardens, Serilingampally (M), R. R. District, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500084. ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of a writ of Mandamus declaring order dated 16- 06- 2025 bearing DIN No. ITBA/ASTlF1148A 2025- 2611077064405(1) passed u/s. 14BA(3) of the Act and consequent notice dated 17- 06- 2025 bearing DIN No. ITBA/AST/51148_112O25- 2611077112155(1) issued u/s. 148 of the Act by the Respondent for the Asst. Year 2019- 20 as being without jurisdiction, arbitrary. illegal, bad in law, void ab initio, apart from being violative of provisions of the lncome Tax Act and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of lndia. A NO: 1 OF 2025 ft.

1. Petition under section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to dtay all further proceedings pursuant to the order dated.16- 06- 2025 bearing DIN No. ITBA/AST/F/148N2025- 2611077064405(1) passed u/s. 14BA(3) of the Act and consequent notice dated 17- 06- 2025 beating DIN No. ITBAJAST/S/148-112025- 26t1O77112155(1) issued uis. 148 of the Act by the Respondent for the Asst. Year 2019- 20. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI A. V. RAGHU RAM Counsel for the Respondents: MS. J. SUNITHA (SR SC FOR INCOM TAX) WRIT PETITIO N NO: 21685 OF 2025 Between: M/s. Konstruct Realty lndia Private Limited, Having its Registe.red office.at 5- 9- 191, F. No. 301,Brindavan Complex, Chirag A[i Lane-, Abids, Hy-derabad - 50OO0i. Rep., byits Director, Sri M. JagadishwarRao' S/o. Sri M. Pulla Rao, Aged about 67 years, Rl/o. Hyderabad. ,..PETITIONER AND lncome Tax Officer, Ward- 2(1), Signature Towers, Sy- No. 6(P) of Kondapur, Sy. 37(P) of Kothaguda, Opp Eiotanical Gardens, Serilingampally (M), R. R. District, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500084. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of a writ of Mandamus declaring order dated 29' 05- 2025 bearing DIN No. ITBA/AST/F/148At2O25- 2611076545078('1 ) passed u/s. 1484(3) of the Act and consequent notice dated 29- 05- 2025 bearing DIN No. ITBA/AST/S/148_112025- 2611076547441(1 ) issued u/s. 148 of the Act by the Respondent for the Asst. Year 2019- 20 as being without jurisdiction, arbitrary, illegal, bad in law, void ab initio, apart from being violative of provisions of the lncome Tax Act and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of lndia. r'!''. t Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to Siuy all further proceedings pursuant to the order dated*2g- OS- ZO2S bearing DIN No. ITBA/AST/F1148A12025- 2611076545A78(1) passed u/s. 1484(3) of the Act and. consequent notice dated 29- 05- 2025 bearing DIN No. ITBA/AST/S/148_1 t2O2S- 2611076547441(1) issued u/s. 148 of the Act by the Respondent for the Asst. year 2019- 20. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI A. V. RAGHU RAM Counsel for the Respondent: MS. J. SUNITHA The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH AT{D THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY ..'! 1 r.61 2l 1 21648 an.d 21685 of 2025 COMMON ORDER: (Per the tlon'ble the Chief Justice Srt Alxresit iiit , tir sirqhl Learned counsel Sri A.V.Raghu Raru, appcars for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.2160l, 27641, 21643 artd 21685 of

2025. Learned counsel Sri Thanneru Chaitanya Kumar appears for the petitioners in W.P.No.2l6l2 of 2025 Learned counsel Ms. K.Prabhabati appears for the petitioner in W.P.No.21622 of 2025. [,eat't.rccl courtscl Sri P.srikanth Rao appears for thc pr:tiLiurrt:r It1 W.P.No.21635 of 2025. Ms. Bokaro Sapna Reddy, learned Senior Standing Counsel, appears for Income Tax Depat'tment W.P.Nos.2160l,21622 and 21635 of 2025. Sri I(.Sudhakar Reddy, learned Senior Standing Coutnsel, al)pears [or Income Tax Department in W.P.No.2 1612 of 2025. I / Ms. J.Sunitha, learned Senior St.anding Counscl. iippears for Income 'fax Department in W.P.Nos.2164l, 12 l6'13 and 21685 of 2025. l }. 1- -\ Sri t]. Mukherjee, learned counsel representing Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar, learnecl Deputy solicitor General of India, appears for Union of Inclia Regard being had to the similitude of the questions 2 involved in these w'rit petitions, the matters were analogouslY heard.

3.InthesewritpetiLions,thechallengeiseitherto notices which were issued under Section 14BA of the Income Tax Act, 196l (hereinafter referrccl to as, "the Act"), or to the asscssment orders rvhich have been passed under' Section 14'i of the Act. Learnccl counsel for ttrc parties, cluring the course of 4. hearing, fairly submit that the issue involved in these writ petitions was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in w.P.N o.26304 0f 2024, uid.e ord.er dated 28.04.2025, and the said ord.er squarel.v covers the present writ petitions as well.

5. The relevernt extretct of ttre order dated 28.04.2025 passecl in W.P.No.263O4 of 2024 reads as under: -) !, "15. What is worrying this Bench more is tirc fact that an endeavour is being made wholc hcarLt:dly Lo ensure not to generate further litigation otl issues which have been laid to rest by a.largc rtunrbcr of High Courts all of whom have taken a consisl.cnl stand that the action of the Income Tax [)epartrncnt being violative of the Finance Act, 2O2O and Finance Act, 2021. Now, in order to prolcct Lhc interest of the Revenue as also that of the asscsscc, it would be trite at this juncture, if we disltosc of the wr:it petition with an observation/dircctiott Lhitt the disposal of the instant writ petition in tt'r ers of the judgment rendered by this t{igh Court in the casc <rf Ko,nkanala Rauindra Reddg u. Income' Tqx. Officer l(2o23ll 156 taxmattn.cotrt 178 (Telangana)] shall however be subject t'; Lttc outcorne of the SLPs which were filed by the Irrcornc Tax Department and which is pt'nding consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Cor-trt.

16. [n the given facts and circtrmsta.nccs, this Bench is of the considered opinion that unlcss and until we do not timely dispclse of matters n'hir:h arc squarely covered by the decision o1'this ClolirL ancl which stands fortified by the decisions r,l- thc various other High Courts on the vcry samt: issuc, the pendency of this High Court would furllrcr be burdenecl which otherwise can be decidcct and disposed of as a covered matter. / 4 \

17. So far as thc intercst of the Revenue is conccrncd, we arc of the considered opinion that thc inter<:st of the ltcvcnuc has already been considercd and protected, as has been observed in paragraphs 36, 37 and 38 of the order which, for ready reference, is reproduced hereunder: issued

36. For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned notices 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 conscquencc, all thc impugned orders getting quashed, the conscqucrrtial ordcrs persscd lt-y the rcspondent-f)epartment pursuant to the notices under Scction 147 and 148 would also get quashed and it is ordered accordingly. I'hc reason \,vc arc quashing the consequential order is on the principles that when the initiation of the proceedings itself rvas procedurally wr-ong, the subsequent orders also gets nullified automatically. 37. The preliminary objection raised by the petitioner is sustained and all these writ petitions stands allowed on this very jurisd.ictional issue. Since the impugned noticcs and orders are gctting quashecl on the point of jurisdiction, we are not inclinecl to proceed flurthcr and decide the other issues raised by the petitioner which stands reserved to be raised and contended in an appropriate proceedings. 38. Since the l{on'ble Supreme Court had, in the case of Ashish Agarwal, supra, as a one-time measure exercising the powers under Article 142 of Constitution of India, permitted the Revenue to proceed under the substituted provisions, and this Court allowing the petitions only on the procedura_l flaw, the right conferred on the Revenue would remain reserved to procecd further if they so want from the stagc of the order of the r ) 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 Kankq.nala Rqvindra Reddg a. Incorne-Tax OfJicer lQO23) 156 taxmann.com 178 (Telarrgana)l is subjected to challenge before thr: I lor-r'[tlc Suprr:me Court in SLP No.3574 of 2024, pr.cfcrred by the Income Tax Department, we make it clcar that allowing of the instant writ petition is subjcct to outcome of the aforesaid SLP preferred by the Revenue against the decision of this High Court in the case of Kankanala Raaindra Reddg u. Income-Tax, Officer U2O23) 156 taxmann.com 178 (Telangana)]. This, in other words, wonld mean rhat either of the parties, if they so want, may movc itn appropriate petition seeking revival oI ttris u'riL petition in the light of the decision of thc Ilon'ble Supreme Court in the pending SLP on Lhr: vcry same lssue

19. ,{ccordingly, the instant writ petition stands allowed in favour of.the assessee so far as the issue of jurisdiction is concerned. As a consequencc, the impugned notice under challenge under Set:tions 148-A and 148 stands set aside/quastred. Ttre consequential orders, if &ny, also starrd sct asicle/quashed in similar terms as have becn \ \ \ j.t ,.,1 \ I I 6 passed by this High Court in the case of Kankanala Raaindra Reddg a. Income-Tax OfJicer l(2O23) 156 taxmann.com 178 (Telangana)1. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed." }

6. In vier,r, of the consensus arrived ?t, these u,rit petitions are also disposed of in terms of the order dated

28.O4.2O25 passed in W.P.No.25304 of 2024. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Miscellerneous applications pending, if an-v, shall stand closed s . PONNA KRISHNA ISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SE OFFICER To,

1. One CC to Sri A. V. Raghu Ram, Advocate [OP 2. One CC to SriThanneru Chaitanya Kumar, Advocate[OPUOC] 3. One CC to Ms. K. Prabhabati, Advocate[OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri P. Srikanth Rao, Advocate[OPUC] 5. One CC to Ms. Bokaro Sapna Reddy (Senior sc lncome Tax) IOPUC] 6. One CC to Sri K. Sudhakar Reddy, Senior Standing Counsel for lncome Tax Department[OPUC]

7. One CC to Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar, Deputy Solicitor General of lndia[OPUC] 8. One CC to Ms. J. Sunitha, sc for lncome Tax Department[oPUC] 9. Two CD Copies TJ (Along with the Copy of Order dated 28.04.2025 ln W.P.No.26304 ot 20241 w HIGH COURT DATED i2510712025 l ,j ft.. l'..' I \ COMMON ORDER WP.Nos.2l601 , 21612, 21622, 21635, 21641, 21643, 21685 ot 2A25 .i ll [.

1.4 "t; (' o$ (\ t-) 0 { ll{il, zut (' ?' Dr- .l:. , : .., I t,i rt-_(\ -" * DISPOSING OF ALL THE WRIT PETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS \ d(eA &* --'"-I-Ii5<-"Ei-" ft," ir.9"' ?. THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKOI\DA*, WRIT PETITION No.26304 oF 2024 ORDER' (per Hon'bte Sri Justice Narsing Rao Nandikonda) Heard Mr.Thanneru chaitanya Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. B.Sapna Reddy, learned Junior Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department for the respondents. Perused the record.

2. This is a writ petition where the proceedings are either challenged to the notices which were issued under Section 148A and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short'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 Act, 2021 w.e.f., 01.04.2021 onwards, proceedings 2 under Section 148,{ of the Act as also under Section 148 of the l:.. 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, 20zl i.e., the impugned notices under Section l48A and Section 148 of the Act not being issued in a faceless manner, have already been dealt with and decided by this court in rhe case of KANKANALA RAVINDRA REDDY vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER' decided on 14.09.2023 whereby a batch of writ petitions were allowed and the proceedings initiated under Section l48A 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 l51A of the Act read with Notification r8l2O22 dated29.$.zazz. 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. 'l(2023) 156 taxrnann.com 178 (Telangana)l 3 {,>." t.'

5. Down the line, we find that the same issue has also been decided against the Revenue by various High Courts i.e., by the Bombay High Court in the case of IIEXAWARE TECHNOLOGIES LTT)., vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & OTHERS', Gauhati High Court in the. case of RAM NARAYAN SAH vs. UNION OF INDIA3, Punjab and Haryana High 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 ABHIN ANILKUMAR SHAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFTCER, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION6 which is again on international taxation and central circle, High Court of Himachal Pradesh in the case of GOVIND SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERT, Gujarat High Court in the case of MANSUKHBHAI 2 Tzoz+1464 ITR 430 (Bom) 'l(2024) 156 taxmann.com 478 (Gauhati)l '1Q024) 165 taxmann.com 115 (Punjab & Haryana)l , '12024) 167 taxmann.com 411 (Telangana)l "12024) 166 taxmann.com 679 (Bombay)l 'L2024) 165 taxmann.com 113 (Himachal Pradesh)l 4 DAHYABHAI RADADIYA VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3X5)8, Jharkand High Court in the case of SHYAM I:J SUNDAR SAW vs. UNION OF INDIAe, Rajasthan High Court in the case of SHARDA DEVI CHHAJER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICBR & ANOTHER and batch of writ petitionsr0 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 DALMIA vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS (M.A.T 1690 of 2023), decided on 25.09.2024.

6. Even though the same issue having been decided by a large number of t{igh Courts, we are still confronted with large filing of identical matters on daily basis ranging between 5 to l0 writ petitions. T'hat 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 Kanakalu Ruvindra Reddy 82024 SCC online Guj 4012 " 2025 SCC Onlioe Jhar 287 'o y2oz3 : RJ-JD :4984-DBl ft." ,?.i t. .a' , ./' 5 (l 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 i] s.ir"a of the matter. In addition, there are about 1200 sLPs also filed arising out of the same issue being decided by various High Courts.

7. To a query being put to the learned counsel for the Revenue, 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 of 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 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 [ncome Tax Department to take appropriate steps 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 concerned in the teeth of series of decisions 5 by all the major High Courts in India are continuously still initiating proceedings under Section 148A of the Act and also initiating pr:oceedings under Section 148 of the Act in contraventiol to the amendments brought into the Income Tax Act pursuant to the Finance Act,2020 as also the Finance Act 202I' g. upon a query being put as to why can't this writ petition be disposed of in the teeth of the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Kanukala Ravindra Reddy ( I supra), leamed Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department contends that those would unnecessarily burden the Income Tax Department where they would be required to fi[e 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 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 ff' I 7 appropriate steps in ensuring that proceedings under Section 148,{ of the Act as also the assessment orders under Section 148 of the Act are kept in a hold in the light of the decisions dedcided by the t- 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.

10. As a result of which, what we are facing is steep increase of litigation day in and day out even though various orders have been passed by this High Court allowing writ petitions on the very same issue. The Income Tax authorities concerned are still even now in 2025 also initiating proceedings in contravention to the provisions of Section l5lA of the Act and as a result by now, more than 600 to 700 petitions have been already got piled up befbre this High 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 (1 supra), the Division Bench while reserving the right of the Revenue, has also protected the interest of the petitioners 8 insofar as the liberty which was granted to the Revenue for initiating fiesh proceedings strictly in accordance with the amended t.. provisions of the Act, as amended by the Finance Act,2020 and the Finance Act, 2021. The petitioner assessee would 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 reserved for the Revenue. On the contrary, they have been still sticking on to the stand, which this High Court as well as many other High Courts already held to be I 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 i* 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 fr, *..J'i t-. 9 Department would get the advantage of the liberty that is otherwise protected in favour of the Revenue for initiation of fresh ,* proceedings from the disposal of these matters at a much later stage which would be advantageous 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 in Kanakalu Ravindro Reddy (1 supra), is a matter of grave concern. The lncome Tax Department's persistent initiation of fresh 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. 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 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 10 position. Such conduct raises serious questions about the administrative eff,rciency and the respect for judicial 'i; pronouncements, particularly when this Court has already provided a balanced approach by preserving both the Revenue's rights and assesses interests.

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 hav'e found out via media in ensuring that proceedings under Sections 148-A and 148 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 already seized of or, at least the lncome Tax Department should have found out some remedial steps to ensure that wherever the authorities intend to initiate proceedings under Sections 148-4 and 148, other than in a faceless manner, the proceedings should have been deferred without precipitating the matter funher 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 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 ft.. {t;-' ' i 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 Tax Department contended that the Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition of similar nature, on the one hand when the High Court 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 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 seized of the matter has bben reluctant in granting any interim protection to the Income Tax Department. Yet, the authorities concerned at the State level are not ready to accept the verdict passed by a majority of High Courts of different States on the same issue; and to make things further worse, the Income 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. I

14. In the case of BANK OF INDIA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, INCOME TAXI', on ao issue whether 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 atparagraph No.25 as under, viz., "25. Mr. Paridwalla has rightly 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 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 roose its binding force. Referring to the decision of the supreme court in Union of lndia vs. Kamlakshi Finance Gorporation 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. ','.|{zOzs) 170 taxmantr.com 422 (Bombay)l '" 119787 I l3 iTR 589 (Bombay) '3 IZOZ+1165 taxmann.com 581/300 Taxman 452 (Bombay) " ltggZ|taxmann.com l6155 ELT 433 (SC) ft.. {:..i l.t 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 tite 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 othenarise of their conclusion or of any factuat 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, righfly 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 vel"femenfly emphasized that it is of utmost importance that, in disposing of the quasijudicial 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 bollectors 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,, 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 comfetent court. lf this healthy : i, I I I : ft' Sr"'.' t 14 rule is not followed, the result will only be undue harassmenttoassessesandchaosinadministration of tax laws.

12. We 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 unpalatabte to the Revenue, are only intended to curb a tendency in revenue matters which, if allowed to become widespread, 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 appeltate 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 endea!'our 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 lT'. i.' ,. 15 Finance AcL2020 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 iile writ petition with an observation/direction 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 (t supra) shall however be subject to the outcome of the SLPs which were filed by the Income Tax Department and which is pending consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

16. [n 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 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 concerned, 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 reference, is reproduced hereunder: fr,^ ' .}i' f.

36. For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned notices 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 ordered accordingly. The reason we are quashing the consequential order is on the principles that when the initiation 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 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 proceed ings.

38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the case ol Ashish Agarwal, supra, as a one-time 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 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 ofAshish Aganual, supra. f>" r'-' :" l.t

18. we would only further like to makgobservations 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 Kanukala Ravindra Reddy (l supra) is subjected to challenge before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No.3574 of 2024, preferred by the lncome Tax Department, we 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 Ravindra Reddy (l supra). This, in other words, would mean that either of the parties, if they 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 is concerned. As a consequence, the impugned notice under challenge under Sections 148-A and 148 stands set aside/quashed. 18 ft"t. ., The consequential orders, if any, also stand set aside/quashed in similar terms as have been passed by this High Court in the case of Kunkanala Ravindra Reddy (1 supra). There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closecl. P.SAM KOSHY, J NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA, J

28.04.2025 Lrlcrn