SRl. A v. RAGHU RAM

petitioner and Ms.J.Sunitha, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department for the respondents' Perused the record.

2. This is a writ petition where the proceedings are either chatlenged to the notices which were issued under Section l48A 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 ofproceedings under Section 148 oI the Act by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, whereas in terms o[the amendment that was brought to the Income Tax Act by way of Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f., 01.04.2021 onwards, proceedings under Section l48A ofthe Act as also under Section l4g of the Act ought to have also been issued and proceede.{ in a laceless manner.

4. The contention of the petitioner is that the issue of proceedings being in violation of the Finance Act, 2021 i.e., the impugned notices under Section I4gA and Section l4g of the Act not being issued in a faceless nanner, have alreadSz br:en dealt with anci decided by this Court in the case of I.ANKANALA RAVINDRA REDDY vs. INCOME_TAX OFFICERT decided on U.A9.2023 whereby a batch oi writ petitions we:c allowed and the proceedings initiated under Section I4gA as also I nder Section 148 of the Act were held to be bad with consequential reliefs on the ground of it being in vioration of the provisions of Srrcrion l51A of the Act read with Notification lg/2022 dated2g.O3.Z:)l]2. The said judgment passed by this Court has also been subsequr:ntly followed in a large number of writ petitions which were ailou.cd on similar terms. 'l(2023) 156 taxmann.com l7g (Telangana)l 3

5. Down the line, we find that the same issue has also been decided against the Revenue by Yarrous High Courts i.e., by the Bombay High Court in the case of HEXAWARE TECHNOLOGIES LTD., vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & OTHERSz, Gauhati High Court in the case of RAM NARAYAN SAH vs. UMON 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 intemational taxation, Bombay High Court in the case of ABHIN ANILKTJMAR 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. INCOME TAX OFFICERT, Gujarat High Court in the case of MANSUKHBHAI 'lzoz+1464 ITR 430 (Bom) '[(2024) 156 taxmann.com 478 (Gauhati)] ' l(2024) 165 taxmann.com I I 5 (Puqiab & Haryana)l ' [2024) I 67 taxmann.com 41 1 (Telangana)] "12024) 166 taxmann.com 679 (Bombay)l '[2024) 165 taxmann.com 113 (Himachal Pradesh)] .- ( . 4 DAIfYABHAI RADADryA vs. INCOME Til{ OFFICER, WARD 3(3X5)8, Jharkand High Court in the cas: of SIIYAM SUNDAR SAW vs. UMON OF INDIAe, Rajasthan Iligh Court in the case of SHARDA DE\.'I CHHAJER vs. IN('OME T.AX OFFICER & ANOTIIER and batch of writ petitionsro which stood decided on 19.03.2024. Similar views have a st been taken by the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court ir the case of GIRDHAR GOPAL DALMIA vs. UNION OF Ii{l)IA & ORS (M.A.T 1690 of 2023), decided on25.09.2024.

6. Even though the same issue having been decil:d by a large number of High Courts, we are still confionted with large filing of identical malters on daily basis ranging between 5 to l0 writ petitions. That upon the instructions being soul3ht from the Department, they have been taking a solitary grotLnd that the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd, (2 supra) as also the one whjc:h has been decided by this Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy 82024 SCC Online Guj 4012 '2025 SCC Online Jhar 287 'o 12023 : RI-JD : 4984- DBI 5 (1 supra) has been subjected to challenge in a Special trave 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. 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 belore 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 Income Tax Department to take appropriate steps to either hold back issuance of notice under Section 148A and under Section 148 of the Act by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, rather the authorities concerned in the teeth of series of decisions 6 by all the major High Courts in India are cortinuously still initiating proceedings under Section 1484 of the ,\ct and also initiating proceedings under Section 148 of the Act in contravention to the amendments brought into the Ir ccme Tax Act pursuant to the Finance Act,2020 as also the Financr' ,\ct2021.

9. Upon a query being put as to why can't this r,'rit petition be disposeci of in the teeth of the decision rendered bl,this Courl iri the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra), luLnred Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department contends thrt those would unnecessarily burden the Income Tax Departmer t where they would be required to file equal number of SI-l': before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and it would be further brrrdening the exchequer of the Union of India. It was also the contention o[ the leamed Standing Counsel that no prejudice would bc r;aused to the interest ofthe petitioners in case if this writ petition ir; <ept pending till the finalization of the SLPs pending before :he Hon'ble Supreme Court and the fact that the petitioner is alr:rLdy enjoying the benefit of interim protection. Nonetheless, on thr: :arher query of this Court as to why the Income Tax Department have not come out with a mechanism to is3ue appropriate instructir>ns or to take .--- 7 appropriate steps in ensuring that proceodings under Section l4EA 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 leamed 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 onders have been passed by this High Court allowing writ petitions on the very same issue. The [ncome Tax authorities concemed are still even now in 2025 also initiating proceedings in contravention to the provisions of Section 15lA of the Act and as a result by now, more than 600 to 700 petitions have been already got piled up before this High court on an issue which otherwise stands squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (l 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 insofar as the liberty which was $anted to t x: ftsysnue fo1 initiating fresh proceedings strictly in accordance u,irh the amended provisions of the Act, as amended by the Financ t: Lct, 202(t and the Finance Act,202l. The petitioner assessee woul<l be entitled to challenge or raise the other Iegal objections if the Rcvenue initiates fresh proceedings. The Department has made n,) endeavolrr in availing the said liberty that was reseryed for the Rt:.,enue. On the contrary, they have been still sticking on to the stirr';d, rvhich this High Court as well as many other High Courts alrcaCy held k) be

11. It appears that because ofthe aforesaid iiberry rhat this High Court had granted permitting the Revenue for irritiating fresh proceedings as a one-time measure in a faceless manner, the lncome Tax Department wants to take advantage ot. he same by protracting these proceedings which would enable the rrr to meet the limitation that would otherwise come in the way. t.i<cwise, if the writ petition is kept pending for a considerable Iong pe .iod of tinre and finally at a later stage if the Hon,ble Supreme co. rt confirnrs the decision taken by this High Court as also by thr: other High Courts in which the SLps are still pending, the lrLcome Tax 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 setir- Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra), is a matter of grave concem. The Income 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 ofjudicial 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 efficiency and tfr" respect for judicial pronouncements, particularly when this Court has already provided a balanced approach by preserving both the Reverrte's rights and assesses interests.

13. Another aspect which needs to be considered js that in fact it should have beeii realizeci by the tncome Tax Depan.nrent itself and should have found out via media in ensuring that proceedrngs under Sections 148-4 and l4g should not have beer issued in a iaceless manner, at least till the Hon,ble Supreme Clrrt decide the twelve hundred (1200) odd SLps which it is already sr,ized of or_, at least the Income Tax Department should have fo und out some remedial steps to ensure that wherever the authorties intend to initiate proceedings under Sections l4g-A and I4g, than in a 'ther faceless manner, the proceedings should have lreen deferred without precipitating the matter further intimating th. .ssessee that they shall initiate appropriate proceedings only after the SLp,s irre decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the ver, same issue. This again, the Income Tax Department, has not been a.tie to givc 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 leamed 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 been reluctant in granting any interim protection to the Income Tax Deparfuent. 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 lncome Tax Department is showing audacity by issuing notices continuously under Sections 148-A and 12 148 through the jurisdictional Assessing Officer u.hereas it ought to have been only in the faceless manner.

14. In the case of BANK OF INDIA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, INCOME TAXIt, on an issue r,shether it was justiflable on the part of the Income Tax Depirrrment in not following an order passed by the adjudicating autho;.ity only on the ground that ihe appeals are pending, the Division llench of the High Court of Bombay held at paragraph No.25 as urr<ler, viz., : "25. Mr. Paridwalta has righfly drawn out attenlicn to the decision oi ihis Couri in Commissioner of lncome Tax vs. Smt. Godavaridevi Sarafl2 as also the recent decision Jf the co_ ordinate Bench of this Court in Samp Furniture (p) Ltd, v. lTOr3 of which one of us (Justice G.S. Kulkarni) was a membr:r wherein the Court categoricalty observed th4 the Revelue ltaving not 'accepted" the.iudgment of the High Court would not mr:an that till the same is set aside in a manner known lo law, it would loose its binding force. Referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of lndia vs. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Lt:d.14, the Court observed that the approach of the officials of Revengg oJ treating decisions being .not acceptable" was criticiz,:c by the Supreme Court. ln such decision, following are tho relevant observations made by the Supreme Court. ',t,1{2025) t70 taxmann.com 422 (Bombay)l '' | 19781 I t3 ITR 589 (Bombay) " 1ZOZ|1 165 taxmann.com 5g l/300 Taxman 452 (Bomba y) 'o ltggZlraxmann.com l6155 ELT 433 (SC) 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 Sri Reddy overlooks is that we are not concemed here with the conectness or othenvise of their 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 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 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 Collectors and the Appellate Collectors who function under the judsdiction of the Tribunal. The principles of .ludicial 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 mafter of an appeal can fumish no ground for not following it unless its operatbn has been suspended by a competent court. lf this healthy t4 rule is not followed, the result will only be Lrndue harassment to assesses and chaos in administration of tax laws.

12. We have dealt with this aspect at some l(.ngth, because it has been suggested by the leilr.ted Additional Solicitor General that the observzrtions made by the High Court, have been harsh o I the officers. lt is clear that the observations of the t-tigh Court, seemingly vehement, and appa.ently unpalatable to the Revenue, are only intended to curb a tendency in revenue mafters which, if allow:c to become widespread, could result in considere ble harassment to the assesses-public without any br:refit to the Revenue. We would like to say tha: the department should take these observations ir the proper spirit. The observations of the High (lourt should be kept in mind in future and the utmost r(rgard should be paid by the adjudicating authorities an i the appellate authorities to the requirements of lu li,;ial discipline and the need for giving effect to the o.ders of the higher appellate authorities which are binding on them."

15. What is worrying this Bench more is the lact that an endeavour is being made whole heartedly to ensure rrot to generate further litigation on issues which have been laid to r.est by a large trumber of High Courts all of whom have taken a cc nsistent stand that the action of the Income Tax Department being violative of the 15 Finance Act,2020 and Finance Act,202l. Now, in order to protect the interest ofthe Revenue as also that ofthe assessee, it would 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 Court in the case of Kankanala Ravindra Reddy (l 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. 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 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 t6 36,37 and 38 otthe order which, for ready reference. is reproduced hereunder:

36. For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugnec notices issued and the proceedings drawn by the resF)ondent- Department is neither tenable, nor susia nable. The notices so issued and the procedure adopkrd being per se illegal, deserves to be and are accorciirgly set aside/quashed. As a consequence, all the inrpugned orders getting quashed, the consequential orders passed by the respondent-Department pursuant to the rotices issued under Section 147 and 148would atlc get quashed and it is ordered accordingly, The reesr)n we are quashing the consequential order is on the piirciples that when the initiation of the proceedings itsetf was procedurally wrong, the subsequent orders al rc gets nullifi ed automatically.

37. The preliminary objection raised by the petilic ner is sustained and all these writ petitions stands allow?d on this very jurisdictional issue. Since the impugned n:tices and orders are getting quashed on the point of jurisdiction, we are not inctined to proceed furttler and decide the other issues raised by the petitione. which stands reserved to be raised and contended n an appropriate proceedings.

38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the case of Ashish Agarwal, supra, as a one{ime rr e:lsure exercising the powers under Article 142 )f the Constitution of lndia, permifted the Revenue to tr()ceed under the substituted provisions, and this Court allowing the petitions only on the procedural flaw, th 3 right L7 confened on the Revenue would remain resefld to proceed furlher if they so want from the stage of the order of the Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Aganinal, supra.

18. We would only further like to make observations that since we are inclined to dispose of the instant writ petition, @nscious of the fact that the earlier order of this High Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (I 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 petitionris subject to outcome of the aforesaid SLP preferred by the Revenue against the decision of this High Court in the case of Kanakaln 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 decisioo 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 l4g-A and l4g stands set asidey'quashed. 18 The consoquential orders, if aay, also stand set as i<lcy'quashal in similar terms as have been passed by this High C-ourt in the case of Kankantlil Ravindra Reddy (l supra).' There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pendin :, if any, shall stand closed. SD/.I(.BHAVANI SWAMY As:;tsrarur REGISTRAR /ffRUE COPY'/ SECTION OFFICE R. \ To, The Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessme ri Centre' lncome Tax 'i:I"fi*]T{9t^"'nL aot 2nd Floor' F-Ramp' Deoartment, Ministry ", H#;i ;t6i fu"hru St6aium' Delhi - 1 10 0o3' The lncome Tax DepartmLif'w''i' i itritrvderabad sionature Towers' sy Nn A/P) of Kondaour. sv ijt iiiP) or koihig'aa' cp.l -Botanical Gardens' SJriiiiiciarnpattvtM), Ranga Reddv Dist' HvoeraDao The ln-come Tax ofticer, riiffi'"rr"ii)''Signature r Sv No' 6(P) ot "'ers' 1 2 3 lHt$*sHttE#ff'.dg nm, r',.:# . Trvo CD CoPies u366'u"r' 4 5 6 M B LS j i at r' | ": f I l;i' .1._.1r i1 '].,:. \ \\. t .. .a- HIGH COURT DATED:0510812025 ORDER WP.No.22987 of 2025 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS a /4, ? o/za,/.t{