The High Court · 2025

challenged to the notices which were issued under Section l48A and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 196l (for short'the Act') or the assessment orders those have been passed under Section 147 of the Act which have been assailed. l. 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, y3"ut 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 l48A of the Act as also under Section l4g 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,202l i.e., the impugaed notices under Section l48A and Section 14g of the Act not being issued in a faceless manner, have already been dealt with and decided by this Courr in the case of KANKANALA RAVINDRA REDDY vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICERT decided on 14.09.2023 whereby a batch of writ petitions were allowed and the proceedings initiated under Section l4gA as also under Section 148 of the Act were held to be bad with consequential reliefs on the ground of it being in violation of the provisions of Section l5lA of the Act read with Notificarion lB/2022 dated 29.03.2022. The said judgment passed by this Court has also been subsequently followed in a large number ol writ petitions which were allowed on similar temrs. t [(202]) 156 taxmann.com l 78 (Telangana)l 3 5, f)own the line, we lind that thc same issue has also heen decided against the Revenue by various High Courts i.e., by the Bombay High Court in the case of IIEXAWARE TECTINOLOGIES LTD., vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & OTHERS2, Gauhati H[hCourt in the case of RAM NARAYAN SAH vs. UIIION OF INDIA3, punjab and Haryana High Court in rhe case of JATIhIDER SINGII 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 OFFICER, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION6 which is again on intemational taxation and central circle, High Court of Himachal pradesh in the case of GOWND SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERT, Gujarat High Court in the case of MANSUKIIBHAI ' lzozq 464 rrR 430 (Bom) 'f(2024) 156 taxmann.com 478 (Gauhati)l ^ l(2024) 165 raxmann.com I I 5 (punjab & Harydna)l ' 12024) 167 taxmann.com 4l I'[Tblangana)] " f2024) 166 taxmann-com 679 (Bombay)l ' 12024) 165 taxmarur.com I l3 (H imachat pradesh)l 4 r- DAHYABHAI RADADIYA VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3)(08, Jharkand High Court in the case of SIIYAM SUNDAR SAW vs. UNION OF INDIAe, Rajasthan High Court in the case of SHARDA DBVI CHHAJER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER & ANOTIIER 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 on25.09.2024-

6. Even though the same issue having been decided by a large number of High Courts, we are still confronted with large filing of identical matters on daity basis ranging between 5 to l0 writ petitions. That upon the instructions being sought fiom the Department, they have been taking a solitary ground that the decision of the Bombay lligh Court in the case ol Hexaware Technologies Ltd., (2 supra) as also the one u'hich has been decided by this Court in the case of Kanakala Rat'indra Reddy '202q SCC Online Guj 4012 '2025 SCC Onl-ine Jhar 287 12023 : RI- JD :4984- DB l o ' 5 (l cupra) has been sub,iected to challenge in a Special Leave Petition i.e., SLP No.i574 of 2OZ4 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 frled arising out ofthe same issue being decided by various High Courts.

7. To a query being put to the leamed 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, titt date, we do not find any remedial steps having been taken by the lncome 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 Offrcer, rather the authorities concemed in the teeth of series of decisions 6 ,,\ by all the major High Courts in India are continuously stlll initiating proceedings under Section 148A of the Act and also initiating proceedings under Section 148 of the Act in contravention to the amendments brought into the Income Tax Act pursuant to the Finance Act,zO2O as also the Finance Act 2021 ' 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 Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra), learned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department contends that those would unnecessarily 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 leamed 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 appropflete steps in ensuring that proceedings under SeCtion l4gA ofthe Act as also the assessment orders under Section I4g ofthe Act are kept in a hold in the light ofthe decisions dedcided by the various High Courts, it was submitted by the learned Standing Counsel that the said steps can only be taken at the level of CBDT as any such steps would have to be taken pan India and cannot be Iimited 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 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 granted to the Revenue for initiating fresh proceedings strictly in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act, as amended by the Finance Act, 2020 and the Finance Act,202l. 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 liberry 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 l. It appears that because ofthe aforesaid tiberty that this High Court had granted perrnitting the Revenue for initiating fresh proceedings as a one-time measure in a faceless manner, the lncome Tax Department wants to take advantage of the same by protracting these proceedings which would enable them to meet the timitation that would otherwise come in the way. Likewise, if the writ petition is kept pending for a considerable long period of time and finally at a later stage if the Hon'ble Supreme Court confirms the decision taken by this High Court as also by the other High Courts in which the SLPs are still pending, the lncome Tax 9 Department would get the advantage of the liberty that is otherwise protected in favour of the Revenue tbr initiation of fresh proceedings from the disposal ofthese 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 concemed. As a consequence, the Income Tax Departrnent 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 Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra), is a matter of grrve 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 efficiency and the respect for judicial pronouncements, particularly when this Court has already provided a balanced approach by preserving both the Revenue's rights and assesses lnterests

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 manner, at least till the Hon'ble Supreme Court decide the twelve hundred (1200) odd SLPs which it is already seized ofor, at least the Income 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 further 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 dccrsion if at all 11 has to be taken, has to be takcn for the wholc uf tndia, 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 contendd that the Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition of simitar nature, on the one hand when the High Court is struggling ro 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. Admittedty, 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 Department. Yet, the authorities concemed 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 72 148 through the jurisdictional Assessing Officer whereas it ought to have been only in the faceless maDner.

14. In the case of BANK OF INDIA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, INCOME TAXrr, on an 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 at paragraph No.25 as under, viz., : "25. Mr Paridwalla has rightly drawn out attention to the decision of thrs Court in Cornmissioner 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. lTO13 of which one of us (Justice G.S. Kulkami) 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 loose its binding force Referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of lndia vs. Kamlakshi Finance Gorporation Ltd.l4, the Court observed that the approach of the officials of Revenue of treatrng decisions being 'not acceptable'was criticized by the Supreme Court. ln such decision, following are the relevant observatrons made by the Supreme Court. '' [(z0zs) 170 ta.\mann.com 422 (Bombay)) t 1t9281 t l] ITR 589 (Bombay) 1202+1 165 taxrnann.com 581/300 Taxman 452 (Bombay) ' 't 1t9921 raxnrann.com t6155 ELT433 (SC) 13 "6. Sd Reddy ls perhsps rlght ln saylng thal tho officor3 w6re not rdu8tsd by eny mala fid€t passlng the lmpugned orders. They perhaps genuincly f6lt that the claim of the assessee was not tenable and that, if it was accepted, the Revenue would suffer. But what Sri Reddy overiooks is that we are not concerned here with the correctness or 'factual otherwise of their conclusion or of any malafides but with the fact that the officers, in reaching in their conclusion, by+assed 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 gi\re effect to the orders of authorities higher to them in the appellate hierarchy. lt cannot be too vehemently emphasized thal 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 iurisdiction of the Tribunal. The principles of judicial discipline require that the orders of the higher appelhte authorities should be followed unreservedly by tfE subordinate authorities. The mere fact that the order of the appellate authority is not "acceptable" to the department - in itself an otiectionable phrase - and is the subject matter of an appeal can furnish no ground for not following it unless its operation has beefl suspend€d by a cornpetent court- lf this healthy 14 (- rule is not followed, the result will only be undue harassment to assesses and chaos in administration of tax laws.

12. We have dealt with this aspect at some length, because it has been suggested by the leamed Additional Solicitor General that the obsenations made by the High Court, have been harsh on the officers. It is clear that the observations of the High Court, seemingly vehement, and apparentty unpalatable to the Revenue, are only intended to curb a tendency in revenue mafters which, if allo!rcd 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 depa(ment 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 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 tiris Bench more is the fact that an endeavour is being made whole heartedly to ensure not to generate further litigation on issues which have been laid to rest by a large number of High Courts all of whom have taken a consistent stand that the action ol the Income Tax Department being violative of the ...( 15 Financc Ac(, 2020 and Finanea Act, 2021, Now, in order trr proteet the interest of the Revenue as also that of the assessee, it would be trite at this juncture, if we dispose of the writ petition with an observation/direction that the disposal of the instant writ petition in terms of the judgment rendered by this High Court in the case of Kankunala 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. I 6. 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. 11 . So far as the interest of the Revenue is concerned, we are ol the considered opinion that the interest of the Revenue has atready been considered and protected, as has been observed in paragraphs 76 36,37 and 38 of the order which, for ready reference, is reproduced hereunder:

36. For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned notices issued and the proceedings drawn by the respoldelt- 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 quaihed 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 ob.iection 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 lngs.

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 this Court allowing the petitions only on the procedural flaw, the right 17 confened on the Revenue would remain reserved to proceed further if they so want frorn the stage of the order of the Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Agarwal, supra.

18. We would only further like to make observations that since we are inclined to dispose of the instant writ petition, conscious of the fact that the earlier order of this High Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra) is subjected to challenge before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No.3574 of 2024, preferred by the Income Tax Department, we make it clear that allowing ol 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 stryra). 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 paition stands allowed in favour o{' the assessee so far as the issue of jurisdiction ls concemed. As a consequence, the impugned notice under challenge under Sections 148-A and 148 stands set aside/quashed. 18 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 Kankanala Ravindra Reddy (l supra). There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// 'o%',,f ifliY'ft :t'EFRII \ I SECTION OFFICER I I I I I I I i i I To IOPUC]

6. Two CD CoPies PSK. GJP w HIGH COURT DATED:3010412025 ORDER WP.No.27132 of 2024 lHE SIE R\.) ) 2 4 JUL 2025 ( L l, ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ,f*% W #tr