lt4r. It/otte Veeresh v. THE HONOURABLE SRI JU

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 l48A and Section 148 of the Act not being issued in a faceless manner, have already been dealt with and decided by this Qourt in the case of KANKANALA RAVINDRA REDDY vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICERT decided on 14.09.2023 whereby a batch of writ petitions were allowed ar.rd the proceedings initiated under Section l48A as also under Section 148 of the Act were held to be bad with consequentiai reliefs on the ground of it being in violation of the provisions ofsecrion 151A of the Act read with Notification 18/2022 dated29.03.2022. The said, judgment passed by this Court has also been subsequently follor.r,ed in a large number of writ petitions which were allowed on similar terms. '[(2023) I 56 taxmann.com 178 (Telangana)] * / ? 3

5. Down the line, we find that e same issue has also been decided against the Revenue b vanous High Courts i.e., by the Bombay High Court in the case of HEXAWARE TECHNOLOGIES LTD., vs. ASS STANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & OTHERS2, au[ati High Courl in the case of RAM NARAYAN SAH vs. UN ON OF INDIA3, Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of TINDER SINGH BANGU vs. UNION OF INDIAI, and Telan ana High Court in the case of SRI VENKATARAMANA REDD PATLOOLA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME AX5 where the issue was in respect of intemational taxation, Bo bay High Court in the case of ABHIN ANILKUMAR SHAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION6 hich is again on intemational taxation and central circle, High Co of Himachal Pradesh in the case of GOVIND SINGH vs. I COME TAX OFFICERT, Gujarat High Court in the c e of MANSUKHBHAI ' lzoz+1464 ITR 430 (Bom) 'l(2024) 156 taxmann.com 478 (Gauhat " l(2024) 165 taxmann.corn I l5 (Punjab ' 12024) 167 taxrnann.com 4 I I (Telang " 12024) 166 taxmann.corn 679 (Bombay '12024) i65 taxmann.corn I l3 (llimach s 1 Haryana)l a)l I Pradesh)l # 4 DAHYABHAI RADADIYA VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER' -l \ WARD 3(3)(08, Jharkand High Court in the case of SHYAM SUNDAR SAW vs. UNION OF tNDIAe, Rajasthan l{igh Court in the case of SHARDA DEVI CHHAJER vs' INCOME TAX OFFICER & ANOTHER and batch of writ petitionsro which stood decided on 19.03.2024. Similar views have also been taken by the Division Bench of Calcutta High Cour.t irr 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 largc number of High Courts, we are still confronted with large hling of identical matters on daily basis ranging between 5 to 10 writ petitions. That upon the ir.rstructions being sought fiom the Department, they have been taking a solitary ground that the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Hestuwore Technologies Ltd., (2 supra) as also the one which has been decided by this Court in the case ol Kanakala Ravindra Reddy '2024 SCC Online Guj 4012 '2025 SCC Online Jhar287 'o 12023, RI-JD :4984-DBl \ 5 (1 supra) has been subjected to c llenge in a Special Leave Petition i.e., SLP No.3574 of 2024 efore the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme C urt is seized of the matter. In addition, there are about 1200 SL also filed arising out of the same issue being decided by various igh.Courts.

7. To a query being put to the le ed counsel for the Revenue, they have categorically accepted the fact that there is no interim order granted by the Hon'ble Supr me Court in any of these matters pending before it. Meanw ile, fresh writ petitions of identical nature are being piled up be re this Bench on daily basis and the pendency is getting increase on matter which otherwise has already been dealt and decided by is very High Court itself

8. On the one hand, even though the order of this Court that was passed as early as on 14.09.202 and more 16 months have lapsed, till 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 er Section l48A and under Section 148 of the Act by the juris ictional Assessing Officer, rather the authorities concemed in th teeth of.".i". $ ectslons \ 6

1. by all the rnajor High Courts in India are continuously still initiating proceedings under Section 148,{ of the Act and also initiating proceedings under Section 148 o1. the Acr in contravention to tl-re amendments brought into the Income Tax Act pursuant to the Finance Act.2020 as also the Finance Act 2021.

9. Upon a query being puf as to why can't this writ petition be disposed of in the teeth of the decision rendered bv this Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra), leamed Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department contends that those would unnecessarily burden the Income Tax Department where the y would be required to file equal number of SLps befor.e the Hon'ble Supreme Courl 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 ofthe petitioners in case if this writ petition is kept pending till the hnalization 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 corre out with a mechanism to issue appropriate instructions or to take 7 appropriate steps in ensuring that pr ceedings under Section l48A of the Act as also the assessment o under Section 148 ofthe Act are kept in a hold in the tight o the decisions decided by the various High Courts, it was submi ed by the leamed Standing Counsel that the said steps can only e ta]<en at the level of CBDT as any such steps would have to be en Pan India and cannot be limited to any of these jurisdictional igh Courts.

10. As a result of which, what we e facing is steep increase of titigation day in and day out even th gh various orders have been passed by this High Court allowing it petitions on the very same lssue The Income Tax authorities co cerned are still even now in 2025 also initiating proceedings in c ntravention to the provisions of Section 15lA of the Act and as a sult by now, ntore than 600 to 700 petitions have been already t piled up before this High Courl on an issue which otherwise s ds squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in the case o Kunakula Ravindra Reddy ( I supra). What is also surprising i the fact that though while allowing the writ petitions in the se of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra), the Division Bench while reserving the right of the Revenue, has also protected th interest of the petitioners I L I l l I 8 insofar as the liberty which was granted to the Revenue for initiating fresh proceedings strictly in accordance witl.r the amended provisions ol 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 DepaJtment has made no endeavour in avaiting the said liberty that was reserved for the Revenue. On the contrary, they have been still sticking on to the stand, which this High Couft as well as many other High Courts already held to be

11. 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 at a later stage if the Hon'ble Supreme Courl confirms the decision taken by this High Court as also by the other High Courts in u,hich the SLPs are still pending, the Income Tax ---7 9 Department would get the advantage f the liberty that is otherwise protected 1n favour of the Reve ue for initiation of fresh proceedings from the disposal of thes matters at a much later stage which would be advantageous and neficial to the Revenue and would be equally disadvantageous an detrimental so far as interest ol the assesses are concemed. As a c nsequence, the Income Tax Deparlment gets an extended period f time for initiation of lresh proceedings

12. The alarming trend of docket ex losion in this Court, despite the clear precedent set in Kanakala R vindra Reddy (1 supra), is a matter of grave concem. The Income Tax Department's persistent initiation of fresh proceedings, disreg ding the estabtished j udicial pronouncements, has led to an unp edented surge in titigation with over 600-700 petitions piling p on the same issue. This deliberate approach not only undermi es the principle of judicial precedent but also strains the judicial sources unnecessarily. The Depaftment's strategy of awaiting the upreme Court's decision on pending SLPs while continlling to initiate fresh proceedings appears to be a calculated move to buy time and circumvent limitation periods, rather than adheri g to the established legal 't l l l 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 balar.rced approach by preserving both the Revenue's rights and assesses tnterests

13. Another aspect which ndeds to be considered is that in fact it should have been realized b1. the Income Tax Deparlment itself and should have lound out via media in ensuring that proceedings under Sections 148-,{ and 148 should not have been issued in a faceless marlner, 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-A and 148, other than in a faceless manner, the proceedings should have been defened 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 decision if at all $ w ./ 11 has to be taken, has to be taken for t e whole of India, and which otherwise has to be by way of a poli y decision and that too at the level ol Central Board of Direct axes. Though the leamed Standing Counsel for the Income T Department contended that the Delhi High Court dismissed a wri petition of similar nature, on the one hand when the High Co is . stmggling to reduce its pendency, such notices which are der challenge in this writ petition are forcing the assessee to ock the doors of this High Court resulting in hling of hundreds f new writ petitions which in the long run not only affec,R the dis sal of the writ petitions but also consumes substantial time of the Bench in hearing these matters again and again on daily basi Admittedly, in spite of the rnatter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court having been taken on many occasions, the Hon'ble Suprem Court which is seized of the matter has been reluctant in granting u.ry int.ri-tftection to the Income Tax Department. Yet, the authorities concemed at the Statc level are not ready to accept th verdict passed by a majority of Fligh Courts of different States o the same issue; and to make things lurther worse, the Income ax Department 1S showing ar-rdacity by issuing notices continuo ly under Sections 148-A and >^.1 ,! 12 148 through the jur.isdictional Assessing Officer whereas it ought \i \ to have been only in the faceless manner.

14. In the case of BANK OF INDIA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, INCOME TAXrr, on an issue rvhether it r.vas justifiable on the part o[ the Income Tax Departrnent 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. tVlr. Parrdwalla hgs righfly 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 thrs Court in Samp. Furniture (p) Ltd. v. lTO13 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 loose its binding force. Referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of lndia vs. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd.i4, the Court observed that the approach of the officials of Revenue of treating decisions being "not acceptable', was criticized by the Supreme Court. In such decision, following are the relevant observations made by the Supreme Court. jlttZOZSl 170 raxrrann.com 422 (Bomhay)l " ll978J I l3 Il'R 58e (tsombay) " 1202+1165 taxmann.com 5gl/300 Taxran 452 (Bombal ) 14 Ug2?ltaxmann.com t6/55 EL| 433 (SC) 7 -1.3 "6. Sri Reddy is perhaps rig officers were not actuated passing the impugned ord genuinely felt that the clarm of tenable and that, if it was a would suffer. But what Sri Red are not concerned here wit otherwise of their conclusio malafides but with the fact that t in saying that the any mala frdes in They perhaps the assessee was not pted, the Revenue y overlooks is that we the correctness or or. of any factual e officers, in reaching in their conclusion, by-passed appellate orders in regard to the same issue whi were placed before them, one of the Collector (Ap eals) and the other of the Tribunal. The High Court h s, in our view, rightly critrcized this conduct of the A istant Collectors and the harassment to the assesse of these officers to give authorities higher to them in the cannot be too vehemently em utmost importance that, in quasijudicial issues before the caused by the failure to the orders of ppellate hierarchy. lt hasized that it is of disposing of the , revenue officers are bound by the decisions of the appellate authorities. The order of the Appellte Colle Assistant Collectors workrng wit the order of the Tribunal is bind or is binding on the in his jurisdiction and g upon the Assistant Collectors and the Appellate C llectors who function under the jurisdiction of the Tri judicial discipline require that th nal. The principles of orders of the higher appellate authorities should be o llowed unreservedly by the subordinate authorities. he mere fact that the order of the appellate authority the department - in itself an o and is the subject matter of an ground for not following it unl is not 'acceptable" to ectionable phrase ppeal can furnish ss its operation has "p been suspended by a cbmpete court. lf this healthy -\r 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 learned Additional Solicitor General that the observations made by the High Court, have been harsh on the officers. lt is ctear that lhe observations of the High Court, seemingly vehement. and apparently unpalatable 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 RevenJe. 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 adiudicating 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." I 5. What is worrying this 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 lest 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 tl.re 15 Finance Act,2O20 and Finance Act, 021 . Now, in order to protect the interest of the Revenue as also t t of the assessee, it would be trite at this juncture, if we dispos of the writ petition with an observation/direction that the dispo of the instant writ petition in terms of the judgment rendered by is High Court in the case of Konkanala Ravindra Reddy (l sup ) shall however be subject to thc outcome of the SLPs which w re filed by the Income Tax Departrnent and which is pending co sideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

16. In the given facts and circ stances, this Bench is of the considered opinion that unless and til we do not timely dispose of matters which are squarely cove by the decision ofthis Court and which stands forlified by the d isions of the various other High Courls on the very same issu , the pendency of this High Court would further be burdened w ch otherwise can be decided and disposed of as a covered matter.

11. So far as the interest of the Re enue is concemed, we are of the considered opinion that the intere t of the Revenue has already been considered and protected, as ha been observed in paragraphs 16 36,37 and38 ofthe order which, for ready reference' is reproduced hereunder:

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 tmpugned 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'brdered 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 proceedings.

38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the case of Ashish Agarwal, supra, as a one{ime measure exercising the powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of lndia. permitted the Revenue to proceed under the substituted provisions, and this Court allowing the petitions only on the procedural flaw, the right 77 conferred on the Revenue wo proceed further if they so wan order of the Supreme Court Agarwal, supra. ld remain reserved to from the stage of the in the case of Ashish

18. We would only further like to ake observations that since we are inclined to dispose of the ins t writ petition, conscious of the fact that the earlier order of this High Court in the case of Kanskala Ravindra Reddy (I supra IS subjected to challenge \ t T before the Hon'ble Supreme Coutl in SLP No.3574 of 2024, I preferred by the Income Ta4 Deparl ent, we make it clear that allowing of the instant writ petition i subject to outcome of the aforesaid SLP preferred by the Reven e against the decision of this High Courl in the case of Kanakala Ravindrs Reddy (l supra) -lhis, in other words, would mean tha either of the parties, if they so want, may move an appropnate pe ition seeking revival of this writ petition in the light of the decis n of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the pending SLP on the very e lssue

19. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands allowed rn favour of the assessee so far as e lssue of jurisdiction IS concemed. As a consequence, t e impugned notice under challenge under Sections 148-A and I 48 stands set aside/quashed. 18 The consequential orders, if any, also stand set asidc/quashed in similar terms as have been passed by this High Court iu the case of Kankanala Rovindra Reddy (1 supra). There shall be no order as to costs Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. To //TRUE COPY// SD/. P. PADMANABHA REDDY EFUTY REGISTRAR T. I SECTION OFFICER V

1. The lncome Tax Officer,.Ward 1. Mahahbubnagar. lncome Tax Office' DEO Office Road, l\,4ahabubnbgar - 509 001 , Telangana.

2. The Principal Commissioner of lncome Tax 4 Hyderabad, I T Towers 10 2 3 AC Guards Hyderabad

3. One CC to SRl. A V A SIVA KARTIKEYA Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to [/s J SUNITHA (JUNIOR SC FOR INCOME TAX) [OPUC] Two CD Copies KKS GJP ?r I -t. ( c) 11,- '5 i.-r>-' o; !'.:- i '-: 11 AUE zIE /./, k -\. ' s,.'1TC'rr' (. ( HIGH COURT DATED:2910412025 ORDER WP.No.28712 ot 2024 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS h ?