[?"'H.i#f#',ff #ftH':':hfr# v. consequenfly set aside the same in the intere sts of

petitioh under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit firet in suppo( of the writ petition, the High court may be preased to suspend the order Unde -,H;lL:,::_:;:: ,ncome.tax Acr o,,J'"1f"" ;::.:;Z;:,^,lli 2411060425121(1 ) for the Assessmen t year 2019-20determining the totar income of Rs.12,24,2i,783/_. and Demand notice u/s 156 of the lncome Tax act 1961, vide DrN and Notice No. rrBA,rAST/S/156t2023-24r1060425154(1) for the assessment year 2O1g_2O pending disposal of the above Writ petition Counsel for the petitioner: SRl. THANNERU CHAITANYA KUMAR Counset forthe Respondent Nos. 1to4: Ms. J.SUNITHA counsel ror the Respondent FoR tNcoME rAx) Dt. 02-02_2024 The Court made the following: ORDER "".u, "*1'gl,f,I^iE THE TIONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P'SAM KOSI{Y AND TrrE HoNouRABr,B s{i iusucE NARSING RAo NANDIKONDA WRIT PETITIONNo.33540 ()F m24 ORDER (per Hon'ble Sri Justice Narsing Rao Nandil<onda) Heard Mr'Thanneru Chaitanya Kumar' learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms'J'sunitha' leamed Junior Stan'ding Counsel forthelncomeTaxDepartmentforrespondentNos.lto4and Mr. B. Mukherjee, Ieamed counsel representing the Union of India for respondent No'5' Perused the record'

2. This is a writ petition where the proceedings are either challenged to the notices which were issued under Section l48A and 148 of the lncome Tax Act' 1961 (for short 'the Act') or the assessmetrt orders those have been passed under Section 147 o[ the Act which have been assailed' 3'Thiswritpetitionisbeingtakenuptodayonlyononeofthe grounds, that the notices issued uoder Section 148A of the Act and the subsequent initiation of proceedings under Section 148 of the Ac! by the j urisdictional Assessing Ofticer' whereas in terms of the airendment that was brought to the Income Tax Actby way ) 2 of Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f., 01.04.2021 onwards, proceedings under Section 14gA of the Att as also under Section I4g of the Act ought to have also been tssued and proceeded in a faceless manner.

4. The contention of the proceedings being in violation petitioner is that ttre issue of of the Finance ACl, 2021 i.e., the impugned notices under Section I48A and Secrion t4g ol rhe Acr not being issued in a faceless manner, have already been dealt with and decided by this Court 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 Notification lg/2022 dated Zg.O3 .2022. 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. 'tQ023) 156 raxmann.com l7g (Telangana)l I 3

5. Down the line, we frnd that the same issue has also been decided against the Revenue by various High C'ourts i'e'' by the Bombay High Court in dre -case of IIEXAWARE TECHNOLOGIES LTD., VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSTONER oFINCOMETAx&OTIIERS2,GauhatiHighCourtinthecase of RAM NARAYAN SAII vs' UNION OF INDIAT' 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 ANILKLMAR SHAII vs' INCOME TAX OFFICE& INTERNATIONAL TAXATIOIS which is again on international taxation and central circle, High Court of Himachal Pradesh in the case of GOVIND SINGII vs' INCOME TAX OFFICEd' Gujarat High Court in the case of MANSUKIIBIIAI \ '1zoz+1464 ITR43o(Bom) 'i2ozq 156 taxmann.com 478 (Gauha 'i<zozq) 165 taxmann.com 115 (Punjab & Haryana)l '[2024) 167 taxmann.com 41 I (Telangana)] " 12024) 166 taftaqn.com 679 (Bombav)l 'iZOZq [65 taxnrarur.com I t3 (Himachal Pradesh)] 4 DAIIYABHAI RADADIYA vs. INCOME TAX.OFFICE& WAR-D 3(3X5)3, Jharkand High Court in the case of SEyAM SUNDAR SAW vs. UNION OF INDIAe, Rajasrhan High Court in the case of SHARDA DEW CHHAJER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER & ANOTHER and batch of writ petitionsro which stood decided oo 19.03.2024. Similar views have also been taken by the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in the case of GIRDHAR C,OPAL 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 Iarge number of High Courts, we are still confronted with large filing of identical matters on daily basis ranging between 5 to r 0 writ petitions. That 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 Hexsware Teehnologies Ltd., (2 supra) as also the one which has been decided by this Court-.ig_the case of Ksnakalo Ravindra Reddy 82024 SCC Online Guj 40 l2 ' 2025 SCC On Line Jhar 287 'o 12023 : RI-JD :4984_DBl f, (1 supra) itas ''5:::Ll ;-'i:':'-le/..;6:d t.:' :iratienge in a Speci*t Lli;e Petition i'e., SLP No'3574 of 2024 before the llon'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 before it' Meanwhile' fresh writ petitions of identical nahrre are being piled up before this Bench on daily basis and the pendency is getting increased on matter which otherwise has arready 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, tilt 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 Offrcer' rather the authorities concemed in the teeth of series of decisions f b;' all the major,.iiiigi Cri,it: ir India are continuously si,.l rnrrlaring proceedings under Section l4gA of the Act and also initiating proceedings under Section 14g of the Act ia contravention to the amendments brought into the Income Tax Act pursuant ro the Finance Act,2020as also the Finance Act 202t- 9. Upon a query being put as to why can,t this writ petition be disposed of in the teeth of the decision rendered by rhis Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (tsupra), leamed 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 learned standing counser that no prejudice wourd be caused to the lnterest of the petitionen in case if this writ petition is kept pending till the finalization of the SLps pending before rhe 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 api,ropriate instructions or to iake ( (- 7 ialrpropriate st€ps in ensuring that proceedings under Section l48A 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 various High Courts' it was submitted by the leamed Standing counser that the said steps can onry be taken at the level of GBDT as any such steps would have to be taken Pan India and cannot be limited to any of these jurisdictional High Courts' t0. 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 arready got p,ed 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 (1 supra). What is also surprising is the fact that though while allowing the writ petitions in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (lsupra), the Division Bench while reserving the right of the Revenue, has also protected the interest of the petitioners I I lnsofar as the liberty which was granted to the ftsygnus fo1 initiating tresh proceedings strictry in accordance with the amended provisions ofthe 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 The Department has made no endeavour in availing the said liberty that was reserved for the Revenue. On the contrary' they have been sdll sticking on to the stand, which this High Court as well as many other High c-ourts arready herd to be fresh proceedings. bad. tl. It appears that because ofthe aforesaid liberty that this High Court had granted permitting the Revenue for initiating fresh procecdings as a one_time measure in a faceless mannet the Income Tax Departrnent wants to take advantage of the same by protracting tbese proceedings which would enable them to meet the Iimitation that would othenvise 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 Jncome Tax t l. 9 Department would get the advantage of the liberty that is otherwse protected in favour of the Revenue for initiation of ftesh proceedings from the disposal of these matters at a much later stage which would be advantageous and beneficial to the Revenue and would be equalty disadvantageous and detrimental so far as interest o[ the assesses are concemed' As a consequence' the Inconre 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 it Kanakab Ravindra Reddy (l supra)' is a matter of grave concern' The lncome Tax Departmenls persistent initiation of ftesh proceedings, disregarding the established judicial pronouncements, has led to an unprecedented surge in litigation withover600-T00petitionspilinguponthesameissue.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 appeam to be a calculated move to buy time and circumvent limitation periods, rather than adhering to the established legal 10 position. Such conduct administrative efficiency rarses serious questions about the and the respect for judicial particularly when this Court has already provided a balanced approach by preserving both the Revenue,s rights and pronouncements, 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 have found out via media in ensuring that proceedings under Sections l4g-A and l4g should not have been issued in a faceless manner, at least tilt 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 fo ensure that wherever the authorities rntend to trutiate proc€edings under Sections I4g_A and l4g, other than in a faceless manner, the proceedings should have been deferred without precipitating the matter fufth er intimating the assessee that they shall initiate appropriate proceedings onry 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 ) ) 'L', pendencY, such notices has to be taken' has to be taken for the whole of India' and wirictr otherwise has to be by way of a poticy 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 I 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 concerned at the State lever 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 148-4 and 72 office.whereas it ought l4g through the jurisd to have been onry in .";"""r*:: 14. In the case of coMMrssroNE& ,n iustifiable on the oun foflowing an order passecof ground that the appeals i HighcourtofBombayhe-are BAN,( oF rNDrA vs' ASsTsTANT TAxrr' on an issue whether it was "o* the Income Tax Department in not aurhonry only on the pending' the Division Bench of the I by the adjudicating d at paragraph No.25 as under, viz., : a I "25. Mr. paridwa decisionr*";;;;J_",shttv drawn out anenrion ro the of tncome rax vs. smt. Godavaridevi ;;"rrtT'issioner the recent decision of the co- ordinate Bench of this *. ll" of Mich one of us (rr.t,"u'1 'l samp Furniture (P) Lto. v. 17qr: Kulkarni) was a member, Merein the court .r,*"r*rr[i's' "acceptea'thelJo;;;;,;t"*"0 that the Revenue haMns nor High Court would not mean that ti the same is set aside ,n u orn" rorce -";;*;;:T:j::"T,':;:j#:,ffi f Union of lndia vs. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd.,o, 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 retevant observations made by the Supreme Court. :indins ',) t1,r2321 .r, o rax ma nn. c o m 422 (B o mb ay)l ,; l]?18] r r 3 rrR 58e (Bombay) '.'. [2024] I 65 raxmann.co- ,811100 Taxman 4S2(Bombay) '" ll992l taxmann.com l6155 ELT 433 (SC) ) ) 13 ; "rO*. -6. Sri Reddy is perhaps right in sayrng that th: not actuated by any mala fides in **- O*n.n ,nt impugned orders' They perhaps ;";;;..,, felt that the claim of the assessee was not tenabte and that' if it was accepted' the Revenue But what Sri Reddy overlooks is that we ,rr" are not concerned here with the correctness or olherwise of their oonclusion or of any factual .","r,O* O* *'th the fact that the ofticers' in reaching in their conclus'on' by'passed tw'o appeltate orders in regard to the same issue which were placed before ;";' .* 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 quasiiudicial issues before them' revenue ofltcers are bound by the decisions of the appellate authorities' The order of the Appellte Collector is binding on the Assistant Collectors working within his iurisdictbn and the order of the Tribunal is binding upon the Assistant Collectors and the Appellate Collectors who function under the jurisdiction of the Tribunal' The principbs 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" to the departrnent - in itself an objectionable phrase - ard is the subiect matter of an appeal can fumish no ground for not following it unbss its operation has been suspended by a competent murt' lf this healthy 14 rule is not followed, the res harassmenr," ;;". of tax laws. wifl onrv be undue chaos in administration J:sutt n"t-;;;"'t:1"-'"0""t

12. We have dealt with at some lensth' because "l"nl,ggested by the rearned " Additionar sori"ito,. T," o, rhe Hish il:T:J J"'::T::'H officers. lt is clear that th( cou(, ,"urins; *" ;:;:"-'o**tions or the Hish unparatabre ' " ^"*rr"",iilt;r,#:r.Ii:Tx a tendency in revenue ma become widespr"ro,-LJ"[.fl'::' :::ilr:r: harassment to the assesses- to rhe Revenue *"-;rtJt'l:"*,:"ffT::T: department should take these observations in the proper spirit. The observations of the High Court shoutd be kept in mind in futu shourd be paid by the ".,.,;J:,il:ff"-H':::til: appellate authorities to the requirements of judicial discipline and the need for giving effect to the orders of the higher appellate authot rities which are binding on them.,,

15. 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 rest by a large number of High Courts all of whom have taken a consistent stand that the action of the lncome Tax Department being violative of the 15 Finance Act, 2020 and Finance Ac:'ZOZL' Now' in order to protect the interest of the Revenue as also that of the assessoe' it would be trite at this junchrre' if we dispose of the writ petition with an obsewation/direction that the disposar of the instant writ petition in terms of the judgment rendered by this High Court in the case of Kankanara Ravind.ra Reddy (r supra) shalr however be subject to the outcome of the SLPs which were fiIed by the lncome 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 16 36, i7 and 3g of the order which, for ready reference, is reproduced hereunder:

36. For all the aforesaic issued and tt," p.o""uoi' Depa(menr o' ;;;"t The notices so issued "n. per se iregar, creserves aside/quashed. o" u -lo- orders gefting quashed, an,'*'"n*' bv tne responoe;,"#: issued under section ,ment quashed and it is orouruon'_tno lo8 are quashing the con5sqys that when the initiation orttial procedurally wrong, the ,, nurrified automaticalry. reasons' the impugned notices drawn 6v the respondent- tenable, nor sustainable. d the procedure adopted being ou and are accoroingty set all the impugnod consequential orders passed Pursuant to the notices would arso get accordingly The reason we order is on the principles the Proceedings itself was rbsequent orders also gets

37. The preliminary objectir sustained and a, these *r,,'n this very jurisdic,."",l]"r"... ru,.uo by the petitioner is stands arowed on ='ffi ,,"titions I"JI'lr'J";*ll'Ti :::. :.':"" "'" r"*nn Junsdiclion, we are not inclin decide the ,n* n*""'*o"T; ilff#j::ffi; stands reserved to be raised and @ntended in an appropriate proceedings. 3-8. Since the Hon,ble Supreme Court had, in the case of Ashish Agarwal, supra, as a one_time measure exercising the powers under Aftcle 142 of the Constitution of lndia, permitted the Revenue to proceed under the substituted provisior the oerrons .^, ; ;;il:il:JlH:i#T: \ T7 confened on the Re\Enue wouh remain reserved to proceed further if they so want from thle s{age of the order of the Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Agarural, supra.

18. We would only further like to make obsewations 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 KanakalaRavindraReddy(lsupra)issubjectedtochallerrge before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No'3574 of 2024' preferred by the Income 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 stryta)' 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 148-4 and 148 stands set aside/quashed' I 18 The consequential orders, iF any, also stand set aside/quashed in similar t'erms as have been passed by this High court in thb 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// ,\: sD/- L. vtJAYA LAXMI ISTANT REGISTRAR t, 'd secnoru oFFrcER ,,td" Office, Nirmal, Nirmal /- MISSroner of lncpme ax, - Telan gana and A.P T ACG - 500028, uards, Masab Ta nk, Hydera To,

1. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Nirmal/ I d 504101 , Telangana Com Hvd The Principal Chief Hydera bad, lT Telangana Towers, 2

3. The Min 110 Chairman istry of Fin 001 ,Central Board of ance, Governmen Direct Taxes t of lndia, S , Department of ecretariat Buildh Revenue gs, New Delhi - Delhi.

4. The Nationai Faceless Assessment Center, lncome Tax De partment, New 5. The Union of lndia, Secreta Ministry of Finan ce, New mment, Department of Revenue 6. One 7. One 8. One 9. Two BM GJP ry to the Gove - 110 001 CC to SRI THANN ERU CHA'TAN YA KUMAR CC to Ms. J SUNITHA JUNIOR S CC to SRI. B. MUKHE RJEE, ADVOCATE IOPUCJ CD Copies , Advocate loPUcI loPUcl C FOR INCOME TAX) Delh ( W HIGH COURT DATED:2B tO4t2O2S ORDER - -'::_ -,1:'- -- ./::;'';:: ' ''i\. i a i,; 2 5 StP frF ', 'i.'\ WP.No.33S40 of 2024 * ALLOWNG THE WRIT PETITION WTHOUT COSTS g q