The High Court · 2025

TIIE HONOTTRABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA W.P.No.344 OF 2025 QBDEB, (per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy) Heard Mr. T.Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. J.Sunitha, learned Junior Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department lor respondent Nos. I and 2. 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 148,{ of the Act and the subsequent initiation of proceedings under Section I48 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,202l w.e.f., 01.04.2021 onwards, proceedings 1 2 under Section 148A of the Act as also under Section 148 of the Act ought to have also been issued and proceede d in a faceless 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 148A and Section 148 of the Act not being issued in a faceless manner, have already been dealt rvith and decided by this Court in the case of I(ANKANALA RAVINDRA REDDY vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICERT decided on 14.09.2023 whereby a batch of writ petitions w(.rc allowed and the proceedings initiated under Section 148,4. as also under Section 148 of the Act were hetd to be bad with consequential leliefs on the ground of it being in violation of the provisions of Section 151A of the Act read with Notification 1812022 dated29.03.t:.022. The said judgment passed by this Court has also been subsequently followed in a large number of writ petitions which were allorved on similar ' l(2023) I 56 taxmann.corn 178 (Telangana)l 3

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 HEXAWARE TECHNOLOGIES LTD., VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & OTHERS2, 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 intemational taxation, Bombay High Court in the case of ABHIN ANILKUMAR SHAH VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 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 ' lzoz+1464 ITR 430 (Bom) ' [(2024) 156 taxmann.com 478 (Gauhati)] " l(2024) 165 taxmann.com 115 (Punjab & Haryana)l '12024) 167 taxmairn.com 411 (Telangana)l " 12024) 166 taxmann.com 679 (Bombay)l '12024) 165 taxmann.com I 13 (Himachal Pradesh)l t 4 DAHYABHAI RADADIYA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3X5)8, Jharkand High Court in the case of SHYAM SUNDAR SAW vs. UNION OF INDIAe, Rajasthan High Court in the case of SHARDA DEVI CHHAJER vs. jINCOME TAX OFFICER & ANOTHER and batch of writ J,s1i1l6n5r0 which stood decided or 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 der:ided by a large number of lJigh Courts, we are still confronted with large filing of identical mattcrs on daily basis ranging betweeu 5 to 10 writ petitions. That upon the instructions being so:glrt 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 lras been decided by this Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy '202+ scc online cuj 4012 '2025 SCC Online Jhar 287 o y2{)23 : RJ-JD : 49 84-DB l ' 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 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 nature are being piled up before this Bench on daily basis and the pendency is getting increased dtl 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 tapsed, 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 l48A and under Section 148 of the Act by the jurisdictional Assessing Offrcer, rather the authorities concemed in the teeth of series of decisions I 6 by all the major High Courts in India are continuously still initiating proceedings under Section 148A of the Act and also initiating proceedings under Section 148 c f the Act in contravention to the amendments brought into the Income Tax Act pursuant to the Finance Act,2020 as also the Financc Act202l .

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 this Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra), leamed Standing Counsel fol the Incorne Tax Department contends that those would unnecessarily burden the Income Tax Departmrtnt r.r,here they would be required to file equal nurnber of Sl-Ps before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and it would be further burdening the exchequer ofthe Union of India. It was also the contention of the learned Standing Counsel that no prejudice would tre caused to the interest of the petitioners in case if this writ petition is kept pending tilt the finalization of the SLPs pending beforc the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the fact that the petitioner is already enjoying the benefit of interim protection. Nonetheless, on tlre 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 7 appropriate steps 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 tight ofthe decisions dedcided by the various High Courts, it was submitted by the leamed Standing Counsel that the said steps can onlybe 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 lacing 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 con""-ed are still even now in 2025 also initiating proceedings in contravention to the provisions of Section 151A 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 Kanakula 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 (l supra), the Division Bench while reserving the right of the Revenue, has also protected the interest of the petitioners 8 {i." insofar as the liberty which was granted to he Revenue for initiating fresh proceedings strictly in accordance,vith the amended provisions of the Act, as amended by the Finance .\ct,2020 and the Finance Act,202l. The petitioner assessee wo.lld be entitled to challenge or raise the other legal objections if the I{evenue initiates fresh proceedings. The Department has made rro endeavour in availing the said liberty that was reserved for the F cvenue. On the contrary, they have been still sticking on to the s.and, which this High Court as well as many other High Courts already held to be bad.

11. It appears that because ofthe aforesaid liberty that this High Court had granted permitting the Revenue for initiating fresh proceedings as a one-time measure in a faceles s 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. L ikewise, 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 (.ourt confirms the decision taken by this High Court as also by tJre other High Courts in which the S[,ps are still pending, the Income Tax 9 Department would get the advantage of the liberty that is otherwise protected in favour of the Revenue for initiation of fresh proceedings Ilom 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 of the assesses are concemed. As a consequence, the Income Tax Department gets an extended period of time for initiation of fiesh proceedings.

12. The alarming trend of docket explosion in this Court, despite the clear precedent setin Kanakala Ravindru Reddy (l supra), is a matter of grave concem. The Income Tax Department's persistent initiation ol 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 questrons about the administrativc efficiency and the respect for judicial pronouncements, particularly when this Court has rlready provided a balanced approach by preserving both the Revt:nue's rights and assesses lnterests.

13. Another aspect which needs to be considererl is that in fact it should have been realized by the Income Tax Depaftment itself and should have lound out via media in ensuring t tat proceedings under Sections 148-4 and 148 should not have tcen issued in a faceless manner, at least till the Hon'ble Supreme ( lourt decide the twelve hundred (1200) odd SLPs whichit is alreadl seized ofor, at least the Income Tax Department should have f.rund out some remedial steps to ensure that wherever the autho rities intend to initiate proceedings under Sections 148-A 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 beer ablc to give a convincing reply, except for the fact that such a dt:cision if at alt 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 hling of hundreds of uew 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 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 72 148 through the jurisdictional Assessing Officer rvhereas it ought to have been only in the faceless manner

14. In the case of BANK OF INDIA v;. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, INCOME TAXrr, on an isstLe whether it was justifiable on the part of the Income Tax De tartment in not following an order passed by the adjudicating authcrity only on the ground that the appeals are pending, the Divisic n Bench of the High Court of Bombay held at paragraph No.25 as under, viz., : "25. f r. Paridwalla has rightly drawn out attention to the decision of this Court in Commissioner of lncome l-ax vs. Smt. Godavaridevi Sarafl2 as also the recent decisior of the co- ordinate Bench of this Court in Samp Frirniture (P) t-td. 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 rnean 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.14, the Court observed that the approach of the officials of Revenue of treating decisions being "not acceptable' was criticzed by the Supreme Court. ln such decision, following are t.te relevant observations made by the Supreme Court. '] Itzozst t70 taxmann.com 422 (Bombay)l '" [978] I l3 ITR 589 (Bombay) '3 7Z0Z+1165 taxmann.com 581/300 Taxman452 (Bornbay) 1t9921taxmann.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 concerned here with the correctness or otherwise 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 lo 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 iurisdiction 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 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" to the department - in itself an objectionable phrase - and is the sub,ect mafter of an appeal can furnish no ground for not following it unless its operation has been suspended by a competent court. lf this healthy I / 74 rule is not followed, the result will only b€ undue harassment to assesses and chaos in admin stration of tax laws.

12. We have dealt with this aspect at some length, because it has been suggested by the earned 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 unpalatable to the Revenue, are only intended 'o curb a tendency in revenue matters which, if allorved to become widespread, could result in consic erable harassment to the assesses-public without any tenefit to the Revenue. We would like to say that the depaftment should take these observations n the proper spirit. The observations.of the High Courl should be kept in mind in future and the utmost egard should be paid by the adjudicating authorities a rd the appellate authorities to the requirements of jrrdicial discipline and the need for giving effect to the orders of the higher appellate authorities which are b nding on them."

15. What is worry.ing this Bench more is thr: 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 c()nsistent stand that the action of the Income Tax Department being violative of the 15 Finance Act, 2020 and Finance Act, 2021. 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 observatior/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 T L6 36,37 and 38 ofthe order which, for ready referen:e, is reproduced hereunder:

36. For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugn-.d notices issued and the proceedings drawn by the respondent- Department is neither tenable, nor st stainable. The notices so issued and the procedure adotrted being per se illegal, deserves to be and are accorJingly set aside/quashed. As a consequence, all the mpugned orders getting quashed, the consequential orders passed by the respondent-Department pursuant to the notices issued under Section 147 and 1 48 would ,rlso get quashed and it is ordered accordingly. The reason we are quashing the consequential order is on the rrinciples that when the initiation of the proceedings ilself was procedurally wrong, the subsequent orders irlso gets nullified automatically.

37. The preliminary objection raised by the petitioner is sustained and all lhese writ petitions stands al owed on this very jurisdictional issue. Since the impugnel nctices and orders are getting quashed on lhe point of jurisdiction, we are not inclined to proceed further and decide the other issues raised by the petition -.r 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-time rTreasure exercising the powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of lndia, permifted the Revenue to proceed under the substituted provisions, and this Court allowing the petitions only on the procedural flaw, tlte 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 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, t preferred by the Income Tax Depa(ment, 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 1n favour of the assessee so far as the issue of jurisdiction is concemed. 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 rside/quashed in similar terms as have been passed by this High Cor( in the case of Kankqnala Ravindra Reddy (1 supra). There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, rniscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/. L. VIJAYA LAXMI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR secffiirrrcen / Delhi-110001 of Finance, Govt of lndia, Delhi. Department, Circle 1, Karimnagar, Telangana. Hyderabad, lT Towers Masab Tank, Hyderabad, Telangana-500004 . The Office of the Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax, lncome Tax . The Principal Chief Commissioner of lncome Tax, AP and Telangana, . The National Faceless Assessment Centre, lncorne Tax Department, Ministry . The Secretary, Union of lndia, A/inistry of Finance, '166-8, North Block, New . One CC to SRl. NAGENDRA REDDY . T, Advocate [()PUC] . One CC to ttils J. SUNITHA ,S C FOR INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT . One CC to SRl. GADI PRAVEEN KUIMAR, DY. SOLIOITOR GENERAL OF rNDrAloPUCl . Two CD Copies .<B IVI "GJP loPUCl To, 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 f ,,-_':_. -.'_'rr 1-;ii..','. -t /;.\ 10 SEP ru6 \ I : HIGH COURT DATED:2410412025 ORDER WP.No.344 ot 2025 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS u'! €