SRt. A v. A. SIVA KARTIKEYA

Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to stay a' further proceedings, incruding any recovery. pursuant to the notice issued by the 2nd Respondent, u/s 148 0f the Act, dated 26. 04. 2022. vide DrN and Notice TTBAiAST/'/148 112022- 2311042863051(1), for the Assessment year 2018 - 19, pending disposal of the above Writ petition Counsel for the petitioner: SRt. A. V. A. SIVA KARTIKEYA Counsel for the Respondents: Ms. BOKARO SAPNA REDDY (Jr. SC FOR tNcOME TAX) The Court made the following: ORDER TT{E HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P'SAMKOSHY AND TrrE IroNorJRABr-n snr iusrrcE NARSING RAo NANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION No.361 130F 2024 ORDER' (per Hon'ble Sri Justice Narsing Rao Nandikonda) Heard Mr' A'V'A'Siva Kartikeya' leamed counsel for the petitioner and Ms' B'Sapna Reddy' leamed Junior Standing Counsel for the tncome Tax Department for the respondents' Perused the record'

2. This is a writ petition where the proceedings are either challenged to the notices which were issued under Section 148A andl48ofthelncomel'axAct'1961(forshort'theAct')orthe assessmentordersthosehavebeenpassedunderSectionl4Tof 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 subseque$inrtiation of proceedings under Section 148 of the Act by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer' whereas in terms of the amendmertt that was brought to the Income Tax Act by way of Finance Act,2O2l w'e.f., 0l'04'2021 onwards' proceedings 2 under Section 148,4. 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 Financ e Act, 2021 i.e., the impugned notices under Section l4gA and Section l4g of the Act not being issued in a faceless manner, have already been deatt 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 14gA 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 l5 t A of the Act read with Notification lg/2022 dated 29.03.2022. 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. 'l(2023) 156 taxmann.com l7g (Telangana)l 3

5. Down the line, we find that the same i55ue 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. ASSTSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & OTHERS2' Gauhati High Court in the case of RAM NARAYAN SAII 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 PATLOOI,A VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OI'INCOME TAX5 where the issue was in respect of intemational taxation' Bombay High Court in the case of ABHIN ANILKUMAR SHAH vs' TNCOME 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 OFFICEIII' Guj arat High Court in the case of MANSUKHBHAI ' yzoz+1464 ITR 430 (Bom) ' i2nzil 1 56 taxmann.com 478 (Gauhati)l 'l(2024) 165 taxmann.com 115 (Punjab & Haryana)l '12024) 167 tar$apn.com 4l I (Telangana)l " 12024) 166 taxmann.com 679 @ombay)l . - 'iiOzqi 165 taxmann.com 113 (Himachal Pradesh)l I 4 DAITYABHAI RADADIYA vs. INCOME TAx OFFICER, WARD 3(3X5)8, Jharkand High Court in rhe case of SHyAM SUNDAR SAW vs. TINION OF INDIAe, Rajasthan High Court in the case of SHARDA DEVI CHHAJER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER & ANOTHER 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 daily basis ranging between 5 to 10 writ petitions. That upon the instructions being sought fiom 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 has been decided \,.this Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy 82024 SCC Online Gtlj 40t2 '2025 SCC Online Jhar2gT o y2023 : RJ-JD :49 84-DBl ' '.)' 5 (1 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' To a query being put to the leamed counsel for the Revenue' 7 . 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 hasalreadybeendealtanddecidedbythisveryHighCourtitself.

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 1484' and under Section 148 of the Act by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer' rather the authorities concemed in the teeth of series of decisions - 6 India are continuously stilr by all the major,trigi. Cuqrts iu initiating proceedings under Section 148.4 of the Act and also initiating proceedings under Section l4g of the Act in contravention to the amendments brought into the Income Tax Act pursuant to the Finance Act,2020as also the Fin ance 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), learned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department contends that those would unnecessarily burden the Income Tax Department where they would be required to fire 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 counsel that no prejudice wourd be caused to the interest ofthe petitioners in case ifthis 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 come out with a mechanism to issue appropriate instructions or to take 7 ' ing that proceedings under Section 148A approPriate stePs ln ensul: 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 titigation 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 concerned 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 toT00petitionshavebeenalreadygotpiledupbeforethisHigh 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 Red.dy (l supra), the Division Bench while reserving the right of the Revenue, has also protected the iqterest of the petitioners 8 insofar as the liberty which was granted to the Revenue for initiating fi'esh proceedings strictly in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act, as amended by the Financ e 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 fresh proceedings. The Department has made no endeavour in availing the said liberty that was reseryed for the Revenue. On the contrary, they have been stilr sticking on to the stand, which this High Court as well as many other High Courts already held to be

11. It appears that because ofthe aforesaid liberty that this I{igh 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 Court confirms the decision taken by this High Court as also by the other High Courts in which the SLps 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 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 concemed' 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 set in Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra)' is a matter of grave concern' 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 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 limitationperiods,ratherthanadheringtotheestablishedlegal 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 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 14g should not have been issued in a faceless manner, at least till the Hon,ble Supreme Court decide the twelve hundred (1200) odd SLps whichit is arready seized ofor, at least the Income Tax Department should have fbund out some remedial steps to ensure that wherever the authorities intend to initiate proceedings under Sections l4g_A and I4g, 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 r 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 Department' Yet' the authorities concemed at the State level are not ready to accept the verdict passed by a majority of High Courts of diff'erent States on the same issue; and to make the Income Tax Department is showing things furtff-€r-worse, 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 manner. 14. In the case of BANK OF INDIA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, INCOME TAXil, on an issue whether it was justifiable on the pat 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' paridwara has righry 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 this C( or wh ch one or us ,rrr;': : iil:r:il:::J:i::1, ;^::; 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 rn 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 criticized by the Supreme Court. ln such decision, following are the relevant observations made by the Supreme Court. ll !t1q2j,.tr^o gmann.com 422 (Bombay)l _-.-_ " [978] I l3 ITR 589 (Bombay) '3 IZOZ+1165 taxmann.com 5gl/300 Taxman 452 (Bombay) lt}OZltaxmann.com 16i55 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 tnem, 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 tisposing of the quasi.iudicial 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 iurisdiction 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 subject matter of an appeal can furnish no ground for not following it unless its operation has been suqq3nded by a competent court lf this healthy . -\.- \ \ "t L4 rule is not followed, the result will only be undue harassment to assesses and chaos in administration of tax laws.

12. \Ne 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 clear that the observations of the High Court, seemingly vehement, and apparently unpalatable to the Revenue, are only intended to curb a tendency in revenue mafters which, if allowed 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 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 adjudicating authorities and the appellate authorities to the requirements of .iudicial discipline and the need for giving effect to the orders of the higher appellate authorities which are binding on them." 1 5. What is \^/orrylng 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 numberofHighCourtsallofwhomhavetakenaConsistentStand that the action of the Income Tax Department b_eing violative of the 15 Finance Lct, 202|and Finance Ar;-' 2C2] :' Ndw': irrotddr to protect 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 KankanalaRavindraReddy(lsupra)shallhoweverbesubjectto the outcome of the SLPs which were frled 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 untit 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 protqcted. as has been observed in paragraphs **, I ,i I I I I I I 76 -16, )7 arfi 38 of the cider which, for.ready reference,, is reproduc:cl 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 impugned orders getting quashed, the consequential orders passed by the respondent-Department pursuant to the notices issued under Section 147 and 149 would also get quashed 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 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 gefting 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 II \ l 17 confened 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 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 KanakalaRavindraReddy(|supra)issubjectedtochallenge 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 petition is subject to outcome of the aforesaid SLP prefened by the Revenue.against the decision of this High Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Red'dy (l *pra)' 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 Sertions 148-A and 148 stands set aside/quashed' ,r- tr 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 Kankanalu Ravindru Reddy (1 supra). There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// s s SMAN ALI BAIG NT REGISTRAR I To,

1. Assessment Unit. lncome Tav ua^o-+-^^r r.r-, ii# BifiT:iiflt]f :fr? ,',,#33[H ti;[x1",11fi #ffi ",i: nit::l;ir SECTION OFFICER \ / :+!!,.j3:il:q:B\:ff "'1,,['"%1;:(r],8,_d.%:?3t;!:;rraxrowersAC 3. The principal Comm i,ffii[i$*m.*9"'xii'u+intl,*:+t#'i,:;.ru' -*o CD Copies U ,U LS ,,, ..b- ; I I I I l rr]l I I ! o(." 1HE S14r €' J ,J I 11IIJE M ( () * Or spaTC P(:O HIGH COURT DATED:2810412025 ORDER WP.No.36113 ot 2024 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS g /.,4 /5