Allowed

Naveen Belide v. Assessment Unit

Telangana HC8 Jul 2025WP/19395/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging non-faceless income tax reassessment notices under Sections 148A and 148 for AY 2017-18. Following its own precedent in Kankanala Ravindra Reddy and multiple other High Court decisions, the court allowed the petition, quashing the notices as violative of Section 151A read with the faceless assessment scheme.

What did the court decide?

Notice under Sections 148A/148 and consequential orders quashed; no costs; disposal made subject to outcome of pending SLPs with liberty to move for revival.

Naveen Belide Vs Assessment Unit — Income Tax | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

134471

¶2

HrGH couRr^t?+ IiED:[iIisF TEL.ANGANA (SPecial^{Original Jurisdiction)}

¶3

TUESDAY ,THE^{EIGHTH DAY OF} 1ULY rWO TNOUSNND^{AND TWENTYFIVE}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICEP'SAM KOSHY} THE HONOURABLE^{SRI'IU S#EDruANSINGRAO NANDIKONDA} WRIT^{PETITIONNO: 193950F2025}

¶6

""t*"'Iu.r BELTDE, sro^{r<nryre^silwf,lff'gi5,t]'.,t"Atr3t,irt#!38.,v,iil3:} P":?;tri',^{l^'"t'Jb?}

¶7

...PETITIONER

¶8

o*?o""':'*Yfl!:ll?'"?tiL5fi

¶9

:Slt:A:ffi^{:ToT'r"ffi ;'l?1H:J3:}

¶10

?tr3[]BTk}ll?f^{L{,:i,l il :t;i";' : 11 o bbi}

¶11

2 The lncome^{TaxOfflcer' WarQ p(fJ' HYderabad/I T TOWER' AC Guards'}

¶12

' Ni;J; i;;"k, Hvderabad-500004^relangana

¶13

union^{of lndia, Represent by secretary Ministryof Finance NorthBlock,New} Delhi-1^{10 001}

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition^{under Article 226 of the Constitution} 'of^{lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances^{stated in tnJ'if'O'tf"O tnerewtfr' tn" HiohCourt may be pleased} to issue^{a writ, order o' oi'#iJi"ioie particutartyone ii the natureof WRIT oF} r'' 2nd Respondent^under IvIANDAMUS^{holdingthat"t"#} 'i"ii"""iit'"-0.-1LA.9l section^{148 Dated. t'i'i"'dii'"-"ioe} - otr'i - uo ireRlRsrlslt+8 112023' 2411062495990(1)^{for the n"'"'"'Jii"ni'i" u' zolt-le and the consequential order} -i+z i'' t++ read with section 1448 of the oassed^{bv the 'lst responi""i'1"} ' 'is oi 'iozs' . oru lrBA/AST/s/14712024income{ax^{Act Date ;i"b;;'} 25t1072537746('l)^{for the"AssJttit"nii"u' 2017-18' as arbitrary' illegal' badin} law, void ab^{initio, ,iorrtion'-oiiln"lpi"ror natural. justice apart from violation of} Articles 1 ,^{19 (1xg) ,no i'oi & lon.titrtion of lndia apartfrombeing violative,of} orovisions of^{section f +eA lnJ section1 49 of the Act and alsocontraryto the} -p,.ori.ions of section 151A of the Act, and H;H'ilJ Ov CeDr^lnO consequently^{set asidetne JrOer'passedby 1st-Resoondentuls 147 r'w s 144} Act Date^{of Order25 01 2025'DIN'} read with^section1448 "i tn-u^f ""o'"-tax

¶16

ITBA/AST/S/1 4 7 t2024_25 I 1 Ot2S37 7 46(1) for the Asser consequential proceedings pursuant there to ssment Year 2017-18 and all

¶17

IA NO: 10F 2025

¶18

,n.,o,!Slillill#fl"n"#':1i:'r^{cPCpravinsthat} in the circumsrances srated in arr rurttrei proi;J;."il1T :t^{the petition, the Hish} 1 s t R e sp o n d e n t,r.^- ., 0 ;'] 19'l^{o a n v i"} ""^{;;#: t} "";'i:^{lffi '" :."" i} i"rX.""l ff,fj iii:i',:;1L?Eb?l1i?sl1i'!1!Y)!,f -^{;;;;;,;1t;i;*la:l,",ele:} ..,J" 25 01 '2025' ",0" orri 'l'-'nd'il"'v^{of Demand nol} A s s e s s m e n t ye a r 2 0 1 z- 1 8^o r r-a;a"i rli)ffi iJ;[r"r,it11 :?%"i,, I i?.;

¶19

Counsel for the petitioner: SRt. THANNERU CHA|TANYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1&2: Ms. B. SApNA REDDY SC FOR lT S:il;:,jilTe Respondent No.3: GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR Depury Soticitor

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE P'SAMKOSHY} NAR'TNG^RAo rHE HoNouRABLE NANDIKONDA'*iH"t'"'

¶22

WRIT^P ETITI^{ON No.19395of2025}

¶23

ORDER,^{(per Hon'ble Sri Justice NarsingRaoNandikonQa)}

¶24

Heard^{Mr'T ChaitanyaKumar' learnedcounsel for the} petitioner^{and Ms'B'SapnaReddy' learnedSenior Standing} Counsel^{lor the IncomeTax Department appearingfor the} respondents.^{Perused the record'}

¶25

This is^{a writ petitionwhere the proceedingsare either} challenged^{to the notices whichwere issued under Section 148.4} andl48oftheIncomeTaxAct,lg6l(forshort.theAct,)orthe assessmentordersthosehavebeenpassedunderSectionl4Tof the Act^{whichhave been assailed.}

¶26

This writ^{petitionis being takenup today onlyon one of the} grounds,^{that the noticesissuedunder Section 148A of the Act} and the^{subsequentinitiation of proceedingsunder Section148 of} tlry Act^{by the jurisdictionalAssessingOfficer'whereas in terms} \

¶27

oftheamendmentthatwasbroughttothelncomeTaxActbyway of Finance^{Lct,, 2021 w e'f , 01'04'2021 onwards'proceedings}

¶28

¶29

¶30

under Section 14gA of the Act as also under Section l4g of the Act ought to have also been issued and proceeded in a faceless man ner

¶31

The contention of the petitioner is that the issue of proceedings being in violation of the Financ e Act, 2021i.e.. the rmpugned notices under Section l48A and Section I4g ofthe Act not being issued in a faceless rnanner, 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 balch of writ petitions were allowed and the proceedings initiated under Section l4gA as also under Section i48 of the Act were held to be bad with consequential reliefs on the ground of it being in violation of the provisions of Section l51A 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 nurnber of writ petitions which were a owed on simirar tems.

¶32

' [(2023) I 56 raxrnann.corn I7g (Telangana)]

¶33

¶34

5 Down^{the line, we hnd that the same issue has also been} various^{High Courts t'e} ' decided^{against the RevenuebY} the case^{of HEXAWARE} by the^{BornbaY High Coutttn} TECHNOLOGIES^{LTD" vs' ASSISTANTCOMMISSIONER} OF INCOME^{TAX & OTHERS2' GauhatiHigh Court in the case} of llAM^{NARAYAN SAH vs' UNIONOF INDIA3'Punjab and} I{aryana^{HighCourtin the case of JATINDERSINGH BANGU} vs. UNION^{oF INDIA4,and Telangana High Court in the case of} SRI VENKATARAMANA^{REDDY PATLOOLAVS. DEPUTY} COMMISSIONER^{OF TNCOMETAX5where the issue was in} respect^{of international taxation' Bombay High Court in the case of} ABHIN^{ANILKUMARSHAH VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER,} INTERNATIONAL^{TAXATION6 which is again on international} taxation^{ancl central circle'tligh Court of Himachal Pradeshin the} case of^{GOVIND SINGH vs' INCOMETAXOFFICERT'} Gujarat l{igh^{Court inthe case ofMANSUKIIBHAI}

¶35

'yzoz+1464^{ITR 430 (Bom)} 'iQOZq^{156 taxmann.com 478 (Gauhati)l} ^ [(.2024)^{165 taxmann.cornI l5 (Punjab& I{aryana)]} ' [2024){67^{taxmann.com 411 (Tetangana)]}

¶36

" 12024)^{l$6 taxmann.com 679 (Bombay)l}

¶37

' izOZ+)^{165 taxmann.comI 1 3 (HimachalPradesh)l}

¶38

¶39

DAHYABHAI RADADIYA vs. INCOME TAx OFFICER, WARD 3(3Xt8, 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. 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 Courl in the case of GIRDHAR GOPAL DALMIA vs. UNION OF. INDIA & ORS (M.A.T 1690 of 2023),decided on25.09.2024.

¶40

Even though the same issue having been decided by a large number of High Courts, we are still confronted with large filing of identical rnatters on daily basis ranging between 5 to I0 writ petitions. That upon the instructions being sought frorn the Department, they have been taking a solitary ground that the decision of the Bombay High court in the case of Hexaware Technologies Lttl., (2 supra) as also the one whiclt has been decided by this Couft in the case of Konskula Ravindra Reddy

¶41

'2024^{SCC Online} Gui 4012 '2025 SCC Onl ine Jhar 2R7 I o y2023 : RJ-JD : 4 9 84-DBl

¶42

¶43

¶44

(1 supra)^{has been subjectedto challengein a SpecialLeave} Petition^{i.e., SLP No'3574 of 2024 before the Hon'ble Supreme} Court^{and the Hon'bleSupreme Court is seizedof the matter'} ln addition,^{there are about1200 SLPs also filed arising out of the} same^{issue being decided by various Lligh Courts'}

¶45

7 . To a^{query being put to the learnedcounselfor the Revenue'} they^{havecategorically accepted the lact that there is no interim} Coufi^{in anY of these} order^{granted by the Hon'bleSupreme} fresh writ Petitions^of matters^{pending before itMeanwhile'} identical^{natureare being piled up before this Bench on daily basis} and the^{pendency is getting increased on matterwhich otherwise} has already^{been dealt and decidedby this veryHighCourt itself'}

¶46

On the^{one hand' even though the orderof this Courlthat} was passed^{as early as on 14'09'2023 and more 16 monthshave} lapsed,^{till date,we do not find any remedialstepshavingbeen} taken by^{the Income'rax Departmentto take appropriatesteps to} either^{hold backissuance of noticeunderSection 148,{ and under} Section^{148 of the Act by the jurisdictionalAssessing Offrcer'} rather the^{authorities concemed in the teeth of series of decisions}

¶47

¶48

1 I

¶49

by all the major High Courts in India are continuously srill initiating proceedings under Section l48A of the Act ancl also initiating proceedings under Section l4g of the Act in contravention to the arnendments brought into. the Inconte i.ax Act pursuant to the Finance Act,2C20 as also the Finance Act 2021 .

¶50

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 Courl in tlre case of Konakala Ravinclra Rettdy (l supra), iearned Standing Counscl flor the Incorne Tax Depaftrrent contends that those wor-rlcl unnecessarily burden the Income .lax Department where they would be required to file equal number. of SI_ps belore 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 IIon,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 our with a mcchanism to issue appropr.iate instructions or to take

¶51

¶52

appropriate^{steps in ensuringthat proceedingsunder Section148A} of the Act^{as also the assessmentorders under Section148 ofthe} Act are^{kept in a hold in the light ofthe decisions dedcidedby the} various^{High Courts, it was submitted by the teamed Standing} Counsel^{that the said steps can onlybe taken at the levelof CBDT} as any^{such steps would have to be taken Pan Indiaand cannot be} limited^{to any of these jurisdictionalHigh Coutts'}

¶53

10.^{As a result of which' what we are lacing is steep increaseof} lirigation^{day in and day out even thotrghvarious orders have been} passed^{by this High Court allowing writ petitions on the very same} issue.^{The Income'I'ax authorities concertedare still svsnnsw in} 2025^{also initiating proceedingsin contraventionto the provisions} of Section^{1 5 1A of the Act and as a result by now' more than 600}

¶54

toT00petitionshavebeenalreadygotpiledupbeforethisHigh Court^{on an issuewhich otherwise standssquarely coveredby the} ju<lgment of^{this Court in the case of Kanukala Ravindra Reddy} (l supra).^{What is also surprising is the fact that though whiie} allowing^{the writ petitions in the case of Kunakalu Ravindta} Retlcty^{(l supra), the Division Bench while reserving the dght of} the Revenue,^{has also protected the interest of the petitioners}

¶55

¶56

¶57

insofar as the libety which was granted to the Ilevenue lor initiating fresh proceedings strictly in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act, as amended by the Finance Act, 2020 ancl the Finance Act, 2021 . The petitioner assessee q,ould be entitled to challenge or raise the other legal objections if the Revenue initiates fresh proceedings. The Deparlment has rnade no endeavour. ir.r ai.ailing the said liberty that was reserved for the Revenue. On the contrary, they have been still sticking on to the stand, r,r,hich this Fligh Coult as well as many other High Courls already hcld to be bad.

¶58

ll It appears that because of the aforesaid liberry that this High Court had granted permitting the Revenue fbr tnrtrating fi.esh 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 rneet thc limitation that would otherwise come in the way. Likewise, ilthe writ petition is kept pending for a considerable long period of time and finally at a later stage if the Hon,ble Supreme Clourt confirms the decision taken by this High Couft as also by the other High Courts in which the SLps are still pending, the Income Tax

Depaftment^{wouldget the advantageof the libedythat is otherwlse} protected^{in favour of the Revenue for initiation of fresh} proceedings^{fromthe disposal of these matters at a much laterstage} which^{would be advantageous and beneficialto the Revenueand} would be^{equally disadvantageous anddetrimentalso lar as interest} of the^{assesses are concemed'As a consequence'the lncome Tax} Depadment^{gets an extendedperiodof time for initiation of fresh} proceedings.

¶63

12.^{The atarming trendof docketexplosion in this Courl' despite} the clear^{precedentsel in Kanakala Ravindra Recltty (l supra)' is a} matter^{of grave concem' The Income Tax Department's persistent} initiation^{of fresh proceedings' disregarclingtl.re establishedjudicial} pronouncements,^{has led to an unprecedentedsurge in litigation} with over^{600-700 petitionspiling up on the sameissueThis} deliberate^{approachnot only undermines the principleof judicial} precedent^{but also strains the judicialresourcesunnecessarily' The} Department's^{strategyof awaitingthe SupremeCourt'sdecisionon} pending^{SLPs whilecontinuing to initiate freshproceedings} appears^{to be a calculated move to buy time and circumvent} limitation^{periods' rather than adhering to the establishedlegal}

i l i

posltion. Such conduct raises serious questions about the administrative efficiency and the respect for judicial pronouncements, parlicularly when this court has already provided a balanced approach by preserving both the Re'enue,s rights and assesses interests

¶68

Another aspect which needs to be considered is that in fact it should have becn realized by the Income Tax Department itself and should have found out via lnedia in ensuring tliat proceedings under Sections l4g_A and l4g should not have been issued in a faceless manner, at least till the Hon,ble Supreme Court clecide the :::]l:j:io::3 !i3gr]^:13jl-ps^{which it} is arreadl,seized of or, ar least the Income Tr:r ;."-"'"^' :partment should have found out sorne

¶69

remedial steps to ensure that wherever the authorities intend to initiate proceedings under Sections 14g_A and l4g, 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 decision if ar all

{

I I I I ! I

i I

1 I

t I I I I

..4 :

¶77

has to^{be taken, has to be takenfor the whole of India' and which} otherwise^{has to be by way of a policydecision and that too at the} Though^{the learned} level of^{Central Board of DirectTaxes'} Standing^{Counsel for the IncomeTax Departmentcontendedthat} the Delhi^{High Courtdismisseda writ petition ol similar nature' on} the one^{hand when the High Court is struggling to reduce its} pendency,^{such noticeswhich are under challenge in this writ} petition^{are forcing the assessee to knock the doors of this Iligh} Cor-rrt^{resultingin fiting of hundreds of new writ petitions whichin} the long^{run not only afl-ects the disposalof the writ petitionsbut} also consumes^{substantial time of the Bench in hearingthese} matters^{again and again on dailybasis.Admittedly, in spite of the} matter^{beforc the Hon'bleSupremeCourt havingbeen taken on} many^{occasions, the Hon'bleSupremeCourt which is seizedof the} matter^{hasbeen reluctantin granting any interimprotectionto the} lncome^{Tax Department'Yet' the authorities concemedat the} State^{level are not ready to acceptthe verdict passed by a majority} of High^{Courls of differentStateson the same issue;and to make} things^{further worse, the Income Tax Departmentis showing} audacity^{by issuing noticescontinuously under Sections148-Aand}

I I I i I I I i i I I i I l I l l

¶82

148 through the jurisdictional Assessing Officer whereas it ought to have been only in the faceless manner.

¶83

In the case of BANK OF INDIA ys. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, INCOME TAXil, on anissue wherher.it was justifiable on the part of the Income Tax Department in not follor.ving 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 herd at paragraph No.25 as under, viz., :

¶84

"25. Mr. paridwalla decison orthis court , Jil:Il:":::i;:#il1"::ff Godavaridevi Sarafl2 as also the recent decision of the co_ ordinate Bench of this C( t^il:r:il:::J:i::1, or wh ch one or us ,.,rr;': : ;rJ,:; the Court categorically observed that the Revenue having not "accepted,, the judgment of the High Court would not ' mean that till . lhe same is set aside in a manne. trn^,.,^ +^ ,_. " bindins rorce Rererrins ,J;:T:i:::'":,li-;lri,l :ffi l 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.

¶85

t,t, '' le78l |,1}3t.r .l j l] 7 0. It t a R 589 x r n a m. fllombay)c or n 4 2 2 ( B o r n bay 1l '' [2024] 165 raxmann.corn 5g l/300 Taxman 452 (Bombay) '" |992) laxrnann.com l6155 ELT433 (SC)

¶86

¶87

"6. Sri Reddy^{is perhapsright in saying that the} officers^{were not actuatedby any mala fidestn} passing the^{impugnedordersTheyperhaps} g"nui*ty^{felt that the claim of theassesseewasnot} tenable^{and that, if it was accepted' the Revenue} would^{suffer. But whatSri Reddy overlooksis that we} are not^{concernedhere with the correctnessor} otherwise^{of their conclusionor of any factual} malafides^{butwith the factthatthe officers' in reaching} in their^{conclusion, by-passedtwo appellateordersln} regard^{to the same issue whichwereplaced before} tnem,^{oneof theCollector (Appeals)and the otherof} the^Tribunal The High^{Court has' in our view'rightly} criticized^this conduct^{of the Assistant Collectors and} the harassme nt to the^{assesseecaused by the failure} of these^{officersto giveeffect to the orders} of authorities^{higherto them in the appellate hierarchy} It cannot^{be too vehemently emphasizedthat it is} of utmost^{importancethat' indisposingofthe} quasijudicial^{issues beforethem' revenue officers are} bound^{by the decisionsof the appellateauthorities'} The order^{of the Appellte Collector is binding on the} Assistant^{Collectors working within his jurisdiction and} the order^{of the Tribunalis binding upon the Assistant} Collectors^{and the Appellate Collectors who function} under the^{jurisdictionof the TribunalThe principlesof} judicial discipline^{requirethat the orders of thehigher} appellate^{authoritiesshould be followedunreservedly} by the^{subordinateauthoritiesThe mere fact that the} order of^{the appellateauthority is not"acceptable"to} the department -^{in itself an objectionable phrase -} and is the^{subject matterof an appealcan furnishno} ground for^{not following it unlessits operationhas} been^{suspendedby a competentcourt' lf this healthy}

I I i I I I I I I

']i

rule is not followed, the result will only be undue harassment to assesses and chaos in administration of tax laws.

¶94

We have dealt with t because it has been .,1"_ -":,*' "i^somerength, Additionar sori"ito. ce,.ulalT::',3 i::"r";::: made by the High Court, have been harsh on the officers. lt is clear that thr oot"'ut'ons of the High court, seemingry ,un.' and apparen y unparatabre ,o ,n" R"runr"tunt' a tendency jn revenue rrr:::"#'o,,lt:ffffi'il become widespread, could result in conslderable harassment to the assesses to the Revenue *" *"ro,Jo["-',:"::;"1::i;: department should take these observations in the proper spirit. The observations of the High Court should be kept in mind in futu shourd be paid by the r.,,;,"ff;iff;:[i::"jn: appeltate authorities to the disciprine and the need ... n,ii"1''1ili,": ;: :::i1 of the higher appellate authorities which are binding on them."

¶95

What is worrying this Bench more is the tact 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 whorn have taken a consistent stand that the action of the Income Tax Department being violative of the

¶96

¶97

Finance^{Act' 2020 and Finance Act' 2021' Now' in order to protect} the interest^{of the Revenueas alsothat of the assessee'it would be} trite at^{this juncture, if we dispose of the writ petitionwith an} observation/direction^{that the disposal of the instant writ petition in} terms of^{the judgmentrenderedby this High Court in the case of} Kankanala^{RavinclrlReddy (l supra) shallhoweverbe subject to} the outcome^{of the Sl'Ps which were hted by the Income Tax} Depaftment^{and which is pending considerationbefore the I{on'ble} Supleme^Coutt.

¶98

In^{the giventacts and circumstances' this Benchis of the} considered^{opinionthat unless and until we do not timely dispose} of matters^{which are squarely covered by the decision of this Cout} and which^{stands forlified by the decisionsof the various other} l{igh Courls^{on the verysame issue' the pendencyof this Fligh} Courl^{would lurther be burdenedwhichotherwise canbe decided} and disposed^{of as a covered matter'}

¶99

So^{far as the interestof the Revenue is concemed' we are of} the considered^{opinion thatthe interestof the Revenuehas already} been considered^{and protected,as has been observedin paragraphs}

¶100

¶101

36,37 ancl3g ofthe order which, for ready refercnce

¶102

rs reproduced

¶103

hereunder:

¶104

For all the aforesaid re issued and tne p,o"""oing-"":::;i?TJi::il:ff: Department is neither nor sustainabre. The notices so issued "no^,'un'o'"' he Procedure adopted being per se illegal, deserves ,o and are accordingly set aside/quashed. oa , aon".o ou"n"u' all the impugned orders getting quashed, ,nu. by the responde", ""rr;r::l ,Tr::::: ,li:::il:: issued under Section 147 :,:f"d :ld ll^{i ollered,#:;;T:,l::"} l.j are quashing the consequential order is "" ,n" O;r",0,". that when the initiation of the proceedings rtself was procedurally wrong, the sub sequent orders also gets nulrified automaticary.

¶105

The preliminary objection raised by the petitioner is sustatned and ali these writ this ve ry ju risdictiona r issue. fi:J;: ::::; #:,::: and orders are getting quashed on the point of jurisdiction, we are not rnclined to proceed further and decide the other issues raised by the petitioner which stands reserved to be raised and contended in an appropriate proceedings.

¶106

QO Since the Hon,ble Supreme Court had, ln the case of Ashish Agarwal, supra, as a one{ime measure

¶107

exercising the powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of tndia, permitted t he Revenue to proceed under the substituted provisions, and this Court allowing the petitions only on the procedural flaw, the right

¶108

¶109

I I

¶110

conferred^{on the Revenuewould remainreservedto} proceed further^{if they so want from the stage of the} order^{' 'of-the "supreme Cotlfl- int-the"case rcf*Asfiish-' '} Agarwal,^suPra

¶111

18.^{We wouldonlY furtherlike to make observationsthat since} we are^{inclinedto dispose of the instantwrit petition'consciousof} the fact^{that the earlier order of this High Couft in the caseol}

¶112

KanukalaRavindraRetkty(lsupra)issubjectedtochallenge before the^{Hon'bteSupremeCourt in SLP No'3574of 2024'} preferred^{by the Incorne Tax Department'we make it clear that} allowing^{of the instantwrit petition is subjectto outcomeof the} aforesaid^{SLP preferredby the Revenue againstthe decisionofthis} High Court^{in the case of KanukalaRwindra Reddy (lsupra)'} This,^{in other words, rvouldmean that either of the parties' if they} so want,^{may movean appropriate petition seekingrevival of this} writ^{petition in the light of the decisionof the Hon'bleSupreme} Courl^{in the pending SLP on the verysame issue'}

¶113

lg.^{Accordingly, the instant writ petitionstands allowed in} favour of the^{assessee so far as the issue of jurisdiction is} concerned.^{As a consequence'the impugnednotice under} challenge^{under Sections 148-Aand 148 stands set aside/quashed'}

¶114

¶115

The consequential orders, if any, also stand set aside/quashed in similar terms as have been passed by this High Court in the case ol Kankanala Ravindra Reddy (l supra). There shall be no order as

¶116

to costs.

¶117

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶118

¶119

To,

¶120

//TRUE COPYII "-itg,"?i-1'f .'8f.f HiH - rr, SECTION OFFICER

¶121