Partly allowed

M/s. The Primary Agriculture Co-operative Society Limited v. Assessment Unit

Telangana HC18 Jul 2025WP/20854/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Division Bench of the Telangana High Court allowed a writ petition challenging notices under Sections 148A and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for being without jurisdiction due to non-compliance with faceless assessment procedures. However, the petition was allowed only subject to the pending outcome of a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court challenging the same court's prior pre

What did the court decide?

Impugned notices under Sections 148A and 148 set aside as without jurisdiction; consequential orders quashed; writ allowed subject to outcome of pending Supreme Court SLP challenging prior precedent.

M/s. The Primary Agriculture Co-operative Society Limited Vs… — Income Tax | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

134741

¶2

IN THE HIGH^{COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD} (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH^{DAY OF JULY} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE THE ACTING^{CHIEF JUSTIGE P.SAM KOSHY} AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{NARSINGRAO NANDIKONDA}

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 20854OF²⁰²⁵

¶7

Between:

¶8

M/s. The Primary Asriculture Co-operative Society^{Limited, rep. by its} Secretary, tvlr. Maldod d i Vittal, Birkur, Nizamabad-503 221,^Telangana.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 Assessment Unit, lncome^{Tax Department, National e-Assessment Center,} Room No.40'1 , 2nd Floor, E-Ramp,^{Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium,New Delhi-1'10} 003.

¶12

2 Assistant Commissioner of lncome^{Tax,Circle1, Aayakar Bhavan, 6-2-15613'} Subhash Nagar, Nizamabad^{- 503002.}

¶13

3 Princioat Chief Commissioner of^{lncome Tax, Andhra Pradeshand} Telanlana, Hyderabad 10-2-3,^{RoomNo.922,9thFloor,'B'Block'lT Towers,} AC Guards, Hyderabad-500^004.

¶14

4 Union of lndia, rep. by its Secretary,^{Ministry of Finance, Government of lndia,} 3rd Floor, Jeevan De-ep Building,^{Sansad Marg, NewDelhi-110 001.}

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 ol^{lhe constitutionof lndia praying that in the} circumstances stated in the^{affidavit filed therewith, the High Courtmay be} pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or^{any other appropriate writ, order or} direction -^(a) declaring^{the order passedby 2nd respondentunder Section 148-} A(d) dated. 29.3.2023^{and notice under Section148of the lncomeTax Act,1961,} dated 30.03.2023,^{for the assessment year 2016-17 as being without iurisdiction} and contrary to^{faceless assessment procedure laid down in section 144B of the} lncome Tax Act^'1961 and consequently,^{(b) to selaside(i) the consequential} notice issued by the 1st^{Respondent, under Section142(1) of the lncomeTax} Act, 1961, dated 01.08.2023,^{and (ii) the consequentialorder issuedby the 1St}

¶17

.,r

¶18

Respondent, under^{Section147 read with Sections 144 anc section 1448of the} lncome Tax Act,¹⁹⁶¹ ,^{dated21 .02.2024for the assessment year 2016-17 as} being without^{jurisdiction,} arbitrary,^{illegal, bad in law, voic -ab-initio, apart from} being viotative of Artrcles 14^{19(1Xg) and 265 of the constitutionof lndiaand} contrary to faceless^{assessment procedurelaid downin Section 1448 of the} lncome Tax Act¹⁹⁶¹ .^{and consequentlyset-aside the sarre in the interests of} justice.

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶20

Petition under Section 151 CPC^{praying that in the circumstances stated in} the affidavit filed in^{support of the petition, the High courtmaybe pleasedto} grant stay of all further^{proceedings, includingany reco\ery, pursuant to the} impugned order^{.Jated 21 .O2.2O24 issuedby the 1st Respondent,under Section} 147 rcad with Sections 144 &^{144-8 of the lncome Tax Act, 1961 for the} assessment^year 2016-17,^{pending disposalof the writPet tion as otherwise the} Petitioner will be^put to severe^{loss and hardship.}

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner :^{SRI S.VIJAYADTTHYA}

¶22

Counsel for the Respondents^{No.1to3: Ms.J.SUNITHA (SC FOR INCOM TAX)}

¶23

counser ror the Respono"""' ?#.:i[tEiBl'r*or==N KUMAR,

¶24

DY.SOL.GENERAL

¶25

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶26

THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON'BLE SRI IUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

¶27

W'RIT PETITION NO.20854 OF 2025

¶28

ORDER: (per Hon'ble Sri lttstict P.Smn KoslLy)

¶29

Hearcl Mr. S.Vijay Aclithya, learned counsel for tl-rc petitioner ancl Ms. J.Sunitha, Iearnecl Senior Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Departrnent appearing for the responclent Nos.1 to 3, and Mr. G.Narcsh, learned counsel represcnting Mr. Gadi Prave'en Kumar, leamed Deputy Solicitor General of India, appearing for respondent No.4- Perusecl the recorcl

¶30

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'thc Act') or the assessment ordcrs tlrose have becr-r passec'l under Scction 1.47 of the Act^wl-rich have been assa iled

¶31

'l-his writ petition is beirrg taken up today only on one of the grounds, that the notices issued under Section^148,4. of the Act^andthe subsequent initiation of proceedings under Section 148 of the^Act by the jurisdictional Assessing Of(icer, whereas in terms of the amenclment that was blought to the Income Tax Act by^{way of Finance} Act, 2027 w.e.f ., 01.04.2021 onwards, proceedings under Section 1484.

¶32

¶33

of the Act €rs also uncler Section l4[i of the Act ought to have also been issued and lrrocL'eLlecl iu a faccless nlanllct'

¶34

The <--or-rtt r-rtiorr of the petitioner is that the ts iu(,. of proceedings being in violation trf the Finance Act, 2021 i.e., thc' inrpugned notices uncler Sectror-r l48A arrd Section 148 of the Act trol beinl; issuecl in a faceless manncr, havc alreacly becn clealt with ar r-l clt'citled by this Court in the casc of KANKANALA RAVINT)I(A REDDY vs. INCOME-I'AX OFITICER1 dccitlecl orr^'14.09.2023 u'he-reby a batch of writ petitions u clc' arlkrrvcd ancl the proceerlings ir-ritiatcd under Scction l48A as als,o untler Sc.ction 148 of thc. Act lve rc' lt lti to bc bacl with consequentral lr:licfs on the grouncl of it bcing irr violation of the provisions^,rf Sc.i:tion 15lA of the Act lead u,ith Nrrtilication 18/2022 clak'cl 29.03.2022.^'[he saicl juclllmcnt passcd L]y this^(,ourt lias also boen subsequer-rtly follow'erl ir-r a large rrumlrcr of writ pe,itions which were allowcd on similar terr-ns

¶35

Down thc lir-rc, we find Lhat the sarne issuc has arlso bcen decicled against the Reverruc by rrarious High Courts i.e., by thg Ilornbay l-Iigh Court in thc case of HEXAWARE TECHNOL()GIES LTD., vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T,\X & OTHERS" Gauhati Hi6lh Court in the casc. of RAM NARAYAN SAH vs. UNION

¶36

' [(202])¹⁵⁶ taxrnann.conr^{178 ('l} clangana)]

¶37

'lzoz+1464^{t'ft( .t3o} ltlonr)

¶38

-.^,;i$x{.

¶39

¶40

OF INDIA3, Punjab ancl Haryana^{High Courtin the casc of} fATINDER SINGH BANGU vs. UNION^{OF INDIAI, and Telangana High Court} in the case of SRI VENKATARAMANA^{REDDY PATLOOLAvs'}

¶41

DEPUTY COMMISSIONEIT^{OF INCOME TAX5 where the issue was} in respect of internatiotraI^{taxation, Bornbay High Court in the case of} ABHIN ANILKUMAR^{SHAH VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER,} INTERNATIONAL^{TAXATION6 n'hich is again on international} taxation and central^{cir.cle, IJigh Court of HimaclralPradcsh in the case} of GOVIND SINGH^{vs' INCOME TAX OFFICERT, Gujarat High} Court in the case^{of MANSUKHBHAIDAHYABHAI RADADIYA vs'}

¶42

INCOME TAX OFFICER,^WARD3(3X5)8, Jharkancl^{High Court in the} case of SHYAM^{SUNDAR SAW vs. UNIONOF INDIAe,Rajasthan} I{igh Court in the^casc of^{SHARDA DEVI CHHA}ERvs' INCOME} TAX OFFICER & ANOTHER^{at.rc1 batch of writ petitionsr(rwhich stood} decic{ec1 on 19.03.2024. Similal^{views have also been taken by the} Division Bench of^{Calcuttalligh Court in the case of GIRDHAR}

¶43

'l(2024)^{156 taxmann.corn478 (Cauhati)l}

¶44

^ [(2024)^{165 taxrnann.corn I l5 (Puniab& l{alyana)]}

¶45

' 12024)^{167 taxmam.com4l I (Telangana)l}

¶46

" [2024)^{166 taxrnann.corn679 (l]ornbay)l}

¶47

'12024)^{165 taxtnann.corn I l3 (HimachalPradesh)l} t2024 SCC Onlirle Guj 4012 '2025^{SCC OnlineJhar 287}

¶48

'n12023,^{RJ-JD:4984-DBl}

¶49

,ai,& .tl$#,

¶50

¶51

GOPAL DALMIA vs. UNION OF INDIA & OIIS (Nl.A.T 1.690 of 2023), cleciclecl <tn 25.09.2024.

¶52

Irven thougl-r llrer same issuc having been c ct-ic]c.c1 by a large rlulrrbcr of lJigh Courts, u/c are still confron te cl r,.itlt largc filing of itlentical nr.rttet s orr rlailv basis rartrling Lrclrvccr-r 5 t , I0 rvrit petitior-rs. That uporr thc rnstructiorrs [-,ein[j sought from tltt' l)cpartntent, they havc beerr takitrll a solitary ground that the clccisi.rrr of thc Bombay I ligh Corrlt in the case ctf I I cxoruarc^{'I-echnologias} Ltl., (Z supla) as also tlrc. orre wlrtch has becrr tlecicled by Lhis Court il1 th( (.,lse o[ Kqtnkalq Roaindra Reddy (1 supra) has Lrccn subjcctecl kr challcr-rgr-: in a Special Lcave Petitjon i.c-.., SI-l' No.3574 of 2024 before thc I lor.r'ble Supreme Court ancl the Iftrrr'Lrlc Suprernc. Court is scizr,Ll of thc rnatter. ln adc'litio., thcr.c are about 1200 SLI,s aiso filc-d arisirrrl out of thc same issue being rlecitlcd L-ry various High Cour.ts.

¶53

'I'o a quely beins 1-lut to the learned courrsc_,I for. th,, Revcnue, they have catcgorically acceptcd the [.rct thaI tlrer.e is rto interirn orcier granted by the FIon'ble Suprer.ne Court in an), of thcs.. ntatters pending before it. Meanrvhile, fresh wr.it petitions of icientical naturc are being pilecl up bclole this []er-rch on ciaily basis ancl the pt rrtlenc.y is getting itrcreased or1 lratte,. which othern,ise has alreatlv bec^ dealt arrd decided bv this vc.r1, I ligh Court itseif.

¶54

¶55

On the one hancl,^{even tlrough the order of this Court that was} passcd as early^{as on 74.09 -2023and more 16 monthshave lapsed, till} date, we do not find^{any remeclialstepshaving been taken by the} Income Tax Departmerrt^{to take appropriate stePs to eitherhold back} issuance of notice^{undcr sectionl48A arrd undcr section148 0f the Act} by the^{jurisdictionalAssessingof ficer,ratherthe authoritiesconcerned} in the teeth of series^{of decisions by all the majorHigh Courts in India} are continuously still^{initiating proceedings under Section 1484 of the} Act and also initiating^{proceeclingsuncler Scction148 of the Act in} contravention to^{the amendmentsbrought trto the IncomeTax Act} pursuant to the Finance^{Act,2020as alsothe FinanceAct202'L '}

¶56

g. Upon a query^{being put as to rvhy can't this rvrit petition be} disposed of in the^{teethof the decision rendered by this Court in the} case of Kanakala^{RattindraReddy(1, supra), learned Standing Counsel} for the lncome^{Tax Department contenclsthat those would} unnecessalily burden^{the IncomeTax Departmentwhere theywouldbe} required to file^{equal uumberof SLPs before the Hon ble Supreme} Court and it^{woulclbe further burclening the exchequerof the union of} India. It was also^{the contentionof tl-re learnedstanding Counsel that} no prejudice would^{be causedto the interest of the petitioners in case if} this writ petition^{is kept pencling till the finalizationof .the SLPs}

¶57

¶58

pending beforc the Hon'ble Supr.erne Court and the fact that t1-re petitioner is alreacly enjoying tl-re benefit of ir-rtcrim protection. Nonethelesr;, on the eallier query of this Court as lo why the Income Tax Departmcnt have not corne out with a mr,cltanism to issue approl-rliate ir-rsh'uctions ol to take appropriatc stc1,5 i11 cnsur.ing that proceedings; uncicl Section 148,4 of thc Act as also thc assessment orders urde'r' scc tior-r 148 of the Act ale kept in a hokl i. the light of the decisions dr:cidc:cl by the valious I Iigh Cour.ts, it wa,; submittecl by the Ieamecl Stanclinc Counsel that the saicl ste|s can or.l1' be taken at the Ievel of cB[)l as ary such sie ps woulcl have to bc tal<c^ Iran India arc] cannot be lirniietl to any of these jurisdictional I Iigh C our.ts.

¶59

As a resuli of which, what w,c are facing is steep incr.ease of Iitigation clay in and day out ever-r though various or-ders have been passec'l b1, t)ris liigh Court allowine writ petitior.rs .n thc ver.y samc issuc. Ihe Incolne Tax authorities corrceLned are still e\rcn no\ / in 2025 also initiatir-rg ploceeclings in contravention to the prorrisions of section 151 A of the Act a.d as a result by now, more tha. 600 to 700 petitio,s have been ah'cacly got piled up before this Fligh C.ourt on an issue wl-rich otherrvise sta,ds squarely co'ered by the juclgrnent of this Court in the case of lQttmlcala Raaindra Reddy (1, supra). What is also t".!lj:i"g is thc' f;rct thar though while ailowing the n,.rr petirions in tl.rc

. 1_.

//,/

case of Kanakala Raaindra Reddy (1 supra), the Division Bench while reserving the light of the Revenue, has also protcctcd the interest of the petitioners insofar as the liberty which was granted to the Revenue for initiating fresh proceeclings strictly in accordance with tl-re amended provisions of tl-re Act, as amended by the Finance Act, 2020 and the Finance Act, 2027. Thc prglill6nsr assessee would be entitled to challenge or raise the other legal objections if the Rcvenue initiates fresh proceedings. The Department has made no enclcavour in availing the said libelty that was reserved for tl're Revenue. On the contrary, they have been still sticking on to the stanc'I, n,hich tl-ris High Court as wcll as many other High Courts already held to be baci

¶64

"1L. It appears that becausc of the aforesaicl liberty that this High Court hacl granted perrnitting thc Revenuc for initia ting frcsh procccclings as a one-time measure in a faceless manrler, the lncome Tax Department wants to take aclvantage of the same by protracting these proceedings which woulci cnable them to meet the limitatior-r that would otherwise come in the way. Likewise, if the writ petition is kept pending for a considerable long period of time ancl finally at a later stage if the Hon'ble Supreme Court confirms the decision^{taken by this} I{igh Court as also by the other l{igh Courts in^{whichthe SLPs are still} pending, the Income Tax Deparhnent would gct^{the advantage} of the

¶65

¶66

Iiberty that is otherwise plotectecl in favour of the Reverrue for initiation of fresh procceclings from the disposal of these matiers at a rnuch later stage which r,'.ould be advantageous and beneficial o the Rcverrue anci would be equallv disadvantaqeous anc{ detrintcnt.ll io far as intcrest of thc asscsse,s are concernetl. As a coltscrluencc the Incoruc Tax Depa116g111 gets an extt nrlerl periocl of tirne for itritiation o[ fresh proceedinl3:;

¶67

Thc alarr-nir-rg trencl of clocket explosion in this Coult, clcspite tl-re clear precetlcnt set in Kanakala Raoittdrs Rafuly (7 suprtr), is tr rnattcr of grave concern.^'lhe Income^'l ax Departmcnt's pL'rirstent initiation of fresh pnrcecdings, disregarding the esta blished juclicial pronourlc('nr en ts, has lecl to an unprecedentecl surgc rn litigation with over' 600-700 ptLitions piling up on the sarlc' issL c. This dtliberak: approach rrrrt only urrclermir-rcs the principle of jucllcial prccederrt but also strains tht' juclicia I rcsources unnecessarily. re I)epartr-nent's strategy of awaiting thc Supreme Court's clecision on pcnclitlll SLPs while contirruinlg to irritiatc frcsh ploceedings appean; to bc a cal<:ulatccl move to buy Lime and circumvent limitation pc; iods, t-athcr thal-r aclhering to thc tsiablishecl legal position. Such con,luct laises serious questions aL-,ou t the administrative efficiency arld thc r(.spect for iuclicial lrl'onoutlccrneuts,^{particularlywhen this Court has alreadyprovirlcrl a}

¶68

¶69

balanced approach by preserving bcth the Revenue's rights and assesses interests

¶70

Another aspect which needs to be cor-rsiclercd is that in fact it should have been realizecl by the Incomc Tax Departrnent itself and should have found out via media in ensuring that prrocecclings uncler Sections 148-4 and 148 should not have beer-r issuecl in a faceless manner, at lcast till the Hon'blc Supreme Court cleciclc thc. trvelve hunclrecl (1200) oclcl SLPs which it is already seizec-l o[ or, at lcast the Incomc. T'ax Department shoulc'l lrave founcl out sorre rcurerlial stcps to ensurc that wherever tl-re authorities intencl to initiate proceedings under Sections 148-4 ancl L48, other than in a faceless manner, the proceedings should have been deferred witl-rout precipitating the matter further intimating the assessee that they shall initiate appropriate p'rroccedings only after the SLI"s are decided by the I lorr'ble Supreme Court on the very same issue.^'fl-ris again, the lncomc'fax Department, has not been able to give a convir-rcing reply, except for the fact that such a clecision if at all has to Lre taken, has to be takc.n for the whole of India, and which otherwise has to be by way of a prolicy decision and that too at the level of Central Board of Direct Taxes. Though the learned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Dcpartment contended that the Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petitior-r of sirnilar nature, on

¶71

¶72

the one harLd when the Iligh Coult is struggling^{to rr'tlttce its pendency,} such notices rvhrch al'c utldel challenge in this writ Pt'lition^{are forcing} the assesser: to knoi:k thc cloors of this l{igh Court^{rr'sttltitrg in l-iling of} hundrcds c,f nt'n, n,rit pctitions rvhich in the lonl;^{r Lttt} tlot^{ol-rly affects} the disposal ol:thc. rvrit petitions but also collsttmes^{strbsLrntial tirne of} the Bench iL'r hcaring thcsc tnattcrs agaiu attel^a1l.rrrr on da il',, [6r1t Admitteclly, in sf-ritc of thc tuattcr before the I Iot-t':,lt'^{SuprrctneCourt} having trcen ta kcn ()n nrany occasions, the I lon'l,it' Sttprer.utt Court r,r,hiclr is serzet{ of the nratter lras becn reluctaut in r1 arrtinq^{ar-ry interim} protection to tlrc Inconre^'fax Dcpaltnetrt. Yt t, thc^.luthorities concernecl ,rt thc Sta tc lcvcl are not rcady to accePt^{LIrt' r'crclict passecl} b), a maiority of I Iigh Courts of different States orl^{llrt' satne issue; and} to make tlrings tulther worsLr, the lncome lax Dt-'p,rrlrner-rt is showing auclacitlr bf issuing noticcs continuously uncler Se:ctions 148-A^{and 148} through th,: i'.tlisdictional Assessiug Officer whereits it ought to have bccrr onlv in thr' l-acclt:ss lllattlncr

¶73

ln Lhe case of BANI( OF INDIA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONEI(, INCOME TAX1I, on an issue whethel i[^rvas justifiablc on thc fralt of thc'Income Tax Departrnent itr uot foliowing^arr order passe'cl b),tlic acijudicatingJ authority only or-r^{hc gror-rud that the}

¶74

" 11202s)^{110 ta.ruranu.conr,122(Bombay)]}

¶75

¶76

-:ir.:ri1*a6'^t

¶77

appeals are pending, the Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay held at paragraph No.25 as under, viz.,^:

¶78

"25. Mr. Paridwalla has rightly dtawn^out attention^{t() th(' clccision} of this Court in Commissioncr of Income^{'Iax vs. Smt.} Godavaridevi Sarafl2 as also the recent clecision of the co-ordinate^Botrch of^this Court in Samp Furniturc (l') Ltd. v. ITOIr of rvhich one of us^(Justicc G.S. Kulkarni) was a member, whcrcir.t the Court catcgorically obscrvcd that the Revcnue having not^"acceptcd" the^juclgmer.rt of tht' [{igh Court noulcl not mcan that till thc same is set asidc in a mattttet kr.tou't.t to law, it would loose its bintlirrg force. Referring to the decisiotr of the Supremc Court in Union of India vs. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd.ta, tl-re Conrt oLrsen etl that tlrc ag.rploach of thc officitris of Rcvt'rtuc of treating tlccisions [r('ing "not accoptablc" was criLicizccl by the Supremc Cotrrt. In such ciecision, follou,ing are the relevant obscrvatiot.ts maclc by^the Supreme Court,

¶79

"6.Sri Reddy is pcrhaps right in saying that the officcrs rvere no[ actuatecl by any n-rala ficies in passing thc iml.rugnccl orders.^'fhcy perhaps gcnuinely ielt that the claim trf thc assessee was not tenable and that, if it was acceptetl, thc Revenue woukl suffcr. But what Sri Reclcly ovcrlooks is thttt we are rlot concc'rncd here r,r,ith tht'correctness or otherr,r'ist' of their conclusion or of any factual rnalaficlt's but with the fact that the officers, in reaching in their conclusion, bypassed hvo appcllate orders in regard to the same^issutr which were placcci bcfore them, onc of thc Colle-ctor (Appcals) and the otl-rer of the Tribunal. The }{igh Court has, in our view, rightly criticized this conduct of the^Assistant Collectors and the harassment to the assessee causecl^b1,the

¶80

'2 1t9281^{I l3 trR 589 (Bombay)}

¶81

" 120241165^{taxmann.conr 581/300 Taxrnan 452 (llornbay)}

¶82

'o llggzl^{taxmann.coml6115 ELT 431 (SC)}

¶83

¶84

failurc of these officers to give effect to thc rrrdcls of arrlholitics highcr to them iu thc appellatc hicr.u:lrr.. It cannot be loo vchemently emphasizcd that it is oi uttnost inrportancc lhaL, irr cLsposing of the rlrrasijucl ti.rl issues l.refole thcnr, rcvcnue officcrs are bound b1, the r ct'rsions of the appcllatr. authoritics. The ordcr of the n pfroll L.('ollcctor is binctinll orr thc Assistant Collectols rvolkinll rvithin his jurisdir-tron anrl thc ordcr of Lhe l-ribunal is [rintlinli rrprorr the r;sisLanI Collt.ctors ancl tlte Appellate Collc trus rvhcr functron untlcr thc juriscliction of the Tlibu ral The principk,s r,I juclicial discipline requile that thc or'.lcls of the highet airpl'll;111'.rutholiLies should be followcd ur lcscrvt:dly L.rr []re subrrrtlin.rt!'auLltorities. I'he mele fact that thc orcicr o[ the appr'llat(. aLrthority is ltot ".rccoptalrl,," to the d€p.rr[nrcnl - irr itsclf a r-r objectior.rable phrasc - atrLl is thc subicct m.r[t('r ol an appreal can furnish no grou rrl for not fo lorving it unltss its opcration ltas lrccn suslrcr.lLd bv a .orrrpctL'nl r'ourt. I[ this healthl. rule is not lol orr,ed, thc result r^.-ill onl, lrc untluc harassnrent to asscsscti ar ,r{ r lraos irr acl min istra Lion of tax lau's.

¶85

l2 Wt' Iravc rlcalt r'r,ith this aspcct at somc lcngth, bc(tause it has been su111,,cstt,cl bv thc lcaneci Aclc{itional Solicibr Ct ner'.rl that the obst'rv;rtions macle lrv the I Iigh Corrl 1, 1r.,r-" l.re,:r.r halsh on tht. officcrs. It is clear that thc obscr valions of the lligh Cirurt, seeminglt, vehement, ancl ;rpparently unpalatablc t() th() I(cvonue, are only intendcd to cr.rr.b a terrclc'rrcv in rt,venrrc rnatters which, if allowecl lo lrecttrle wi.{esp;catl, coulcl resulL in considerablc harassmL,nt to thc asscssr:s- P u lrlic ^,ithout any her-refit to the Rcvorrut'. \Ve u,cultl Iike to sn) that the dcparhnent shoulc{ t.rkc these oL.rservatiorrs in thL' prol)er spilit. Thc obselvatirrrrs of thc Hil3h CoLrrt slrotrlcl lrc kc1.rt ir-r mir-rd in futurc alld th(, Lrtr]rost

¶86

¶87

''*tw

¶88

regard should be paid by thc adjudicating authorities and the appellate authorlties to the requirements of^judicial disciplino and the need for giving effect to the orders of the higher appellate audrorities which arc binding on them."

¶89

What is worrying this Bench more is the fact that an endeavour is being rnacle whole heartcdly to ensure not to generate further litigation on issues which have been laid to rest by a large number of IIigh Courts all of whom have taken a consistent stand that the action of the Income Tax Department being violative of the Finance Act, 2020 and Finance Act, 2021. 5'o11,, in order to protect the interest of tl-re Rever-rue as also that of the assessee, it would be trite at this juncture, if we dispose of the writ petition with an observa tiorr/ direc tion that the disposal of the instant writ petition in terms of the judgment rendered by this High Court in the case of Kankntaln Raoinilra Reddy (1 supra) shall hora,ever be subject to the outcome of the SLPs which were filecl by the Income Tax Department and which is pending consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court

¶90

In the given facts and circumstances, this Bench is of the considered opinion that un-less 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

¶91

¶92

be burdened u,hich otherwise can^{be decided antl tlisposedof as a}

¶93

covered ma.tter

¶94

So far as the interest of the^{Revcnue is concerned, rve are of the} considered opinior-r that the^itt terest of the^{Revetruc' l-ras alreadybeen} cor-sideled ancl protectecl, as has bcen observecl ir^{palagraphs 35,37} and 38 ol- tl-re orcler which, for ready^refelcrcc, IS reprocluced

¶95

hereunder:

¶96

"16 [or all thc aforesaid tcasotts' thc ir-nPugngcl n.Licr:s issucd and the prrrcccclir-rgs clrau.n bv the^{rcsponclcnt- )t'Parttnct.ttis} rueithel tenablc, uor sustainable. The uotices so^{i)srrellandthc} procedure acloplcd being prsr sc illegal,^{eleset'vesto be trtrdare} accorclingly set asicle,/quasht'd. As a corrscqtlence,^{all the} i;npugnerd orders gelting quashed, the couseq.rential^otrlers p'asser{ b1' thc Iesponrlent-Department^{ptll-suar-rt tc, tht' noticcs} i:;suec1 uncicr Scction 1,i7 ar-rci 1-l[il r,r,ouid^also 1;et^{rluashc'd ilncl it} ir; olclerert accordingly. Thc reasott^r,l'e al.e^{(luashin!ltlre} consecluerrtial ordcr is on the principles tllat^{r.t'herrtlrc initiation} r-'f the 1,r'occ,.:tlirrgs itself r,vas proccdurally^{rvror-rg,thr:} subscclucnt olrlers also gcLs nullified autourtrticall. .

¶97

:\7. The prclintr-urv objectktn raisecl by tht'^{pcLitionel rs} sustainecl and all thesc writ petitions stands^{alior'veclon this} r en. julisdictional issu.'. Since the impugned^{noticesaud ordcrs} arc gctting rluash,-'d on thc g.roint of^{juriscliction, 1a'g n1g not} inclinecl Lo proceed further and^{decidethe othcrir;suesraised b1'} the peLitiouer r'r'hich stancls rescrved^{to bc raised rucl conterrdecl} in .rll .lpl r()l)riJ te pro,1'LIirrgs.

¶98

¶99

Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the case of Ashish Agarwal, supra, as a one-timc measurc ercrcising the powels under Article 142 of the Constitution of^Inclia, permitted the Revenue to proceeC under the substituted provisions, iurd this Court allowing thc petitions only on the procodural flaw, the rigirt ccnferrccl on the Revenue woulcl rernain reservecl to proceed further if they so -want from the stage of Lhe orc{er of the Srrprcmt' Corrrt in the case of Ashish Agaru,arl, supra."

¶100

We would only further liki: to make observations th.at since we are inclinecl to ciispose of the instant writ petition, conscious of the fact tlrat the eariier order of this High Court in the case t:f Kanakala Raoindra Redfu (L supra) is subjected to challenge before ttre Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No.3574 oi 2024, preferred by the Income Tax Department, we make it clear that allor,ving of the instant writ petition is subject to outcome of the aforesaid SLP prefeffed by the Rcvcnue against the decision of this Lligh Court in the case of lianaknla Raoindra Reddy (l supra). This, in other rvords, would mean that either of the parties, if they so want, may move an appropriate petition seeking revival of this writ petrtiorl in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the pending SLP on the verv same issue.

¶101

Accordingly, the instant Writ Petition stands allowed in favour of the assessee so far as the issuc of^jurisdiction is concerned. As a consequence, the impugned notice under challenge under Sections 148-

¶102

¶103

A arrd 148 :itancls set aside/quasheci. The conscquential orders, if any,

¶104

also stand set aside/quashed in sirnilar teLms as ha,,c. been passed by this High Court in the case of Kartkanaln Raoirtdru Reddy (l supr.a).

¶105

There shall be no olcler as to costs.

¶106

Conse,quently, miscellaneous pctitiorls pencliLrg, if any, shall

¶107

stand closed

¶108

SD/. AHME:D^ABDULLAHKHAN ASSiISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECT o N OFFICER

To,

The Assessment^{Unit,lncomeTax Department,Nationzrle-Assessment} Center, Room^{No.401, 2nd Floor, E-Ramp,Jawaharlalrlehru Stadium' New} Delhi-1 10 003.

¶113