Allowed

The Primary Agricultural v. Assessment Unit

Telangana HC18 Jul 2025WP/20943/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Assessee challenged non-faceless notices under Sections 148A/148 and a consequential order under Sections 147/144B for AY 2019-20. Following its earlier decision in Kankanala Raoindra Reddy and multiple High Court rulings, the court quashed the notice and consequential orders, subject to the pending Supreme Court SLP.

What did the court decide?

Impugned notice u/s 148A/148 and consequential order u/s 147 r/w 144B set aside/quashed; no costs; revival permitted subject to outcome of SLP No.3574 of 2024.

The Primary Agricultural Vs Assessment Unit — Income Tax | Telangana HC (2025)

134741

t. i i I

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

¶5

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

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF^{JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY} AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{NARSING RAONANDIKONDA}

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 20943^{OF 2025}

¶9

Between:

¶10

The Primarv Aoricultural. Co-Oparative^{Society LimitedMaripedaRepby} CEO EOLLEPALLY NARESH'S/O. BOLLEPALLY^{VENKATESHAMAgCd} about 32 vears. Occupation. Business,^{RUo. Maripeda, Mahabubabad} Warangal S6OS1S tetangana,^{lndia PAN.AAHAPo371M,AssessmentYear'} 2019-20

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

1 Assessment Unit, National^{Faceless Assessment Centre, lncome Tax} Deoartment, Ministry of Finance,^{RoomNo.401 , 2nd Floor,E-Ramp,} Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, Delhi^{- 110 003.}

¶14

2 The lncome tax officer, ward^{1, Warangal/ lncome Tax Office,D' No'1-8-61 0,} 3rd Floor, Mayuri Complex, Opp.^{Tsnpilcl Bhawan, Nakkalagutta, Telangana-} 506001

¶15

3 Union of lndia, Represent^{by its Secretary Ministry of Finance North Block'} New Delhi-1 10001

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of^{lhFv constitutionof lndra praying that in the} circumstances stated in the^{affidavit filedtherewith, the High courtmay be} pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or^{directionmoreparticularly one in} the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS^{holding that the notice issued (JAO)by 2nd} Respondent under section 148^{Dated. 30.03.2023vide DIN No. ITBA/AST/S/148} 1t2o22-23t1051717777(1) for the^{AssessmentYear2019-20and the} consequential order^{passedby the 1st respondentuls. 147 readwithsection} 1448 of the lncome-tax^{ActDate ofOrder 29 02 2024,DIN'} |TBA/AST/S/147 t2023-24t1}6',1740248(1)^{for the Assessment Year 2019-20,as} arbitrary, illegal, bad in law,^{vokl ab initb, violationof principles of natural .iustice}

¶18

apart from violation of Articles 1a, 19^(t)(g) and 265 of cott titution of lndia apart from being violalive of provisions of section 148A and sec i^rn 149 of the Act and also contrary to the circular issued by CBDT and provisions; rf section¹ 51A of^the Act, and consequently set aside the order passed by 1sl Respondent u/s.¹⁴⁷ read with section 1448 of the lncome-tax Act Date of Ctt iet 29.02.2024,^DlN. ITBA/AST/S/14712023- 2411061740248(1)for the Assessn< nt Year 2019-20^and all consequential^proceedings pursuanl there to.

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶20

Petition under Section 15'1 CPC praying that in the )^'cumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court r ay be pleased to stay all further proceedings, including any recovery, pursuant t^, the order^passed by the 1st respondent u/s. 147 read with section 144B of the I rcome-tax Act Date of order 29.02.2024, DrN. ITBA/ASTiS/14712023- 24111) i1740248(1) for the Assessment Year 2019-20 and stay of demand notice urn er section 156 dated 29.O2.2024, vide DIN ITBA/AST/S/15612023- 24l11t 1740298(1) for the Assessment Y ear 20 1 9 -2O.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI THANNERU CHAITANYI,^(UMAR

¶22

Counsel for the Respondents No.l&2 : MS.B.SAPNA REll )Y, Sr.SC for lT DEPT

¶23

counserrortheRespono""'*"i"L.,'#["ff1ff

¶24

[i#l'lthl*,

¶25

The Court made the following: OROER

¶26

THE HON'BLE^{THE ACTING CHIEF} JUSTICE^{P.SAM KOSHY} AND THE HON'BLE^SRI JUSTICE^{NARSINGRAONANDIKONDA}

¶27

WRITPETTTI ONNO^.20943oF20ZS

¶28

ORDER (per Hon'ble Sri lustict P.Sam^Koshy)

¶29

Heard Mr. T.Chaitanya^{Kumar,learned counsel for the} petitioncr and^{Ms.B.Sapna Reddy, Ieamed SeniorStanding Counselfor} tlrc lncome^{Tax Department appearingfor the respondentNos'l and 2'} and Mr. C.Venkateswarlu,^{leamed counsel representing Mr' Gadi} Praveern Kumar,^{learnedDeputySolicitor General of India'appearing} for rcspontlent^{No.3. Perused the record'}

¶30

Tl'ris is a writ Petition^{where the proceedingsare either} challt'rrgeci^{to the notices whichwereissuedunder Scction .148Aand} l48 ot thc ltrcome^{Tax Act, 1961 (for short'theAct') or the assessment} ordt'rs those^{have been passed underSection L47 of ttlc Act which} lra vt' [.t't't-t^arssailed.

¶31

l his writ Petition^{is being takenup today only ot-t onc o[ thc} grouneis, that^{the notices issuedunderSection 148Aof the Act} 'llc'l^the sul,st'qucnt^{initiation of proceedingsunder Section148 of the Act by} tl-re^ju risr.l^ic tional^{AssessingOfficer,whereas intt'rms ofthe} amentlrnetrt that^{was broughtto the Income Tax Act Lry way of [rinatrcc} Act, 2021 w,c'.f.,^{01.04.2021onwards'proceedingsunderSc'ction148A}

¶32

{

¶33

¶34

of the Act as also under Section 14g of the Act ought t r have also been

¶35

issued and proceeded in a faceless manner.

¶36

The contention of the petitioner is that the is:;r e of proceedings being in violatio^ of the Finance Act, 2021 i.e., the : npugned notices under Section 148.4 and Scction 14g of the Act not rcing issued in a faceless manncr, have arreatry been dealt with arc decided by this Court in the case of I(ANKANALA RAVINIT i.A REDDy vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICEI(I rlccidcd on 74.A9.20,23 ral ereby a batch of writ petitions n erc ;illon,ccl a.c1 thc proceedings initie .ed under Section 1484 as also urclcr Sectio. r48 of the Act were h<.r r to be bad with consequential relicfs on th. grourrd of it being i r violation of the provisions of Sccri.rr 15lA of rhe Act read with Nr ification lg / 2022 dated 29.03.2022. f hc sair.[ jut{g.-rerrt passecl by this (] rurt has also been subsequentlv follo*'ctl i, .r tar.rle .umbcr of writ pet tions which were allowed on sint ila r tcruts.

¶37

Down tlr. lir.., r'r, li.d that thc. same issue has, riso been decided against the Revcnuc lrv variorrs Hi1;h Cour.ts i.e., b1, he Bombay High Court in the casc of HL.XAWARE TECHNOLT_ GIES LTD., vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF TNCOME TI X & OTHERS,, Gauhati High Courr in rhc casc of I{AM NARAYA}I SAH vs, UNION

¶38

'[(2023) I56 taxrnann.cnrn 178 l felangana)] ' lzoz+1464^{I'll( .l3o( tsoril)}

¶39

¶40

OF INDIA3, Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of |ATINDER SINGH BANGU vs. UNION OF INDIA4, and Telangana High Court in the case of SRMNKATARAMANA REDDY PATLOOLA vs.

¶41

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX5 where the issue was in respect of international taxation, Bombay High Court in the case of ABHIN ANILKUMAR SHAH vS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION6 which is again on international taxation ancl central circle, High Court of Himachal Pradesh in the case of GOVIND SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERT, Gujarat High Court in thc case of MANSUKHBHAI DAIryABHAI RADADIYA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3X5)8, Jharkand High Court in the case of SHYAM SUNDAR SAW vs. UNION OF INDIAe, Rajasthan Higl.r Court in thc case of SHARDA DEVI CHHAJER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER & ANOTHER and batch of writ petitionsro which stoorl decitleci on 19.0J.2024. Similar views have also been taken by tlrt' Division Bencli o[ Calcutta High Court in the case of GIRDHAR

¶42

' [(2021)^{156 taxrtranrt.conr 478 (Gauhati)]}

¶43

' [(2024)^I 6-5 taxurann.com^l l5^{(Punjab & Haryana)]} '[20211^{167la\nlann.coln4l I (Telangana)]} " [2024)^{I(16 tarrnann-conl679(Bombay)]} '[2024) 165 taxnrann.corn tl3^{(HirnachalPradesh)]} t202+ SCC Orrline (iu,| 4012

¶44

" 202-5 SC'(' OnLine Jhar 287 t('12oz,l : RJ-.rD:4981-DBl

¶45

¶46

J:.'

¶47

GOPAL DALMIA vs. UNION OF INDIA & OR! (M.A.T 1690 of

¶48

2023), decided on 25.09.2024

¶49

Even though the same issue having been d: ided by a large number of I Iigh Courts, we are still confronted u i h large filing of identical matters on daily basis ranging between 5 to 10 writ petitions That upon the instructiorrs being sotrght from the )epartment, they have been taking a solitary grourrcl that the decisic r of the Bombay High Court in ihc case of Hcxauttrc Tcchnologies Ll4 , (2 supra) as also the one which has been clecidecl by this Court in th: case of Kanakala Raoindra Rcddy (7 supra) has bcen sulricctecl to ch,r lenge in a Special Leave Petition i.e., SLP No.3574 of 2024 before thr, Hon ble Supreme Court and thc Hon'b[. Supremt' Coult is seiz: I of the matter. ln addition, there are about 1200 5l .l's also filcd arisi rg out of the same issue being decicled b1, v;rrious I lirglr Corrlts

¶50

¶51

To a qucly bt'ing put to thc lt'.rrnctl counsel fc r the Revenue, they have categorically acccptcd thc t.rct that therc i; no interim order Sranted^{by the l{on'blc Su} 1-'11'11q1'^{Court irr any of th: e matterspending} before it. Mcanwhile, ftcsh rvrit petitions of ic{enti:,1 nature are being piled up beforc this Bcnch on da ilr, l,asrs .rntl tht' 1 :ndency is getting increased or1 mattcr which othcrwisc h.rs alrca,i r been dealt and decided by ihis very Hir;h Court itscll

¶52

¶53

On the one hand, even though^{the order of this Court that was} passed as early as on^{14.09.2023and more16 months have lapsed, till} date, we do not find any^{remedialsteps having been taken by the} Income Tax Department^{to takeappropriate stePs to either hold back} issuance of notice under Section 148A^{and underSection148 of the Act} by the^{jurisdictional} Assc'ssing^{O(ficer, ratherthe authoritiesconcemed} in the teeth of series of ciecisions^{by all the major High Courts in India} are continuousty still initiating^{proceedingsunderSection 148,{ of the} Act and also initiating proceedings^{underSection 148 of the Act in} contravention to the amendments^{brought into the IncomeTax Act} pursuant to the Firrance Act,^{2020 as also the FinanceAct2021,.}

¶54

Upon a query beirrg Put as to^{why can} t^{this writ} Petition^be disposed of in the tceth^{of the decision rendered by this Court in the} case of Kataktla Ruuindrt^{Reddy (7 supra), learnedStanding Counsel} for the Incor-r.re I.rx Dt'partment^{contends that thosewould} unnecessarily burrlen thc [ncornc^{Tax Department where theywouldbe} required to file tqual num[rer of^{SLPs beforethe Hon'ble Supreme} Court and it woulcl he further^{burdeningthe exchequer of the Unionof} India. It was also the contt'trtion^{of the learnedStanding Counselthat} no preiudice woultl [-,e causet{ to^{the interestof the petitioners in case if} this u'rit petition is kt:1-rt pend ing till the finalization^of .the,^SLPs

¶55

¶56

pending befole tl-re Hon'ble Supreme Court arr -l the fact that the petitioner is already enioying the benefit of rterim protection. Nonetheless, on the earlier query of this Court as o why the Income Tax Departrnent have not come out with a rr:chanism to issue appropriate instructions or to take appropriate st I )s in ensuring that proceedings uncler Section 148,4 of the Act as . so the assessment orders under Section 148 of the Act are kcpt in a lro ,l in the light of the decisions decided by the various I'lig['r Courts, it v, s submitted by the learned Standing Counsel that tl'rc saic{ stePs carr c Lrly be taken at the level of CBDT as any such steps u,oulcl havc to bc^r rken Pan India and cannot be limited to any of these jurisclictional I Iiglr Iourts.

¶57

As a lesult of which, what rve are facirrq s steep increase of litigation day in and day out evcn though v.trit,L ; orders have been passed by this High Court allowirrg w,rit [r('trti() r on the very same issue. The lncorne Tax authorities cc'rncc'rnctl .rlr' .t I e.ct1 llow n ZO2S also initiating proceedings in corrtravt'ntion to tlrt' 1 r rx,,isions of Section 1514, of the Act and as a result b), n()n,, nrLr-c tlta r 6(X) to 700 petitions have been already got piled up bclorc this I[i;rl Court on an issue which otherwise stands squarely covcrcrl bv tlrc iL ( snlent of this Court in the case of Katnkala Raainlm Rcdd1 0 .,r pra). What is also surprising is the fact that though whilc allor.r.ir-r11 tl.t rvrit petitions in the

¶58

case ol Kartakala Raa ulra Redrty^{(7 supra), the DivisionBenchwhile} reserving the right of the Revenue,^hasalso Protected^{the interestof ttre} petitioners insofar as the liberty^{which was granted to the Revenuefor} initiating fresh proceedings^{strictlyin accordance with the amended} provisions of the Act,^{as amended try the FinanceAct,2020 and the} Finance Act, 2027. The^{petitioner assesseewould be entitled to} challenge or raise the other^{tegal otriectionsif the Revenueinitiates fresh} proceedings. The Department^{has made no endeavour in availing the} said liberty that was reserved^{for the Revenue.On the conhary,they} have been still sticking^{on to the stancl,rvhich this High Courtas well as} many other High Courts^{alreadvhclLl to Lre bad.}

¶59

It appears that^{becauseof thc aforesaidliberty that ttLis High} Court had granted permitting^{the Revenue for initiating fresh} proceedings as a one-time^{lllcclSllrt' in tr faceless manner, the Income} Tax Department wants^{to take atlr'.ltttage of the same by protracting} these proceedings^{which rvoulti etra['le thern to meet the limitation that} would otherwise cotne^{in the n'av. l.ikcrvise, if the writ} Petition^{is kePt} pending for a considerable^{long periotl of time and finally at a later} stage if the Hon'ble Supretne^{Court confirmsthe decision taken by this} High Court as also by the other^{FIigh Courts in which the SLPsare still} pending, the [ncome Tax Deprartment^{r'r'ouldget the advantageof the}

¶60

¶61

liberty that is otherwise protected in favour of tlrr: levenue for initiation of fresh proceedings from the disposal of these rr ttters at a much later stage which would be advantageous and benefici I to the Revenue and would be equally disadvantageous and dctrim(,rrr rl s() far as interest of the assesses are concerned. As a consequrr:e, thc Income Tax Department gets an extended period of tim<, I rr initi;rtiorr of fresh proceedings.

¶62

The alarming hend of docket explosion in ris Court, clespite the clear precedent set in Katakala Rao ulra Rcdd 1 fi sLrpra), is a matter of grave concern. The Income Tax Department s )c.siste.t irritiation of fresh proceedings, disregarding thc , statrlishecl judicial pronouncenenls, has led to an unprecedentetl ,, r11e. in litillation with over 600-7fi) petitions piling up on ttrc samt, ssur,.^.l his tleliberate approach not only undermines the prir-rciple c,t .rtlrr.ial prcceclent but also strains the judicial resources unnocess.t r r ;. I lrt, [)e partment,s strategy of awaiting the Supreme Court,s rlt,cr..rr.r ,rn lr,nriing SLp. while continui.g to initiate fresh proccec'lirss al.,l ,.. s r. [r. a calculated move to buy tirne and circumvent lirnitatror P(,n()(ls, rathcr. than adhering to the established legal position. Such orrtluct r..riscs serious questions about the administrative efficicncy il.r(L hc rcspect for,udicial pronouncements, particularly when this Court I rs alrcarJl provided a

¶63

¶64

i l

¶65

balanced approach by preserving both the Revenue's rights^and assesses interests.

¶66

Another aspect which needs to be^{consideredis that in fact it} should have been realized by the^{Income Tax Departmentitselfand} should have found out via media^{in ensuring that proceedingsunder} Sections 148-A and 148 should not^{havc becrr issued in a faceless} manner, at least till the Hon'ble^{SupremeCourt clecide the twelve} hundred (1200) odd SLPs^{whichit is alrc'acly seizcclof or, at least the} Income Tax Department^{should have found out someremedial stePs to} ensure that wherever the^{authoritiesintcnd to initiateproceedings} under Sections 148-4 and^{148, other than in ;r facelessmanner, the} proceedings should have been deferrecl^{r,vithout prccipitating the matter} further intimating the assessee that^{thcv shall initiate aPProPriate} proceedings only after the SLP's^{are tlecitletl I.'r' tlre [lon'bleSupreme} Court on the very same^{issue. This agairr,tht' ltrcotrle'IaxDepartment,} has not been able to give a convincinll^{reprh" t'tt"ot for the fact that} such a decision if at all has to^{be takcn, has to ht' taken for the whole of} India, and which otherwise^{has to Lrs bl' tr'.11' ot a policy decision and} that too at the level of Central^{Boartiof Dircct'[ axesThough the} leamed Standing Counsel^{for the Incomt''[ ax DePartment contended} that the Delhi High Court dismissed^{a rt'rit pctitionof similarnature, on}

¶67

¶68

the one hand when the High Court is struggling to reduce its pendency, such noticcs wl-rich are under challenge in this wr_i petition are forcing the assessee to knock the doors oI this High Cotu t resujting in filing of hundrecls of new writ petitions which in the lorrl; run not only affects the disposat of the writ petitions but also co^srrr.. ; substantiar tirne of the Bencl-r in hearing these matters again and ,r ,air.r on rlail_y [asis. Admittedly, in spite of the matter before the Hor blc Suprrcnlll 6.r., having becn taken on many occasions, thc Horr :rle Suprt,mt, Court wlrich is seized of the matter has been reluctant irr , rantirrg arrv i.terinr L)rotection to the Income Tax Departrnent. t,t, the ,ruthorities concerncd at thc State level are not reacly [o accc: tht. r,crrlict passetl by a rnajority of High Courts of different States .rr :l.rc saure issut, ;rncj to tn;rke things further worse, the lncorne Tax Dc1 ll.tnrcr][ r, slrorvinll audacity b1, issuing r-rotices continuously under St.- rons lJli_.\ anrl l.l,S through the ju risdictional Assessing Officer rvhcrc rs rl our;lrt to 11.11,,. been only irr thc faceless manner.

¶69

In rhc case of BANK OF INDIA vs. ASSISI.ANT COMMISSIONER, INCOME TAX1], on an lss r r' u,hcthcr. it w,as justifiable on the part of the Income Tax Depar.tmer I rn uot follon.rng an order passccl by the adjudicating authority only or hr, 1;rourrtl that the

¶70

'' J12025y I;rr r a x nra nn.corn 422 (B onbay)l

l il

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

¶76

"25Mr. Paridwalla has rightly drawn out attention to thc, tlecision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Smt. Godavaridevi Sarafi2 as also the r6cent decision of the co-orclinate Bench of this Court in Samp Furniture (P) Ltd. v. ITOr: of which one of us (Justicc G.S. Kulkarni) was a member, wherein the Court categoricallv observcd that the Revenue having not^,,accepted,, the iudgrnc,nt of the High Court would not mean that till the same is set aside in a manner knoq,n to iaw, it would loose its binding force. Referring to the d(,cisknr of thc Suprcme Court in Union of India vs. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd.ir, the Court observed that the approach of the officials of Rcvcr.ruc ()f treating decisions being "not acceptable,, was criticizecl by thc Supr.om(, Court_ hl such decisiorl foltowing are the relcvant obscrvahtrrr; nr.rilt, trv the Supreme Court.

¶77

"6.Sri Reddy is perhaps right in saying that rhe r,[fit,rs rrtrc not actuated by any mala fidcs in passing rhc irnprrlin(,1l orders. They perhaps genuinely felt that tht,t.lainr ot rhc assessee was not tenable and that, if it rvas acccptt,rl, tlrr., Revenue would suffer. But what Sri Recldl,ov<,rlrrrrls is that we are not concemed here with the c()rr(,cht(,ss ()r ()tlrrrlr.is(, of their conclusion or of any factual malafirlt,s [rut u,rtlr tlrt, fact that the officers, in reaching iu thr,ir r.onc.lusron, hr,,passed two appellate orders in regard to tlre sarrrc is.,trc which were placed before them, onc o[ thc Collt,t.hrr (Appeals) and the other of the Tribunal. The lligh Corrrt h.rs, in our view, rightly criticized this conclLrct o[ th(, Assist.lnt Collectors and the harassment to the asscsse(, c.ruse(l bv thp

¶78

¶79

'' 1^tsz81 I ti ITR 589 (Bombay)

¶80

"^p0zn1165 taxmann.com 581/300 Taxman 452 (llonrbay)

¶81

'' 1^loo2; raxmann.com l6155 ELT 4-13 (SC)

¶82

¶83

I / I i I

¶84

failure of tltese officers to ot" effect to llc' orders of authorities l.righer to ,n", caot be ,.. ,"-*r;.;oo::;:T:", ;:1;.:;",7 importance that, in disposing of the quasi r :riciar issues bcfore them, revenue officr ut" *"to by tl t ciecisions of thc appelrate audrorities. ,ttt order of the Ap[ ( lte collector is bintring on tr," e""tt ohe Collectors wo'ki I ; witltin his luriscliction und U," o.d". ol't is hin I ng upon the A.ssista.t Colecrors u.,o .1" 'nou^al rur.rcri<,. under " ,**o,lroT"T: ;];:^ ;ll pri,cip/es of judicial discipline require that the c _ders o[ tlrt, highcr appellate authorities s d be followed u trescrvcdrl by the subordinate authodtie or rhc apperare ",;;;"_1"..;:fij, .:T1: (lcP.rrtmcnt _ in itself an objectionable phrasc _ and is the srrtri('ct nrattol of an appear can fumish no grc L rd for not folkru,,in1, it unless its operation has been suspe rcled bv a ( r , I I r I ) t^, I (^, I I I court. Jf this hea '" is not fr'r rwc.ri, trre r.t,surt wi[ o,ry be undue ha.u"t' sment to assesses ; r :r crr,ros in .rtrrnirristratiorr of hx raws.

¶85

I l. [\i. h.rvt, (iealt with thi has b,,cn sugi;csted, ;:':I]l'"rjll;,;.H: Ccncra I that the observatiot ns made by the High (i u.t, Iravt, lrct,rr rrar.srr o. tr.re officers. r,, rr r;h ..".,,,"";;;'H:,.":::..;

¶86

'! :::l:JJt''rrLrt ,

¶87

Lt tr|.,I.r t.t blt' t. the Reve,ue, arp ^hr,, u'" only :_a- r intendetl , t currr .r ttlrtlc^c' irr rg1,gnr" *u,aur'

¶88

which' if allowed lc bec.rre u'itr.sp11,a1r, courd 1s5u11 ,s .

¶89

.rsscsscs-r,ublic *,,...,, .", "ilj,i',1' r",.","; I Jli u,oultl lrke to sav that the 1'b:,., v. rr,^s,",,", r."0".-"01j;-T"il::: j, : "JT:: Hrllh ( ,ru rt shr.rulcl ht ktpt in mind in fufure and rl t utm,rst

I \ I i I i I i i

regard should be paid by fte 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."

¶94

What is worrying this Bench more is the fact that an endeavour is being made whole heartedly to ensure not to generate further litigation on issues which have been laid to rest by a largc number of High Courts all of whom have taken a cpnsistent stand that the action of the Income Tax Department being violative of the Finance Act, 2020 and l:inance Act,2027. Now, in order 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 t€rms of tlre^judgment rendcret{ by this I ligh Court in the case of Kankanala Raoindra Reddy (1 supra) shall however be subject to the outcome of the SLPs which n'ere filccl lrv the lncome^'fax Department and which is pending consiclcration befort' the [{on'Lrle Supreme Court.

¶95

[n the given facts and circumstances, this Bench is ot^the considered opinion that unless and until we do not^{timelvr.lis1'ost' oi} matters which are squarely covered by the decision^{of this Courtancl} which starrds fortified by the decisions of the various^{othcr[ ligh Courts} on the very sarne issue, the pendency of^{this High Court r,'ou[d further}

be burdenecl r.vhich otherwise can be decided a.,tl disposed of as a covered r.na ttcr

¶100

;

¶101

So far as the interest of the Revenue is conc:rned, we are of the considerecl opinion that the interest of the Reven re has already been corrsiciererl arrri protected, as has been observecl i r paragraphs 36, 37 ancl 38 of thc ordcr which, for ready refer,: rce, is reproduced

¶102

hereu ntlcr

¶103

"lt'. [or all the trforesaicl reasons, the impugnec notices issued arrrl tlrl' plllceeclings dra,,r,n Lry the responden:- )epartrnent is ncitlrt.r tcnalrlc, nor sustainable. The notices so ;sued ancl tl.re ;.r'r,t-ctltrrc artoptcd t)eing per * illegal, deserves to be ancl ar.e ,r.(r)rrlirl'lv set aside/quashed. As a conse<. ence, all thc ittrptrglll'.1 ()rdcrs gctting quashed, the canse,l ieltial orders plsscrl [Tv thc resp.rorrdent-Departrnent pursuant :o the r.roticcs isstrcrl rrrrrlcr Scction l42 and 14g would also get ( uashecl ancl it rs ()r'cl(,r (,([ .rct.orrlinglv. Tlre reason we are luasl.ring^thc crrrrsr.'tlr-rerrtial ortlt,r is on the principles that wlxr the initiation of th1, p11r1-l,sclings itself was procedurall., wrong, tht, su[rst't]ur.nI ordcls ;rlso gcts nrrllified automatical,r

¶104

'1.. lhc plclinrin.rrv obiectiolr raised by th: petitioner is srrst.rurt-tl ,rntl all tht,se E,rit petitions stalds a I wed on this vt,lr ;rrrisrlictrorr.tl issuc. Sirrce the impugned not c ts anc{ orriers nr(' lrctti.l' tl.aslrt'd (). trrc poir.rt of jurisdicticr we are n()t ittclrrrccl to proccttl further and clecide dte other ir;r res raised tr1, tlle []ctiti()ner w,hich st.tr.rtls reserved to be raised r d contcnclcti itr arr ap1,11,1'r1.116, prrx-ccclin11s.

¶105

¶106

I I

¶107

Sincc the Hon'ble Suprerne Court had, in the case of Ashish Agarwal, supra, as a one-6me measure exercising thc powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of lndia, permitted the Revenue to proceed under the substituted provisions, and this Court allowing the peritions only on the prrredural flaw, the right conlerred on the Revenue tvould remain reserved to proceed further if tlrey so r+'ant from^the stage of the order of the Supreme Court in the casc of Ashish Agarwal, supra."

¶108

.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^Kanaktla Raaindra Reddy (7 supra) is subjected to challenge^{beforethe I lon'ble} Sup'rrcme Court in SLP No.3574 of 2024, Preferred^{by the Income'[ ax} Department, we make it clear that allowing of the^{instantwrit petitiorl} is subject to outcome of the aforesaid SLP preferred^{by the Rcvertue} against thc decision of this High Court rn the^case of^Kanaknlrt Raaindra Rcdrty (l supra). This, in other words,^{wouldmean that cilher} of the parties, if they so want/ may move^{an appropriat(' pctition} seeking revival of this writ petition in the^{light of the decision of thc} FIon'ble Supreme Court in the pending SLP on the^{very same issut'.}

¶109

19 r\ccordingly, the instant Writ^Petition stands^{allowedin favour of} the assessee so far as the issue^{of jurisdiction is concerned} Asr consequence, the impugned notice^under challenge^{under Sections l'18-}

t, i l

l l l

A and 148 stancls set aside/quashed. The corueqrr rntial orders, if any, also stand sct asicle/quashed in similar terms as I lve been passed by this High Court in the case of Kattkanala Rauirt,).n Rcitily (1 supra). There shatl bc, rro order as to costs.

¶114

Consctluerrtly, miscellaneous petitions per r ing, if any, shal

¶115

stand closccl.

¶116

S )/.P. PONNA KRISHNA AS:; - STANT S REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY//

¶117

To,

¶118

SECTION OFFICER

¶119

1 I3Brli:ff iTlll,$;'' o}'pgL' I^{FaceressAssessn, nt} ^centre, rncome ra x Jawaharrar Nehru Srddium,?lt?l11i,SBBT^{No. 4(', zno} Fr"i,t:iiai,il

¶120

2 The lncome tax officer. war{1,_Wgranqal/ lncome l.i x Office, D.No. 1_8_610 ;5%6.J:".., rr,rayuri comptex, opp isnpilidi;il;; '{ irrarrsuttr, retangans.

¶121