Mr. Leela Damodar Prasad Kanuri vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashing the impugned notices issued under Sections 148A and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the consequential assessment order. The Court found that the initiation of proceedings was procedurally flawed, as the notices were not issued by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, which contravened the amendments brought by the Finance Act, 2020, and 2021. The Court noted that this issue had been consistently decided in favour of the assessee by multiple High Courts, including its own previous judgment in KANKANALA RAVINDRA REDDY. The Court acknowledged that the revenue's appeal against the Kankala Ravindra Reddy judgment was pending before the Supreme Court. However, it was clarified that the disposal of the instant writ petition was subject to the outcome of the Special Leave Petitions filed by the Income Tax Department before the Supreme Court. The Court emphasized the need to dispose of such matters promptly to avoid further burden on the High Court's pendency. The Court directed that the interest of the revenue was considered protected as per previous orders. The Court also noted that no interim order had been granted by the Supreme Court in the pending SLPs. The Court reiterated that allowing the writ petition was subject to the outcome of the SLP, and parties could seek revival of the writ petition based on the Supreme Court's decision. The Court stated that the impugned notice and consequential order were set aside/quashed on the issue of jurisdiction, and there would be no order as to costs.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Mr. Leela Damodar Prasad Kanuri, filed a writ petition before the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. The petition challenged an order passed by the Assessment Unit, National e-Assessment Center, New Delhi, under Section 147 read with Sections 144 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2020-21. The petitioner contended that the notices issued under Section 148A and Section 148 of the Act, and the subsequent initiation of proceedings, were illegal and violative of the principles of natural justice and constitutional provisions. The petitioner sought to set aside the said order. The petition also sought interim relief to stay further proceedings, including recovery, pursuant to the impugned order.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the notices issued under Section 148A and Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the subsequent initiation of proceedings under Section 147 of the Act, were valid, considering the amendments brought by the Finance Act, 2021. Assessee's contention: The petitioner argued that the notices under Section 148A and Section 148 were not issued by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, which is a violation of the Finance Act, 2021. This issue has been decided by this Court in KANKANALA RAVINDRA REDDY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER and subsequently followed in numerous other writ petitions. The petitioner also relied on decisions from the Bombay High Court in HEXAWARE TECHNOLOGIES LTD. vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & OTHERS, Gujarat High Court in RAM NARAYAN SAH vs. UNION OF INDIA, Punjab and Haryana High Court in JATINDER SINGH BANGU vs. UNION OF INDIA, Telangana High Court in SRI VENKATARAMANA REDDY. PATLOOLA VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, and others. Revenue's contention: The revenue contended that the decision in KANKANALA RAVINDRA REDDY was challenged before the Supreme Court via SLP No. 1574 of 2024, and the Supreme Court is seized of the matter. The revenue also argued that disposing of these writ petitions would unnecessarily burden the department if they had to file similar Special Leave Petitions.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 148A,Section 148
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
The Court made the following: ORDER
THE HONOTTRABLE STTI JT]S'I TCE' P'SAi\I KOSHY ANI) THE HONOURABLE SRI JT]S ICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA WRIT I'ETTTION Nr'' 16803 of 2025 QBDEB, ftiu LIttn'htc Sri 'Jttstice '\ ra.'lr'r' fuo Nundikttnda) Heard MI'.A.V-A'Siva Ka.ii;f'':ya' lezrrned counsel for the petitioncr and lvls B'Sapna Rctiri-v ' leamed Senior Stanciing Counsel for the lttcctne 'fax [)e1;:rtiment appearilg tbr the respondellt.s. Penisctl the :'rjcoitl'
This is a rvrit petition "r'hcr': the proceeciings are either chatlenged to tht: notices wnich ';'r'l e issuerj under Section l48A and 148 oithe [ncome iax Act' 1q{ii (ior short'the Act') orthe assessmcnt ordet's Lhosc have becrr I'essed under Section 147 of the Act r'vhich ha-''e bcen assaiierl ' 3.Thiswriti)etitioni:ii;ein1-'-t;!;srlr-:1:tcda1'or-Liyoncneoithe grounds, that the irc'tices -qqGe'l uilrl'i sectiott i4EA of the Act and the subsequent initiation of proc':i;'rl ir tgs itnder Section 148 of the Act by the jur:isdictional Asse;:;ing Oliicer' "r;iret'eas in tetms of the amcndrrent tllat u'as brought to lhe lrrconle J ax Act by way of Finance acl Af-t w'e'1-' 0l l)4 'lii:i1 onrvarcis' proceedings
2 under Section I4gA oi' the Ar;l as also Lrnder Section l4g of the Act ought to have arso L,ecr: issued and proceeded in a thceress
The ccntention of tit,: petitioner is that the issue of proceedings being in r,iolarion of- the Finance Act, 202 I i.e., the impugned notices rrnde. Sr.cii.* l4gA and Section l4g of the Act not being issuecl ;lj :t jaccl1-,.;s rtr:rn11.1.. havt aiica<lv been dealt with and decideci by tiris c.r'i irr rrre casc oi' KANKANALA RAVINDRA RIlDLly rs_ IN(]OME_TAX OFFICERT decided on 14.09.202_7 r,r.lrcrcb_t I i.l,..h oi-rvrii pctitrons \^,ere allowed and the proceedings inir'iated ur.rricr scction l4g.{ as also under Section 148 of the Act rverc hel.l ro hr hacl with c()n\equ(rntial reliefi on the ground of it being in violatii,^ ol the pr_ovisions of Sedtion l5 lA of the Act read u,ith N.iific.rrir>n lS,l0ll date.ci lc).01.2012. The said judgment passcd b1,.this Cr.>uri has al.'so been subsequently fbllowed in a large nurnber ol rvrii nr.riiions rrhich u,ere allou,ed on similar manner. terms. ' L(2023) l -56 t.a..ntann. com i . S : i rl. ngaria)] ('
1
Down the linc, wc find that the same issue has also been decided against the Revenue hy various High Courts i'e ,, by the Bombay tligh Court in the case of HEXAWARE TECHNOLOGIES LTD', vs' ASSIS'I'AN'I COMMISSTONER OF INCOME TAX & OTHIIRS?, (iautrati High Court in the case of RAM NARAYAN SAH vs' tlNlON OF INDIAT' Punjab and Haryana High Coutt in the case oi 'lA'IINDER SINGH BANGU vs. UNION OF INDIAT, and 'l'clan'ganrt l ligh Court in the case of SRI VENKATARAMANA RE,DD\. PATLOOLA VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCONIf T'\\i whcrc lhe issue was in respect of intemational taxation, Ilotrbav I ligh Court in the case of ABHIN ANILKUMAR SHAH vs' INCOME'IAX OFFICER' INTERNATIONAL.I-AxA'f loNr' r'hich is again on i4ternational taxation and centlal circtc, t{igh {'or-ilt ol'Ilirnachal Pradesh in the Gujarat High Court in the r:r:i(: o1' MANSTIKHBHAI 'yzozt1464 ITR 430 (Bom) 'l1ZoZ+1 156 taxrnann.com 478 ((iauhati)l " [(2024) 165 tannann.corn I t5 (Punlab & tlar1'ana)l ' 12024) 167 taxmann.corn 411 (1-clerng2pn)1 "12024) 166 taxmartn.ctxr-679 (llomi'\iir il 'izOZ+1 165 taxmann.ccim I l3 (lLrt:achrl I'raiesh)]
DAHYABHAT RADADty.q vs. INCON{E TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3x5)3. -lharkanci Irigh court i. ihc case of SHyAM the case of SHARDA DE\/I CHHAJER vs. TNCOME TAX OFFICER & ANOTIIER lnd batch of writ petitionsro which stood decided on 19.03.2024. Sirnilar viervs har.e also been taken by the Division Bench ol (,aicutta l{igh (.orrrt in the case of GIRDHAR GOPAL DAI_ML\ vs" UNION OF TNDIA & ORS (M'A.T 169(t of 20?-3,, clecicled on 25.09.1024. 6. Even though the ser:.rc issi.re having been clecided by a large number of High Courts. we rre still conlrontcd rvith large f.iling of identical lratters on dailv hir-sis raliging betiveen 5 to I0 writ petitions. T'hai upron the irrstructions being,orgil, fiom the Department, the_r, have becit taking a solitarl, ground that the decision of thc Bornba,v Fliqh Court in the case of Hexttware Technologies l,ttt., (2 supla) irs also the one which has been decided by tlris Court in the case of Konaktlo Ravindra Reddy *2024 SCC Onlinc (iu.i 4() I2 '2025 SCC Onl.inc.ihai 18,/ '072023, Rl-.il):4 )81-DB I
(1 supra) has been subjected to chailenge in a Special Leave Petition i.e., SLP No'1574 of l0-l-1 bctbre the Ilon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme ('ourt is seized of the matter' In addition, there are about 1200 Si'1)s also filed arising out of the same issue being decided by various {ligh Coutts'
To a query being put to thc lclrnu'cl counsel fbr the Revenue' they have categoricatly acccpr-ci lhc llict ihat tirelc is no interim order granted by the Hon'ble Sr.tprcrtrc ('ourt in any of these matters pending befbre it Meanrvhiic' fiesh writ petitions of identical nature are being pitecl up i.:clirlc this Berrch on daily basis and the pendency is getting increased on lnatler .which otherwise has already been dealt and decidecl Liv tiris very t-tigh Court itself'
On the one hand, even thotiglt the orcler of this Court that was passed as early as on 14'09"201-r and rnore 16 months have lapsed, till date,, we do not {inci rrr;' r't:llreciial sleps having been taken by the Income Tax Depaflnle rrt ia takc appropriate steps to either hold back issuance of noticc LLtrdcr Section l48A and under Section 148 of the Act by thc j rl'isclictional Assessing Officer' rather the authorities concernecl in the teeth of selies of decisions
6 by alt the major lligh (.oirrr_s in India are conrinuously still initiating proceeriings u.rcic' Scction l4gA or the -Act and also initiating proceedings unrler. Section l4g ot. thc Act in . contravention to the amerrd.rents brought into the rncornc Tax Act pursuant to the Finance Act , 2020 as also the F inance Act 202 l .
Upon o querv bcing pl.ir as to whv can,t this writ petition be disposed oi in rire tectir oi.rhc decision rencicr.cri b_v this Court in the case of Ktntkala Rat,ittdrq Redd-v (l sLrpr.a). learned Standing counsel for the rncome Tax Deparl,rent co,tends that those wourd unnecessarily brrrden the lncome Tax Departmcnt where the1,. would be r.equirecl to i.ile equal number ol St.ps before the Hon'ble Suprerre (lour1 ancl it rvoti ld be further bLrr<iening the exchequer of the [,'nion ol inclia. It was also the coniention of the learned Standing Counsei that no prejudice rvor.rld be caused to the interest of the 1-.eritioners in case ij.this writ pctiLion is kept pending titl the finalization of the Sl_ps pending bclbrc the llon.bte Supreme Court ancl thc tacr that the petitioner is already enjoying the benefit ol interim protection. Nonetheless, on the earlier query of this Court as to why the Incotne Tax Departtnent have not corre t'rut with a ntccq:t.i isn: 1ci i-.,5,i1g approprrate instructions or. to takc / /
appropriate steps in ensuring that Proceedings utldcr Section 148A of the Act as also the assessmetlt otde rs undcr Section 148 of the Act are kept in a hold in the ligtrt oi the decisions dedcided by the various High Courts, it was subrnitLc<i by the learued Standing Counsel that the said steps can onll' be iaken at the level of CBDT as any such steps would have to bc tu|trl l'an lndia and cannot be limited to any of these jurisdictionai I Ii:qh (ioults'
As a result of which, what 6e arc t:-rcing is steep increase of litigation day in and day out evcn th()usil various orders lrave been passed by this High Court allowirr;' t'r'it 1''t:iitit'ns on the very same issue. The Income 'I'ax authorities cotrcemecl are still even now in 2025 also initiating proceedings itI ;oitttrvt'Lrtion to the provisions of Section 151A of the Act and as ir result by norv' mole 'than 600 to 700 petitions have been alreacll' tot pilc:cl up helore this High Court on an issue which otheru'ise s"'ril'ds siiu'rtrcli covered by the judgment of this Court in the case a\' 6itnul; a Ruvindra Redtly ( I supra). What is also sutprisir:g i-s "lre inct that though while allowing the writ petitions in tire crrsi: ctl- Kunakolu Ravindro Reddy (l supra), the Division Berrch rririle rcserving the right of the Revenue, has also protecled I'lri: itrtct'"st ol- th" petitioners
x insofbr a:i th!. librr.t',,.. i.,"lri,.:ir lvas granted io the Revenue lor initiating li'esh pr.oc:ciiing:i sr,.ictly in accordaric,e with the amcncled provisions of the z\ct, as iirlerrried by the Fiqance Act, 2020 and the Finance Act. 20i I. i-,e pretiiibr)er assessee would be entir.led to challenge or mise the other iegal objections if the Revenue initiates fresh proceedings. I.he Department has made no endeavour in availing the saicl ji[_.ert_y thal rvas resen ed lbr ll_re Revenue. On the contrary, the1, fisr," been stiil sticki,g on to ttre stand, whic^ this High Court as u,ell es rnan., other High Courrs already held to be bad II It appears that becausc of the aforesaid liberly that this Fligh Court had granteti permirting the Revenue for initiating lrcsh proceedings as a one_tirre rneasure in a faceless manner. the Income Tax l)epartrricnt wii!,lrs to take advantage of the sarne by protracting thcsc proceedinli ,,,.ltich rvould enable them to rneet the limitation that would othr,r!,, i.rc come in the wa1,. Likeu ise. il- the writ petition is kept pending lor.a considerable long period oltime and finally at a lat.er.stage it'thr-' Ilon,ble Supreme Court conflrms the decision taken bv this l[;gh Court as also by the other l{igh Courts irr rr hici' the S[.I,s are still pendine, the lncorre. -[.ax
a I Department would get the advantage oi the tiberty that is otherwise protected in favour of the Revctli'lc tbr irritizrtion of lresh proceedings lrom the disposal of thcse matters at a much later stage which would be advantageous and benetrcial to the itevenue and would be equally disadvantageous ancl cletrimerrtai so f'ar as interest of the assesses are concerned' As a conscquencc- the Iucome Tax Depaftment gets an extended period cf lirne lbl initiation of fresh proceedings.
The alarming trend of docket expiosion in this Court' despite the clear precedent set in Kunakuh Ruvindrn Reltll'. ( [ strpra)' is a matter of grave concem' 'Ihe lncome Tax Departrnent's persistent initiation of fresh proceedings'' disregarciing tl.re established 'ludiciat pronouncements, has led to an unprecedented surge riq titigation with over 600-700 petitions piling up ott the sarne issue' '[his deliberate approach not only underrri:r,.:s tirc prrinciple of judicial precedent but also strains the juclicial rcsoLri{jcs Irnnecessarily' The Department's strategy of awaiting the Suprcuc Ccurt's dccision on pending SLPs while continuing Lo !nitiatc ticsh proceedings appears to be a calculated move to buy time and cit'cumvent Iimitation periods, rather than adhr-':-ing to tlic cstablished legal
1n position. Such ccndircr rai_rcs serious questions about the administrative el) r ienry and the respect fbr judicial pronouncements. pa,rti cu I ali;, rvhen this Court has already provi ded a balanced approach by pi.eser v ing both the Revenue,s rights and assesses tnterests
Another asltcct r..,t ich needs to be considered is that in fact it should have bee,r r.i:alizcr.i lr-r,,thg {6qomg T.ax Deparlment itselland should have fbuncj out ',,i:r rnedia in ensuring that proceedings under Sections l4g_,\ rrrci ilg should not have been issued in a taceless mannL.r. i,.t l,j-a:i1 iili tlie ,{on,ble Supreme Court decide the twelve hundrc,J ( i200) odcl l,l.ps which it is already seized of or. at Ieast the lncorne .fa.x I)uplrr-intent should have found oul solrc remediar steps t., cils*lc lirilr rvhe.ever the authoritils intend to initiate proccedings uncler Sr:ctions t +S_a and l4g, other than in a laceless rnanne r.. the procecdings should have been det-erred without precipiiari.g iile nr,r.tter. lurther intimating the assessee that they shatl initiate appropri:rrc pruceedings only after the SLp,s are decided b1, tlre l{on,ble Supr.erne Court on the very same issue. This again, thc inr_..me'fari i)rp,ftment, has not been able to give a convincing re pii. cxc-cpr tirr. titc fact tha[ such a decision if at atl
11 n has to be taken, has to be taken lbl tire whole of In<lia' and which otherwise has to be by way of a policy decision arrd that too at the level ol Central Eloard of Direct Taxes' Though the leamed Standing Counsel for the [ncorrs Tar Department contended that the Delhi High Courl dismissed a "vrit petitiorr of sir.r.rilar nature' on theonehandwhentheHighCourtisstr.ugglingtoredttceits pendency,, such notices which are untler challengc in this writ petition are forcing the assessee 1o knock the doors of this Fligh Court resulting in filing of hundreds of ne"v writ petitions rvhich in the long run not only affects the clisposal of the rvrit petitions but also consumes substantial time of the Bench in hearing these matters again and again on daity basis' Admittedly' in spite oi the matter before the Hon'ble Suptetne court having been, takeu on many occasions, the Hon'ble Suprernc Court which is seized of the matter has been reluctant in grantir-rq anv interim protection to the lncome Tax l)epaftment' Yet' til: Iiuthoritics cotrccnred at the State level are not ready to accept the veldict passeci by a rnajority of High Courts of different States orl the same issue: and to make things further worse, the lnconre Tax Departrnent is shou'ing audacity by issuing notices contir.rtrously ttnder Secticins 148-A and ._ t2 t48 through thc jui.isdicri.r,r::r, ;\ssessing Olficer to have becn ouiv in the iiii:eiess tranner. I, l, r^1]:, t. 70. r:^rrrrrrnr r.cor ri Jl I i I t(,mbay )l ' I f 978f I ii i lR .it..r i lttrrrrilr:rr j '';2ol+1 l (r-i li,\r,raiIrcur-l '' iroo:j r,',,,",,,, .1,,'.,;,;.: .'ti:.,THlr' *" (Bombay) .t
In tlrc cirs.-. ot rr,4,\K OF INDIA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, INC(tllE TAXil, on an issue whether it was justifiable on the part ol- lhe [ncorne Tax Department in not following an oxlci.passeri b;r riie adju<iicating authority only on the ground that Lhe irppeals ;rre pending, the Division tsench of the t{igh Court oi- []ornb:r-y l.rcid rr par.agraph No.25 as under, viz., : whereas it ought "
Godavaridevi Saraf,2 as aiso the recent decision of the co- ordinate Bench of this CcrLrr or which o,e or us 1.,,.t,". c _l :il:#:T:iliil1, lill, the Court categoitca;lv cbsei-ved that the Revenue having not "accepted" the 1t:1ig6gnr crf the High Court would not rAean that till treating decisrons beii:g nct acceptable,, was criticized by the Supreme CoL;n ln sucli ceLrision, following are the relevant observations made by th: eirjerqms equrt.
13 o "
Reddy is perhaps irght In saying that the officers were not actuate'j b\i any mala fides in passing the impugned orders They perhaps genuinely felt that the clainr of tile assessee was not tenable and that, if it lvas accepted' the Revenue would suffer. But what Sri P'eddy overlooks is that we are not concerned here with the correctness or otherwise of their conclusicn or of any factual malafides but with the fact thst the officers in reaching in their conclusion, by-passeci two appellate orders in regard to the same issue v'rhich were placed before them. one of the Collector [Apoeals) and the other of the Tribunal. The High Couri has' in our view' rightly criticized this conduct of the Assrstant Collectors ano 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 ernphasized that it is of utmost importance that' in disposing of the quasijudicial issues before them revenue officers are bound by the decisions of the appellate authorities' The order of the Appellte Coilector is binding on tfie' Assistant Collectors working within his jurisdiction and the order of the Tribunal is binding upon the Assistant Collectors and the Appeliate Collectors who function under the lurisdiction of the Trib'unal The principles of judicial discipline require that ihe oiders of the higher appellate authorities should ile foliowed unreservedly by the subordinate authorities The mere fact that the order of the appellate authority is not "acceptable" to the department - in itseif an cb.iectionable phrase - and is the sub.iect matter of an apoeal can furnish no ground for not following it unless its operation has been suspended by a competent court. lt this healthy I
rute js ilct foirru.,s.: ihe result will oniy be undue hai-assina.ii i.r as:.as:ll: and chaos in administration of tax iaws 'i2. We have Ce-nit v,,ttn int: becat,se * has ce;r ,"r;j",::tto1,. T:'":::I Additionai Soiicitor General that the observations made by the Hrgij CoLrrt, have been harsh on the 1I ssesses-public without any benefit ,,^Je wouid like to say that the ia(e these obse,,vations in the abservations of the High Court It is cleai that the observations of the High S'Jelnr.-- j.., ,,enen.-ent, and apparenlly unpalat3ble to ihe Re ,r;ue, are oniy intended to curb a tendency jn reven,o .natters which, if aliowed to become wrdespre'ri c-',r.:ld result in considerable officers Coun. harassme:-it to the :l Io the i-ieyenrte department shoui.j proper soir-it The shouid be kept:n ;::inC n iuture and the utmost regard shouici ttF oard b;v ihr aJludrcating authcrities and the appeilate autircirtici ic the requirements of judiCial discipline and the iieed i...rr Eiving effect lo the orderi of the higher appeliate anihorities which are binding on thent . "
What Bench more is the fact that an endeavour is beiirg rnade w,lrolc heartedly to ensure not to generate further litigation o. ;ss'dcs u,iric. have been laid to rest by a large number oi ttigh { our1_r ell of. wnorl have taken a consistent stand that the acti.r.i . r' ilit: [,c.i*r-- I-rx Department being violative of the tsi l\ (lrrvln,r tlii'l
16 Finance Act,2020 antl Finance Ai;t, 2021' Now' in order to protect the interest of the Revenue as aiso 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 r:y this High Court in the case of Kunkanala Ravindra Reddy (l supra) shall however be subject to the outcome ol the SLPs urhlgh ir'!-re filr-'d by the L-rcome Tax Department and which is pending consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Clourt.
In the given t.acts and circitmstances' this Bench is of the considered opinion that uniess and irntil we do not timely dispose of matters which are squarely covered bv the decision of this Coutt and which stands tbrtified by the decisions of the rLrious other High Courts on the very same issue' the pendency of this High Court would furlher be burdened rviiich otherwise can be decided and disposed of as a covered matter' 17 . So far as the interest of the Retvenue is concemed' we are of the considered opinion that the interest olthe Revenue has already been considered and protected, as has bccn observed in paragraphs
l(; 36,37 and i8 ol'thc oicier which. ibr readrz ;:efbrence, is reproduced hereunder
For ail ihe aici:;s.:raj reasons, the rnipugned notices rssued and th;. prcrceedings drawn by the r-espondent_ Deparl..nei-,t rs ireiiher tenable, nor sustainable. The notices so jssLied and the procedure adopted being per se iliega! deservg:s to be and aj.e accordingly set aside/quasiied As a ccnsequence, all the impugned orders _tetting ctrast,r:c the consequentiai o!-ders passed by the respondent,DeDartntent pursuant to the notices issued Linde. ce^fu '. .i 4 / and .r 4g wcuid also get quasheo and it rs GrJ_-reC accordrngiy. The reason we are quashirrg ihe alrr53qlignlial order rs Lrn the principles that when the ;nitration of the pioceedings itself was proceduraily wrong, ttie subsequent orders also gets nuift freC autornat,caii i
The preliminary .btection raisecj by the petitioner is sustaineci and alt these rvrlt petitions stands allowed on this ver,;;ur-isdicttoiai is;re. Since the impugned notices and crders are getttng quashed on the point of juriscirctrcn vve are r.tot inctined to proceed further and decide the othe:- is.jLles raiseci by the petitioner which stands resei-ved 1c be raised and contended in an a ppro oriate procee.,r i, I g s.
Since lhe i-ii::.Lrre Supreme Courl har!, in the case of Ashish Agaiwal. SUpra, as a one-time measure exercising the pc:,./e.s under Article 142 of the Constitution of l;rdra Berrnitted the Revenue to proceed Urrder tj're Stibsiitute,-1 prcvrsions, and thiS Court aliowing the petiticrts onl; :,. ihe procedural flaw, the right r -
- 1 17 conferred on the Revenue would refilain !'eserved to proceed further if they so want from the stage of the order of the Supreme Court Agarwal, suPra. rn the case of Ashish
We woutd only further like t{} make obsef'''ations that since we are inclined to dispose of thc instant "vrit petition' conscious of thetactthattheearlierorderoithisilighC]ourtinthecaseof Kanakala Ravinclra Redtty (l supla; is sub'jected to challenge before the FIon'blc Supreme Courr- in SL't' Nc''-1574 of 2024' prefer-red by the Income Tax Depalttnellt' ''n'c rnake it' clear that allowing of the instant writ petitiLrn is sub-iect to outconie of the aforesaid SLP pref-ened by the Revenue against the decision of this High Court in the case of Kanakal Ruvintlru llerlr/jr (l supra)' This, in other words, rvouici mea'n that either of the parties' if they so want, may move an apprcpriatc petirion seeking revival of this writ petition in the iight of the riei:isii'n of the ilon'ble Supreme Court in the pending SLP orr the i.'i'r ):allir" issue'
Accordingly, the instant r';ri" ireiition stancis allowed in favour of the assessee so far as li-ic' issue of jurisdiction 1S concemed. As a consequence ' thr impugnei notice under challenge under Sections 148-A anrl i4S statrris set asicie/quashed' ( \ (
7:.. The consequential ,,:,rtir-ri;_ ii ..rir... also stand set asideiqua-shed in similar terms as ilitr,.(: i.,(.rn 1_ I l Kankonala Ravindt.tr Redi... ; I ,'ii by rhis Flign Court in the case of .itilraj. l-herr. shzili be no order as to costs. Consequcr:tl-v. lT; i1g-.i i ;r :ig.l5 i,-,eti iions cend ing. i I any, shall stand closed SD/.T. JAYASREE EPUTY REGISTRAR //II S ION OFFICER
Assessment Unit, lncome Tax. Department, Nationa Assessment Center, New Delhi, Room No . 401 .2nd Floor, E-Ramp, Jawa arlal Nehru Stadium New Delhi - 1 10 003 To, TJ BS 2 The Assistant Commissioner-of lncome Tax, Circle 6(1), Hyderabad, l.T. ^ ]9we_rs 10-2-3, AC Guards. trilasab Tank, Hyderabad _ SOO Oqq, Telanqana 3 The Principal Cornmissioner of lncome Tax-1. t t fowers. iO- Z_S, A C '* - . Guards, Mas-ap -Tank, Hyderabad - 500 004, Telangana
One CC to Sri A. V. A Siva Kartikeya, Advocate tbpucl
One CC to Ms. Bokaro Sapna Reddy (Senior SC lhcometax) [OpUC]
Two CD Copies a a C HIGH COURT DATE D : 1 9106t2CI25 ORDER WP.No.16803 of 2025 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS -4''- ,/,f,o;' ' :=\. ,i..>Iri .. // .) 15 sEP ?0e5 * P471-'i1[0 i ,{ \\ s
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Dwaraka Jewellers, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
