Mr. Vangur Dilip Kumar Reddy, vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 8(1),

This is a writ petition where the proceedings are either challenged to the notices which were issued under Section 148A and t48 of the Income Tax Act' 1961 (for short'the Act') or the assessmentordersthosehavebeenpassedunderSectionl4Tof the Act which have been assailed'

This writ petition is being taken up today only on one of the grounds, that the notices issued under Section 148,{ of the Act and the subsequent initiation of proceedings under Section 148 of the Act by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer' whereas in terms of the amendment that was brought to the Income 3:O"'by way of Finance Act, 2O2l w'e'f', 0L'04'202[ onwards' proceedings

Down the line, we find that the same issue has also been decidedagainsttheRevenuebyvariousHighCourtsi.e.. by the Bombay High Court in the case of HEXAWARE TECHNOLOGIES LTD'' vs' ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & OTIIERS2' Gauhati High Court in the case of RAM NARAYAN SAH vs' UNION OF INDIA3' Punjab and [-laryana High Court in the case of JATINDER SINGH BANGU ABHIN ANILKUMAR STIAH VS. INCOME TAX OFFTCER' INTERNATIONAL TAXATION6 which is again on intemational taxation and central circle, High Court of Himachal Pradesh in the case of GOVIND SINGH vs' INCOME TAX OFFICER?' Gujarat High Court in the case of MANSUKHBHAI 'lzoz+1464 ITR 430 (Bom) ' itzozil 156 taxmann.com 478 (Gauhati)l ^'tQO24) 165 taxmann.com 115 (Punjab & Haryana)l ' 12024) 167 taxmann.com 4l 1 (Telangana)l " l2)24l 166taxmann.com 679 (Bombay'11 ^ r,-r, 'lZuZar tOS taxmann.com lll (llimachal Pradcsh)l \ -*

To a query being put to the learned counsel for the Revenue' they have categorically accepted the fact that there is no interim order granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Courl in any of these matters pending before it' - Meanwhile' fresh writ petitions of identicat nature are being piled up before this Bench on daily basis and the pendency is getting increased on matter which otherwise has already been dealt and decided by this very High Court itself'

On the one hand, even though the order of this Court that was passed as early as on 14'09'2023 and more 16 tnonths have lapsed, till date, we do not find any remedial steps having been taken by the Income Tax Department to take appropriate steps to either hold back issuance of notice under Section 148,{ and under Section 148 of the Act by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer' rathcr the authorities concemed in the teeth of series of decisions

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 the case of Ktnakala Ravindra Retltly (l supra), Ieamed Standing counsel for the Income Tax Department contends that those would unnecessarily burden the Income Tax Department where they would be required to file equal number of SLps before the Hon'ble Supreme Couft and it would be fuither 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 Hon,ble Supreme Court and the fact that the petitioner is already enjoying the benefit of interirn protection. Nonetheless, on the earlier query of this Court as to why the Income Tax Department have not come out with a mechanism to issue appropriate instn:ctions or to take i

As a result of which, what we are facing is steep increase of titigation day in and day out even though various orders have been passed by this High Court allowing writ petitions on the very same issue. The [ncome Iax authorities concerned are still even now in 2025 also initiating proceedings in contravention to the provisions of Seotion l51A of the Act and as a resuit by now' more than 600 to 700 petitions have been already got piled up before this High court on an issue which otherwise stands squarely covered by the judgrnent of this Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Retldy (1 supra). What is also surprising is the fact that though while allowing the writ petitions in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Retlrty (l supra), the Division Bench while reseruing the right of the Revenue, has also protected the interest of the petitioners

The alarming trend of docket explosion in this Courl' despite the clear precedent set in Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra)' is a matter of grave concern' The Income Tax Deparlment's persistent initiation of fresh proceedings' disregarding the established judicial pronouncements, has led to an unprecedented surge in litigation with over 600-700 petitions piling up on the same issue' This deliberate approach not only undermines the principle of judicial precedent but also strains the judicial resources unnecessarily' The Department's strategy of awaiting the Supreme Coutt's decision on pending SLPs while continuing to initiate fresh proceedings appears to be a calculated move to buy time and circumvent timitation periods, rather than adhering to the established iegal

Another aspect which needs to be considered is that in fact it should have been realized by the Income Tax Department itself and should have found out via media in ensuring that proceedings under Sections 148-4 and l4g should not have been issued in a faceless manner, at least tilt the Hon,ble Supreme Court decide the twelve hundred (1200) odd SLps which it is already seized ofor, ar least the Income Tax Deparlment should havc found out some remedial steps to ensure that wherever the authorities intend to initiate proceedings under Sections t48-A and t4g, other rhan 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 lact that such a decision il at all 1L has to be taken, has to be taken for the whole of India' and which otherwise has to be by way of a policy decision and that too at the level of Central Board of Direct Taxes' Though the leamed Standing Counsel for the [ncome Tax Department contended that the Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition of similar nature' on the one hand when the High Court is struggling to reduce its pendency, such notices which are under challenge in this writ petition are forcing the assessee to knock the doors of this High Court resulting in filing of hundreds ol new writ petitions which in the long run not only affects the disposal of the writ petitions but also consumes substantial time of the Bench in hearing these matters again and again on daily basis' Admittedly' in spite of the matter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court having been taken on many occasions' the Hon'ble Supreme Court which is seized of the matter has been reluctant in granting any interim protection to the Income Tax Department' Yet' the authorities concemed at the State level are not ready to accept the verdict passed by a majority of High Courts of different States on the same issue; and to make things further worse, the Income Tax Deparlment is showing audacity by issuing notices continuously under Sections 148-A and \

Mr. paridwalla has righfly drawn out attention to the "accepted" the judgment of the High Court would not mean that ti treating decisions being,,not acceptable', was criticized by the Supreme Court. ln such decision, following are the relevant observations made by the Supreme Court. ' ' 1tZ02S I I 70 laxmann.com 422 (Bombay)l 'lt978l I l3 ITR 589 (Bombay) '3 lzoz+1165 taxmann.com 581/300 Taxman 452 (Bornbay) 'o ltggzl taxmann.com 16i55 ELT 433 (SC) . a \\

Sri Reddy is perhaps right in saying that the *,""r" *"," not actuated by any mala fides in passing the impugned orders They perhaps genuinely felt that the claim of the assessee was not tenable and that, if it was accepted' the Revenue would suffer. But what Sri Reddy overlooks is that we are not concerned here with the correctness or otheMise of their conclusion or of any factual malafides but with the fact that the officers' in reaching in their conclusion, by-passed two appellate orders in regard to the same issue which were placed before tnem, one of the Collector (Appeals) and the other of the Tribunal The High Court has' in our view' rightly criticized this conduct of the Assistant Collectors and the harassment to the assessee caused by the failure of these officers to give effect to the orders of authorities higher to them in the appellate hierarchy lt cannot be too vehemently emphasized that it is of utmost importance that' in disposing of the quasuudicial issues before them' revenue officers are bound by the decisions of the appellate authorities' The order of the Appellte Collector is binding on the Assistant Collectors working within his jurisdiction and the order of the Tribunal is binding upon the Assistant Collectors and the Appellate Collectors who function under the jurisdiction of the Tribunal The principles of judicial discipline require that the orders of the higher appellate authorities should be followed unreservedly by the subordinate authorities The mere fact that the order of the appellate authority is not "acceptable" to the department - in itself an ob.iectionable phrase - and is the subject matter of an appeal can furnish no ground for not following it unless its operation has been suspended by a competent court lf this healthy I

We have dealt with this aspect at some length, because it has been suggested by the learned Additional Solicitor General that the observations made by the High Court, have been harsh on the officers. lt is clear that the observations of the High Court, seemingly vehement, and apparently unpalatable to the Revenue, are only intended to curb a tendency in revenue matters which, if allowed to become widespread, could result in considerable harassment to the assesses-public without any benefrt to the Revenue. We would like to say that the department should take these observations in the proper spirit. The observations of the High Court should be kept in mind in future and the utmost regard should be paid by the adjudicating authorities and the appellate authorities to the requirements of judicial discipline and the need for giving effect to the orders of the higher appellate authorities which are binding on them." I 5. What is worrying this Bench more is the lact that an endeavour is being made whole heartedly to ensure not to generate fu rther litigation on issues which have been laid to rest by a lalge number of High Courts all of whom have taken a consistent stand that the action of the lncome Tax Department being violative of the 15 Finance Act,2020and Finance Lct' 2021 ' 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 disposar of the instant writ petition in terms of the judgment rendered by this High Court in the case of KankanalaRavindraRefuly(lsupra)shallhoweverbesubjectto the outcome of the SLPS which were filed by the Income Tax Department and which is pending consideration before the Hon'ble SuPreme Court'

In the given facts and circumstances' this Bench is of the considered opinion that unless and until we do not timely dispose of matters which are squarely covered by the decision of this Coutl 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 fuilher be burdened which otherwise can be decided and disposed of as a covered matter' l7 . So far as the interest of the Revenue is concemed' we are of the considered opinion that the interest of the Revenue has already been considered and protected, as has been observed in paragraphs

For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned notices issued and the proceedings drawn by the respondent_ Department is neither tenable, nor sustainable. The notices so issued and the procedure adopted being per se illegal, deserves to be and are accordingly set aside/quashed. As a consequence, all the impugned orders getting quashed, the consequential orders passed by the respondenlDepartment pursuant to the notices issued under Section 147 and 14g would also get quashed and it is ordered accordingly. The reason we are quashing the consequential order is on the princrples that when the initiation of the proceedings itself was procedurally wrong, the subsequent orders also gets nullified automatically.

The preliminary objection raised by the petitioner is sustained and all these writ petitions stands allowed on this very jurisdictional issue. Since the impugned notices and orders are gefting quashed on the point of jurisdiction, we are not inclined to proceed further and decide the other issues raised by the petitioner which slands reserved to be raised and contended in an appropriate proceedings.

Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the case of Ashish Agarwal, supra, as a one{ime measure exercising the powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of lndia, permitted the Revenue to proceed under the substituted provisions, and this Court allowing the petitions only on the procedural flaw, the right I

We would only further like to make observations that since we are inclined to dispose of the instant writ petition, conscious of thefactthattheearlierorderofthisHighCourtinthecaseof Knnakula Ruvindra Recldy (l supra) is subjected to challenge befbre the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No'3574 of 2024' preferred by the Income Tax Department' we make it clear that allorving of the instant writ petition is subject to outcome of the afbresaid SLP preferred by the Revenue against the decision of this HighCourtinthecaseofKanakalaRavindraReddy(lsupra). 'fhis, in other words' would mean that either of the parties' if they so want, may move an appropriate petition seeking revival of this wqit petition in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Coult in the pending SLP on the very same lssue

Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands allowed t tn f'avour of the assessee so far as the issue of jurisdiction IS concemed. As a consequence, the impugned notice under challenge under Sections 148-4 and 148 stands set aside/quashed. I

The Principal C Assistant C hief C ommission ommissioner of lnco er of lncom 004, Hyderabad e Tax, H me Tax yderabad LT. Towers AC , Andhra p Guards Masab Tank, - s00

The Telang s, Hyderabad ana Hyderabad Room No. 922 9th Floor B Block LT Towers 10 23AC Guard radesh and 4. The A Delhi ssessmen m No. 401 2nd t Unit lncome Tax De Floor E Ramp J Partment awaharlal Neh , National e As ru Stadium, N sessment Center ew New Delhi Roo

The Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax,'Circle e( 1), Hyderabad, t.T t) Towers, AC Guards. Masab Tank - 500 004 Hyde rabad Th Chief Commissioneroflncome Tax Te 1 The IncomeTaxOfficer, Ward g '1), Hyderabad Signature Towers Opposite 3, AC Gua TAX) Advocate 10.Two CD Copies yderabad Room No..922 , gth Fioor rds, Hydera bad - 500 004, Telangana 4ldhra P ,'B'Btock, Ladesh and l.T.To wers, I 0_2_

The Assei sment Unil ncome Tax Department , National e-Assessment Center, New Dethi Room No.40.l , 2nd Floor, E-Ramp, Jawa harlal Nehru Stadium New Del 0 003 hi -.1 1

One CC to SRI A.V.A.St VA KARTI KEYA, Ad vocate IoPUC

One CC to Ms B loPUc OKAR O SAPNA REDDY (Jr SCFOR INCOTME l SA G P o I \