TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 418
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....SINGH AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN For the Petitioner : Dundu Manmohan For the Respondent : Bokaro Sapna Reddy Senior Sc Income Tax COMMON ORDER: Sri Dundu Manmohan, Sri P. Soma Shekar Reddy, Sri A.V. Raghu Ram, Sri P. Soma Shekar Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri P. Srikanth Rao and Sri P. Pavan Kumar Rao, Sri V.V.S. Ankith, learned counsel representing Sri A.V.K.Suryavara Prasad, Sri Gajanand Chakravarthi, learned counsel representing Sri Upadhyay Raghavender, Sri A.V.S. Siva Kartikeya, Sri Karan Talwar, Sri D.V. Pushpa Vardhan, learned counsel representing Sri T. Chaitanya Kumar, Ms. Syeda Sajida Samreen Fathima, learned counsel representing Sri Akshay Mantri, Sri P. Venkata Prasad, learned counsel representing Ms. V. Gayatri Priya, Ms. Pragathi Mandapalle, learned counsel representing Ms. Sneha Asthana, Ms. N. Arthi, Ms. P. Praneetha Sri, learned counsel representing Ms. Sheetal Srikanth, Sri Yash Jain, learned counsel representing Sri M. Pranav, Sri S.P. Chidambaram, learned counsel representing Sri. Naga Deepak, Ms. Hema Jaiswal, Ms. P.K. Kalyani, learned counsel representing Sri Amancharla V Gopala Rao, Ms. Akruti Agarwal, Sri. Kirath Singh, le....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ward 6(1), Hyderabad (W.P.No.21063 of 2025 & batch) and Deloitte Consulting India (P) Ltd., Vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department ((2025) 178 taxmann.com 781 (Telangana)), judgment of Himachal Pradesh High Court in Govind Singh Vs. Income Tax Officer ((2024) 165 taxmann.com 113 (Himachal Pradesh)), judgment of Gujarat High Court in Mansukhbhai Dahyabhai Radadiya Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(3)(5) ((2024) SCC OnLine Guj 4012), judgment of Jharkhand High Court in Shyam Sunder Saw Vs. Union of India and others ((2025) SCC OnLine Jhar 287), judgment of Calcutta High Court in Giridhar Gopal Dalmia Vs. Union of India and others (MAT No.1690 of 2023 (DB)), judgments of Madras High Court in TVS Credit Services Ltd., Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax ((2025) 174 taxmann.com 1078 (Mad) (SB)) and Mark Studio India Pvt., Ltd., Vs. Income Tax Officer and another (W.A.No.781 of 2021 (DB)), judgments of Rajasthan High Court in Sharda Devi Chhajer Vs. Income Tax Officer and another ((2025) 477 ITR 228 (Raj)) and Shree Cement Ltd., Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax ((2025) 177 taxmann.com 538 (Rajasthan)), and judgment of Karnataka High Court ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in T.K.S. Builders (P) Ltd., Vs. Income Tax Officer ((2024) 167 taxmann.com 759 (Delhi)). 10. Learned counsel for the respondents submit that SLP(C).No.027736 of 2023 and batch challenging the orders passed by this Court and other jurisdictional High Courts are pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, but no stay of the impugned judgments has been granted in favour of the revenue. 11. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and also the relevant factual assertion made by the petitioners that the impugned proceedings have been initiated by the JAO after coming into force of the Faceless Scheme with effect from 29.03.2022. The relevant details concerning individual petitioners are appended to this order and shall be treated as part of the order. They indicate the relevant assessment year, the date of notice issued under Section 148A of the Act, the date of the order under Section 148 of the Act, the date of sanction under Section 151 of the Act, intimation to proceed with assessment under Section 144B of the Act in some cases, the date of assessment order in some of the cases as against the individual writ petitions referred to in Column No.1.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cordingly set aside/quashed. As a consequence, all the impugned orders getting quashed, the consequential orders passed by the respondent-Department pursuant to the notices issued under Sections 147 and 148 would also get quashed and it is ordered accordingly. The reason we are quashing the consequential order is on the principles that when the initiation of the proceedings itself was procedurally wrong, the subsequent orders also gets nullified automatically. 37. 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 getting quashed on the point of jurisdiction, we are not inclined to proceed further and decide the other issues raised by the petitioner which stands reserved to be raised and contended in an appropriate proceedings. 38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the case of Ashish Agarwal, supra, [Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal [2022] 444 ITR 1 (SC)], as a one-time measure exercising the powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, permitted the Revenue to proceed under the substituted provisions, and this Cour....