TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 1963
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Kumar, Sri. A V A Siva Kartikeya, Sri. M Naga Deepak, Ms. K Prabhati For the Respondent : Sri K Sudhakar Reddy (Sr Sc For Income Tax), Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar Deputy Solicitor General of India, Sri Sudhakar Reddy Sr. Sc For Itd, Ms. Bokaro Sapna Reddy Sr. Sc For Itd, Ms. J Sunitha (Sr Sc For Income Tax), Sri P Shashi Kiran COMMON ORDER: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Sri Aparesh Kumar Singh) Mr. Prudhviraj Mattapally learned counsel representing Mr. Dundu Manmohan, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 20979, 20998, 21053, 21084, 21099 and 21105 of 2025. Mr. Siripuram Keshava, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No. 20982 of 2025. Mr. Thanneru Chaitanya Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.20983, 21046, 21064, 21070, 21076, 21078, 21127 and 21208 of 2025. Mr. A.V.A. Siva Kartikeya, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.21063 and 21095 of 2025. Mr. M. Naga Deepak, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.21066 of 2025. Ms. K. Prabhabati, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.21185 of 2025. Ms. Bokaro Sapna Reddy, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department for the respondent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s other High Courts on the very same issue, the pendency of this High Court would further be burdened which otherwise can be decided and disposed of as a covered matter. 17. So far as the interest of the Revenue is concerned, we are of the considered opinion that the interest of the Revenue has already been considered and protected, as has been observed in paragraphs 36, 37 and 38 of the order which, for ready reference, is reproduced hereunder: 36. 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 respondent-Department pursuant to the notices issued under Section 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 p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e order dated 28.04.2025 passed in W.P.No. 26304 of 2024. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ORDER (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Narsing Rao Nandikonda) Heard Mr. Thanneru Chaitanya Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. B. Sapna Reddy, learned Junior Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department for the respondents. Perused the record. 2. 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 'the Act') or the assessment orders those have been passed under Section 147 of the Act which have been assailed. 3. This writ petition is being taken up today only on one of the grounds, that the notices issued under Section 148A 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 Tax Act by way of Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f., 01.04.2021 onwards, proceedings under Section 148A of the Act as also under Section 148 of the Act ought to have als....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o been taken . by the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in the case of GIRDHAR GOPAL DALMIA vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS (M.A.T 1690 of 2023), decided on 25.09.2024. 6. Even though the same issue having been decided by a large number of High Courts, we are still confronted with large filing of identical matters on daily basis ranging between 5 to 10 writ petitions. That upon the instructions being sought from the Department, they have been taking a solitary ground that the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd., (supra) as also the one which has been decided by this Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (supra) has been subjected to challenge in a Special Leave Petition i.e., SLP No.3574 of 2024 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court is seized of the matter. In addition, there are about 1200 SLPs also filed arising out of the same issue being decided by various High Courts. 7. 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 Court in any of these matters pending before it. Meanwhile,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....High Courts. 10. As a result of which, what we are facing is steep increase of litigation 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 Income Tax authorities concerned are still even now in 2025 also initiating proceedings in contravention to the provisions of Section 151A of the Act and as a result 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 judgment of this Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (supra). What is also surprising is the fact that though while allowing the writ petitions in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (supra), the Division Bench while reserving the right of the Revenue, has also protected the interest of the petitioners insofar as the liberty which was granted to the Revenue for initiating fresh proceedings strictly in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act, as amended by the Finance Act, 2020 and the Finance Act, 2021. The petitioner assessee would be entitled to challenge or raise the other legal objections if the Revenue initiates fresh proce....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... rights and assesses interests. 13. 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-A and 148 should not have been issued in a faceless manner, at least till the Hon'ble Supreme Court decide the twelve hundred (1200) odd SLPs which it is already seized of or, at least the Income Tax Department should have found out some remedial steps to ensure that wherever the authorities intend to initiate proceedings under Sections 148-A and 148, other than 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 fact that such a decision if at all 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. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bserved that the approach of the officials of Revenue of treating decisions being "not acceptable" was criticized by the Supreme Court. In such decision, following are the relevant observations made by the Supreme Court. "6. Sri Reddy is perhaps right in saying that the officers were 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 otherwise 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 them, 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. It cannot be too vehemently emphasized that it is of utmost importance that, in disposing ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... we dispose of the writ petition with an observation/direction that the disposal of the instant writ petition in terms of the judgment rendered by this High Court in the case of Kankanala Ravindra Reddy (supra) shall however be subject to the outcome of the SLPs which were filed by the Income Tax Department and which is pending consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 16. 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 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 be burdened which otherwise can be decided and disposed of as a covered matter. 17. So far as the interest of the Revenue is concerned, we are of the considered opinion that the interest of the Revenue has already been considered and protected, as has been observed in paragraphs 36, 37 and 38 of the order which, for ready reference, is reproduced hereunder: 36. For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned notices issued and the proceedings drawn by the res....