ANJALI PAREDDY V. Office Of The Income Tax Officer Ward 15(1)

WP/9297/2024

AI Insights

The case involves multiple writ petitions filed against the orders passed by the Income Tax Department under the faceless assessment scheme. The petitions challenged the validity of the reassessment notices and subsequent orders for various assessment years, arguing that they were arbitrary, illegal, and violated principles of natural justice and constitutional rights. The court's decision was based on the procedural flaws in the issuance of these notices, which did not comply with the amended provisions under the Finance Act, 2021. The court referenced a previous judgment (W.P.No-25903 of 2022) that had addressed similar issues, leading to the quashing of the notices and orders in that case.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 767533 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 15-04-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: W.P.No-25903 of 2022
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961, Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: J V PRASAD; MUKHERJEE; SUNDARI PISUPATI
• Assessee Lawyers: THANNERU KUMAR
• Keywords: Faceless assessment; Income tax assessment; Natural Justice; Reassessment Process; Writ of Mandamus
• Section: 147; 148; 144; 151; 265; 226

Judgement Text

"[ 34031 rN rt{E H'GH couTfsf#il:ABlbrE oF.TELANGANA (SPeciai briginal Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF APRIL \"'imo iiousAND AND TWENTY FouR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL THE HoNouRABLE sRl .,L\".' N'TUKARAMJI 9442 9477 wRlTPETITION NOs: 9297 9349 9377 9422 9513&9516 0F 2021 W.P.No .9297 OF 2024 AND 1 2 3 4. Between: QHfrrfiF#ithi'fl\"#]l$3t*.3#tffr?i]#itrrfl ,sxti'\"t 2015-'16 \"'PETlrloNER Offrce Of The Income Tax Officer Ward 15(1)' Hyderabad/' Telangana State' Il:.:\"t:?:t+.\"\"i:?'-:i3s::r.::'r3J,l\"trmerax'reransanaandAP' rhecentrarQseqd.orD.,::ll\",Il.a[ff l\"'ffil\"lirv\"lT\"33#[fl ]aTtrffiill of Revenue, Ministry ot rtn New Delhi - 110 0o1 ' Tax Department' New The Natbnal Faceless Assessment Center' lncome Delhi. 5 rtre Union .J^rdjl: Iffi*\"iffJt#.,g\"8, ffiiffin -t?,3toP*'*n' Department of Revenue' ' lm.:,t::f,l \"fl*.,::1t'\"3i1?J\" lh'ls*r;l?:'Jr:'$:1\"#'il3 #B : Telangana' \"'RESP.NDENT' Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith' the High :\"t]Ll:l^:: pleased to issue an appropriate writ' order or direction more particularly one tn the nature of writ of Mandamus, decraring the order passed by the rncome Tax Authorities (Nationar Faceress E-Assessment centre compreted the assessment urs 147 r/w Section 1444 0t the rncome Tax Act, 'rg61 vide DrN and Notice No. dated 24ro1r2024 rrao,AST'./St147t2023-24t1060056756(1) for the assessment year 2015- l6determining the totar income of Rs. 54,16,g00 /- as arbitrary, iregar, bad in raw' without jurisdiction, void-ab-initio, viorative of the principres of naturar justice apart from being violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(9) and 265 of the Constitution of lndia and Sec. 14gA of the lncome Tax Act, 1961, ancl consequenfly set aside the same. Counsel Gor the petitioner : SRt THANNERU CHAITANYA KUMAR counsel for Respondents t{o.1&2 : SRr J.v.pRASAD (sc FoR rNcoME TAx) Counsel for Respondents No.3to5 : SRI MUKHERJEE, rep., SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUUAN, DY.SOL.GEN W.P.No .9349 0F 2024 Between: AND lyp;ffy^JI,ffi $i{Jl;:i{,ffi ffi ffi &,#n,r*c'ni,#{ft1?,{# '1. Office of The lncome Tax Officer Ward 11(1), Hyderabad. Telangana State. 'ilF\"i\".flHli1!*?lJ,T3.iti}:::il:gr?#,f lls5:g:?i?t.,He: 'li*\":H{g,i\"f ,ffi :*,rfl lg:s\"Tsifi\"\"Jl:i,H,x:3j;[[3:iff fl.1H\":\" 4. ThenNational Faceless Assessment Center, lncome Tax Department, New u#;\"'JlJl,i:lt:1*:8:fi i#:?$:Is\"*g:,ft y*,\",[lf; ,g?fi a3,:*, ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENTS petition under Articre 226 0f the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewittr, the High Cou( may be ion more ParticularlY one tn pbased to issue an appropriate writ' order or direct ftre nature of Writ of Mandamus' declaring the order passed by the lncome Tax Authorities 3d (National Facebss E-Assessrent Centre compbted the assessment UtS 147rlw Section 144-8 of the lncorne Tax Act dated of order 23- O32O24,D| NE ITBA/AS t' *\" o' IZO12S-}4 t 1 ffj32307 51 (1 ) for the assessment year zl9g-2idetermining tne totaf income of Rs' 3803680 ! as arbitrary' illegal' bad in law, without iurisdiction' -O-\"b-tnttto' violative of the principles of natural iustice apart from being violative of Articles 14' 19(1Xg) and 265 of the Constitution of lndia and Sec' 148A of the lncome Tax Act' 1961 ' and consequently set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI THANNERU CHAITANYA KUMAR Counsel for Respondens No'lto4: SRI J'V'PRASAD (SC FOR INCOME TAX) counser for Respondents No'5 ' 3t1Ex5l'*FliiEL'iiftirro*, DY'SoL'GEN w.P. 770F2021 No.93 ffi*t**t't's',[f.:i:i^AP\"Trli?[1i'lJi3'-'i3ro\"\"'*\"''HNo8-123' ...PETITIONER AND +hfiiliffifl ffi :,[Ti;];Iil3lfl 3\"3I'?'',i'#g-3'\"i5lT'';uru:i iltsfl1prr\"J-Ti'j,?:If i:f\"tl:L'i,Til.'*:u.t3.333']''10thFtoor',c- a#rw-#*i-*l*m*t*i*.i*mffi 'u\"'*i%E?'rrE: ...RESPONDENTS 1. 2 3 Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in tnt \"mOa'it filed therewith' the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus' declaring the Assessment Order dl 18tO3l2O24 passed by the 3rdrespondtnt 'O 147 r'ws 14411448 of the lncome-tax Act for A.y. 2016-17 vide DtN N ;,X\";i*;ffi :{:\"::i;;i\"::,11!'o:'*'n'4(1)c.nsequen, vide DrN No.rrBA/AST/s 3t1os1to3o4s(r, .oo_,of,tlr,rrn vide DrN No. respondenr) instead or F'148 1/2o22-;';';;;;iotice u/s 148 dt'3uo3t2o23 section 149of rheAct, as r o ra'o ,.utponounf, ;;:ot\" issued bv ttre JAo(lst Act and contrary to tr.,u p.i.odl illesal' and \"\";;;;;t;t\"::::#\":ff:;:lJ tciples of Natural Justice. IA NO 10F 2024 Counsel for the Respondents: W.P.No.94220F2o24 Between: AND sRr vtJHAy K puNNA (sENtoR sc FOR ITD) ...PEflTIONER petition under Secl the affidavit riteo in suppolon 151 cPc praying that i ro sray a, rurther proceert of the petition, ;\";;;;';il\"ff'J:ffi;,\"1:\"; l1l,uo o, tr,. s,a,.sponJH'JJTHtT;;;\"'.\"nt order dt. 1 8.o3 2024 A.y.2016_17 vide DtN No. trBA/Asr/s ,lorror*ni,.r:Jil:jffe{ax Act for Counsel for the petitioner: SRI DUNDU MANIIOHAN iifr*;;fu i;iffi ff ],-,:i..T,fl??*,#;#fifl.s1tffi: by its Gurram thulapur Vilt AABAPg762E 1 Pil,h\"3:.,Ij;\"n*:\"Jil[ commissioner or rncome rax, circre 1, Ir..#:?:#,H:L:ff Ef:[::[,3: JHn:,-,1i:..#,; *\" na a nd A p, The -National Faeeless Assessment Center, Income Tax Department, New ili:.ffi:TL',%%1.g,.e,,e#,,I?,0&1,[:r5:?,l\",By,tschairman, Jifi \"Y3l,%:,1,T3',fu :,'F,..,iffii1r3#A:,i,.**,o,Government,Deparrment 2 3 4 5 ..RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fibd therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, ordet or direc{ion more particularly one h the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the order passed by the 3rd (National Faceless E-Assessment centre) completed tte assessrnent UIS 147 read with section 1448 of the lncome-tax Act Date of 1OlO2t2O24, DIN lrBA/AST/s/14712o23-24t1060760899(1) for the Assessment year 2019-2o determining the total incorne of Rs. 28,50,061/- as arbitrary, illegal, bad in law, without jurisdiction, void-ab-initio, violative of the principtes of natural justice apart from being violative of Articles 1a, 19(1Xg) and 265 of the constitution of lndia and Sec. 14BA of the lncome Tax Act, i961, and consequenfly set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI THANNERU CHAITANYA KUMAR co u n se r ro r the Res ponde n ts No. I to3, ?S SJI\"?ifl *\"J?::AII,, W.P.No.9442 OF 2024 Between: Primary Agriculture co-operative society Limited Beiianki, Rep. By lts secretarv the 9qqet_y, lvLaqchala Srinivas, S/o.Manchdta Shankarai'ah, aqed'ab6ut 56 vears. iVO. fl.No.1-1 A9iiq1k1---tfllagg, lgar-Qovr Jr Coflage - Bejja-nki, Karimnag'ar 505528, I elangana, lndia PAN. AABAPT.{4gJ Assessmeni year.I01g_2O ...PETITIONER Office of The Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax, Circle l,Karimnagar,Telangana State. The Principa.l_Clrief Commissioner Of lncome Tax, Telangana and A.p, Hyderabad, lT Tovvers, AC Guards, Masab Tank, The National Faceless Assessrnent Center, lncome Tai Department, New Delhi The Central Board Of Direct Taxes, Departnrentof Revenue. Ministrv of Finance, Govemment of lndia, Secretaiiat Buildings, New Dblhi The Union Of -lqdia, Represented By lts Secretary To Ttre Government, Department of Revenu6, Ministry of Finanoe, Nerir Delhi AND 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Arricre 226 of the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstan@s stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropr:iate writ, order or directbn more particurarry one in ttre nature of w.it of Mandamus decraring the order passed by the 3rd (Nationar Faceless E-Assessment cenrre) compreted the assessment U/S 147 read with section 1448 of the lncome_tax Act Date of 27_02_2024, DIN lrBtuAST/s/14712023-2411061603630(1) for the Assessment year 2019_20 determining the totar income of Rs. 45,93,66g/- as arbitrary, iflegar, bad in raw, without jurisdiction, void-ab-initio, viorative of the principres of naturar justice apart from being viorative of Articres 14, 19(1xg) and 265 of the constitution of rndia and Sec. 1484 of the lncome Tax Act, 1961, and consequen.y set aside the same. Counsel for the petitioner : SRt THANNERU CHAITANYA KUMAR counsel for the Respondents No.1to3 : sRr suNDARl R prsupATl, (Sr SC for lncome Tax Deptt Counsel for Respondents No.4&5 : SRI MUKHERJEE, rep., SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DY.SOL.GEN W.P.No.9477 OF 2024 Between: Primary Asriculture Co-Ooerative^Sog1ety .Limited,, Bejialf i, Rep.. By its Secretary the societv, Manchara srinivas, slo.MiiiorrJrJ'SiinGraran, aged about 56 years, R/O. H.No..t_1 Bejjanki _ virrase,',N6iico;'Jr'b\"It';-# E\"ljrnii, R;#i;;\" ,\"-, ...PETITIONER AND 1 2 Office of The Assistant Commissioner of lncome, Tax Circle 1, Karimnagar, Telangana State, The Principal Chief Commis_sioner of lncome Tax, telangana and A.p. Hyderabad, tT Towers. nc cuirus,-rvr;;rb\"irrK^iiG;ii;': sii6 d,8' Telangana. The .National Faceless Assessment Center, lncome Tax Department; New The Central Board of Drect Taxes, Represented by its Chairman, Deoartment fr t*B:lly:,,,Y6T'JryorFinance,tb'6in,ii,ni6ir'ili\",'sJJ;;il;i\"Ib\"; tiiffi i: The Union of lndia. Renresented_ by its Secretary to the Government, Department of Revenue, lriinistry or rini\"J., ri.i, b\"irii _ 1 1 0 001. 3 4 q ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Articb 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in tfie circumstances stated in the affrdavit firecr therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direc{ion more particurarry one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, dectaring the order passed by the 3rd (Nationar Faceless E-Assessment centre) compreted the assessment U/s 147 read with section 1448 of the lncome-tax Ac{ Date of order 27-02-2024, DrN lrBA/AST/s/14712023-2411061604965(1) for the Assessment year 2018-19 determining the totar income of Rs. 39,39,116/- as arbitrary, iilegar, bad in raw, without jurisdiction, void-ab-initio, violative of the principles of natural justice apart from being violative of Articles 1a, 19(ixg) and 26s of the constitution of lndia and sec. 1484 of the rncome Tax Act, 1961, and consequenfly set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI THANNERU CHAITANYA KUMAR Counsel for ffre Respondents No.lto3: SRI SUNDARI R plSUpATl (Sr SC for lncome Tax Dept) counser ror Respondents No'4ES ' tfilEifiFfliifiliirro*, Dy.soL.cEN W.P.No.9513 oF 2021 Between: sri Praveen Kumar Pabbathi, _s_/o. Late sri Radhakrishna Murthy, aged about 47 years,_occupation- Business, 19-1-123, sastry noia, r.rew paroniiri]ktrrffi;'- 50711s. ...PETITIONER AND 1 . Assessment .u-t,i!, . Nationar Faceress Assessnrent centre, rncome Tax uepartment. Ministry..of F]nqnce, Room No. 401 , 2N Floor, E_Ramp, Jawahadal Nehru Stidium, Delhi - i tO oog. '-- 2. The lncome Tax Officer, Ward - 1, 6-.12_3g, Ganesh Temple Main Road, Kothagudem - S07i01. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to pass an order or direction, especiafly one in the nature of wRrr oF MANDAMUS holding that the order passed by 1st Respondent u/s. 147 r.w.s 1448 of the Act, dt.11.03-2024 with DIN No-rrBtuAST/sn4zno23- 241'1ffi24o5o63(1) for the Ay.2016-17, as arbitrary, ifiegar, bad in raw, void ab initio, apart from being violative of provisions of section 14gA and section 149 of the Act and also contrary to the circurar issued by CBDT and provisions of section 1514 of the Act. and consequenfly set aside the order passed by 1st Respondent uls. 147 r.w.s 1448 of the Act, dt.1 1.03.2024 with DrN.No-rrBNAsrrst147t2o23- 2411062405063(1) for the Ay.2016-17 and a[ consequentiar proceedings pursuant thereto. lA NO: 1 OF 2o2 4 Fetition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the-affidavit fired in suppo(,of the petition, iniHigt court may be preased to stay all further proceedings, including any recovery, f,ursuant to the order passed by the lst Respondent u/s- 142 r.w.s 144'^ of tne hct, dt.1}to3tzo24 witn otr,r ruo- ITBA/ASTiS/1 47 t2o23-24t 1062838Z 13{1) for the Ay.rO1 5_1 6. Counsel for the Fetitioner : SRt A.V.RAGHU RAM Counsel for the Respondents: SRI J.V.PRASAD (SC FOR INCOME TAX) W.P.No.9516 oF 2024 Between: N-V.Charitable Trust. Ren _bv Narayana Murthy yeleti, Aged about 70 vears. S/o. shashigiri Rao, occ. ' rristee, ' oiiiabl?r,biil\"l,rri,ii\"\" HffiJ,\" ,eZs;,h#,, Hyderabad - 500016. ...PETITIONER AND 1 2 3 The lncome TaxOfficer Ward6(1), Hyderabad, l.T. Towers, AC Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad-500004.' \" The Princjpal Commissibner , Of. lncome- _T-ax- 1 , 10th Floor, C_Block, l.T. Towers, 10-2-3, A.C. Guards, HyAeraOio_Sobtiba.' -' National Faceless Assessment Centre-, Delhi, The Assessment Unit,. Income Tax Department, National facetesJ isseC.rn.ni bEntr., Delhi, Ministrv of 5,J,f, fi:,of.T. No 40 r, zno iroor,' E:n,;p;' j;;i;;tii;ii,,;\"biilid: ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Articb 226 of tte constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the ffidavit fired therewith, the High court may be p{eased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularry one in the nature of Writ of MaMamus, declaring the Assessment Order dt. 26.02.2o24passed by the 3rd responden t uls 142 r.w.s14411448 of the lncome{ax Act for A-Y. 2o19-2o vide DrN No. rrBA/AST/s r147r2023-24t1061s15577(1),which is passed as a consequence of the order passed u/s 14gA(d) dt.1g.03.2023 vide DIN No. lrBA/AST/F/148N2o22-23t10509431s4(1) and the notice u/s 148 dt.27.03.20223 vide DrN No.rrBtuAST/Sr14B 1rzo22-23l10s1355641(1), issued by the JAo(Ist respondent) instead of FAo(3rd respondent), that too contrary to provisions of section 14g of the Act, as void, irbgar, and contrary to the provisions of lncome-tax Act and contrary to the principles of Natural Justice. lA NO: 1 oF 2024 Petition under Section 1s1 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High cou,. may be preased to stay all further proceedings pursuant to the Assessment order dt. 26.o2 2024 passed by the 3rdrespondent u/s 147 r.w.s 1Mt144B of the rncome-tax Act for A.y. 20.t9- 20 vide DIN No. rrBA/AST/s/147r2023-24t161s15577(1),and may pass such other order(s) as the Hon'bre court deems fit and proper in the interests of substantial justice, as otherwise the petitioner vrrourd be put to irreparabre ross and severe injury. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI DUNDU MANMOHAN counsel for the Respondents: sRr vrJHAy K puNNA (sENroR sc FoR rrDl The Court made tfie foilowing: COMMON ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARATIJI wRrr PEf,ITION r{OS. 9297.93,49.9 377.9422.942. 9477 9513 AND 9516 0F 2024 COMMON ORDER (per Hon'bte sP,J) Heard Sri Thanneru Chaitanya Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri J.V.Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for Income Tax appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.l and 2 and Sri B.Mukheg'ee, learned counsel representing Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.3 to 5 in W.P.No.9297 of 2024; Sri Thanneru Chaitanya Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri J.V.Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for Income Tax appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Sri B.Mukherjee, learned counsel representing Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor Genera-l of India appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.3 to 5 in W.P.No.9349 of 2024; Sri Dundu Manmohan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vrjhay K Punna, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax appearing on behalf of the respondents in W.P.No.9377 of 2024; Si Thanneru Chaitanya Kumar, learned counsel for tlre petitioner(s); Sri Sundari R Pisupati, learned Standing Coiinlet 2 for Income Tax appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1: and 2 and Sri B. Mukherjee, tearned counsel representing Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of 'India appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.3 to s in w.p.No.9422 of 2024; Sn Thannem Chaitanya Kumar, leamed counsel for the petitioner; Sri Sundari R pisupati, Iearned Standing Counsel for Income Tax appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. I and 2 and Sri B.Mukheqiee, learned counsel representing Sri Gadi praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.3 to 5 in W.p.No.9442 of 2024; Si Thanneru Chaitanya Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri Sundari R Pisupati., learned Standing Counsel for Income Tax appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Sri B.Mukherjee, learned counsel representing Sri Gadi prav.een Kurnar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing on behatf of respondent Nos.3 to 5 in W.p.No.94ZT of 2C/24; Sn A.V.Raghu Ram, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri J.V.Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax appearing on behalf of the respondents in W.p.No.9513 of 2024; Sri Dundu Manmohan, learned counsel for the petitioner a4d Sri vtjhay K Punna, Iearned Senior Standing counser for Income t. 5 Tax appearing on behalf of the respondents in W.P.No.9516 of 2024. 2. Regard being had to the similarity of the question involved, on the joint request of the parties, the matters are analogously heard and decided by this common order. 3. It is common ground taken by the learned counsel for ttre petitioner(s| that in furtherance of Financ e Act, 2A21, re- assessment process stood modihed but the respondents have not taken care of it and therefore notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 196 1 cannot sustain judicial scrutiny' Since notices are bad in law, the consequential orders are also bad in law. 4. During ttre course of hearing, learned counsel for the parties agreed that curtains on this issue are frnally drawn by this Court in a batch of writ petitions, W.P.No-259O3 of 2022 and other connected matters, decided by common order dated L4.Og.2O2g. The parties agreed that this matter rnay be disposed of in terms of the Common Order dated l4-O9 -2O23. 5 This Court in the said order dated l4-O9.2O23 in W.P.No.259O3 of 2O22, held as under: 4 \"35. ln yiew of the aforesaid discussions, it is by now very clear that the procedure to be foltowed by the respondent-Department upon treating the notices issued for reassessment belng under Section lrAA the subsequent proceedings was mandatorily required_to be undertaken under.the substituted provisions as taid down under the Finance Act, 2021. ln the absence of which, we are constrained to hold that the procedure adopted by the respondent-Oepartment is in contravention to the statute i.e. the Finance Act, 2021, at the first instance. Secondly, it is also in direct @ntravention to the directives issued by the Hon,ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Agarwal, supra. 36. For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned notices issued and the proceedings drawn by the respofldent-Oepartment is neither tenable, nor sustainable. The notices so issued and the procedure adopted being per se illegal, deseryes to be and are accordingly set aside/quashed. As a consequence, all the irnpugned orders getting quashed, the consequential orders passed by the respondent Department 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 consequentiar order is on the principres that when the iflitiation of the proceedings itsetf was proc€durally 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 jqrisdictionat issue. Since the impugned notic.es and orders are getting quashed on the point of jurisdiction, we are not incrined to proceed further and decide the other lssues raised by the petitioner which stands reserved to be raised and contended in an appropriate proceedings. 3& Sinc.e the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the case of Ashish Agarwal, supra, as a one-time measure exercising tte powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of lndia, permitted the Revenue to proceed under the substituted provisions, and thas Court allowing the petitions only on the procedurat flaw, the right conferred on the Revenue would remain. reseryed to proc€ed further if they so want from the stage of the order of the supreme court in the case of Ashish Agarwal, supra. 39. No order as to costs.', 5 6. In view of the consensus arrived, the impqgned Show Cause notices and consequential orders passed in this batch of writ petifions are set aside. Liber$r is reserved to both the parties to take respective stand and to proceed in accordance with Law as per paragraph No.38 of the order dated 14.09.2023 in W.P.No.25903 of 2022. 7. The writ petitions are allowed. No costs. Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed. SD/-K..AMMAJI I //rRUE copy// ASSlsrANr RE9(SrRAR I To, sEcnoNbFFrcER 1. The lncome Tax Officer, Wald 1.5(1), Hyderabad/, Telangana State. 2. The princioat chbf Commissiondi dr rncome'i;; %i;\"H;; and A.p, ^ Hydelqbad, tT Towers, AC Gdrd;, iua-sab'#;t: r. r ne uhatrman. Central Board. of_ Direct Taies, Department of Revenue. HBB,ff.\" Finince, covernment;f t#ilS#;iariar Buirdings, ruew oertri-l 4. Then National Faceless Assessment Center, lncome Tax Department, New 5. The Secretarv to the Goyemment, Union of lndia, Department of Revenue, ^ Ministry.of_Firiance, New Ghifiib 00i. \" \"' \"'\"' o. I ne pnncioal Chief Commissioner of lncome Tax, Telangana and A.p. fvflerauaui lr Towers, nc cuaids,-'rvras?o'irnx, Hyderabad _s00 028; 7. one ic to sRt GADI pRAVtrtrN Kr nrap /n^^..r. ;ltifirr$,+#iftri5lil,ffi i,-ffifia:|oBjffiq,**'\"'''on' 9. One CC to SRt A.V.RI 1e fi; ac i; s;iiiu iH^.#DftTSlAffii.\"L.Sye;;;;;- *', 11.or* cc to sRrsuNDAR-iR-iifainTr, i$rdh ir,rcorae rAx)ropucr 12-one cc ro sRrvrJHAy x pur.rr'iA, iiii\"oh'rilb'o'rr,rE-iiri)'tdlt,1E1 \"\", 13.Two CD Copies. BS ( HIGH COURT DATED: I 5 t04tZOZ4 COMMON ORDER ,a \" .i Ll<.' - .. .. :1 J ) 1- g 1 ,t;tti 20?l WRIT PETITION N9\". g?gt, 9349, 9377, 9422, 9442, 9477,9513 & 9516 0F 2024 ALLOWNG THE WRIT PETITIONS WTHOUT COSTS @ un* Ga- '.1,-,.. ;,;1,,E % "