Back
2025 Supreme(Telangana) 445
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
P.SAM KOSHY, NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA, JJ.
Anita Verghese - Appellant
Versus
Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - Respondent
Writ Petition No.27408 Of 2024
Decided On : 25-04-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : DUNDU MANMOHAN
For the Respondent: J SUNITHA JUNIOR SC FOR INCOME TAX
Effective judicial discipline mandates that revenue officials adhere to the directives of higher appellate authorities; deviation from established precedents leads to invalid proceedings.
Headnote:(A) Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 148 A, 148, and 147 - Writ petition challenging notices issued for assessment proceedings on grounds of non-compliance with faceless proceedings requirements under amendments from Finance Act, 2021. A precedent established in Kankanala Ravindra Reddy vs. Income-Tax Officer is cited, leading to the conclusion that the notices are invalid. (Paras 2-18)
(B) Judicial discipline - Revenue officials are bound by higher appellate authority's decisions and must not disregard them due to pending appeals. (Paras 14)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner contests notices issued by the Income Tax Department, arguing that they were not conducted facelessly as required under the amended Act, a stance previously upheld by this Court.
Findings of Court:
The Court found the notices invalid due to procedural violations and quashed them as a consequence, allowing the writ petition in favor of the petitioner based on jurisdictional grounds.
Issues: The primary issue addressed was the legality of the notices issued under Sections 148 A and 148 of the Act without faceless procedures mandated by recent amendments.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized the necessity for adherence to judicial precedents and procedural mandates established in prior judgments, denouncing the ongoing illegality in the Department's practices.
Result: Writ petition allowed; notices and consequential orders quashed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenges to notices under income tax act. (Para 2) |
| 2. procedural requirement for faceless proceedings. (Para 3) |
| 3. previous rulings on similar procedural issues. (Para 4) |
| 4. decisions across various high courts. (Para 5) |
| 5. ongoing challenges in supreme court. (Para 6) |
| 6. lack of interim orders affecting proceedings. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 7. department's failure to address court decisions. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 8. litigation increase due to procedural non-compliance. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 9. judicial discipline emphasized for revenue authorities. (Para 14) |
| 10. protection of interests of both revenue and assesses. (Para 15) |
| 11. timely disposal of covered matters. (Para 16) |
| 12. clarification of decisions based on jurisdiction. (Para 17) |
| 13. petition allowed based on jurisdiction invalidating proceedings. (Para 18 , 19) |
ORDER :
P.Sam Koshy, J.
Heard Mr. Manmohan Dundu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. J.Sunitha, 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 148 A 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 148 A 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 148 A of the Act as also under Section 148 of the Act ought to have also been issued and proceeded in a faceless manner.
4. The contention of the petitioner is that the issue of proceedings being in violation of the Finance Act, 2021 i.e., the impugned notices under Section 148 A and Section 148 of the Act not being issued in a faceless manner, have already been dealt with and decided by this Court in the case of KANKANALA RAVINDRA REDDY vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER , [[(2023) 156 taxmann.com 178 (Telangana)]] decided on 14.09.2023 whereby a batch of writ petitions were allowed and the proceedings initiated under Section 148 A as also under Section 148 of the Act were held to be bad with consequential reliefs on the ground of it being in violation of the provisions of Section 151A of the Act read with Notification 18/2022 dated 29.03.2022. The said judgment passed by this Court has also been subsequently followed in a large number of writ petitions which were allowed on similar terms.
5. Down the line, we find that the same issue has also been decided against the Revenue by various High Courts i.e., by the Bombay High Court in the case of HEXAWARE TECHNOLOGIES LTD., vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & OTHERS, [[2024] 464 ITR 430 (Bom)], Gauhati High Court in the case of RAM NARAYAN SAH vs. UNION OF INDIA , [[(2024) 156 taxmann.com 478 (Gauhati)]], Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of JATINDER SINGH BANGU vs. UNION OF INDIA , [[(2024) 165 taxmann.com 115 (Punjab & Haryana)]], and Telangana High Court in the case of SRI VENKATARAMANA REDDY PATLOOLA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , [[2024) 167 taxmann.com 411 (Telangana)]] where the issue was in respect of international taxation, Bombay High Court in the case of ABHIN ANILKUMAR SHAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION , [[2024) 166 taxmann.com 679 (Bombay)]] which is again on international taxation and central circle, High Court of Himachal Pradesh in the case of GOVIND SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , [[2024) 165 taxmann.com 113 (Himachal Pradesh)]], Gujarat High Court in the case of MANSUKHBHAI DAHYABHAI RADADIYA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3)(5), [82024 SCC OnLine Guj 4012], Jharkand High Court in the case of SHYAM SUNDAR SAW vs. UNION OF INDIA , [2025 SCC OnLine Jhar 287], Rajast
