Clipped from: https://taxguru.in/income-tax/telangana-hc-quashed-reassessment-notices-faceless-procedure.html
Tecumseh Products lndia Private Limited Vs DCIT (Telangana High Court)
The Telangana High Court heard a writ petition challenging notices issued under Sections 148A and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential assessment orders passed under Section 147. The petition was taken up on a limited but decisive ground: that the impugned notices and proceedings were initiated by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of being conducted in a faceless manner, as required after amendments introduced by the Finance Act, 2021 with effect from 01.04.2021.
The petitioner contended that this issue was already conclusively decided by the Telangana High Court in Kankanala Ravindra Reddy v. Income Tax Officer (decided on 14.09.2023), where a batch of writ petitions had been allowed on the ground that notices under Sections 148A and 148 issued otherwise than through the faceless mechanism were invalid. That judgment held such proceedings to be contrary to Section 151A of the Act read with Notification No.18/2022 dated 29.03.2022. The Court noted that the said decision had since been consistently followed in numerous writ petitions by the same High Court.
The Court further observed that several other High Courts—including the Bombay, Gauhati, Punjab & Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Gujarat, Jharkhand, Rajasthan, and Calcutta High Courts—had also decided the same issue against the Revenue, holding that reassessment notices issued by jurisdictional officers instead of through the faceless mechanism were unsustainable in law. Despite this consistent judicial position, the Court recorded that the Income Tax Department continued to issue similar notices, leading to a daily influx of identical writ petitions.
The Revenue’s primary justification for continuing such proceedings was that the judgment in Kankanala Ravindra Reddy and similar rulings, including Hexaware Technologies Ltd., were under challenge before the Supreme Court through Special Leave Petitions, including SLP No.3574 of 2024, and that over 1200 SLPs on the same issue were pending. However, the Revenue conceded that the Supreme Court had not granted any interim stay in any of these matters.
The Court expressed serious concern over the growing docket explosion, noting that more than 600–700 writ petitions on the same issue had accumulated before the High Court, despite the issue being squarely covered by binding precedent. The Court observed that no effective administrative or policy steps had been taken by the Income Tax Department or the CBDT to pause or defer issuance of such notices until the Supreme Court decided the pending SLPs. Instead, proceedings continued to be initiated in a manner already held to be contrary to law by multiple High Courts.
The Court rejected the Revenue’s submission that keeping writ petitions pending would avoid burdening the Department with further SLPs or cause no prejudice to assessees. It noted that delaying disposal could unfairly benefit the Revenue by effectively extending limitation periods for initiating fresh proceedings, while being detrimental to assessees. The Court also referred to judicial discipline principles, citing decisions emphasizing that orders of higher courts remain binding unless stayed or set aside, and cannot be ignored merely because appeals are pending.
In light of the above, the Court held that the present writ petition was fully covered by its earlier decision in Kankanala Ravindra Reddy. To balance the interests of both sides, the Court disposed of the writ petition by allowing it on the jurisdictional issue, while making the relief expressly subject to the outcome of the pending SLPs before the Supreme Court. The Court clarified that either party would be at liberty to seek revival of the writ petition depending on the Supreme Court’s final decision.
Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed. The impugned notices issued under Sections 148A and 148 were set aside and quashed, along with all consequential orders, in terms consistent with the earlier judgment of the High Court. No order as to costs was made, and all pending miscellaneous petitions were closed.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF TELANGANA HIGH COURT
Heard Mr. Harpreet Singh Ajmani, learned counsel representing Mr.G.Narendra Chetty, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. B.Sapna Reddy, learned Junior Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department for respondent Nos.1 and 2. 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 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 148A 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’ decided on 14.09.2023 whereby a batch of writ petitions were allowed and the proceedings initiated under Section 148A as also under Section 148 of the Act were held to he 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 & OTHERS2, Gauhati High Court in the case of RAM NARAYAN SAH vs. UNION OF INDIA3, Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of JATINDER SINGH BANGU vs. UNION OF INDIA, and Telangana High Court in the case of SRI VENKATARAMANA REDDY PATLOOLA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX5 where the issue was in respect of international taxation, Bombay High Court in the case of ABHIN ANILKUMAR SHAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION6 which is again on international 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 DAHYABHAI RADADIYA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3)(5)8, Jharkand High Court in the case of SHYAM SUNDAR SAW vs. UNION OF INDIA9, Rajasthan High Court in the case of SHARDA DEW CHHAJER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER & ANOTHER and batch of writ petitions 1° which stood decided on 19.03.2024. Similar views have also 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., (2 supra) as also the one which has been decided by this Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (1 supra) has been subjected to challenge in a Special Leave Petition i.e., SLP No.3574 of 2024 before the I lon’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, fresh writ petitions of identical 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.
8. On the one hand, even though the order of this Court that was passed as early as on 14.09.2023 and more 16 months 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 148A and under Section 148 of the Act by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, rather the authorities concerned in the teeth of series of decisions by all the major High Courts in India are continuously still initiating proceedings under Section 148A of the Act and also initiating proceedings under Section 148 of the Act in contravention to the amendments brought into the Income Tax Act pursuant to the Finance Act, 2020 as also the Finance Act 2021.
9. 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 Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (1 supra), learned 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 Court and it would be further burdening the exchequer of the Union of India. It was also the contention of the learned 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 interim 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 instruttioris or to take appropriate steps in ensuring that proceedings under Section 148A of the Act as also the assessment orders under Section 148 of the Act are kept in a hold in the light of the decisions dedcided by the various High Courts, it was submitted by the learned Standing Counsel that the said steps can only be taken at the level of CBDT as any such steps would have to be taken Pan India and cannot be limited to any of these jurisdictional 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 Reddti• (1 supra). What is also surprising is the fact that though while allowing the writ petitions in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (1 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 proceedings. The Department has made no endeavour in availing the said liberty that was reserved for the Revenue. On the contrary, they have been still sticking on to the stand, which this High Court as well as many other High Courts already held to be had.
11. It appears that because of the aforesaid liberty that this High Court had granted permitting the Revenue for initiating fresh proceedings as a one-time measure in a faceless manner, the Income Tax Department wants to take advantage of the same by protracting these proceedings which would enable them to meet the limitation that would otherwise come in the way. Likewise, if the writ petition is kept pending for a considerable long period of time and finally at a later stage if the Hon’ble Supreme Court confirms the decision taken by this High Court as also by the other High Courts in which the SLPs are still pending, the Income Tax Department would get the advantage of the liberty that is otherwise protected in favour of the Revenue for initiation of fresh proceedings from the disposal of these matters at a much later stage which would be advantageous and beneficial to the Revenue and would be equally disadvantageous and detrimental so far as interest of the assesses are concerned. As a consequence, the Income Tax Department gets an extended period of time for initiation of fresh proceedings.1
12. The alarming trend of docket explosion in this Court, despite the clear precedent set in Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (1 supra), is a matter of grave concern. The Income Tax Department’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 Court’s decision on pending SLPs while continuing to initiate fresh proceedings appears to be a calculated move to buy time and circumvent limitation periods, rather than adhering to the established legal position. Such conduct raises serious questions about the administrative efficiency and the respect for judicial pronouncements, particularly when this Court, has already provided a balanced approach by preserving both the Revenue’s 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. Though the learned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department contended that. the Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition of similar nature, on the one hand when the High Court is struo.o.ling 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 of 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 concerned 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 Department is showing audacity by issuing notices continuously under Sections 148-A and 148 through the jurisdictional Assessing Officer whereas it ought to have been only in the faceless manner.
14. In the case of BANK OF INDIA VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, INCOME TAX”, on an issue whether it was justifiable on the part of the Income Tax Department in not following an order passed by the adjudicating authority only on the ground that the appeals are pending, the Division Bench of the 1ligh Court of Bombay held at paragraph No.25 as under, viz., :
“25. Mr. Paridwalla has rightly drawn out attention to the decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Smt. Godavaridevi Saraf12 as also the recent decision of the coordinate Bench of this Court in Samp Furniture (P) Ltd. v. IT013 of which one of us (Justice G.S. Kulkarni) was a member, wherein the Court categorically observed that the Revenue having not “accepted” the judgment of the High Court would not mean that till the same is set aside in a manner known to law, it would loose its binding force. Referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd.14, the Court observed 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 of the quasijudicial 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 objectionable 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. If this healthy rule is not followed, the result will only be undue harassment to assesses and chaos in administration of tax laws.
……………
12. 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. It 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 benefit 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.”
15. What is worrying this Bench more is the fact that an endeavour is being made whole heartedly to ensure not to generate further litigation on issues which have been laid to rest by a large number of I ligh Courts all of whom have taken a consistent stand that the action of the Income Tax Department being violative of the Finance Act, 2020 and Finance Act, 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 disposal of the instant writ petition in terms of the judgment rendered by this High Court in the case of Kankanala Ravindra Reddy (1 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 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 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, 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 Court allowing the petitions only on the procedural flaw, the right conferred on the Revenue would remain reserved to proceed further if they so want from the stage of the order of the Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Agarwal, supra.
18. We would only further like to make observations that since we are inclined to dispose of the instant writ petition, conscious of the fact that the earlier order of this High Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (1 supra) is subjected to challenge before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP No.3574 of 2024, preferred by the Income Tax Department, we make it clear that allowing of the instant writ petition is subject to outcome of the aforesaid SLP preferred by the Revenue against the decision of this High Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (1 supra). This, in other words, would mean that either of the parties, if they so want, may move an appropriate petition seeking revival of this writ petition in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the pending SLP on the very same issue.
19. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands allowed in favour of the assessee so far as the issue of jurisdiction is concerned. As a consequence, the impugned notice under challenge under Sections 148-A and 148 stands set aside/quashed.
The consequential orders, if any, also stand set aside/quashed in similar terms as have been passed by this High Court in the case of Kankanala Rapindra Reddj (1 supra). There shall be no order as to costs.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
Notes:
1[(2023) 156 taxmann.com 178 (Telangana)]
2 [2024] 464 ITR 430 (Born)
3[(2024) 156 taxmann.com 478 (Gauhati)]
4 [(2024) 165 taxmann.com 115 (21,majab & Haryana)]
5[2024) 167 taxmann.com 411 (Telangana)]
6 [2024) 166 taxmann.com 679 (Bombay)]
7 [2024) 165 taxmann.com 113 (Himachal Pradesh)]
82024 SCC OnLine Guj 4012
9 2025 SCC OnLine Jhar 287
10 [2023: RJ-JD:4984-DB]
11[(2025) 170 taxmann.com 422 (Bombay)]
12 [1978] 113 FIR 589 (Bombay)
13 [2024] 165 taxmann.com 581/300 Taxman 452 (Bombay)
14 [1992] taxmann.com 16/55 ELT 433 (SC)
aniltikotekar4sme.com 