Telangana High Court
The Primary Agriculture vs Assessment Unit, on 22 July, 2025
Author: P.Sam Koshy
Bench: P.Sam Koshy
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
WRIT PETITION Nos.20979, 20982, 20983, 20998,
21046, 21053, 21063, 21064, 21066, 21070, 21076,
21078, 21084, 21095, 21099, 21105, 21127, 21185
and 21208 of 2025
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
respondents in W.P.Nos.20983, 21063, 21064, 21070,
21076, 21095, 21127 and 21208 of 2025.
Mr. K.Suhakar Reddy, learned Senior Standing
Counsel for the Income Tax Department for the
respondents in W.P.Nos.20979, 20982, 20998, 21046,
21053, 21084 and 21099 of 2025.
Ms. J.Sunitha, learned Senior Standing Counsel for
the Income Tax Department for the respondents in
W.P.Nos.21066, 21078, 21105 and 21185 of 2025.
2. Regard being had to the similitude of the
questions involved in these writ petitions, the matters were
analogously heard.
3. In these writ petitions, the challenge is either to
notices which were issued under Section 148A of the
Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as, "the Act"),
or to the assessment orders which have been passed under
Section 147 of the Act.
4. Learned counsel for the parties, during the
course of hearing, fairly submit that the issue involved in
these writ petitions was considered by a Division Bench of
this Court in W.P.No.26304 of 2024, vide order dated
28.04.2025, and the said order squarely covers the present
writ petitions as well.
5. The relevant extract of the order dated
28.04.2025 passed in W.P.No.26304 of 2024 reads as
under:
"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
High 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 vs. Income-
(Telangana)] 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
Kankanala Ravindra Reddy (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
Kankanala Ravindra Reddy (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 Ravindra Reddy [(2023) 156
taxmann.com 178 (Telangana)]. There shall be no
order as to costs.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions
pending, if any, shall stand closed."
6. In view of the consensus arrived at, these writ
petitions are also disposed of in terms of the 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.
______________________________________
APARESH KUMAR SINGH, CJ
______________________________________
P.SAM KOSHY, J
22.07.2025
Note: Registry shall enclose a copy of
the order dated 28.04.2025 passed in
W.P.No.26304 of 2024 to this order.
B/o.
KL
