Allowed

Mk Protiens Limited v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Ambala

Punjab & Haryana HC13 Aug 2024CWP/13330/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Assessee challenged an income tax reassessment notice. Following the coordinate bench decision in Jasjit Singh, the Court held notices issued without faceless assessment under Section 144B lack jurisdiction and set aside the notice and consequential proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Notice under Section 148 dated 28.03.2024 (P-2) and all consequential proceedings set aside.

Mk Protiens Limited Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Ambala — Income Tax | Punjab & Haryana HC (2024)

¶1

CWP-13330 of 2024(O&M)

¶2

Page 1 of 2

¶3

246-30

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶5

CWP-13330-2024(O&M)

¶6

Date of Decision: 13.08.2024

¶7

M.K. Protein s Ltd.

¶8

. . . . Petitione r Vs.

¶9

Income Tax O fficer, Ambala and others

¶10

. . . . Respondent s

¶11

****

¶12

**CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH ******

¶13

Present: M r. Abhinav Narang, Advocate a nd M s. Parnika Singla, Advocate fo r the petitioner.

¶14

M s. Pridhi Sandhu, Jr. Standing C ounsel f or the respondents/Income Tax D epartment. ****

¶15

SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral)

¶16

1. Both t h e counsel are ad idem that th e issue involved in the presen t petitio n stands finally adjudicated in v iew of the judgment passed b y this C o urt in CWP No.21509 of 2023 titled as Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others , decided on 29.07. 2 024, wherein this Court held a s

¶17

under:

¶18

“ 16 . We are in agreement w ith the view taken by the C oordinate Bench and hold t h at such circular or i n structions by the Board could n ot have been issued to o verride statutory provisions or t o make them otiose or o bsolete. Legislative enactments having financial be fo llowed strictly and mandatorily. B y exercising the powers c ontained Sections 119 and 120 of the Act, 1961 as well as S ection 144B (7 & 8), the authorit i es cannot be allowed to u surp the legal provisions to the i r own satisfaction and c onvenience causing hardship to the assessees. It also l e aves confusion in the minds of t h e taxpayers instructions a nd supplementing the statutory pr o visions and

¶19

RASHMI 2024.08.14 15:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶20

CWP-13330 of 2024(O&M)

¶21

Page 2 of 2

¶22

17 . In view of the aforesai d discussion, there is no o ccasion to distinguish or tak e a different view as s uggested by the learned counsel f o r the revenue from what h as already been held by the Coor d inate Bench.

¶23

18. Keeping in view the law laid down by the C oordinate Bench (supra), noti c es issued by the JAO u nder Section 148 of the Act, 19 6 1 and the proceedings i n itiated thereafter without co n ducting the faceless a ssessment as envisaged under S e ction 144B of the Act, 1 961, have been found to be cont r ary to the provisions of t h e Act, 1961 and accordingly n o tices dated 28.02.2023, 1 6.03.2023, 20.03.2024 and 30.0 3 .2023 and order dated 3 0.03.2023, are set aside for want o f jurisdiction. 19 . The respondents-revenu e would be, however, at liberty to follow the procedure as l a id down under the Act, 1 961 and proceed accordingly, if s o advised.

¶24

20 . All the writ petitions a r e allowed. The interim o rder passed by the Court shall stand merged with the p resent order.”

¶25

2. Keepin g in view above, we allow this W rit Petition in the aforesaid terms .

¶26

The ob s ervations and order passed above shall apply mutatis mutandis t o the present case. Accordingly, not i ce under Section 148 date d 28.03.2024(P-2) and all consequential p r oceedings are hereby set aside.

¶27

3. ��

¶28

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE

¶29

(SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE

¶30

August 13, 2024

¶31

Rashmi

¶32

1. Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No 2. Whether reportable? Yes/No

¶33

RASHMI 2024.08.14 15:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Mk Protiens Limited v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Ambala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mk Protiens Limited v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Ambala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anil Kumar Vs Union of India

M/S Shivani Woollen Mills, Panipat Vs Union of India and Others

The Pr Commissioner of Income Tax Faridabad Vs Willis Towers Waston India Private Limited

S.V. Gupta HUF Vs Pr Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad and Another

Pridhi Apparels LLP Vs Pr Commissioner of Income Tax and Another

Pridhi Apparels LLP Vs Pr Commissioner of Income Tax and Another