Allowed

Sarika v. Income Tax Officer and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC14 Aug 2024CWP/19883/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Assessee challenged a Section 148 income tax notice issued without faceless assessment under Section 144B. Following the coordinate bench decision in Jasjit Singh, the High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the notice and consequential proceedings for want of jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

Notice u/s 148 dated 14.03.2024 and consequential proceedings set aside; writ petition allowed.

Sarika Vs Income Tax Officer and Others — Income Tax | Punjab & Haryana HC (2024)

¶1

CWP-19883-2024 (O&M)

¶2

Page 1 of 3

¶3

136

¶4

CWP-19883-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 14.08.2024

¶5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

SARIKA

. . . . Petitione r

Vs.

INCOME T A X OFFICER AND OTHERS

¶10

. . . . Respondent s

¶11

****

¶12

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

¶13

¶14

Present: M r. Nikhil Goyal, Advocate f or the petitioner.

¶15

M r. Yogesh Putney, Sr. Standin g Counsel with M r. Vaibhav Gupta, Standing C o unsel f or the respondents/Revenue.

¶16

****

¶17

SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral)

¶18

Notice of motion.

¶19

Mr. Y o gesh Putney, Sr. Standing Cou n sel accepts notice on behalf o f respon d ents/Revenue.

¶20

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 under:

¶21

“16. We are in agreeme n t with the view taken b y the Coordinate Bench and ho l d that such circular or instructions by the Board could n ot have been issued to

¶22

MOHIT GOYAL 2024.08.14 15:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶23

CWP-19883-2024 (O&M)

¶24

Page 2 of 3

¶25

o verride statutory provisions or t o make them otiose or o bsolete. Legislative enactment s having financial be f ollowed strictly and mandato r ily. By exercising the p owers contained Sections 119 and 120 of the Act, 1 961 as well as Section 144B ( 7 & 8), the authorities c annot be allowed to usurp the l e gal provisions to their o wn satisfaction and convenien c e causing hardship to t he assessees. It also leaves co nf usion in the minds of t he taxpayers instructions and supplementing the s tatutory provisions and

¶26

17. In view of the afores a id discussion, there is n o occasion to distinguish or t a ke a different view as s uggested by the learned couns e l for the revenue from w hat has already been held by t h e Coordinate Bench.

¶27

18. Keeping in view the law laid down by the C oordinate Bench (supra), notices issued by the JAO u nder Section 148 of the Act, 19 6 1 and the proceedings initiated thereafter without co n ducting the faceless a ssessment as envisaged unde r Section 144B of the A ct, 1961, have beesn found t o be contrary to the p rovisions of the Act, 1961 and accordingly notices d ated 28.02.2023, 16.03.20 2 3, 20.03.2024 and 3 0.03.2023 and order dated 30.03.2023, are set aside f or want of jurisdiction.

¶28

19. The respondents-reve n ue would be, however, a t liberty to follow the procedu r e as laid down under t he Act, 1961 and proceed accor d ingly, if so advised. 20. All the writ petitio n s are allowed. The interim order passed by the Co u rt shall stand merged w ith the present order.”

¶29

MOHIT GOYAL 2024.08.14 15:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶30

CWP-19883-2024 (O&M)

¶31

Page 3 of 3

¶32

Keepi n g in view above, we allow thi s Writ Petition in the aforesai d terms. The observations and order p a ssed above shall apply mutati s mutan d is to the present case. Acc o rdingly, notice u/s 148 date d 14.03. 2 024 and consequential proceedi n gs are set aside.

¶33

All pe n ding applications also stand dis p osed of accordingly.

¶34

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE

¶35

(SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE

¶36

August 14, 2024

¶37

Mohit goyal

¶38

1. Whether speaking/reasoned?

¶39

2. Whether reportable?

¶40

Yes/No Yes/No

¶41

MOHIT GOYAL 2024.08.14 15:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Sarika v. Income Tax Officer and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarika v. Income Tax Officer and Others

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

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

M/S Amar Karyana Co. Vs State of Hy.

Jaswinder Pal Singh through Legal Heir Gurjit Kaur Vs Union of India and Others

Malkiat Singh Vs State of Punjab and Otthers