The High Court allowed the Writ Petition, relying on a Coordinate Bench judgment, to set aside notices issued under Section 148 and consequential proceedings of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Set aside order u/s 148A(d) dated 26.03.2024, notice u/s 148 dated 26.03.2024, and consequential proceedings.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CWP-21266-2024 (O&M)
Page 1 of 3
(THROUGH VC)
146
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-21266-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 29.08.2024
KAITHAL S O LVENT PRIVATE LIMITED
. . . . Petitione r
Vs.
INCOME T A X OFFICER AND OTHERS
. . . . Respondent s
****
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH
Present: M r. B.M. Monga, Advocate wit h M r. Rohit Kaura, Advocate f or the petitioner.
M s. Gauri Neo Rampal Opal, Sr. Standing Counsel f or the respondents.
SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral)
MOHIT GOYAL 2024.08.29 17:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CWP-21266-2024 (O&M)
Page 2 of 3
“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 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
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. 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.
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.
MOHIT GOYAL 2024.08.29 17:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CWP-21266-2024 (O&M)
Page 3 of 3
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.”
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE
(SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE
August 29, 2024
Mohit goyal
1. Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No 2. Whether reportable? Yes/No
MOHIT GOYAL 2024.08.29 17:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the notices issued under Section 148 and subsequent proceedings should be set aside in light of the Coordinate Bench's judgment.
Whether the High Court should allow the Writ Petition based on the precedent set in Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and othersRelied on¶21
CWP No.21509 of 2023 titled as Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Kaithal Solvent Private Limited
Income Tax Officer and Others
Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
Sanjay Vashisth
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
