The High Court allowed a writ petition following a Coordinate Bench order holding that notices issued under Section 148 without faceless assessment proceedings violate the Income-tax Act.
The notice dated 26.03.2024 issued under Section 148 and consequential proceedings set aside; pending applications disposed of.
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-24820-2024 (O&M)
Page 1 of 3
128
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-24820-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 25.09.2024
. . . . Petitioner
Vs.
. . . . Respondents
****
**CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH ******
Present: Mr. Rakesh Bhatia, Advocate, and Mr. Manpreet Kanda, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Sr. Standing Counsel for the respondents/Revenue.
****
SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral)
LAVISHA 2024.09.26 11:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh
CWP-24820-2024 (O&M)
Page 2 of 3
“16. We are in agreement with the view taken by the Coordinate Bench and hold that such circular or instructions by the Board could not have been issued to override statutory provisions or to make them otiose or obsolete. Legislative enactments having financial implications are required to be followed strictly and mandatorily. By exercising the powers contained in Sections 119 and 120 of the Act, 1961 as well as Section 144B (7 & 8), the authorities cannot be allowed to usurp the legal provisions to their own satisfaction and convenience causing hardship to the assessees. It also leaves confusion in the minds of the taxpayers. In the opinion of this Court, instructions and circulars can be issued only for the purpose of supplementing the statutory provisions and for their implementation.
17. In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no occasion to distinguish or take a different view as suggested by the learned counsel for the revenue from what has already been held by the Coordinate Bench.
18. Keeping in view the law laid down by the Coordinate Bench (supra), notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and the proceedings initiated thereafter without conducting the faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act, 1961, have been found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act, 1961 and accordingly notices dated 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2024 and 30.03.2023 and order dated 30.03.2023, are set aside for want of jurisdiction.
LAVISHA 2024.09.26 11:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh
CWP-24820-2024 (O&M)
Page 3 of 3
19. The respondents-revenue would be, however, at liberty to follow the procedure as laid down under the Act, 1961 and proceed accordingly, if so advised.
20. All the writ petitions are allowed. The interim order passed by the Court shall stand merged with the present order.”
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE
(SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE
September 25, 2024 Lavisha
1. Whether speaking/reasoned?
2. Whether reportable?
Yes/No Yes/No
LAVISHA 2024.09.26 11:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and othersFollowed¶16
CWP No.21509 of 2023 titled as Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others
Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and othersFollowed¶16
CWP No.15745 of 2024 titled as Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioner
Respondents/Revenue
Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
Sanjay Vashisth
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
