Allowed

Surjit Kumar Bassan v. Union of India and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC27 Sept 2024CWP/25134/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-paragraph oral judgment holds that a notice dated 31.03.2024 issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148 without faceless assessment under Section 144B is set aside based on precedents.CWP-21509 of 2023 and CWP-15745 of 2024.

What did the court decide?

Notice dated 31.03.2024 issued u/s 148 of the Income-tax Act and consequential proceedings are set aside.

Surjit Kumar Bassan Vs Union… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Punjab & Haryana HC (2024)

¶1

CWP-25134-2024 - 1 -

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

109

¶4

CWP-25134-2024 Decided on : 27.09.2024

Surjit Kumar Bassan

. . . Petitioner(s)

Versus

Union of India and others

¶9

. . . Respondent(s)

¶10

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

¶11

PRESENT: Mr. Puneet K Kansal, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

¶12

Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Sr. Standing Counsel for the respondents – revenue.

¶13

¶14

SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J. (Oral)

¶15

Notice of motion.

¶16

Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Sr. Standing Counsel, accepts notice for the respondents – revenue.

¶17

Both the counsel are ad idem that the issue involved in the present petition stands finally examined and concluded by this Court in CWP No.21509 of 2023 titled as Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others , decided on 29.07.2024 , and by the Coordinate Bench in CWP No.15745 of 2024 titled as Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others , decided on 19.07.2024 . This Court in Jasjit Singh (supra) held as under:

¶18

“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

¶19

JAWALA RAM 2024.10.03 18:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶20

CWP-25134-2024

¶21

¶22

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.

¶23

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.

¶24

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.

¶25

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.

¶26

All the writ petitions are allowed. The interim order passed by the Court shall stand merged with the present order.”

¶27

JAWALA RAM 2024.10.03 18:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶28

CWP-25134-2024 - 3 -

¶29

Keeping in view above, we allow this Writ Petition in the aforesaid terms. The observations and order passed above shall apply mutatis mutandis to the present case. Accordingly, notice issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer u/s 148 dated 31.03.2024, and consequential proceedings are set aside.

¶30

All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly.

¶31

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE

¶32

(SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE

¶33

September 27, 2024 J.Ram Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No

¶34

JAWALA RAM 2024.10.03 18:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

Surjit Kumar Bassan v. Union of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surjit Kumar Bassan v. Union of India 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

M/S Shree Sagar and Sons Hissar Vs Union of India and Ors.

M/S Harsh Infinity Flavour Private Limited Vs Union of India and Others

Ashok Kumar Vs Income Tax Officer , Ward 2 (1)

Gurwinder Singh @ Gurpreet @ Gopi Vs State of Punjab

Raj Kamal Singla Vs Income Tax Officer Ward 3 1 Range 3 Gurgaon and Others

Mohinder Singh Vs Pr Chief Commissioner of Income Tax Jalandhar