Allowed¶26

Roshan Grag v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 1, Chandigarh

Punjab & Haryana HC8 May 2025CWP/11532/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

P&H HC CWP-11532-2025 (O&M), decided 08.05.2025, Sanjeev Prakash Sharma J. (Oral) with Meenakshi I. Mehta J.: writ petition of Roshan Garg allowed following Jasjit Singh (CWP No.21509 of 2023, decided 29.07.2024) and Jatinder Singh Bhangu (CWP No.15745 of 2024, decided 19.07.2024) mutatis mutandis; Section 148 Income Tax Act notice dated 30.03.2025 issued by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer and all consequential proceedings set aside; faceless assessment Section 144B; Sections 119/120 circulars cannot override statute; pending applications disposed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; notice issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act dated 30.03.2025 and all consequential proceedings set aside; pending applications disposed of accordingly. ¶26

Roshan Grag Vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 1… — Income Tax | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether the notice issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act dated 30.03.2025, and the consequential proceedings initiated without faceless assessment under Section 144B (the substantial issue as concluded in Jasjit Singh and Jatinder Singh Bhangu), are valid and within jurisdiction.

¶26

Court's answer

The notice issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act dated 30.03.2025 and all consequential proceedings are set aside.

¶26

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms, the observations and order in the quoted Jasjit Singh extracts (arrived at with the Coordinate Bench conclusion in Jatinder Singh Bhangu) applying mutatis mutandis to the present case.

¶26

Key takeaways

All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly.ratio¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court, CWP-11532-2025 (O&M), decided 08.05.2025 (oral judgment of Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J.; bench also comprising Meenakshi I. Mehta, J.) allowed the writ petition of Roshan Garg against the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1 and others. Counsel for the parties being ad idem that the substantial issue stood finally examined and concluded in CWP No.21509 of 2023 (Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others, decided 29.07.2024) and by the Coordinate Bench in CWP No.15745 of 2024 (Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others, decided 19.07.2024), the Court applied those conclusions mutatis mutandis and set aside the notice issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act dated 30.03.2025 together with all consequential proceedings; all pending applications were disposed of accordingly. In the quoted Jasjit Singh extracts (paras 16-20), circulars/instructions of the Board could not override statutory provisions (Sections 119, 120 and 144B(7)&(8) of the Act, 1961), and JAO-issued Section 148 notices and ensuing proceedings conducted without faceless assessment under Section 144B were held contrary to the Act and set aside for want of jurisdiction, with liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act.

¶1

153 I N THE HIGH COURT OF PU N JAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIG A RH

¶2

C WP-11532-2025 (O&M) D ate of Decision: 08.05.2025

¶3

Roshan Garg …Petitioner

¶4

Vs.

¶5

Principal Co m missioner of Income Tax-1 an d others …Respondents

¶6

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA

¶7

Present: M r. Viraj Gandhi, Advocate for t he petitioner. ***

¶8

SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral)

¶9

N otice of motion.

¶10

M r. Vaibhav Gupta, Sr. Stand i ng Counsel, accepts notice o n

¶11

behalf of the r evenue.

¶12

L earned counsel for the parties are ad idem that the substantia l issue involve d in the present petition stands f inally examined and conclude d by this Court in CWP No.21509 of 2023 titled as Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others , decided on 29.07.2024, a n d by the Coordinate Bench i n CWP No.15745 of 2024 titled as Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others , d e cided on 19.07.2024. This Cou r t in Jasjit Singh (supra) held a s under:

¶13

“ 16. We are in agreement with t h e view taken by the Coordinat e B ench and hold that such circu l ar or instructions by the Boar d c ould not have been issued to ov e rride statutory provisions or to

¶14

RAJESH KUMAR 2025.05.12 10:32 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶15

[2]

¶16

CWP-11532-2025 (O&M)

¶17

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.

¶18

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.

¶19

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.

¶20

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.

¶21

RAJESH KUMAR 2025.05.12 10:32 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶22

[3]

¶23

CWP-11532-2025 (O&M)

¶24

20. All the writ petitions are allowed. The interim order passed

¶25

by the Court shall stand merged with the present order.”

¶26

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 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, dated 30.03.2025 and all consequential proceedings are set aside.

¶27

All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly.

¶28

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE

¶29

(MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA) JUDGE

¶30

08.05.2025 rajesh 1. Whether speaking/reasoned? : Yes/No 2. Whether reportable? : Yes/No

¶31

RAJESH KUMAR 2025.05.12 10:32 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

Roshan Grag v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 1, Chandigarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Roshan Grag v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 1, Chandigarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Union Territory, Chandigarh and Others Vs Sakshi Malik and Others

Radhey Shyam and Others Vs State of Haryana and Another

Sadhu Ram and Others Vs State of Haryana and Others

Davendra Kumar Dhama Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Others

Monika Choudhary Vs Income Tax Officer Ward 1(3) Faridabad and Others

Nitin Ahuja Vs Anjana Behl