Allowed¶27

Sandeep Arora v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1 Faridabad and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC14 May 2025CWP/13642/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CWP No.13642 of 2025, Sandeep Arora v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1, Faridabad; Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh; decided 14.05.2025; Section 148 notice by JAO set aside; faceless assessment Section 144B mandatory; Sections 119, 120, 144B(7)&(8), 148 Income Tax Act 1961; Board circulars cannot override statute; followed Jasjit Singh CWP No.21509 of 2023 (29.07.2024) and Jatinder Singh Bhangu CWP No.15745 of 2024 (19.07.2024); notice dated 17.04.2025 Annexure P-1; consequential proceedings quashed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed in the terms of Jasjit Singh and Jatinder Singh Bhangu, applied mutatis mutandis: notice dated 17.04.2025 (Annexure P-1) under Section 148 issued by respondent No.1-JAO and all consequential proceedings set aside. ¶27

Sandeep Arora Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax… — Income Tax | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether the notice dated 17.04.2025 issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the consequential proceedings, are sustainable, given that the identical issue (JAO-issued Section 148 notices without faceless assessment under Section 144B) already stands conclusively decided by this Court in Jasjit Singh and by the Co-ordinate Bench in Jatinder Singh Bhangu.

¶17

Court's answer

Following the law already laid down in Jasjit Singh (CWP No.21509 of 2023) and Jatinder Singh Bhangu (CWP No.15745 of 2024), on which both sides' counsel were ad-idem, this Court allowed the writ petition in the same terms, applying the observations and order of the earlier decisions mutatis mutandis to the present case.

¶27

Ratio / Principle

The notice dated 17.04.2025 (Annexure P-1) issued by respondent No.1-Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and all consequential proceedings thereof, are set aside.

¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court (Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Meenakshi I. Mehta, JJ.) allowed CWP No.13642 of 2025 (Sandeep Arora v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1, Faridabad) in limine, both sides being ad-idem that the issue stood finally concluded by the Court's decision in Jasjit Singh (CWP No.21509 of 2023, decided 29.07.2024) and the Co-ordinate Bench decision in Jatinder Singh Bhangu (CWP No.15745 of 2024, decided 19.07.2024). Applying those rulings mutatis mutandis, the Court set aside the notice dated 17.04.2025 (Annexure P-1) issued by respondent No.1-Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, together with all consequential proceedings. As reproduced from Jasjit Singh (recorded here as citation, not as this Court's own reasoning): Board circulars/instructions under Sections 119, 120 and 144B(7)&(8) cannot override statutory provisions; instructions may only supplement and implement the statute; and Section 148 notices issued by the JAO without faceless assessment under Section 144B are contrary to the Act and void for want of jurisdiction, the revenue remaining at liberty to proceed afresh in accordance with the procedure laid down under the Act.

¶1

164

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CWP No.13642 of 2025

¶4

Date of Decision: 14.05.2025

Sandeep Arora

…..Petitioner.

Versus

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1, Faridabad and others

¶9

.....Respondents.

¶10

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

¶11

¶12

Present:Mr. Kartik Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶13

SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J . (Oral)

¶14

Notice of motion.

¶15

Mr. Varun Issar, Senior Standing Counsel with Ms. Pridhi

¶16

Sandhu, Junior Standing Counsel, accept notice on behalf of the respondent(s)-Income Tax Department.

¶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 Versus Union of India and others ”, decided on 29.07.2024 and by the Co-ordinate Bench in CWP No.15745 of 2024 titled as “ Jatinder Singh Bhangu Versus Union of India and others ”, decided on 19.07.2024. This Court in Jasjit Singh’s

¶18

YAG DUTT 2025.05.16 15:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶19

CWP No.13642 of 2025 -2-

¶20

case (supra) held as under:-

¶21

“ 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.

¶22

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.

¶23

YAG DUTT 2025.05.16 15:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶24

CWP No.13642 of 2025 -3-

¶25

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.

¶26

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

¶27

Keeping in view above, we allow this writ petition in the afore-said terms. The observations and order passed above shall apply mutatis mutandis to the present case. Accordingly, notice dated 17.04.2025 (Annexure P-1) issued by respondent No.1-Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO), under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and all consequential proceedings thereof are set-aside.

¶28

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE

¶29

May 14, 2025 Yag Dutt

¶30

(MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA) JUDGE

¶31

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No

¶32

YAG DUTT 2025.05.16 15:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

Sandeep Arora v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1 Faridabad and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep Arora v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1 Faridabad and Others

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rakesh Kumar Vs Ramrati

Jagwant Malik and Others Vs State of Haryana and Others

Parvinder Singh Vs Income Tax Officer and Others

Sandeep Padia Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Others

D.K. Sharma Vs Haryana Financial Corporation & Anr.

Union of India and Ors. Vs Ex Hav Kirpal Singh