Rajesh Mittal Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and Others

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

¶14

and others , d e cided on 19.07.2024. This Cou r t in Jasjit Singh (supra) held a s under:

¶15

“ 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

¶16

RAJESH KUMAR 2025.05.22 14:34 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶17

[2]

¶18

CWP-14518-2025 (O&M)

¶19

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.

¶20

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.

¶21

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.

¶22

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.

¶23

RAJESH KUMAR 2025.05.22 14:34 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶24

[3]

¶25

CWP-14518-2025 (O&M)

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

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 09.04.2024 and all consequential proceedings are set aside.

¶29

All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly.

¶30

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE

¶31

(MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA) JUDGE

¶32

20.05.2025 rajesh 1. Whether speaking/reasoned? : Yes/No 2. Whether reportable? : Yes/No

¶33

RAJESH KUMAR 2025.05.22 14:34 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

Rajesh Mittal v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Mittal v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 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

Similar cases

Jasbir Singh Vs State of Haryana and Others

State of Haryana and Others Vs Dalpat Alias Lala

Deepak Khator Vs State of Haryana and Others

Dayavanti Vs State of Haryana and Others

Jyoti Saini & Anr. Vs H.V.P.N. & Ors.

Pushpinder Kalia Vs Financial Commissioner Cum Secretary, Govt of Haryana and Others