Allowed

Ranjana Jindal v. Union of India and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC10 Sept 2026CWP/19666/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In CWP-19666-2024, a coordinate bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed the petition, setting aside notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without following the faceless assessment procedure mandated by Section 144B.

What did the court decide?

Notices dated 14.03.2023 and consequential proceedings were set aside for want of jurisdiction.

Ranjana Jindal Vs Union of India and Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

¶1

CWP-19666-2024 - 1 -

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

111

¶4

CWP-19666-2024 Decided on : 13.08.2024

Ranjana Jindal

. . . Petitioner(s)

Versus

UOI and others

. . . Respondent(s)

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

¶11

PRESENT: Mr. Kapish Chawla, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

¶12

Mr. Yogesh Putney, Sr. Standing Counsel and Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Sr. Standing Counsel for the respondents – revenue.

¶13

¶14

SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J. (Oral)

¶15

Notice of motion.

¶16

Mr. Yogesh Putney, Sr. Standing Counsel and Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Sr. Standing Counsel, accept notice for the respondents - revenue.

¶17

Learned counsel for both the sides are ad idem that the issue raised in this writ petition stands finally adjudicated by this Court vide order dated 29.07.2024 in a bunch of Writ Petitions in which the lead case is CWP-21509-2023 titled as Jasjit Singh Vs. Union of India and Others, whereby this Court has held the notice issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer as unjustified.

¶18

The Court has passed the following order:-

¶19

“ 14. xxx xxx xxx xxx 15. xxx xxx xxx xxxx 16 . We are in agreement with the view taken by the

¶20

JAWALA RAM 2024.08.14 15:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶21

CWP-19666-2024 - 2 -

¶22

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.

¶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

¶26

JAWALA RAM 2024.08.14 15:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶27

CWP-19666-2024

¶28

¶29

proceed accordingly, if so advised.

¶30

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

¶31

xxx xxx xxxx 22. xxx xxx xxxx”

¶32

In view of the above, we allow this Writ Petition in the aforesaid terms. Accordingly, notice dated 14.03.2023 and the consequential proceedings are set-aside. The other questions raised in the present Writ Petition are not pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Accordingly, the same are dismissed as not pressed.

¶33

Pending misc. applications, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.

¶34

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE

¶35

(SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE

¶36

August 13, 2024 J.Ram

¶37

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

¶38

JAWALA RAM 2024.08.14 15:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

Ranjana Jindal v. Union of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjana Jindal 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases