Punjab-Haryana High Court
Shivanika Gupta vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax And ... on 6 August, 2024
Author: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
Bench: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:100423-DB
CWP-18791 of 2024(O&M)
2024
Page 1 of 2
114
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP-18791-2024 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 06.08.2024
.2024
SHIVANIKA GUPTA
. . . . Petitioner
Vs.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND AND OTHERS
. . . . Respondents
****
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH
****
Present: Mr Nikhil Goyal, Advocate
Mr.
for the petitioner.
Mr. Yogesh Putney, Sr. Standing Counsel and
Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Standing Counsel
for the respondents/Revenue.
****
SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral)
1. Notice of motion.
2. Mr. Yogesh Putney, Sr. Standing Counsel accepts notice on behalf of
respondents/Revenue and fairly states that the issue involved in the
present petition stands covered by the judgment passed by this Court in
CWP No.21509 of 2023 titled as Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and
others,, decided on 29.07.2024, wherein this Court held as under:
"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 finan
financial be
followed strictly and mandatorily. By exercising the powers
contained 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
causing hardship to the assessees. It also
1 of 2
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:100423-DB
CWP-18791 of 2024(O&M)
leaves confusion in the minds of the taxpayers instructions
and supplementing the statutory provisions and
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
suggested
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.
30.03.2023 and order dated
30.03.2023, are set aside for want of jurisdiction.
19. The respondents-revenue
revenue would be, however, at
liberty to follow the procedure as laid down under the Act,
1961 and proceed accordingly, if so advised.
20. All the writ petitions are allowed. The interim
order passed by the Court shall stand merged with the
present order."
order.
3. 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.
case. Accordingly, notices dated 22.03.2024(P
22.03.2024(P-4),
4), 08.04.2024
(P-5),
5), 04.07.2024(P-10)
04.07.2024(P 10) and 04.07.2024(P
04.07.2024(P-11) are hereby set aside.
4. All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly.
(SANJEEV
SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
SHARMA)
JUDGE
(SANJAY VASHISTH)
JUDGE
August 06,, 2024
Rashmi
1. Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No
2. Whether reportable? Yes/No
2 of 2
