Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ritu Mehta vs Union Of India And Others on 6 November, 2024
Author: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
Bench: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
CWP-30022-2024 -l-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
136
CWP-30022-2024
Decided on : 06.11.2024
Ritu Mehta
... Petitioner(s)
Versus
Union of India and others
... Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH
PRESENT: Mr. Anurag Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioner(s).
Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Sr. Standing Counsel
for the respondent(s) - revenue.
2 3 2K ok
SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J. (Oral)
1. Notice of motion.
2. Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Sr. Standing Counsel, accepts notice for
the respondents - revenue.
3. 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 vs. Union of India and
others, decided on 29.07.2024, and by the Coordinate Bench in CWP
No.15745 of 2024 titled as Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and
others, decided on 19.07.2024. This Court in Jasjit Singh (supra) 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
LAVISHA make them otiose or obsolete. Legislative enactments having
7 Sttest to the accurac and
authenticty of this order/judgment
enna & ipervana High Court,
authenticity of this order/judgment
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.
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.
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.
20. All the writ petitions are allowed. The interim order passed
by the Court shall stand merged with the present order."
2004-PHHC:144569-DB BS
CWP-30022-2024 -3- 4 So
4. 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 u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated
24.03.2024, and consequential proceedings are set aside.
5. All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly.
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA)
JUDGE
(SANJAY VASHISTH)
JUDGE
November 06, 2024
J.Ram
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
authenticity of this order/judgment
