Punjab-Haryana High Court
Surinder Kumar Singla vs Union Of India And Others on 8 November, 2024
Author: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
Bench: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
CWP-30264-2024 (O&M)
Page 1 of 3
103
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP-30264-2024 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 08.11.2024
SURINDER KUMAR SINGLA
. . . . Petitioner
Vs.
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
. . . . Respondents
****
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH
****
Present: Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advocate, and
Mr. Rakesh Cajla, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Senior Standing Counsel,
for the respondents/Revenue.
****
SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral)
1. Notice of motion.
2. Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Sr. Standing Counsel, accepts notice on behalf of
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:
authenticity of this order/judgment
CWP-30264-2024 (O&M)
"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.
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.
authenticity of this order/judgment
CWP-30264-2024 (O&M)
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."
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, notices dated 28.08.2024
and 20.08.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961
by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer as well as the consequential
proceedings are set aside.
5. All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly.
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA)
JUDGE
(SANJAY VASHISTH)
JUDGE
November 08, 2024
Lavisha
1. Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No
2. Whether reportable? Yes/No
authenticity of this order/judgment
