Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vikas Gupta vs Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 18 November, 2024
Author: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
Bench: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
CWP-7528-2023 (O&M)
Page 1 of 3
225
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP-7528-2023 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 18.11.2024
. . . . Petitioner
Vs.
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LUDHIANA AND
ANOTHER . . . . Respondents
****
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH
****
Present: Mr. Alok Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Sr. Standing Counsel
for the respondents/Revenue.
****
SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral)
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
authenticity of this order/judgment
CWP-7528-2023 (O&M)
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.
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.
authenticity of this order/judgment
CWP-7528-2023 (O&M)
20. All the writ petitions are allowed. The
interim order passed by the Court shall stand merged
with the present order."
2. 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, order dated 29.03.2023
issued under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and notice
dated 29.03.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act,
1961 by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer as well as the consequential
proceedings are set aside.
3. All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly.
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA)
JUDGE
(SANJAY VASHISTH)
JUDGE
November 18, 2024
Lavisha
1. Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No
2. Whether reportable? Yes/No
authenticity of this order/judgment
