AMIT SAKET AND CO V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 HISAR

CWP/19674/2024

AI Insights

In the case of Amit Saket & Co. versus the Income Tax Officer, Hisar, the petitioner challenged a notice and subsequent proceedings initiated by the Income Tax Department. The core issue revolved around the jurisdiction and procedural validity of the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner argued that the notice was unjustified and did not comply with the statutory requirements for faceless assessment as mandated under Section 144B of the Act. The court referenced a similar case, CWP-21509-2023, where it was previously adjudicated that such notices were issued without proper jurisdiction and thus were set aside. The court's decision in this case aligned with the established precedent, leading to the allowance of the writ petition and the setting aside of the notice and proceedings.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 749533 (HC-CHANDIGARH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 13-08-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Jasjit Singh Vs. Union of India and Others
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: GAURI RAMPAL
• Assessee Lawyers: ALOK MITTAL
• Keywords: Circulars and Instructions; Faceless assessment; Jurisdiction; Statutory provisions; Unjustified notice
• Section: 148; 119; 144B; 120

Judgement Text

"CWP-19674-2024 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 112 CWP-19674-2024 Decided on : 13.08.2024 Amit Saket & Co. . . . Petitioner(s) Versus Income Tax Officer, Hisar . . . Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH PRESENT: Mr. Alok Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal, Sr. Standing Counsel for the respondents – revenue (appearing through V.C.). **** SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA , J. (Oral) 1. Notice of motion. 2. Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal, Sr. Standing Counsel, accept notice for the respondents - revenue. 3. 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. 4. The Court has passed the following order:- “14. xxx xxx xxx xxx 15. xxx xxx xxx xxxx 16. We are in agreement with the view taken by the Coordinate Bench and hold that such circular or instructions by JAWALA RAM 2024.08.14 15:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP-19674-2024 - 2 - 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. 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. JAWALA RAM 2024.08.14 15:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP-19674-2024 - 3 - 20. All the writ petitions are allowed. The interim order passed by the Court shall stand merged with the present order. 21. xxx xxx xxxx 22. xxx xxx xxxx” 5. In view of the above, we allow this Writ Petition in the aforesaid terms. Accordingly, notice dated 14.03.2024 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. 6. Pending misc. applications, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly. (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE August 13, 2024 J.Ram Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No JAWALA RAM 2024.08.14 15:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document "