ASHOK KUMAR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD 2 (1)

CWP/7833/2024

AI Insights

The case involves a writ petition filed by Ashok Kumar against the Income Tax Officer, challenging the validity of a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, during the faceless regime. The petitioner argued that the case should be disposed of in accordance with a previous judgment by the Coordinate Bench in CWP-15745-2024, which found similar notices to be invalid for not adhering to the faceless assessment procedures mandated by Section 144B of the Act. The court agreed with the petitioner, referencing the Coordinate Bench's decision, and set aside the notice in question, allowing the petitioner relief.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 676894 (HC-MISC)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 26-09-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: CWP Bhangu vs. Union of India and others, CWP-21509-2023
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: YOGESH PUTNEY; VAIBHAV GUPTA
• Assessee Lawyers: NIKHIL GOYAL
• Keywords: Faceless assessment; Income Tax Officer; Jurisdiction; Notice
• Section: 148; 144B

Judgement Text

"CWP-7833-2024 109 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT ASHOK KUMAR INCOME TAX OFFICER AND CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE Present: Mr. Mr. Yogesh Putney, Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Standing Counsel for the respondents/Revenue. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) CM-15788-CWP Application for preponement of date of hearing of the main case is allowed. Main case is taken on board for today itself. Main case 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner can be disposed of in terms of judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench in CWP Bhangu vs. Union of India and others, decided on counsel submits that he does not press the other grounds in the present petition 2024 (O&M) Page 1 of 3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ASHOK KUMAR Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND ANOTHER **** HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH **** Mr. Nikhil Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Yogesh Putney, Sr. Standing Counsel Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Standing Counsel for the respondents/Revenue. **** SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) CWP-2024 Application for preponement of date of hearing of the main case is allowed. Main case is taken on board for today itself. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner can be disposed of in terms of judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench in CWP-15745-2024, titled as Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others, decided on counsel submits that he does not press the other grounds in the present petition. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM-15788-CWP-2024 in/and CWP-7833-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 26.09.2024 . . . . Petitioner . . . . Respondents HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA SANJAY VASHISTH Advocate for the petitioner. Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Standing Counsel SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) Application for preponement of date of hearing of the main case is allowed. Main case is taken on board for today itself. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner can be disposed of in terms of judgment passed by the 2024, titled as Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others, decided on 19.07.2024. Learned counsel submits that he does not press the other grounds in the present in/and (O&M) .2024 Petitioner . . . . Respondents Application for preponement of date of hearing of the main case Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner can be disposed of in terms of judgment passed by the 2024, titled as Jatinder Singh 19.07.2024. Learned counsel submits that he does not press the other grounds in the present MOHIT GOYAL 2024.09.26 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-7833-2024 2. Learned counsel for the revenue submits that the writ petition preferred by the petitioner does not essentially raise the said grounds which were examined 3. However, we find that the petitioner was served a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer during the faceless regime. 4. In CWP concurred with the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench in CWP 15745-2024 (supra) and held as under: Coordinate Bench (supra), notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and the procee 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 3 for want of jurisdiction. at liberty to follow the procedure as laid down under the Act, 1961 and proceed accordingly, if so advised. interim order passed by the Court shall stand merged with the present order.” 5. In view thereof, the writ petition is allowed and notice dated 22.03.2024 2024 (O&M) Page 2 of 3 Learned counsel for the revenue submits that the writ petition preferred by the petitioner does not essentially raise the said grounds which were examined by the Coordinate Bench. However, we find that the petitioner was served a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer during the faceless regime. In CWP-21509-2023 and other bunch of petitions, we have al concurred with the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench in CWP 2024 (supra) and held as under:- “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 procee 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.” In view thereof, the writ petition is allowed and notice dated 22.03.2024 is set aside. The observations and order passed above shall Learned counsel for the revenue submits that the writ petition preferred by the petitioner does not essentially raise the said grounds which were However, we find that the petitioner was served a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Jurisdictional Assessing 2023 and other bunch of petitions, we have also concurred with the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench in CWP- - 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 0.03.2023 and order dated 30.03.2023, are set aside revenue would be, however, at liberty to follow the procedure as laid down under the Act, 1961 and proceed accordingly, if so advised. petitions are allowed. The interim order passed by the Court shall stand merged In view thereof, the writ petition is allowed and notice dated is set aside. The observations and order passed above shall Learned counsel for the revenue submits that the writ petition preferred by the petitioner does not essentially raise the said grounds which were However, we find that the petitioner was served a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Jurisdictional Assessing so - In view thereof, the writ petition is allowed and notice dated is set aside. The observations and order passed above shall MOHIT GOYAL 2024.09.26 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-7833-2024 apply mutatis mu revenue would be, however, at liberty to follow the procedure as laid down under the Act, 1961 and proceed accordingly, if so advised. 6. All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly. September 26 Mohit goyal 1. Whether speaking/reasoned? 2. Whether reportable? 2024 (O&M) Page 3 of 3 apply mutatis mutandis to the present case. However, 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. All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly. (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA , 2024 1. Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No 2. Whether reportable? Yes/No tandis to the present case. However, 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. All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No - revenue would be, however, at liberty to follow the procedure as laid MOHIT GOYAL 2024.09.26 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document "