CRESTBELL PRIVATE LIMITED V. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

CWP/17839/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Crestbell Private Limited, which filed a petition against the Income Tax Officer and others, challenging the notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner argued that the notices and subsequent proceedings were not conducted in accordance with the statutory provisions, specifically the faceless assessment requirements under Section 144B. The court referenced a previous judgment in CWP No.21509 of 2023, which held that circulars or instructions by the Board could not override statutory provisions. The court's decision reinforced the mandatory nature of legislative enactments and the proper adherence to statutory procedures in tax assessments.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 749653 (HC-MISC)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 30-07-2024
• 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: PRIDHI SANDHU
• Assessee Lawyers: NIKHIL GOYAL
• Keywords: Faceless assessment; Income Tax; Jurisdiction; Statutory provisions
• Section: 148; 119; 144B; 120

Judgement Text

"CWP-17839-2024 120 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CRESTBELL PRIVATE LIMITED INCOME TAX CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE Present: Mr for the petitioner. M for the SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) 1. Notice 2. Ms. Pridhi Sandhu, Jr. Standing Counsel accepts notice on behalf of respondents/Revenue present petition stands covered by the judgment passed by this Court in CWP No.21509 of 2023 titled as Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others, decided on 29.07.2024, wherein this Court held as under: Coordinate instructions by the Board could not have override statutory provisions obsolete. Legislative enactments having followed strictly and mandatorily. By exercising the powers contained Section 144B (7 & 8), the 2024 (O&M) Page 1 of 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRESTBELL PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS **** HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH **** Mr. Nikhil Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Pridhi Sandhu, Jr. Standing Counsel for the respondents/Revenue. **** SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) Notice of motion. Ms. Pridhi Sandhu, Jr. Standing Counsel accepts notice on behalf of respondents/Revenue and fairly states that the issue involved in the present petition stands covered by the judgment passed by this Court in CWP No.21509 of 2023 titled as Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and , decided on 29.07.2024, wherein this Court 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 override statutory provisions or to make them otiose or obsolete. Legislative enactments having followed strictly and mandatorily. By exercising the powers contained Sections 119 and 120 of the Act, 1961 as well as Section 144B (7 & 8), the authorities cannot be allowed to IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-17839-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 30.07.2024 . . . . Petitioner . . . . Respondents HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA SANJAY VASHISTH Standing Counsel SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) Ms. Pridhi Sandhu, Jr. Standing Counsel accepts notice on behalf of and fairly states that the issue involved in the present petition stands covered by the judgment passed by this Court in CWP No.21509 of 2023 titled as Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and , decided on 29.07.2024, wherein this Court held as under: 16. We are in agreement with the view taken by the Bench and hold that such circular or instructions by the Board could not have been issued to or to make them otiose or obsolete. Legislative enactments having financial be followed strictly and mandatorily. By exercising the powers Sections 119 and 120 of the Act, 1961 as well as authorities cannot be allowed to (O&M) .2024 Petitioner . . . . Respondents Ms. Pridhi Sandhu, Jr. Standing Counsel accepts notice on behalf of and fairly states that the issue involved in the present petition stands covered by the judgment passed by this Court in CWP No.21509 of 2023 titled as Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and MOHIT GOYAL 2024.08.02 11:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-17839-2024 usurp the legal provisions to their own convenie leaves and occasion to suggested by the learned counsel for has already been held by the Coordinate Bench. Coordinate Bench under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and the 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 30.03.2023, are set aside for want of jurisdiction. liberty to follow the procedure as laid down under the Act, 1961 and proceed accordingly, if so advised. order passed by the Court shall stand merged with the present order. 3. Keeping in view above, the present petition is mutandis. 4. All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly. July 30, 2024 Mohit goyal 1. Whether speaking/reasoned? 2. Whether reportable? 2024 (O&M) Page 2 of 2 usurp the legal provisions to their own convenience causing hardship to the assessees. It also leaves confusion in the minds of the taxpayers and supplementing the statutory provisions and 17. In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no occasion to distinguish or take a different view suggested by the learned counsel for 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 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.” Keeping in view above, the present petition is mutandis. All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly. (SANJEEV 1. Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No 2. Whether reportable? Yes/No usurp the legal provisions to their own satisfaction and nce causing hardship to the assessees. It also confusion in the minds of the taxpayers instructions supplementing the statutory provisions and 17. In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no 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 (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, 0.03.2023 and order dated 30.03.2023, are set aside for want of jurisdiction. revenue would be, however, at liberty to follow the procedure as laid down under the Act, 1961 and proceed accordingly, if so advised. tions are allowed. The interim order passed by the Court shall stand merged with the Keeping in view above, the present petition is disposed of mutatis All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No mutatis MOHIT GOYAL 2024.08.02 11:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document "