DEVINDER PAUL SINGH SANDHU V. PR. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NWR AND ORS

CWP/12819/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Devinder Paul Singh Sandhu, the petitioner, against the Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, NWR, and others, respondents. The core issue revolved around the legality of notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, during the faceless assessment regime. The petitioner challenged the notices and subsequent proceedings, arguing they were issued without proper jurisdiction and contrary to the statutory requirements of conducting faceless assessments as mandated by Section 144B of the Act. The court referenced several precedents, including the case of Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India, which supported the petitioner's stance.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 676939 (HC-MISC)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 26-09-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Jatinder Singh 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: RANVIJAYSINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: VRALIKA BASSI
• Keywords: Faceless assessment; Income Tax; Jurisdiction; Notice; Preponement of Hearing
• Section: 148; 144B

Judgement Text

"CWP-12819-2024 110 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT DEVINDER PAUL SINGH SANDHU PR. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NWR AND ORS CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE Present: Ms. Vralika Bassi, Advocate for the Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Sr. Standing Counsel for the respondents/Revenue. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) CM-15733-CWP Application for preponement of date of hearing of the main case is allowed. Main case is taken on board for CM-15734-CWP Application allowed. Registry to place the same at appropriate place. 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 2024 (O&M) Page 1 of 3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DEVINDER PAUL SINGH SANDHU Vs. PR. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NWR AND ORS **** HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH **** Ms. Vralika Bassi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Sr. 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. CWP-2024 Application for placing on record Annexure A Registry to place the same at appropriate place. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner can be disposed of in terms of judgment passed by the IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM-15733-CWP-2024 and CM-15734-CWP-2024 in/and CWP-12819-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 26.09.2024 . . . . Petitioner PR. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NWR AND ORS . . . . Respondents HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA SANJAY VASHISTH Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Sr. Standing Counsel SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) Application for preponement of date of hearing of the main case today itself. for placing on record Annexure A-1 to A-4 is Registry to place the same at appropriate place. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner can be disposed of in terms of judgment passed by the and in/and (O&M) .2024 Petitioner . . . . Respondents Application for preponement of date of hearing of the main case 4 is Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner can be disposed of in terms of judgment passed by the MOHIT GOYAL 2024.09.26 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-12819-2024 Coordinate Bench in CWP Bhangu vs. Union of India and others, decided on 19.07.2024. Learn counsel submits that he does not press the other grounds in the present petition 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 by the Coordinat 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 15745-2024 (supra) and held as under: Coordinate Bench (supra), notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and the proceedings initiated 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 or for want of jurisdiction. at liberty to follow the procedure as laid down under the Act, 1961 and proceed accordingly, if so advised. 2024 (O&M) Page 2 of 3 Coordinate Bench in CWP-15745-2024, titled as Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others, decided on 19.07.2024. Learn counsel submits that he does not press the other grounds in the present petition. 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 also 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 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. 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 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 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 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 der 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. 2024, titled as Jatinder Singh ed counsel submits that he does not press the other grounds in the present 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 - MOHIT GOYAL 2024.09.26 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-12819-2024 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 29.03.2024 apply mutatis mutandis to the 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 20. All the writ petitions are interim order passed by the Court shall stand merged with the present order.” In view thereof, the writ petition is allowed and notice dated .03.2024 is set aside. The observations and order passed above shall 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 , 2024 1. Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No 2. Whether reportable? Yes/No 20. All the writ 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 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 In view thereof, the writ petition is allowed and notice dated is set aside. The observations and order passed above shall - 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 "