Pradeep Kumar Garg V. Income Tax Officer

CWP/24807/2024

AI Insights

The case revolves around the jurisdictional authority to issue notices under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2023-24. The petitioner, Pradeep Kumar Garg, contested the notice issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) of ITO Ward Sunam, arguing that it should have been issued by the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) as mandated by the Faceless Assessment Scheme. The petitioner objected to the JAO's jurisdiction, which was rejected based on CBDT guidelines for compulsory scrutiny. The court examined the procedural adherence to the Faceless Assessment Scheme and the specific guidelines for issuing notices under section 148 of the Act for compulsory scrutiny.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 810711 (HC-MISC)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 19-12-2024
• 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: SAURABH KAPOOR; PRIDHI SANDHU; MUSKAAN GUPTA
• Assessee Lawyers: RADHIKA SURI; PRATEEK GUPTA; ABHINAV NARANG
• Keywords: Assessment; Income Tax; Jurisdiction; National Faceless Assessment Centre; Notice
• Section: 148; 143(2); 144B

Judgement Text

"CWP-24807-2024 103+208 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT PRADEEP KUMAR GARG INCOME TAX OFFICER CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE Present: Ms. Radhika Suri, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Prateek Gupta, Advocate Mr. Abhinav Narang, Advocate Ms. for the petitioner. M Ms. Pridhi Ms. Muskaan Gupta, Advocate for the SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) CM-20488-CWP Application for placing on record petitioner along with documents Annexure P exemption from filing certified copies thereof exceptions. Registry to place the same at appropria CWP-24807-2024 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the last date is 31.12.2024, the case may be taken up for arguments. 2024 (O&M) Page 1 of 7 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH PRADEEP KUMAR GARG Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER **** HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH **** Ms. Radhika Suri, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Prateek Gupta, Advocate Mr. Abhinav Narang, Advocate Ms. Parnika Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Sr. Standing Counsel Ms. Pridhi Sandhu, Jr. Standing Counsel Ms. Muskaan Gupta, Advocate for the respondent/Revenue. **** SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) CWP-2024 Application for placing on record petitioner along with documents Annexure P exemption from filing certified copies thereof Registry to place the same at appropria 2024 (O&M) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the last date is 31.12.2024, the case may be taken up for arguments. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM-20488-CWP-2024 in/and CWP-24807-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 19.12.2024 . . . . Petitioner . . . . Respondent HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA SANJAY VASHISTH Ms. Radhika Suri, Sr. Advocate with Sr. Standing Counsel with r. Standing Counsel SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) Application for placing on record rejoinder on behalf of petitioner along with documents Annexure P-7 to P-12 and seeking exemption from filing certified copies thereof is allowed, subject to all just Registry to place the same at appropriate place. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the last date is 31.12.2024, the case may be taken up for arguments. in/and (O&M) .2024 Petitioner . . . . Respondent rejoinder on behalf of 12 and seeking is allowed, subject to all just Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the last date is MOHIT GOYAL 2024.12.19 17:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-24807-2024 2. We, therefore, have 3. The submission that the petitioner had filed return for the AY: 2023 required to be assessed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre (for short ‘NFAC’) in terms of Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’). 4. Learned counsel submits that a notice was issued to the petitioner under section 143(2) of the Act for the AY:2023 Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO), ITO Ward Sunam, whereas the said notice was to be issued in te by the NFAC, and therefore, she submits that the without jurisdiction. The petitioner objected to the jurisdiction assumed by the JAO vide his objections dated 16.08.2024. The same were however rejecte CBDT’s Guidelines for compulsory selection of returns for complete scrutiny during FY: 2024 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited attention to the Circular dated 03.05.2024, and submits that as per guidelines under section 148 of the Act for compulsory scrutiny. Since in the case of the petitioner, there was no notice iss Act for the AY: 2023 the provisions of the Circular dated 03.05.2024. She therefore submits 2024 (O&M) Page 2 of 7 We, therefore, have heard both the counsel finally on the case. The submissions of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner are that the petitioner had filed return for the AY: 2023 required to be assessed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre (for short ‘NFAC’) in terms of Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1 (for short ‘the Act’). Learned counsel submits that a notice was issued to the petitioner under section 143(2) of the Act for the AY:2023 Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO), ITO Ward Sunam, whereas the said notice was to be issued in terms of section 144B(1)(iii) of the Act by the NFAC, and therefore, she submits that the without jurisdiction. The petitioner objected to the jurisdiction assumed by the JAO vide his objections dated 16.08.2024. The same were however rejected by the JAO placing reliance on para 4(i) of the CBDT’s Guidelines for compulsory selection of returns for complete scrutiny during FY: 2024-25 vide instructions dated 03.05.2024. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited attention to the Circular ted 03.05.2024, and submits that as per guidelines, the cases could be taken only where there is a notice issued under section 148 of the Act for compulsory scrutiny. Since in the case of the petitioner, there was no notice iss Act for the AY: 2023-24, the respondent’s action was clearly beyond the provisions of the Circular dated 03.05.2024. She therefore submits counsel finally on the case. of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner are that the petitioner had filed return for the AY: 2023-24 which is required to be assessed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre (for short ‘NFAC’) in terms of Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, Learned counsel submits that a notice was issued to the petitioner under section 143(2) of the Act for the AY:2023-24 by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO), ITO Ward Sunam, whereas the of section 144B(1)(iii) of the Act by the NFAC, and therefore, she submits that the impugned notice was without jurisdiction. The petitioner objected to the jurisdiction assumed by the JAO vide his objections dated 16.08.2024. The same d by the JAO placing reliance on para 4(i) of the CBDT’s Guidelines for compulsory selection of returns for complete 25 vide instructions dated 03.05.2024. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited attention to the Circular ted 03.05.2024, and submits that as per clause 2(4) of the aforesaid , the cases could be taken only where there is a notice issued under section 148 of the Act for compulsory scrutiny. Since in the case of the petitioner, there was no notice issued under section 148 of the 24, the respondent’s action was clearly beyond the provisions of the Circular dated 03.05.2024. She therefore submits of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner are 24 which is required to be assessed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre (for short ‘NFAC’) in terms of Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, Learned counsel submits that a notice was issued to the petitioner 24 by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO), ITO Ward Sunam, whereas the of section 144B(1)(iii) of the Act notice was without jurisdiction. The petitioner objected to the jurisdiction assumed by the JAO vide his objections dated 16.08.2024. The same d by the JAO placing reliance on para 4(i) of the CBDT’s Guidelines for compulsory selection of returns for complete Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited attention to the Circular the aforesaid , the cases could be taken only where there is a notice issued under section 148 of the Act for compulsory scrutiny. Since in the case ued under section 148 of the 24, the respondent’s action was clearly beyond the provisions of the Circular dated 03.05.2024. She therefore submits MOHIT GOYAL 2024.12.19 17:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-24807-2024 that the case of the petitioner would fall within the scope of the said circular, and th in law. 6. She also relies on the judgment passed by this Court in of 2023 titled as Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others on 29.07.2024 7. Per contra, the ITR filed by the petitioner for AY: 2023 jurisdiction of respondent/ITO, Ward Sunam, who has issued notice under section 143(2) of the Act, and the concerned officer had jurisdiction in terms of the of returns for complete scrutiny during FY: 2024 8. The guidelines were circulated vide instructions dated 03.05.2024, and as per para 2(4)(i) of these guidelines, notice shall be issued under section 143(2) of t the Act has been issued pursuant to search and s conducted on or after 1 return is either furnished or not furnished in response to notice un section 148 of the Act. 9. Learned filed returns in response to notice under section 148 of the Act issued to him on 30.03.2024 with respect to AYs: 2 2022-23. In 2024 (O&M) Page 3 of 7 that the case of the petitioner would fall within the scope of the said circular, and the assumption of jurisdiction by the JAO is therefore bad in law. She also relies on the judgment passed by this Court in of 2023 titled as Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others on 29.07.2024. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the ITR filed by the petitioner for AY: 2023 jurisdiction of respondent/ITO, Ward Sunam, who has issued notice under section 143(2) of the Act, and the concerned officer had jurisdiction in terms of the CBDT Guidelines for compulsory selection of returns for complete scrutiny during FY: 2024 The guidelines were circulated vide instructions dated 03.05.2024, and as per para 2(4)(i) of these guidelines, notice shall be issued under section 143(2) of the Act in a case where notice under section 148 of the Act has been issued pursuant to search and s conducted on or after 1st day of April, 2021, and also cases where return is either furnished or not furnished in response to notice un section 148 of the Act. Learned counsel for the Revenue submits that the petitioner had not filed returns in response to notice under section 148 of the Act issued to him on 30.03.2024 with respect to AYs: 2 23. In view thereto, the case of the petitioner even for the AY: that the case of the petitioner would fall within the scope of the said e assumption of jurisdiction by the JAO is therefore bad She also relies on the judgment passed by this Court in CWP No.21509 of 2023 titled as Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others, decided g for the respondent submits that the ITR filed by the petitioner for AY: 2023-24 falls within the jurisdiction of respondent/ITO, Ward Sunam, who has issued notice under section 143(2) of the Act, and the concerned officer had CBDT Guidelines for compulsory selection of returns for complete scrutiny during FY: 2024-25. The guidelines were circulated vide instructions dated 03.05.2024, and as per para 2(4)(i) of these guidelines, notice shall be issued under he Act in a case where notice under section 148 of the Act has been issued pursuant to search and seizure/survey actions day of April, 2021, and also cases where return is either furnished or not furnished in response to notice under counsel for the Revenue submits that the petitioner had not filed returns in response to notice under section 148 of the Act issued to him on 30.03.2024 with respect to AYs: 2020-21, 2021-22 and the case of the petitioner even for the AY: that the case of the petitioner would fall within the scope of the said e assumption of jurisdiction by the JAO is therefore bad CWP No.21509 , decided g for the respondent submits that 24 falls within the jurisdiction of respondent/ITO, Ward Sunam, who has issued notice under section 143(2) of the Act, and the concerned officer had CBDT Guidelines for compulsory selection The guidelines were circulated vide instructions dated 03.05.2024, and as per para 2(4)(i) of these guidelines, notice shall be issued under he Act in a case where notice under section 148 of s day of April, 2021, and also cases where der counsel for the Revenue submits that the petitioner had not filed returns in response to notice under section 148 of the Act issued 22 and the case of the petitioner even for the AY: MOHIT GOYAL 2024.12.19 17:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-24807-2024 2023-24 would fall under the conditions of the aforesaid instructions, and the issuance of notice under section 143(2) of the Act is as per law. 10. The impugned taking proper administrative approval of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vide order dated 14.06.2024, and therefore he submits that the impugned notice cannot be said to have been issued without jurisdiction. 11. We have carefully considered the submis provisions of law. Section contained in any other provision of this Act, the assessment, reassessment or recomputation under sub section (3) of section 147, as the case may be, with respect to the cases referred to in sub manner as per the following procedure, namely: the National Faceless Assessment Centre, under sub section (2) of section 143 or under sub section 142 and the assessee may file his response to such notice within the date specified therein, to the National Faceless Assessme to the assessment unit;” 12. In view of above, it is apparent that the notice under section 143(2) assessment under section 144B 2024 (O&M) Page 4 of 7 24 would fall under the conditions of the aforesaid instructions, and the issuance of notice under section 143(2) of the Act is as per law. impugned notice was issued by the JAO on 18.06.2024 after ing proper administrative approval of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vide order dated 14.06.2024, and therefore he submits that the impugned notice cannot be said to have been issued without jurisdiction. We have carefully considered the submis provisions of law. Section 144B(1) of the Act provides as under: “144B(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other provision of this Act, the assessment, reassessment or recomputation under sub section (3) of section 143 or under section 144 or under section 147, as the case may be, with respect to the cases referred to in sub-section (2), shall be made in a faceless manner as per the following procedure, namely: (i) xxx (ii) xxx iii) a notice shall be served on the as the National Faceless Assessment Centre, under sub section (2) of section 143 or under sub section 142 and the assessee may file his response to such notice within the date specified therein, to the National Faceless Assessment Centre which shall forward the same to the assessment unit;” In view of above, it is apparent that the notice under section 143(2) assessment under section 144B would be issued through the NFAC, 24 would fall under the conditions of the aforesaid instructions, and the issuance of notice under section 143(2) of the Act is as per law. notice was issued by the JAO on 18.06.2024 after ing proper administrative approval of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vide order dated 14.06.2024, and therefore he submits that the impugned notice cannot be said to have been issued without We have carefully considered the submissions and perused the of the Act provides as under: 144B(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other provision of this Act, the assessment, reassessment or recomputation under sub- section 143 or under section 144 or under section 147, as the case may be, with respect to the cases section (2), shall be made in a faceless manner as per the following procedure, namely:- ce shall be served on the assessee, through the National Faceless Assessment Centre, under sub- section (2) of section 143 or under sub-section (1) of section 142 and the assessee may file his response to such notice within the date specified therein, to the National nt Centre which shall forward the same In view of above, it is apparent that the notice under section 143(2) for would be issued through the NFAC, 24 would fall under the conditions of the aforesaid instructions, and the issuance of notice under section 143(2) of the Act is as per law. notice was issued by the JAO on 18.06.2024 after ing proper administrative approval of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vide order dated 14.06.2024, and therefore he submits that the impugned notice cannot be said to have been issued without sions and perused the for would be issued through the NFAC, MOHIT GOYAL 2024.12.19 17:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-24807-2024 and the assessee would file a response to such notic specified therein. 13. After the Faceless Assessment Scheme was introduced by amendment in the Act through new regime, the jurisdiction has been purpose of issue of notice under section 148, and it is only in special circumsta concerned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax may direct for issuance of notice. 14. The circumstanc only be where a notice under section 148 has already CBDT Guidelines with respect to the power of issuance of notice by the JAO would arise only in terms thereto. 15. On perusal of para 2(4)(i) of the Circular dated 03.05.2024, it is apparent that the proceedings for scrutiny by the JAO can be up, and notice can be issued under section 143(2) only in cases where notice under section 148 has been issued for that particular assessment year. It is an admitted position from the reply filed by the respondent that notice under section 148 was and 2022 the JAO would not have jurisdiction to issue notice under section 143(2) of the Act, and it would be only the NFAC as per section 144B(1)(iii) to have ju 143(2) of the Act. 2024 (O&M) Page 5 of 7 and the assessee would file a response to such notic specified therein. After the Faceless Assessment Scheme was introduced by amendment in the Act through new regime, the jurisdiction has been purpose of issue of notice under section 148, and it is only in special circumstances as provided under section 144B(7) and (8) that the concerned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax may direct for issuance of notice. The circumstances as mentioned in section 144B only be where a notice under section 148 has already CBDT Guidelines with respect to the power of issuance of notice by JAO would arise only in terms thereto. On perusal of para 2(4)(i) of the Circular dated 03.05.2024, it is apparent that the proceedings for scrutiny by the JAO can be up, and notice can be issued under section 143(2) only in cases where notice under section 148 has been issued for that particular assessment year. It is an admitted position from the reply filed by the respondent that notice under section 148 was issued for AYs: 2020 and 2022-23, and was not issued for the AY: 2023 the JAO would not have jurisdiction to issue notice under section 143(2) of the Act, and it would be only the NFAC as per section 144B(1)(iii) to have jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under section 143(2) of the Act. and the assessee would file a response to such notice within the date After the Faceless Assessment Scheme was introduced by amendment in the Act through new regime, the jurisdiction has been ceased for the purpose of issue of notice under section 148, and it is only in special nces as provided under section 144B(7) and (8) that the concerned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax may direct for es as mentioned in section 144B(7) and (8) would only be where a notice under section 148 has already been issued. The CBDT Guidelines with respect to the power of issuance of notice by JAO would arise only in terms thereto. On perusal of para 2(4)(i) of the Circular dated 03.05.2024, it is apparent that the proceedings for scrutiny by the JAO can be picked up, and notice can be issued under section 143(2) only in cases where notice under section 148 has been issued for that particular assessment year. It is an admitted position from the reply filed by the respondent issued for AYs: 2020-21, 2021-22 23, and was not issued for the AY: 2023-24. In view thereto, the JAO would not have jurisdiction to issue notice under section 143(2) of the Act, and it would be only the NFAC as per section risdiction to initiate proceedings under section e within the date After the Faceless Assessment Scheme was introduced by amendment for the purpose of issue of notice under section 148, and it is only in special nces as provided under section 144B(7) and (8) that the concerned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax may direct for (7) and (8) would been issued. The CBDT Guidelines with respect to the power of issuance of notice by On perusal of para 2(4)(i) of the Circular dated 03.05.2024, it is picked up, and notice can be issued under section 143(2) only in cases where notice under section 148 has been issued for that particular assessment year. It is an admitted position from the reply filed by the respondent 22 24. In view thereto, the JAO would not have jurisdiction to issue notice under section 143(2) of the Act, and it would be only the NFAC as per section risdiction to initiate proceedings under section MOHIT GOYAL 2024.12.19 17:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-24807-2024 16. The notice dated therefore found to be without jurisdiction the concerned Principal Commissioner would not be sufficient to grant jurisdiction to the JAO. 17. In Jasjit Singh Coordinate Bench and hold that such ci instructions by 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 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 confusio opinion of this Court, instructions and circulars can be issued only for the purpose of supplementing the statutory provisions and for their implementation. occasi suggested by the learned counsel for the revenue from what has already been held by the Coordinate Bench. Coordinate Bench (supra), notices issued by the JAO under S 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 date 2024 (O&M) Page 6 of 7 The notice dated 18.06.2024 issued under section 143(2) of the Act is therefore found to be without jurisdiction the concerned Principal Commissioner would not be sufficient to grant jurisdiction to the JAO. Jasjit Singh (supra), we have held as under: “16. We are in agreement with the view taken by the Coordinate Bench and hold that such ci instructions by 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 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, issued under section 143(2) of the Act is therefore found to be without jurisdiction. Merely taking approval from the concerned Principal Commissioner would not be sufficient to grant (supra), we have 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 override statutory provisions or to make them otiose or obsolete. Legislative enactments having financial implications are required to be followed strictly and 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 n 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 on 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 ection 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 d 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, issued under section 143(2) of the Act is taking approval from the concerned Principal Commissioner would not be sufficient to grant MOHIT GOYAL 2024.12.19 17:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-24807-2024 20.03.2024 and 30.03.2023 and order dated 30.03.2023, are set aside for want of jurisdiction. liberty to follow the procedure as laid down under the Act, 1961 and proceed accordin order passed by the Court shall stand merged with the present order.” 18. In view thereto, the petition deserves to be allowed. 18.06.2024 initiated by the JAO cannot be held to be sustainable in law. Accordingly, the same quashed and set aside. Consequence to follow. 19. Writ Petition stands 20. All pending applications also stand disposed of. December 19, 2024 Mohit goyal 1. Whether speaking/reasoned? 2. Whether reportable? 2024 (O&M) Page 7 of 7 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 thereto, the petition deserves to be allowed. 18.06.2024 issued under section 143(2) initiated by the JAO cannot be held to be sustainable in law. Accordingly, the same quashed and set aside. Consequence to follow. Writ Petition stands allowed accordingly. pending applications also stand disposed of. (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA , 2024 1. Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No 2. Whether reportable? Yes/No 20.03.2024 and 30.03.2023 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, gly, if so advised. 20. All the writ petitions are allowed. The interim order passed by the Court shall stand merged with the In view thereto, the petition deserves to be allowed. The notice dated issued under section 143(2) of the Act and proceedings initiated by the JAO cannot be held to be sustainable in law. Accordingly, the same quashed and set aside. Consequence to follow. accordingly. pending applications also stand disposed of. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No The notice dated and proceedings initiated by the JAO cannot be held to be sustainable in law. MOHIT GOYAL 2024.12.19 17:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document "