SANDEEP ARORA V. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1 FARIDABAD AND OTHERS

CWP/13642/2025

AI Insights

In the case of Sandeep Arora versus The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1, Faridabad, the petitioner challenged a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The legal contention centered around the jurisdiction and procedural adherence in issuing such notices. The court referenced and aligned its decision with earlier judgments, particularly focusing on the non-override of statutory provisions by administrative circulars or instructions. The court's decision emphasized the mandatory and strict adherence to legislative enactments concerning financial implications, rejecting any administrative convenience that could lead to taxpayer confusion.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 756395 (HC-CHANDIGARH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 14-05-2025
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Jasjit Singh Versus Union of India and others, Jatinder Singh Bhangu Versus Union of India and others
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: VARUN ISSAR; PRIDHI SANDHU
• Assessee Lawyers: KARTIK BANSAL
• Keywords: Circulars; Faceless assessment; Income Tax; Jurisdiction; Statutory provisions
• Section: 148; 119; 144B; 120

Judgement Text

" 164 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.13642 of 2025 Date of Decision: 14.05.2025 Sandeep Arora …..Petitioner. Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1, Faridabad and others .....Respondents. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA ***** Present:- Mr. Kartik Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) 1. Notice of motion. 2. Mr. Varun Issar, Senior Standing Counsel with Ms. Pridhi Sandhu, Junior Standing Counsel, accept notice on behalf of the respondent(s)-Income Tax Department. 3. Both the counsel are ad-idem that the issue involved in the present petition stands finally examined and concluded by this Court in CWP No.21509 of 2023 titled as “Jasjit Singh Versus Union of India and others”, decided on 29.07.2024 and by the Co-ordinate Bench in CWP No.15745 of 2024 titled as “Jatinder Singh Bhangu Versus Union of India and others”, decided on 19.07.2024. This Court in Jasjit Singh’s YAG DUTT 2025.05.16 15:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP No.13642 of 2025 -2- case (supra) 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 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. YAG DUTT 2025.05.16 15:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP No.13642 of 2025 -3- 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.” 4. Keeping in view above, we allow this writ petition in the afore-said terms. The observations and order passed above shall apply mutatis mutandis to the present case. Accordingly, notice dated 17.04.2025 (Annexure P-1) issued by respondent No.1-Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO), under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and all consequential proceedings thereof are set-aside. (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE (MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA) May 14, 2025 JUDGE Yag Dutt Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No YAG DUTT 2025.05.16 15:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment "