SIMRAN JAIDKA V. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

CWP/34315/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Simran Jaidka, the petitioner, who has appealed against an order of assessment pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The core issue revolves around the procedural validity of a notice issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) under the new regime. The petitioner referenced similar legal issues decided in favor by the High Court in previous cases (Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India). The court, acknowledging the ongoing appellate process, refrained from further adjudicating the matter, allowing the petitioner to present the issue at the appellate level.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 732170 (HC-CHANDIGARH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 18-12-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Singh vs. Union of India, Bhangu vs. Union of India, Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India, Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: YOGESH PUTNEY; VAIBHA GUPTA
• Assessee Lawyers: MANPREET KANDA
• Keywords: Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals); Jurisdictional Assessing Officer; Legal Issue; New regime; Writ petition

Judgement Text

"134 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Simran Jaidka Union of India CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE M Present: Mr. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) 1. Admittedly, the petitioner has preferred an Appeal against the order of assessment which is pending Tax (Appeals). Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the issue regarding the notice having been issued by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of the procedure under the new regime, is a legal iss has been decided by this Court in Singh vs. Union of India and others Coordinate Bench in Bhangu vs. Union of India and others counsel for the petitioner, in view thereto, prayed that the present Writ Petition be allowed in the same terms. 2. Notice of motion. 3. Ms. Yogesh Putney, Sr. Standing Counsel along with Mr. Vaibha Gupta, Standing Counse IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP Date of Decision: Simran Jaidka Vs. Union of India & Ors. HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHIST Mr. Manpreet Singh Kanda, Advocate for the petitioner. *** SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) Admittedly, the petitioner has preferred an Appeal against the order of assessment which is pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the issue regarding the notice having been issued by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of the procedure under the new regime, is a legal iss has been decided by this Court in CWP No.21509 of 2023 titled as Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others, decided on 29.07.2024, and by the Coordinate Bench in CWP No.15745 of 2024 titled as Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others, decided on 19.07.2024. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in view thereto, prayed that the present Writ Petition be allowed in the same terms. Notice of motion. Ms. Yogesh Putney, Sr. Standing Counsel along with Mr. Vaibha Gupta, Standing Counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the revenue. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-34315-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 18.12.2024 …Petitioner …Respondents HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA SANJAY VASHISTH Advocate for the petitioner. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) Admittedly, the petitioner has preferred an Appeal against the before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the issue regarding the notice having been issued by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of the procedure under the new regime, is a legal issue which CWP No.21509 of 2023 titled as Jasjit , decided on 29.07.2024, and by the CWP No.15745 of 2024 titled as Jatinder Singh decided on 19.07.2024. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in view thereto, prayed that the present Writ Ms. Yogesh Putney, Sr. Standing Counsel along with Mr. l, accepts notice on behalf of the revenue. Admittedly, the petitioner has preferred an Appeal against the before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the issue regarding the notice having been issued by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer ue which CWP No.21509 of 2023 titled as Jasjit , decided on 29.07.2024, and by the CWP No.15745 of 2024 titled as Jatinder Singh decided on 19.07.2024. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in view thereto, prayed that the present Writ Ms. Yogesh Putney, Sr. Standing Counsel along with Mr. RAJESH KUMAR 2024.12.19 12:36 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. [2] CWP-34315-2024 (O&M) 4. We find that as the petitioner has already approached the appellate authority where its Appeal is pending, it would not be appropriate for this Court to pass an order relating to the same issue which is before the concerned Appellate Authority. It is always open to the petitioner to argue his point before the Appellate Authority including the issue with regard to the jurisdiction in view of the judgments passed by this Court as above. 5. Granting aforesaid liberty to the petitioner, we do not propose to further entertain this Writ Petition and at the same time, we observe that the CIT (Appeals) will take into consideration the judgments passed by this Court in Jasjit Singh (Supra) and Jatinder Singh Bhangu (supra) for deciding the appeal of the petitioner. 6. The Writ Petition is disposed of in the aforementioned terms. 7. It is made clear that no recovery proceedings shall be initiated against the petitioner till the appeal is decided, keeping in view the law as settled by this Court in Jasjit Singh (Supra) and Jatinder Singh Bhangu (su- pra). 8. All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly. (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE 18.12.2024 rajesh 1. Whether speaking/reasoned? : Yes/No 2. Whether reportable? : Yes/No RAJESH KUMAR 2024.12.19 12:36 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. "