SOLIS SALES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED V. INCOME TAX OFFICER

CWP/19512/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Solis Sales India Private Limited, which filed a writ petition against the Income Tax Officer concerning notices and orders issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The core issue was the legality of the notices and subsequent proceedings, which were challenged for not adhering to the faceless assessment procedure mandated by Section 144B of the Act. The petitioner argued that the actions taken by the tax authorities were beyond their jurisdiction and violated statutory provisions. The court referenced a precedent set in the case of Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India, which supported the petitioner's stance.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 749553 (HC-MISC)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 12-08-2024
• 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: RANVIJAYSINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: VIVEK SETHI
• Keywords: Assessment; Faceless assessment; Income Tax; Jurisdiction
• Section: 148; 144B; 120

Judgement Text

"CWP-19512-2024 122 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT SOLIS SALES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED INCOME TAX CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE Present: Mr. for the petitioner. Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Sr. Standing Counsel for the SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) 1. Notice of motion. 2. Mr. Ranvijay Singh respondents/Revenue 3. The issue involved in the present petition stands finally adjudicated in view of the j titled as Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others 29.07.2024, wherein this Court held as under: Coordinate by the Board could not have provisions or to make them otiose or enactments having financial mandatorily. By exercising the powers contained 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 the assessees. It also leaves 2024 (O&M) Page 1 of 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH SOLIS SALES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER **** HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH **** Mr. Vivek Sethi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Sr. Standing Counsel for the respondent/Revenue. **** SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) Notice of motion. Ranvijay Singh, Sr. Standing Counsel respondents/Revenue. issue involved in the present petition stands finally adjudicated in view of the judgment passed by this Court in titled as Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others 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 by the Board could not have been issued to override statutory provisions or to make them otiose or enactments having financial be followed strictly and mandatorily. By exercising the powers contained 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 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-19512-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 12.08.2024 . . . . Petitioner . . . . Respondent HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA SANJAY VASHISTH Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Sr. Standing Counsel SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) , Sr. Standing Counsel accepts notice on behalf of issue involved in the present petition stands finally adjudicated in udgment 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: 16. We are in agreement with the view taken by the Bench and hold that such circular or instructions been issued to override statutory provisions or to make them otiose or obsolete. Legislative be 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 usurp the legal provisions to satisfaction and convenience causing hardship to confusion in the minds of the (O&M) .2024 Petitioner . . . . Respondent accepts notice on behalf of issue involved in the present petition stands finally adjudicated in CWP No.21509 of 2023 , decided on MOHIT GOYAL 2024.08.13 11:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-19512-2024 taxpayer provisions and occasion to by the learned counsel for been held by the C Coordinate Bench Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and the proceedings initiated thereafter without conducting the faceless assessment as envisaged under Sect 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. 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 pr order.” 4. Keeping in view above, The observations and order passed above shall apply the present case. notice u/s 148 dated 5. All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly. August 12, 2024 Mohit goyal 1. Whether speaking/reasoned? 2. Whether reportable? 2024 (O&M) Page 2 of 2 taxpayers instructions and supplementing the statutory provisions and 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. 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 pr order.” Keeping in view above, we allow this Writ Petition in the aforesaid terms. The observations and order passed above shall apply the present case. Accordingly, order u/s 148A(d) dated notice u/s 148 dated 04.04.2024 are quashed All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly. (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA , 2024 1. Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No 2. Whether reportable? Yes/No supplementing the statutory 17. In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no distinguish or take a different view as suggested the revenue from what has already 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 ion 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 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 this Writ Petition in the aforesaid terms. The observations and order passed above shall apply mutatis mutandis to Accordingly, order u/s 148A(d) dated 04.04.2024 and quashed. All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No this Writ Petition in the aforesaid terms. to .2024 and MOHIT GOYAL 2024.08.13 11:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document "