Case LawHigh Court › Crestbell v. Income Ta

Crestbell v. Income Ta

High Court 30 Jul 2024 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · phhc
Parties
Crestbell v. Income Ta
Date of order
30 Jul 2024
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Allowed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In Crestbell v. Income Ta, the High Court (2024) allowed the appeal.

Decision: All the writ petitions arporder passed by the Court shall resent order.”stand merged with the 3.Keeping in view above, the present petition is disposed of mutatismutandis.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

Sections referenced in this judgment

CWP-17839-202[4 (O&M)] Page 1 of 2 120 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJACHANDIGARB AND HARYANA AT H CWP-17839-2024 (O&M)Date of Decision: 30.07.2024 CRESTBELL . . . . Petitioner Vs. INCOME TA . . . . Respondents **** CORAM: HHON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMAJAY VASHISTH **** Present: Mf MCounsel for the respondents/Revenue. **** SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) 1.Notice 2.Ms. Prinsel accepts notice on behalf ofrespondents/Revenue and fairly states that the issue involved in thepresent petition stands covered by the judgment passed by this Court inCWP No.21509 of 2023 titled as Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India andothers, decided on 29.07.2024, wherein this Court held as under: “16. We are in agreement wCoordinate Bench and hold thinstructions by the Board could noverride statutory provisions or tith the view taken by the at such circular or ot have been issued to o make them otiose or ofobsolete. Legislative enactmentsllowed strictly and mandatorily. B having financial be y exercising the powers cSontained Sections 119 and 120 of ection 144B (7 & 8), the authoritithe Act, 1961 as well as es cannot be allowed to Page 2 of 2 usurp the legal provisions to their own satisfaction and cleonvenience causing hardship to aves confusion in the minds of thand supplementing the statutory pro 17. In view of the aforesaidoccasion to distinguish or takesuggested by the learned counsel fohas already been held by the Coord C18. Keeping in view the oordinate Bench (supra), noticunder Section 148 of the Act, 196initiated thereafter without conassessment as envisaged under Se1961, have been found to be contrthe Act, 1961 and accordingly no16.03.2023, 20.03.2024 and 30.0330.03.2023, are set aside for want o 19. The respondents-revenueliberty to follow the procedure as la1961 and proceed accordingly, if so 20. All the writ petitions arporder passed by the Court shall resent order.”stand merged with the 3.Keeping in view above, the present petition is disposed of mutatismutandis. 4.All penposed of accordingly. (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE July 30, 2024 Mohit goyal (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE Yes/NoYes/No
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ Defend a reassessment (Sec 148) notice → 💬 Ask our CA
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation. Full disclaimer & Terms.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan