Income Tax Officer, Hisar v. Respondent(S

CWP-19674-2024 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH 112 CWP-19674-2024 Decided on : 13.08.2024 Amit Saket & Co. Income Tax Officer, Hisar Versus . . . Petitioner(s) . . . Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMAHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH PRESENT: Mr. Alok Mittal, Advocatefor the petitioner(s).for the petitioner(s). Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal, Sr. Standing Counsel for the respondents – revenue (appearing through V.C.). **** SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J. (Oral) 1.Notice of motion. 2.Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal, Sr. Standing Counsel, accept notice for the respondents - revenue. 3.Learned counsel for both the sides are ad idem that the issueraised in this writ petition stands finally adjudicated by this Court vide orderdated 29.07.2024 in a bunch of Writ Petitions in which the lead case isCWP-21509-2023titled as Jasjit SinghVs. Union of India and Others,whereby this Court has held the notice issued by the Jurisdictional AssessingOfficer as unjustified. 4.The Court has passed the following order:- the Board could not have been issued to override statutoryprovisions or to make them otiose or obsolete. Legislativeenactments having financial implications are required to befollowed strictly and mandatorily. By exercising the powerscontained in Sections 119 and 120 of the Act, 1961 as well asSection 144B (7 & 8), the authorities cannot be allowed tousurp the legal provisions to their own satisfaction andconvenience causing hardship to the assessees. It also leavesconfusion in the minds of the taxpayers. In the opinion of thisCourt, instructions and circulars can be issued only for thepurpose of supplementing the statutory provisions and for theirimplementation. 17.In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no occasionto distinguish or take a different view as suggested by thelearned counsel for the revenue from what has already beenheld by the Coordinate Bench. 18.Keeping in view the law laid down by the CoordinateBench (supra), notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 ofthe Act, 1961 and the proceedings initiated thereafter withoutconducting the faceless assessment as envisaged under Section144B of the Act, 1961, have been found to be contrary to theprovisions of the Act, 1961 and accordingly notices dated28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2024 and 30.03.2023 and orderdated 30.03.2023, are set aside for want of jurisdiction. 19.The respondents-revenue would be, however, at libertyto follow the procedure as laid down under the Act, 1961 andproceed accordingly, if so advised. CWP-19674-2024 - 3 - 20.All the writ petitions are allowed. The interim order passed by the Court shall stand merged with the present order. 21.xxxxxxxxxx22.xxxxxxxxxx” 5.In view of the above, we allow this Writ Petition in theaforesaid terms. Accordingly, notice dated 14.03.2024 and the consequentialproceedings are set-aside. The other questions raised in the present WritPetition are not pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner.Accordingly, the same are dismissed as not pressed. 6.Pending misc. applications, if any, shall stand disposed ofaccordingly. (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA)JUDGE August 13, 2024J.Ram (SANJAY VASHISTH)JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/NoWhether Reportable: Yes/No