Kbb Nuts Private Limited v. Acit/Dcit, Central Circle And Another

Page 1 of 3 137 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH CWP-33983-2024 (O&M)Date of Decision: 17.12.2024 KBB NUTS PRIVATE LIMITED . . . . Petitioner Vs. ACIT/DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE AND ANOTHER . . . . Respondents **** CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMAHON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH **** Present:Mr. Rohit Jain, Advocate, and Mr. Vishal Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. for the respondent(s) – Revenue. **** SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) 1. Notice of motion. 2.accept notice on behalf of respondents/Revenue.accept notice on behalf of respondents/Revenue. 3. Both the counsel are ad idem that the issue involved in the presentpetition stands finally examined and concluded by this Court in CWPNo.21509 of 2023 titled as Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others,decided on 29.07.2024, and by the Coordinate Bench in CWPNo.15745 of 2024 titled as Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of Indiapetition stands finally examined and concluded by this Court in CWPNo.21509 of 2023 titled as Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others,decided on 29.07.2024, and by the Coordinate Bench in CWPNo.15745 of 2024 titled as Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others, decided on 19.07.2024. This Court in Jasjit Singh (supra)held as under: “16. We are in agreement with the view takenby the Coordinate Bench and hold that such circular orinstructions by the Board could not have been issued tooverride statutory provisions or to make them otiose orobsolete. Legislative enactments having financialimplications are required to be followed strictly andmandatorily. By exercising the powers contained inSections 119 and 120 of the Act, 1961 as well asSection 144B (7 & 8), the authorities cannot beallowed to usurp the legal provisions to their ownsatisfaction and convenience causing hardship to theassessees. It also leaves confusion in the minds of thetaxpayers. In the opinion of this Court, instructionsand circulars can be issued only for the purpose ofsupplementing the statutory provisions and for theirimplementation. 17. In view of the aforesaid discussion, there isno occasion to distinguish or take a different view assuggested by the learned counsel for the revenue fromwhat has already been held by the Coordinate Bench. 18. Keeping in view the law laid down by theCoordinate Bench (supra), notices issued by the JAOunder Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and the proceedingsinitiated thereafter without conducting the facelessassessment as envisaged under Section 144B of theAct, 1961, have been found to be contrary to theprovisions of the Act, 1961 and accordingly noticesdated 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2024 and CWP-33983-2024 (O&M) Page 3 of 3 30.03.2023 and order dated 30.03.2023, are set asidefor want of jurisdiction. 19. The respondents-revenue would be, however,at liberty to follow the procedure as laid down underthe Act, 1961 and proceed accordingly, if so advised. 20. All the writ petitions are allowed. Theinterim order passed by the Court shall stand mergedwith the present order.” 4. Keeping in view above, we allow this Writ Petition in the aforesaidterms. The observations and order passed above shall apply mutatismutandis to the present case. Accordingly, notice dated 13.03.2024issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 byJurisdictional Assessing Officer as well as the consequentialproceedings are set aside.terms. The observations and order passed above shall apply mutatismutandis to the present case. Accordingly, notice dated 13.03.2024issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 byJurisdictional Assessing Officer as well as the consequentialproceedings are set aside. 5. All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly. (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE December 17, 2024 Lavisha 1. Whether speaking/reasoned? 2. Whether reportable? (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE