Navdeep Kumar Huf v. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax And Anr

CWP-25147-2024 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH 116 CWP-25147-2024 Decided on : 27.09.2024 Navdeep Kumar HUF Versus Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax and anr. . . . Petitioner(s) . . . Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMAHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH PRESENT: Mr. Rishabh Kapoor, Advocatefor the petitioner(s).for the petitioner(s). Mr. Amanpreet (A.P.) Singh, Sr. Standing Counselfor the respondents – revenue. **** SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J. (Oral) 1.Notice of motion. 2.Mr. Amanpreet (A.P.) Singh, Sr. Standing Counsel, acceptsnotice for the respondents – revenue. 3.Both the counsel are ad idem that the issue involved in thepresent petition stands finally examined and concluded 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 of2024 titled as Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others, decidedon 19.07.2024. This Court in Jasjit Singh (supra) held as under: “16.We are in agreement with the view taken by the CoordinateBench and hold that such circular or instructions by the Boardcould not have been issued to override statutory provisions or tomake them otiose or obsolete. Legislative enactments havingBench and hold that such circular or instructions by the Boardcould not have been issued to override statutory provisions or tomake them otiose or obsolete. Legislative enactments having financial implications are required to be followed strictly andmandatorily. By exercising the powers contained in Sections 119and 120 of the Act, 1961 as well as Section 144B (7 & 8), theauthorities cannot be allowed to usurp the legal provisions to theirown satisfaction and convenience causing hardship to theassessees. It also leaves confusion in the minds of the taxpayers. Inthe opinion of this Court, instructions and circulars can be issuedonly for the purpose of supplementing the statutory provisions andfor their implementation. 17.In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no occasion todistinguish or take a different view as suggested by the learnedcounsel for the revenue from what has already been held by theCoordinate 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 conductingthe faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B of theAct, 1961, have been found to be contrary to the provisions of theAct, 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 setaside for want of jurisdiction. 19.The respondents-revenue would be, however, at liberty tofollow the procedure as laid down under the Act, 1961 and proceedaccordingly, if so advised. 20.All the writ petitions are allowed. The interim order passedby the Court shall stand merged with the present order.” CWP-25147-2024 - 3 - 4.Keeping in view above, we allow this Writ Petition in theaforesaid terms. The observations and order passed above shall applymutatis mutandis to the present case. Accordingly, notice issued by theJurisdictional Assessing Officer u/s 148 dated 27.03.2024, and consequentialproceedings are set aside. 5.All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly. (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA)JUDGE September 27, 2024J.Ram (SANJAY VASHISTH)JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/NoWhether Reportable: Yes/No