Sunil Kumar Sharma v. Income Tax O

143 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJACHANDIGARB AND HARYANA AT H CWP-21259-2024 (O&M)Date of Decision: 29.08.2024 Sunil Kumar Sharma . . . . Petitioner Vs. Income Tax O . . . . Respondents **** CORAM: HHON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMAJAY VASHISTH **** Present: Mr. Nikhil Goyal, Advocate for t Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal, Sr.Standfor the respondents. (through video conferencing) **** SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) 1.Notice 2.Ms. GaCounsel accepts notice on behalfof respoes that the issue involved in thepresentndents/Revenue and fairly stat petition stands covered by the judgment passed by this Court inof respoes that the issue involved in thepresentndents/Revenue and fairly stat petition stands covered by the judgment 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: “C16. We are in agreement with oordinate Bench and hold thinstructions by the Board could noverride statutory provisions or tthe 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 authoritiusurp the legal provisions to theithe Act, 1961 as well as es cannot be allowed to r own satisfaction and cleonvenience causing hardship to aves confusion in the minds of thand supplementing the statutory prothe assessees. It also e taxpayers instructions visions and 17. In view of the aforesaid doccasion to distinguish or takesuggested by the learned counsel fohas already been held by the Coord18.Keeping in view the lawCoordinate 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 o19. The respondents-revenue wliberty to follow the procedure as la1961 and proceed accordingly, if so20. All the writ petitions are allopassed by the Court shall stand miscussion, there is no a different view as r the revenue from what inate Bench. laid down by the es issued by the JAO 1 and the proceedings ducting the faceless ction 144B of the Act, ary to the provisions of tices dated 28.02.2023, .2023 and order dated f jurisdiction. ould be, however, at id down under the Act, advised. wed. The interim order erged with the present order.” 3.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 30.03.2024(Annexthe Income Tax Act and noticedated 2ure P-2) under Section 148 of9.06.2024 (P-6) as well as all consequential proceedings arehereby set aside. 4.������������������������������������������������������������ (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE 1. Whether speaking/reasoned? 2. Whether reportable? 2. Whether reportable? Yes/NoYes/No