SANJAY KUMAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/33095/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01171816202409 December 2024Bench: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that it would not be appropriate to pass an order on the same issue that is already before the appellate authority, where the petitioner's appeal is pending. The Court granted the petitioner liberty to argue their point, including the issue of jurisdiction, before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Court directed that the CIT (Appeals) should consider the judgments in Jasjit Singh and Jatinder Singh Bhangu while deciding the petitioner's appeal. Furthermore, the Court ordered that no recovery proceedings shall be initiated against the petitioner until the appeal is decided, referencing the law settled in the aforementioned judgments. The Writ Petition was disposed of in these terms.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Sanjay Kumar, filed a Writ Petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana challenging an assessment order. The petitioner's appeal against this order was pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The core issue raised by the petitioner pertained to the validity of a notice issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) under the new regime, arguing it should have followed a different procedure. The petitioner relied on previous High Court judgments in similar cases, Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India, to support their contention. The revenue was represented by Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal, Sr. Standing Counsel.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the present Writ Petition is maintainable when an appeal against the assessment order is already pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)? (Question of procedure/maintainability) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the issue regarding the notice issued by the JAO instead of following the new regime's procedure is a legal issue that has been decided by this Court in CWP No.21509 of 2023 (Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India) and CWP No.15745 of 2024 (Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India). Therefore, the Writ Petition should be allowed in the same terms. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records no specific contention from the revenue regarding the maintainability of the writ petition or the merits of the jurisdictional issue. However, the Court's decision implies an acknowledgment of the pending appeal.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-33095-2024 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 130 CWP-33095-2024

Decided on : 09.12.2024 Sanjay Kumar . . . Petitioner(s) Versus Income Tax Officer and others . . . Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH PRESENT: Mr. Nikhil Goyal, Advocate and Mr. Rana Gurtej Singh, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal, Sr. Standing Counsel for the respondent(s) - revenue. **** SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

, J. (Oral) 1. Admittedly, the petitioner has preferred an Appeal against the order of assessment which is pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue regarding the notice having been issued by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of the procedure under the new regime, is a legal issue which has been decided 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 of 2024 titled as Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others, decided on 19.07.2024. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in view thereto, prays that the present Writ Petition be allowed in the same terms. 2. We find that as the petitioner has already approached the JAWALA RAM 2024.12.12 18:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

CWP-33095-2024 - 2 - appellate authority where his Appeal is pending, it would not be appropriate for this Court to pass an order relating to the same issue which is before the concerned Appellate Authority. It is always open to the petitioner to argue its point before the Appellate Authority including the issue with regard to the jurisdiction in view of the judgments passed by this Court as above. 3. Granting aforesaid liberty to the petitioner, we do not propose to further entertain this Writ Petition and at the same time, we observe that the CIT (Appeals) will take into consideration the judgments passed by this Court in Jasjit Singh (Supra) and Jatinder Singh Bhangu (supra) for deciding the appeal of the petitioner. 4. The Writ Petition is disposed of in the aforementioned terms. 5. It is made clear that no recovery proceedings shall be initiated against the petitioner till the appeal is decided, keeping in view the law as settled by this Court in Jasjit Singh (Supra) and Jatinder Singh Bhangu (supra). 6. All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly. (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE December 09, 2024 J.Ram Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No JAWALA RAM 2024.12.12 18:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →