DEVINDER PAUL SINGH SANDHU vs. PR CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX NWR AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/12964/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01073265202426 September 2024Bench: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal, following the decision of the Coordinate Bench in CWP-15745-2023 (Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others), held that notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the proceedings initiated thereafter without conducting the faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act, 1961, were contrary to the provisions of the Act. Consequently, the notices dated February 28, 2023, March 16, 2023, March 20, 2024, March 30, 2023, and April 30, 2023, were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The Tribunal also noted that all pending applications stood disposed of. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly, if so advised. The interim order passed by the Court was to stand merged with the present order.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Devinder Paul Singh Sandhu, filed a writ petition (CWP-12964-2024) challenging a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings initiated by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer during the faceless regime. The petitioner's counsel submitted that the case should be decided in terms of a previous judgment by a Coordinate Bench in CWP-15745-2023 (Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others), decided on July 19, 2024. The revenue's counsel conceded that the present petition did not raise grounds different from those examined by the Coordinate Bench. The petitioner's counsel stated they did not press other grounds. The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated, nor is the specific amount in dispute.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the subsequent proceedings conducted during the faceless regime, without conducting the assessment as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act, 1961, are contrary to the provisions of the Act, 1961? Assessee's Contentions: - The petitioner's counsel relied on the judgment in CWP-15745-2023 (Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others) decided on July 19, 2024, and submitted that the present case should be decided in terms of that judgment. - The petitioner's counsel stated they did not press other grounds in the present petition. Revenue's Contentions: - The revenue's counsel submitted that the writ petition preferred by the petitioner does not essentially raise grounds that were not examined by the Coordinate Bench.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-12964-202 112

IN TH DEVINDER P PR. CHIEF CO CORAM: H

H Present: M f

f SANJEEV P

CM-15682-CW

A is allowed. M CM-15683-CW

A allowed.

R Main case

1.

Learned petition

24 (O&M)

Page 1 of 3 HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA CHANDIGAR

PAUL SINGH SANDHU Vs.

OMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA **** HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAN HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAN **** Ms. Vralika Bassi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Sr. Standing for the respondents/Revenue. **** RAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) WP-2024 Application for preponement of d Main case is taken on board for tod WP-2024 Application for placing on rec Registry to place the same at app d counsel for the petitioner ner can be disposed of in term AB AND HARYANA AT RH CM-15682-CWP-2024 and CM-15683-CWP-2024 in/and CWP-12964-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 26.09.2024 . . . . Petitioner AX, NWR AND ORS . . . . Respondents NJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA NJAY VASHISTH g Counsel ) date of hearing of the main case day itself. cord Annexure A-1 to A-4 is propriate place. submits that the case of the ms of judgment passed by the

d d ) 4 r s e s e e MOHIT GOYAL 2024.09.26 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-12964-202 Coordin Bhangu counsel petition 2. Learned by the p examin 3. Howev 148 of Officer 4. In CW concurr 15745-2 C u i a A p d 3 f a t

24 (O&M)

Page 2 of 3 nate Bench in CWP-15745-2 u vs. Union of India and others, l submits that he does not press n. d counsel for the revenue submit petitioner does not essentially ra ned by the Coordinate Bench. ver, we find that the petitioner wa f the Income Tax Act, 1961, b r during the faceless regime. WP-21509-2023 and other bunc red with the judgment passed by 2024 (supra) and held as under:- “18. Keeping in view the Coordinate Bench (supra), notic under Section 148 of the Act, 196 nitiated thereafter without con assessment as envisaged under Act, 1961, have been found to provisions of the Act, 1961 an dated 28.02.2023, 16.03.202 30.03.2023 and order dated 30. for want of jurisdiction. 19. The respondents-reven at liberty to follow the procedur the Act, 1961 and proceed accord 024, titled as Jatinder Singh decided on 19.07.2024. Learned the other grounds in the present ts that the writ petition preferred aise the said grounds which were as served a notice under Section by the Jurisdictional Assessing ch of petitions, we have also y the Coordinate Bench in CWP- - e law laid down by the ces issued by the JAO 61 and the proceedings nducting the faceless r Section 144B of the o be contrary to the d accordingly notices 23, 20.03.2024 and 03.2023, are set aside nue would be, however, re as laid down under dingly, if so advised.

h d t d e n g o - MOHIT GOYAL 2024.09.26 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-12964-202 i w 5. In view 31.03.2 apply m revenue down u 6. All pen

September 26 Mohit goyal 1. Whethe 2. Whethe

24 (O&M)

Page 3 of 3 20. All the writ petition nterim order passed by the Cou with the present order.”

w thereof, the writ petition 2024 is set aside. The observatio mutatis mutandis to the present c e would be, however, at liberty under the Act, 1961 and proceed nding applications also stand disp

(SANJ , 2024 r speaking/reasoned?

Y r reportable?

Y ns are allowed. The urt shall stand merged is allowed and notice dated ons and order passed above shall case. However, the respondents- to follow the procedure as laid accordingly, if so advised. posed of accordingly. JEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE

(SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No

d l - d MOHIT GOYAL 2024.09.26 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →