PRITI SINGLA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/33325/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01171815202411 December 2024Bench: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court observed that it would not be appropriate for the Court to pass an order on the same issue which is already pending before the appellate authority. The Court noted that it is always open to the petitioner to argue the point before the Appellate Authority, including the issue with regard to jurisdiction in light of the judgments passed by this Court. Granting liberty to the petitioner, the Court did not propose to further entertain the Writ Petition. However, it directed that the CIT (Appeals) shall take into consideration the judgments in Jasjit Singh (Supra) and Jatinder Singh Bhangu (supra) for deciding the appeal of the petitioner. The Court also made it clear that no recovery proceedings shall be initiated against the petitioner till the appeal is decided, keeping in view the law settled by this Court in the aforementioned cases. All pending applications were also disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Priti Singla, filed a Writ Petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana challenging an assessment order. The petitioner argued that the notice for assessment was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of the procedure prescribed under the new regime, which is a legal issue already decided by the High Court in previous cases. The revenue, represented by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and others, accepted notice. The petitioner sought the allowance of the Writ Petition in terms of the aforementioned judgments. The High Court noted that the petitioner had already approached the appellate authority where the appeal was pending.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the issuance of a notice by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of following the procedure under the new regime, as contended by the petitioner, is a valid ground for challenge, considering the pronouncements of this Court in Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the notice was issued incorrectly by the JAO, deviating from the prescribed procedure under the new regime. This issue, the petitioner contended, has been decided by the High 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), and therefore, the present Writ Petition should be allowed in the same terms. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through its counsel, accepted notice of the Writ Petition.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-33325-202 122 IN T PRITI SINGLA DEPUTY COM CORAM: H

H Present: M

f SANJEEV PR

1.

Admitte assessm (Appea regardin Officer issue w titled a 29.07.2 titled as on 19.0 that the 2. Notice o 3. Mr. Yo respond

24 (O&M)

Page 1 of 2 THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB CHANDIGARH A Vs. MMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX **** HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJA **** Mr. Rana Gurtej Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Yogesh Putney, Sr. Standing Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Standing Co for the respondents/Revenue. **** RAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) edly, the petitioner has preferred ment which is pending before th ls). Learned counsel for the petiti ng the notice having been issu (JAO) instead of the procedure which has been decided by this C as Jasjit Singh vs. Union of 024, and by the Coordinate Ben s Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Un 07.2024. Learned counsel for the p present Writ Petition be allowed of motion. ogesh Putney, Sr. Standing Coun dents/Revenue. B AND HARYANA AT H CWP-33325-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 11.12.2024 . . . . Petitioner X AND OTHERS . . . . Respondents EEV PRAKASH SHARMA AY VASHISTH g Counsel with ounsel d an Appeal against the order of he Commissioner of Income Tax ioner has submitted that the issue ued by Jurisdictional Assessing under the new regime, is a legal Court in CWP No.21509 of 2023 India and others, decided on nch in CWP No.15745 of 2024 nion of India and others, decided petitioner, in view thereto, prayed in the same terms. nsel accepts notice on behalf of

) 4 r s f x e g l 3 n 4 d d f MOHIT GOYAL 2024.12.11 17:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-33325-202 4. We fin authorit Court t concern argue it regard t above. 5. Grantin entertai (Appea in Jasji the appe 6. The Wr 7. It is ma petition this Cou 8. All pen

December 11, Mohit goyal 1. Whethe 2. Whethe

24 (O&M)

Page 2 of 2 nd that as the petitioner has al ty where its Appeal is pending, it to pass an order relating to the ned Appellate Authority. It is a ts point before the Appellate Au to the jurisdiction in view of the ju ng aforesaid liberty to the petition in this Writ Petition and at the sam ls) will take into consideration th it Singh (Supra) and Jatinder Sin eal of the petitioner. rit Petition is disposed of in the af ade clear that no recovery proceed ner till the appeal is decided, keep urt in Jasjit Singh (Supra) and Ja nding applications also stand dispo

(SAN 2024 r speaking/reasoned?

Y r reportable?

Y lready approached the appellate would not be appropriate for this same issue which is before the always open to the petitioner to uthority including the issue with udgments passed by this Court as ner, we do not propose to further me time, we observe that the CIT he judgments passed by this Court ngh Bhangu (supra) for deciding forementioned terms. dings shall be initiated against the ping in view the law as settled by atinder Singh Bhangu (supra). osed of accordingly. NJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE

(SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No

e s e o h s r T t g e y MOHIT GOYAL 2024.12.11 17:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →