Punjab & Haryana High Court Judgments — 2024

The High Court allowed the writ petition. It held that notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings initiated under faceless assessment as envisaged by Section 144B, were found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act. The Court relied on the decision of a Coordinate Bench in Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others, which held that circulars or instructions by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or make them obsolete. The Court reiterated that legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed strictly and that authorities cannot usurp legal provisions to their own satisfaction or convenience, causing hardship to assessees. Therefore, the notices and all consequential proceedings were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The Revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act and proceed accordingly, if so advised. Any pending applications were also disposed of.

The Tribunal held that instructions issued by the Joint Administrative Officer (JAO) under Section 119 and 120 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the provisions of Section 144B (7 & 8), could not override statutory provisions or be exercised to make them obsolete. The court found that the notices issued under Section 148 of the Act and the subsequent proceedings initiated without conducting faceless assessments as envisaged under Section 144B were contrary to the provisions of the Act. Consequently, the notices dated 25.04.2024, 23.03.2023, 16.03.2023, 30.03.2023, and the order dated 30.03.2023 were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act and proceed accordingly, if advised. The operative direction was to allow the writ petition and set aside the impugned notices and proceedings.

The High Court held that notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the consequential proceedings initiated without conducting faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act, were contrary to the provisions of the Act and the instructions issued by the JAO. The Court relied on its previous decision in Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others, which held that circulars or instructions cannot override statutory provisions and that authorities cannot usurp legal provisions to their own satisfaction or convenience, causing hardship to assessees. The Court found that the faceless assessment provisions were not followed, leading to a lack of jurisdiction. Consequently, the notices and all consequential proceedings were set aside. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act and proceed accordingly, if advised. The Court also noted that the interim orders stood merged with the present order.

The High Court allowed the writ petition. It held that instructions issued by the Board (referring to Section 119 of the Act) cannot override statutory provisions or make them obsolete. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed mandatorily. The Court reiterated its view, consistent with the coordinate bench's decisions in Jasjit Singh and Jatinder Singh Bhangu, that circulars or instructions cannot be issued to usurp legal provisions or cause hardship and confusion to assessees. The Court found that notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Act and subsequent proceedings initiated without conducting faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B were contrary to the provisions of the Act. Consequently, the notices dated 08.03.2024, 20.03.2024, 16.03.2023, 30.03.2023, and the order dated 30.03.2023 were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure as laid down under the Act. The operative direction was to allow the writ petition and set aside the impugned notices and proceedings.

The Tribunal, in light of the consensus between the parties, allowed the petition. The court noted that the learned counsel for the parties agreed that the petitioner would be entitled to the same relief as granted in a judgment of the court dated 26.07.2022, passed in CWP-15791-2024 – Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others. Consequently, the petition was allowed in terms of the said judgment, resulting in the quashing of the impugned notice dated 10.09.2022 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with consequential proceedings. Any pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of. The ratio decidendi is that where parties agree to parity with a prior binding precedent, the court will grant the same relief without re-examining the merits.

The High Court allowed the writ petition. It held that instructions issued by the Board under Sections 119 and 120 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, cannot override statutory provisions or render them obsolete. The Court reiterated the view of its Coordinate Bench that legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed mandatorily. The Court found that authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship and confusion to assessees. Instructions and circulars can only supplement statutory provisions and aid in their implementation. Consequently, notices issued under Section 148 of the Act, and proceedings initiated thereafter without conducting the faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B, were found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act and were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure as laid down under the Act if so advised. The interim orders stood merged with the present order.

The High Court held that notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the faceless assessment proceedings initiated under Section 144B, were contrary to the provisions of the Act and circulars. The Court followed the precedent set by its coordinate benches in Jasjit Singh and Jatinder Singh Bhangu. The reasoning was that instructions by the Board, while meant to supplement statutory provisions, cannot override them or make them obsolete. Authorities cannot usurp legal provisions to their own satisfaction or convenience, causing hardship and confusion to assessees. Therefore, the notices dated 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 30.03.2023, 20.03.2024, and 30.03.2023, along with the notice dated 10.01.2024 (Annexure P-2) issued under Section 148, and all consequential proceedings, were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure as laid down under the Act if so advised. The writ petition was allowed.

The High Court held that circulars or instructions issued by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or make them obsolete. The court agreed with the view of a coordinate bench that such instructions cannot be issued to usurp legal provisions for the convenience of authorities, causing hardship and confusion to assessees. The court found that notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the consequential proceedings initiated thereafter, without conducting the faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B, were contrary to the provisions of the Act. Therefore, the notices dated 10.01.2024, 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2024, and 30.03.2023, were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act and proceed accordingly, if advised. The writ petition was allowed.

The High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh allowed the petition. The Court quashed the impugned notice dated 20.03.2024 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with any consequential proceedings. This decision was based on the consensus reached between the learned counsel for the parties, who agreed that the petitioner was entitled to the same relief as granted in the High Court's prior judgment dated 10.09.2026 in CWP No.15791 of 2024 (Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others). The ratio decidendi is that where parties agree to a specific outcome based on a prior judicial precedent, the court will grant that relief. All pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.

The High Court held that the notice dated 18.06.2024, issued by the JAO under Section 143(2) of the Act, was without jurisdiction. The Court reasoned that Section 144B(1) mandates that assessment, reassessment, or recomputation under Section 143(2) or Section 147 must be made in a faceless manner. Specifically, a notice under Section 143(2) must be served through the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC). The Court found it an admitted position that no notice under Section 148 was issued for AY 2023-24, and notices under Section 148 were issued for AYs 2020-21, 2021-22, and 2022-23. Therefore, the JAO would not have jurisdiction to issue a notice under Section 143(2) for AY 2023-24; only the NFAC, as per Section 144B(1)(iii), has the power to initiate proceedings under Section 143(2). The Court also referred to its previous decision in Jasjit Singh, which held that circulars cannot override statutory provisions. The Court quashed the notice and set aside the proceedings. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act if so advised. The writ petition was allowed.

The High Court held that notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings initiated under Section 144B, without conducting a faceless assessment as envisaged by the Act, were found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act. The Court agreed with the view taken by a Coordinate Bench that circulars or instructions issued by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or be issued to make them otiose. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed strictly. The Court found that the notices dated 22.03.2024, 16.03.2023, 23.03.2023, 20.03.2024, and 30.03.2023, issued by the JAO, were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act and proceed accordingly if so advised. The ratio decidendi is that faceless assessment provisions, when mandated, cannot be bypassed, and any deviation renders the proceedings invalid.

The High Court held that instructions issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) under Section 119 and 120 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, cannot override statutory provisions or be exercised to cause hardship to assessees or create confusion. The court agreed with the view taken by coordinate benches that circulars or instructions cannot be issued to make statutory provisions otiose, and that legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed mandatorily. Consequently, notices issued under Section 148 of the Act and proceedings initiated thereafter without conducting the faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B were found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act and were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act and proceed accordingly, if so advised. The writ petition was allowed, and interim orders stood merged with the present order.

The High Court held that notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the consequential proceedings initiated thereafter without conducting the assessment as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act, were found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act, 1961. The Court agreed with the view taken by the Coordinate Bench in Jasjit Singh (supra) and Jatinder Singh Bhangu (supra). The Court reiterated that instructions by the Board cannot override statutory provisions. Therefore, the notices dated 29.08.2024, 20.03.2024, 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 30.03.2023, and the order dated 30.03.2023, were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The Revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if so advised. All pending interim orders and applications were also disposed of.

The High Court held that notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the subsequent proceedings initiated without conducting the faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act, 1961, were contrary to the provisions of the Act. The court agreed with the view taken by the Coordinate Bench in Jasjit Singh (supra) and Jatinder Singh Bhangu (supra). It was held that instructions by the Board could not override statutory provisions. The authorities could not usurp legal provisions to their own satisfaction or convenience, causing hardship to assessees and confusion. Therefore, notices dated 24.03.2023, 20.03.2024, 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, and 30.03.2023 were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act and proceed accordingly if so advised. All pending applications were also disposed of.

The High Court, following its previous decisions in Jasjit Singh (supra) and Jatinder Singh Bhangu (supra), held that administrative instructions or circulars issued by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or make them obsolete. The Court reiterated that legislative enactments must be followed strictly, and powers contained in Sections 119 and 120 of the Act, as well as Section 144B (7 & 8), cannot be exercised by authorities to usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship and confusion to assessees. The Court found that the notices issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, and the subsequent proceedings, including faceless assessments under Section 144B, were contrary to the provisions of the Act, 1961. Consequently, the notices dated 31.08.2024, 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2024, 30.03.2023, and the order dated 30.03.2023, were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The respondents-revenue were granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if so advised. The writ petition was allowed, and interim orders were merged with the final order.

The High Court held that circulars or instructions issued by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or render them obsolete. It found that the authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship and confusion to assessees. The Court agreed with the Coordinate Bench's view that instructions can only supplement statutory provisions for implementation. Consequently, the Court held that notices issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, and proceedings initiated thereafter without conducting faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act, 1961, were contrary to the provisions of the Act. The notices dated 30.08.2024, 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2024, 30.03.2023, and the order dated 30.03.2023 were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The Revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act and proceed accordingly. All pending applications were also disposed of.

The High Court, in agreement with its Coordinate Bench's view in Jasjit Singh (supra), held that circulars or instructions issued by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or render them otiose. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be strictly followed. Authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship to assessees and confusion. Instructions and circulars can only supplement statutory provisions for implementation. Consequently, notices issued under Section 148 and subsequent proceedings initiated without conducting faceless assessment under Section 144B were found to be contrary to the Act and set aside for want of jurisdiction. The Revenue was granted liberty to follow the prescribed procedure if advised. The writ petition was allowed in terms of the previous judgments, setting aside the order dated 06.04.2023 passed under Section 148A(d) and the notice dated 06.04.2023 under Section 148, along with consequential proceedings.

The High Court held that the issue involved in the present petition had already been decided by the Court in CWP No. 509 of 2023 (Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India) and CWP No. 157 of 2024 (Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India). The Court reiterated its previous finding that instructions by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or be issued to make them obsolete. The Court emphasized that legislative enactments must be followed mandatorily and that powers under Sections 119 and 120 of the Act, 1961, as well as Section 144B (7 & 8), cannot be exercised to usurp legal provisions for the convenience of authorities, causing hardship and confusion to assessees. Therefore, notices issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, and proceedings initiated thereafter without conducting faceless assessment under Section 144B of the Act, 1961, were found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act, 1961. Consequently, the notices dated August 28, 2024, and other consequential proceedings were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The Revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, if advised. The Court allowed the writ petition and merged any interim orders with the present order.

The High Court held that instructions issued by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or render them otiose. Legislative enactments must be followed strictly. The Court affirmed its agreement with the view taken by a Coordinate Bench in Jasjit Singh (supra) and Jatinder Singh Bhangu (supra). It was held that authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship and confusion to assessees. Circulars and instructions can only supplement statutory provisions for implementation. Consequently, notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and proceedings initiated thereafter without conducting the faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act, were found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act. The notices dated 31.08.2024, 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2024, and 30.03.2023, along with the consequential order dated 30.03.2023, were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act and proceed accordingly if so advised. All pending applications were also disposed of.

The High Court, following its own previous decisions in Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others and a Coordinate Bench's decision in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others, held that circulars or instructions issued by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or render them otiose. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be strictly followed. The Court found that by exercising powers under Sections 119 and 120 of the Act, 1961, as well as Section 144B (7 & 8), authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship. Instructions and circulars can only supplement statutory provisions. Consequently, notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 and subsequent proceedings initiated without conducting faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B were found to be contrary to the Act, 1961, and set aside for want of jurisdiction. The Revenue was granted liberty to follow the prescribed procedure if advised. The writ petition was allowed in these terms.

The High Court held that circulars or instructions issued by the Board under Sections 119 and 120 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, cannot override statutory provisions or render them obsolete. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed strictly. The court found that by exercising powers under Sections 119, 120, and 144B(7 & 8) of the Act, authorities were not allowed to usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship and confusion to assessees. Instructions and circulars can only supplement statutory provisions for their implementation. Therefore, notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, and proceedings initiated thereafter without conducting faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act, were found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act. Accordingly, the notices dated 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 30.03.2023, 20.03.2024, and 30.03.2023, and the consequential proceedings were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The revenue was at liberty to follow the procedure laid down under Section 148 and proceed accordingly if so advised. The writ petition was allowed, and the interim order stood merged with the present order.

The High Court held that it was in agreement with the view taken by the Coordinate Bench in previous cases (Jasjit Singh and Jatinder Singh Bhangu). The Court reiterated that instructions by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or render them obsolete, and legislative enactments must be followed mandatorily. The powers contained in Sections 119 and 120 of the Act, as well as Section 144B, cannot be exercised by tax authorities to usurp legal provisions for their own satisfaction and convenience, causing hardship and confusion to assessees. The Court found that notices issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, and proceedings initiated thereafter without conducting the faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B, were contrary to the provisions of the Act, 1961. Consequently, the notices dated 28.02.2023, 20.03.2024, 16.03.2023, 30.03.2023, and the order dated 30.03.2023 were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The Revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if advised. All interim orders and pending applications were disposed of.

The High Court held that the PCIT's power under Section 263 can only be exercised if the AO's order is both erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. Since the AO had conducted a detailed enquiry and the ITAT had passed a detailed order on facts, the PCIT's revisionary power was not sustainable.

The Tribunal, based on the consensus reached between the parties, allowed the petition. The court found that the petitioner would be entitled to the same relief as granted in the judgment dated 30.03.2024 in CWP-15791-2024 – Jyoti Sareen’s case. Consequently, the impugned notice dated 10.09.2024, issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was quashed. All consequential proceedings, if any, and pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of. The ratio decidendi is that if parties agree to a precedent set by a coordinate bench, the court will follow that consensus to provide similar relief. The operative direction was the quashing of the notice and consequential proceedings.

The High Court, in agreement with its prior decisions in Jasjit Singh (supra) and Jatinder Singh Bhangu (supra), allowed the writ petition. The Court reiterated its finding that circulars or instructions issued by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or render them otiose. Legislative enactments, especially those with financial implications, must be followed mandatorily. The Court held that authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship to assessees. Instructions and circulars are meant only to supplement statutory provisions and aid in their implementation. Consequently, notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148A(b) dated 19.03.2023, order passed under Section 148A(d) dated 06.04.2023, and notice under Section 148 dated 06.04.2023, along with consequential proceedings, were set aside for want of jurisdiction, as they were initiated without conducting the faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act. The respondents-revenue were granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, if so advised. The ratio is that faceless assessment procedures mandated by statute cannot be bypassed by administrative instructions or actions, and non-compliance vitiates the proceedings.

The High Court allowed the writ petition. It held that circulars or instructions issued by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or render them otiose. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be strictly followed. The Court found that authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship to assessees, and that instructions and circulars can only supplement statutory provisions. Consequently, notices issued under Section 148 of the Act and subsequent proceedings initiated without conducting faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act were found to be contrary to the Act. The specific notices dated 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2024, and 30.03.2023, and the order dated 30.03.2023, were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act if advised. The operative direction was to set aside the notice dated 22.03.2024 and consequential proceedings.

The High Court, following its previous decisions in Jasjit Singh and Jatinder Singh Bhangu, held that circulars or instructions issued by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or render them obsolete. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed strictly. The Court found that authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship to assessees and confusion. Instructions and circulars can only supplement statutory provisions. Consequently, notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Act and subsequent proceedings initiated without conducting faceless assessments as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act were found to be contrary to the Act. The Court set aside the notice issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 27.03.2024, and consequential proceedings for want of jurisdiction. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure as laid down under the Act, if advised. All pending applications were disposed of.

The High Court held that instructions and circulars issued by the Board can only supplement statutory provisions and aid in their implementation; they cannot be used to make statutory provisions otiose or override them. The Court agreed with the view taken by a Coordinate Bench that such circulars or instructions cannot override statutory provisions. The Court found that notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, and proceedings initiated under the faceless assessment scheme, were contrary to the provisions of the Act, 1961, and were issued without conducting the inquiry envisaged under Section 144B. Consequently, the notices dated 28.02.2023, 20.03.2024, and 30.03.2023 were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, if so advised. The operative direction was to allow the writ petition and set aside the impugned notices and proceedings.

The High Court held that the penalty proceedings under Section 271 of the Act are discretionary, but the assessee's failure to submit any response to the show cause notice or appear for personal hearings, despite being afforded opportunities, meant the assessee had invited the penalty proceedings. The court noted that the additions made to the income, which formed the basis for the penalty, had been found to be correct by the High Court. Consequently, the assessee's case squarely fell within the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The court found no reason to interfere with the impugned order dated April 24, 1996, which imposed a penalty equivalent to the evaded tax of Rs. 3,17,154/-. The ratio decidendi is that a consistent failure to participate in penalty proceedings, coupled with upheld additions to income, justifies the imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that circulars or instructions issued by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or make them otiose. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed strictly and mandatorily. The authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their convenience or satisfaction, causing hardship and confusion to assessees. Instructions and circulars can only supplement statutory provisions for their implementation. Therefore, the Court found no occasion to distinguish the present case from the Coordinate Bench's decisions in Jasjit Singh and Jatinder Singh Bhangu. Consequently, notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, and the consequential proceedings, including faceless assessments under Section 144B, were found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act, 1961. The notices dated 13.04.2023, 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2024, and 30.03.2023, along with the consequential proceedings, were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, if advised.

The High Court, following its own decision in Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others (decided on 29.07.2024) and a Coordinate Bench's decision in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others (decided on 19.07.2024), allowed the writ petition. The Court reiterated its agreement with the view that circulars or instructions issued by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or render them obsolete. It held that legislative enactments with financial implications must be strictly followed. The Court found that authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship, and that instructions and circulars can only supplement statutory provisions. Consequently, notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings initiated without conducting the faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act, 1961, were found to be contrary to the Act and set aside for want of jurisdiction. The specific order passed by the JAO under Section 148A(d) dated 24.04.2023 and the notice under Section 148 dated 24.04.2023, along with consequential proceedings, were set aside. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, if so advised. The Court expressly left no issue undecided.

The High Court, following its own previous decisions in Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others and Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others, held that circulars or instructions issued by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or render them obsolete. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be strictly followed. The Court found that authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship to assessees, and that instructions and circulars can only supplement statutory provisions. Consequently, notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 and subsequent proceedings initiated without conducting faceless assessment under Section 144B were found to be contrary to the Act. The Court set aside the notice dated 27.03.2024 issued under Section 148 and consequential proceedings for want of jurisdiction. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the prescribed procedure if advised. The writ petition was allowed in terms of the earlier judgments.

The High Court dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution. The Court noted that the Registry had repeatedly directed the parties to take steps for the reconstruction of the file, but no action was taken. Furthermore, the case file was stated to have been fully burnt in a fire incident in the Registry. In light of these circumstances, and with no one appearing on behalf of the parties, the Court found it appropriate to dismiss the appeal. All pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of accordingly. The judgment does not provide any findings on the merits of the case or the substantive issues that might have been before the Tribunal.

The High Court, following its own prior decisions in Jasjit Singh and Jatinder Singh Bhangu, held that circulars or instructions issued by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or render them obsolete. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be strictly followed. Authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship to assessees and confusion. Instructions and circulars can only supplement statutory provisions. Consequently, notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 and subsequent proceedings initiated without conducting faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B were found to be contrary to the Act, 1961, and set aside for want of jurisdiction. The respondents-revenue were granted liberty to follow the prescribed procedure if advised. The writ petition was allowed in these terms, with the notice dated 17.04.2023 and consequential proceedings being set aside.

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.

The High Court, following its own previous decisions in Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India, allowed the writ petition. The Court reiterated its agreement with the view that circulars or instructions issued by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or render them obsolete. Legislative enactments with financial implications are mandatory. The Court held that authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship to assessees, and that instructions and circulars can only supplement statutory provisions. Consequently, notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings initiated without conducting faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act, 1961, were found to be contrary to the Act and set aside for want of jurisdiction. The specific notice dated 28.03.2024 and consequential proceedings were set aside. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, if advised. The operative direction was to set aside the notice and consequential proceedings.

The Tribunal held that question No. (i) is answered in favour of the assessee. Regarding question No. (ii), the Tribunal noted that the Delhi High Court in Sony India P. Ltd. held that expenditure on provident fund is not allowable. However, the Tribunal observed that the Delhi High Court failed to take notice of the judgment of this Court in CIT Vs. Punjab Financial Corporation Ltd. (supra), where a different view was taken. The Tribunal emphasized that a judgment passed by this Court would have a binding precedent over and above a judgment of another High Court. The Supreme Court's pronouncements on per incuriam and binding precedents were cited to support this. Therefore, question No. (ii) was also answered in favour of the assessee. Concerning question No. 3, the Tribunal noted the ITAT's finding that the assessee's liability for electricity duty was adjusted against equity shares allotted by the Government of Haryana. The Tribunal agreed with the ITAT that since the shares were allotted by the Government, the same cannot be said to have been acquired from other sources and was therefore allowable in terms of Section 43(1) of the IT Act, 1961. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal. The excerpt states that the detailed reasons for this decision are provided in a separate judgment passed on the same date in ITA No. 271 of 2014. Therefore, the specific findings, reasoning, ratio decidendi, and operative directions for ITA No. 164 of 2017 are not elaborated upon in this particular excerpt. No issue was expressly left undecided.

The High Court held that instructions issued by the Board under Section 119 and 120 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, cannot override statutory provisions or make them otiose. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed strictly. The Court reiterated its agreement with a Coordinate Bench's view that circulars or instructions cannot be issued to override statutory provisions or make them obsolete. The Court found that notices issued under Section 148 of the Act and subsequent proceedings initiated without conducting faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B were contrary to the provisions of the Act. Therefore, the notices dated 31.08.2024, 23.03.2023, 16.03.2023, 30.03.2023, and 30.03.2023 were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The Revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act and proceed accordingly if advised. The writ petition was allowed, and interim orders stood merged with the final order.

The High Court allowed the prayer of the revenue to withdraw the appeal. The Court noted that CBDT Circular No. 9/2024, effective from 17.09.2024, has revised the monetary limits for filing appeals before the High Court to Rs. 2 crore. The revenue's counsel submitted that the present case does not fall within any exception to this Circular. Consequently, the Court found no impediment to allowing the withdrawal of the appeal. The reasoning is based on the departmental policy to manage litigation by revising monetary thresholds for appeals. The ratio decidendi is that appeals filed by the revenue, which do not meet the enhanced monetary limits prescribed by the latest CBDT Circular and do not fall under any exceptions, are to be withdrawn. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dismissed the appeal. The judgment states that the appeal is dismissed for reasons to be seen in a detailed judgment passed in ITA No. 271 of 2014. Since the detailed judgment is not provided, the specific findings on the issues of whether a speaking/reasoned order is required and whether the matter is reportable, along with the reasoning and ratio decidendi, are not available. The operative directions are that the appeal is dismissed. No issue was expressly left undecided.

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dismissed the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption). The detailed reasoning for this dismissal is stated to be found in a separate, concurrently passed judgment in ITA No. 271 of 2014, which involved the same assessee, M/s Punjab Institute of Medical Sciences, Jalandhar, and the Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar. Therefore, the specific findings, reasoning, and ratio decidendi for this particular appeal (ITA No. 52 of 2017) are not elaborated upon in the provided text, but are referenced as being contained within the related judgment.

The ITAT held that the assessee had sufficiently proved the creditworthiness and genuineness of the loan transaction by providing PAN, income tax returns, audited financial statements, and banking channel transactions of the lender. The High Court found these to be pure findings of fact with no question of law arising.

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana allowed the appeal filed by M/s Punjab Institute of Medical Sciences, Jalandhar. The operative part of the judgment states that the appeal is allowed for reasons detailed in a separate, even-dated judgment passed in ITA No. 271 of 2014. Consequently, the specific findings, reasoning, and ratio decidendi pertaining to ITA No. 274 of 2014 are not elaborated upon in this excerpt. The relief granted to the assessee is implied by the allowance of the appeal, but the precise nature of this relief is not specified here. No issues were expressly left undecided.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal. The reasoning for this dismissal is stated to be found in a separate, detailed judgment concerning ITA No. 271 of 2014. Therefore, the specific findings, reasoning, and ratio decidendi for ITA No. 48 of 2020 are not provided in this excerpt. No operative directions or specific relief granted are mentioned. No issues were expressly left undecided, as the appeal was dismissed based on the reasoning in another case.

The appeal is allowed. The judgment states that the appeal is allowed for reasons to be seen in a detailed judgment passed in ITA No. 271 of 2014, which involves the same assessee and revenue. Since the detailed reasoning is not provided in this excerpt, the specific findings on the issues of whether the order was speaking/reasoned or reportable, and the ratio decidendi, cannot be determined from this text. The operative direction is that the appeal is allowed, implying relief for the assessee. No issue was expressly left undecided.

The High Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Chandigarh. The judgment states that the dismissal is for reasons to be seen in a detailed judgment of a related appeal, ITA No. 271 of 2014, concerning M/s Punjab Institute of Medical Sciences, Jalandhar versus the Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar and another. This implies that the reasoning and ratio decidendi for the dismissal of the present appeal are contained within the judgment of the aforementioned related appeal. The specific findings on any issues or the operative directions are not detailed in this excerpt, other than the dismissal of the appeal.

The Tribunal has dismissed the appeal. However, the specific reasoning and the findings on any issues are not provided in this excerpt. The judgment explicitly states that the reasons for dismissal are to be found in a detailed judgment of a connected appeal, ITA No. 271 of 2014. Therefore, the Tribunal's decision on the merits of the case, the ratio decidendi, and any operative directions are not available in this text. No issues were expressly left undecided, but the decision itself is deferred to another judgment.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities, including construction and entering into MOUs, were incidental to its primary charitable purpose of providing medical relief and advancing health sciences. The cancellation of registration and imposition of penalties were deemed unjustified.

The High Court allowed the prayer for withdrawal of the appeal. The court noted the submission by the revenue's counsel regarding CBDT Circular No. 9/2024, which revised the monetary limits for filing appeals. The circular, effective from 17.09.2024, enhanced the threshold for appeals before the ITAT, High Court, and Supreme Court. The revenue argued that since the present case did not fall under any exception to the circular, it should be allowed to withdraw the appeal. The court accepted this submission and accordingly dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The ratio decidendi is that appeals can be withdrawn by the revenue if they no longer meet the revised monetary limits prescribed by the CBDT, provided they do not fall under any specified exceptions. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.