Loading High Court cases…
601 orders · Page 8 of 13
The High Court held that instructions issued by the Board (Central Board of Direct Taxes) cannot override statutory provisions or be issued to make them obsolete. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed strictly and mandatorily. The Court found that by exercising powers under Sections 119 and 120 of the Act, as well as Section 144B (7 & 8), authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their own 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 and consequential proceedings initiated without conducting faceless assessment under Section 144B were found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act and 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 Court relied on its previous decisions in Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others and Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others.
The High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the notice dated March 29, 2024. The Court relied on the judgment of a Coordinate Bench in CWP-15745-2024 (Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others), decided on July 19, 2024. The Coordinate Bench had held that notices issued 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 contrary to the provisions of the Act. Consequently, notices dated February 28, 2023, March 16, 2023, March 20, 2024, March 30, 2023, and March 30, 2023, were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The present Court applied these observations mutatis mutandis. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if advised. All pending applications were also disposed of.
The High Court, following its own prior decisions in Jasjit Singh (supra) and Jatinder Singh Bhangu (supra), allowed the writ petition. The Court 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 use powers under Sections 119 and 120, as well as Section 144B(7 & 8), to circumvent legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship to assessees and confusion. Instructions and circulars are meant to supplement statutory provisions and aid their implementation. Consequently, notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148, and subsequent proceedings, initiated without adhering to the faceless assessment procedure under Section 144B, were found to be contrary to the Act. The notices dated 27.03.2024, 02.08.2024, and 12.08.2024, and consequential proceedings, were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the prescribed procedure if advised.
The High Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the notice issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148 dated 27.03.2024, and all consequential proceedings. The Court relied on its previous decision in Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others. The reasoning was 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. Authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship to assessees and confusion. Instructions and circulars can only supplement statutory provisions for implementation. Therefore, notices issued under Section 148 and initiated proceedings without conducting faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B were found to be contrary to the Act. The respondents-revenue were granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, if so advised. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax (Circle), Gurugram. The Court has stated that the detailed reasons for this decision are recorded in a separate order of even date passed in ITA No. 41 of 2021, which pertains to the same appellant and respondent. Therefore, the specific findings, reasoning, and ratio decidendi for this particular appeal are not elaborated upon in this excerpt. The operative direction is the dismissal of the appeal. No issues were expressly left undecided.
The High Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax. The judgment states that the detailed reasons for this dismissal are provided in a separate order of even date concerning ITA No. 41 of 2021. As the specific issues decided by the ITAT and the arguments presented by the parties are not detailed in this excerpt, the reasoning behind the High Court's dismissal and the ratio decidendi cannot be ascertained from this text alone. No operative directions or specific relief granted are mentioned, other than the dismissal of the appeal. No issues were expressly left undecided.
The High Court held that the PCIT cannot invoke Section 263 merely on a difference of opinion with the Assessing Officer, especially when the Assessing Officer had already considered the relevant queries and evidence. The ITAT rightly set aside the PCIT's order.
The High Court held that based on the consensus reached between the learned counsel for the parties, the petitioner would be entitled to the same relief as granted in the judgment dated 10.09.2026 in CWP No.15791 of 2024 (Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others). Consequently, the petition was allowed. The impugned notice dated 28.08.2024 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with any consequential proceedings, was quashed. The ratio decidendi is that where parties agree to a precedent set by the same court in a similar matter, the court will extend that relief. All pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.
The High Court 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, by exercising powers under Sections 119 and 120, as well as Section 144B(7 & 8) of the Act. Instructions and circulars can only supplement statutory provisions and aid their implementation. 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. The Court set aside the notices 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 previous judgments.
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dismissed the appeal filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax (Circle), Gurugram. The Court stated that detailed reasons for this decision would be provided in a separate order of even date, which was passed in ITA No. 41 of 2021, also concerning the same appellant and respondent. Therefore, the specific reasoning and ratio decidendi for the dismissal are not available in this particular excerpt. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court, in its order dated 24.09.2024, dismissed the appeal filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax (Circle), Gurugram. The Court stated that detailed reasons for this decision would be recorded in a separate order of even date, passed in ITA No. 41 of 2021, also between the Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax (Circle), Gurugram and M/s Maharishi Markandeshwar University Trust. Therefore, the specific findings, reasoning, and ratio decidendi for the dismissal of this appeal are not provided in this excerpt, as they are deferred to another order. No specific relief was granted or denied in this brief order, beyond the dismissal of the appeal itself.
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dismissed the appeal filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax (Circle), Gurugram. The dismissal was based on detailed reasons provided in a separate order of even date concerning ITA No. 41 of 2021, which involved the same parties. As the specific reasoning for the dismissal is not elaborated in this excerpt, the ratio decidendi cannot be determined. The operative direction is the dismissal of the appeal. No issues were expressly left undecided, as the appeal itself was disposed of.
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh has dismissed the appeal filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax (Circle), Gurugram. The Court has stated that the detailed reasons for this dismissal are recorded in a separate order of even date passed in ITA No. 41 of 2021, which also pertains to the same appellant and respondent. As the specific issues and reasoning are not elaborated in this excerpt, the precise findings on each issue, the logic leading to the decision, and the ratio decidendi are not available. Consequently, the operative directions are not specified here, nor is any issue expressly left undecided. The dismissal of the appeal is the only outcome explicitly stated.
The High Court, in agreement with its Coordinate Bench's view in Jasjit Singh, 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. Instructions and circulars can only supplement statutory provisions for their implementation. 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 and set aside for want of jurisdiction. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act if advised. The writ petition was allowed in terms of the prior judgments, with the notice dated March 27, 2024, and consequential proceedings being set aside.
The Tribunal (High Court) decided to allow the petitioner's request to withdraw the writ petition. The court reasoned that the petitioner sought to withdraw the petition and was granted liberty to file a fresh one. The court also granted the petitioner the liberty to challenge Section 147A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the fresh petition. The operative direction was that the petition was dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty granted as prayed for. No specific issue was left undecided; the entire petition was disposed of based on the withdrawal request.
The High Court 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, as well as Section 144B(7 & 8), authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship to assessees. Instructions and circulars can only supplement statutory provisions and their implementation. The Court agreed with the Coordinate Bench's view and found no reason to distinguish the present case. 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 notices dated 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2024, and 30.03.2023, along with 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 writ petitions were allowed, and interim orders merged with the final order. Specifically for the present case, the notice dated 31.08.2024 under Section 148 and consequential proceedings were set aside.
The High Court allowed the petitioner's request to withdraw the writ petition. The Court granted the petitioner liberty to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action. Furthermore, the petitioner was granted liberty to challenge Section 147A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the fresh petition. The operative direction was to dismiss the present petition as withdrawn with the liberty as prayed for. The judgment did not delve into the merits of the challenge to Section 147A, as the petition was withdrawn.
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana, in light of the consensus between the parties and following the precedent set in Jyoti Sareen's case (supra), allowed the petition. The court held that the petitioner would be entitled to the same relief as granted in the aforementioned judgment. Consequently, the impugned notice dated 30.08.2024 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with any consequential proceedings, were quashed. The ratio decidendi is that when parties agree to parity with a prior judgment, and that judgment granted specific relief, the court should extend the same relief to the current petitioner. The operative direction was the quashing of the notice and proceedings.
The tribunal allowed the prayer for withdrawal of the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, aligning with the revised monetary limits for litigation management.
The High Court, in agreement with a Coordinate Bench's view in similar cases (Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others, CWP-21509 of 2023, decided on 19.07.2024, and Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others, CWP-15745 of 2024, decided on 19.07.2024), held that circulars and instructions issued by the Board cannot override statutory provisions. The Court found that notices issued by the Joint Administrative Officer (JAO) under Section 148 of the Act and subsequent proceedings initiated without conducting the assessment as envisaged under Section 144B were contrary to the provisions of the Act. Consequently, the notices dated 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2024, and 30.03.2023, along with 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 writ petition was allowed, and all pending applications were disposed of.
The High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned notices. The Court found that the petitioner had indeed disclosed the commission income of ₹14,58,004/- from UFO Moviez India Limited in its ITR for AY 2020-21, and this amount was offered for tax as part of the business turnover. The ITR was processed under Section 143(1), and a refund was issued, indicating that the Assessing Officer was satisfied at that stage. The Court noted that the reply to the notice under Section 133(6) had specifically addressed the query regarding contractual receipts and fees for professional and technical services, stating that the petitioner was only in the business of supply of electricity and sale of medicines, and had not earned professional or technical service fees, but had received sales commission from UFO Moviez India Ltd., which was offered for tax. The Court concluded that the notice under Section 148 was issued without application of mind and was therefore vitiated. Furthermore, the Court referenced a coordinate bench's decision in *Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India* (CWP No.21509 of 2023), which held that instructions and circulars cannot override statutory provisions and that authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their convenience. The Court found that the notices were issued without jurisdiction, particularly in light of the faceless assessment procedures under Section 144B.
The High Court allowed the prayer for withdrawal of the appeal. The Court noted that the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Direct Taxes, had issued Circular No. 9/2024 dated 17.09.2024, revising the monetary limits for filing appeals before the ITAT, High Court, and Supreme Court. The revised monetary limit for filing appeals before the High Court was Rs. 2 crore. The Court observed that the present appeal did not fall within the exceptions to the monetary limits as per Circular No. 5/2024. Consequently, the Revenue's counsel prayed for withdrawal of the appeal, which was allowed by the Court. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal 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 (7 & 8) of the Act, were contrary to the provisions of the Act and were therefore set aside for want of jurisdiction. The Court agreed with the Coordinate Bench that circulars or instructions issued by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or make them obsolete. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed mandatorily. The Court found that the authorities could not usurp legal provisions to their own satisfaction and convenience, causing hardship and confusion to assessees. Instructions and circulars can only supplement statutory provisions and aid in their implementation. The Court explicitly stated there was no occasion to distinguish or take a different view from the Coordinate Bench. The notices dated 15.03.2024, 23.03.2024, 20.03.2024, 30.03.2023, and 30.03.2023 were set aside. 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 the consequential proceedings initiated without conducting faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act, 1961, were contrary to the provisions of the Act. The Court relied on its previous decisions in Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India. It reiterated that instructions by the Board cannot override statutory provisions and that authorities cannot use their powers to usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship to assessees. The Court found the notices dated March 14, 2024, March 20, 2024, March 28, 2023, March 30, 2023, and March 30, 2023, to be without jurisdiction and set them aside. 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 notices and consequential proceedings.
The High Court held that notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings initiated without conducting the mandatory faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act, were contrary to the provisions of the Act and therefore lacked jurisdiction. The Court agreed with the view taken by coordinate benches, stating that circulars or instructions from the Board cannot override statutory provisions or make them otiose. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed mandatorily. The Court found that the authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their own satisfaction or convenience, causing hardship and confusion to assessees. Instructions and circulars can only supplement statutory provisions for their implementation. Consequently, the notices dated 26.03.2024 (Annexure P-3) issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148 were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act if so advised. All pending applications were also disposed of.
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Vashisth, held that the writ petition had been rendered infructuous. Based on the submission from the petitioner's counsel, the Court ordered the dismissal of the writ petition on this ground. Any pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of. The specific reasons why the petition became infructuous are not detailed in the judgment. The operative direction was the dismissal of the writ petition.
The High Court held that notices issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings initiated without conducting the mandatory faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act, were found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act. The Court relied on its previous decisions in Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India. It reiterated that instructions by the Board (circulars) cannot override statutory provisions or make them otiose. The Court emphasized that legislative enactments having financial implications must be mandatorily followed, and authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their convenience or satisfaction, causing hardship and confusion to assessees. Consequently, the notices dated February 28, 2023, March 16, 2023, March 20, 2023, March 30, 2023, and the notice dated March 27, 2024, 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 operative direction was to allow the writ petition and set aside the impugned notices and consequential proceedings.
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. The Court relied on its previous decisions in Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India. The reasoning was that circulars or instructions issued by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or make them obsolete. Authorities cannot usurp legal provisions to their own satisfaction and convenience, causing hardship to assessees. Instructions can only supplement statutory provisions for their implementation. Therefore, the notices dated 27.03.2024, 30.06.2024, and 18.07.2024, along with consequential proceedings, were set aside for want of jurisdiction. 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 allowed the department's prayer for withdrawal of the appeal. The court noted that the case did not fall within any exception clauses of the circular.
The Tribunal allowed the Revenue's prayer to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn based on the revised monetary limits specified in the circular.
The Tribunal held that notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the consequential proceedings initiated under Section 144B, were without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of the Act. The reasoning was based on a prior decision by a Coordinate Bench in Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others, which held that circulars or instructions issued by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or render them obsolete. The Court emphasized that 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 and aid in their implementation. Consequently, the notices dated February 28, 2023, March 16, 2023, March 20, 2023, March 30, 2023, and August 31, 2024, were set aside. The Revenue was granted liberty to follow the prescribed procedure if advised. All pending applications were also disposed of.
The High Court held that circulars or instructions issued by the Board under Sections 119 and 120 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and provisions like Section 144B(7 & 8), cannot override statutory provisions or render them otiose. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be strictly followed. The authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship and confusion to taxpayers. Instructions and circulars can only supplement statutory provisions. Following its previous judgments in Jasjit Singh and Jatinder Singh Bhangu, the Court found that notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 and subsequent proceedings initiated without conducting faceless assessment under Section 144B were contrary to the Act. Consequently, the notices dated 31.08.2024 and all consequential proceedings were 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 notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings, including those conducted under Section 144B (faceless assessment), were found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act and were therefore set aside for want of jurisdiction. The Court agreed with the view taken by a Coordinate Bench that circulars or instructions issued by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or make them obsolete. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed mandatorily. The Court reasoned that authorities cannot use their powers under Sections 119 and 120 of the Act, as well as Section 144B (7 & 8), to 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. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act and proceed accordingly, if so advised. The Court allowed the writ petitions, and the interim orders stood merged with the present order.
The High Court, following its previous decisions in Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India, held that notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings initiated without conducting the assessment in a faceless manner as envisaged by Section 144B, were contrary to the provisions of the Act. The Court reiterated that instructions by the Board (circulars) cannot override statutory provisions or make them obsolete. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed strictly. The Court found that the notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148, dated 09.04.2024, and consequential proceedings, including those under Section 144B, were without jurisdiction. The ratio decidendi is that faceless assessment procedures mandated by statute must be adhered to, and deviations leading to assessments by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer without following these procedures render the proceedings void for want of jurisdiction. The Court set aside the impugned notices and consequential proceedings.
The High Court held that circulars or instructions issued by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or make them otiose. Legislative enactments with financial implications are mandatory. Authorities cannot use powers under Sections 119, 120, and 144B(7 & 8) to usurp legal provisions, causing hardship and confusion to taxpayers. Instructions and circulars can only supplement statutory provisions for their implementation. The Court found no reason to distinguish the present case from the decisions in Jasjit Singh and Jatinder Singh Bhangu. 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 notices dated 31.08.2024 and all consequential proceedings were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The respondents-revenue were granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, if advised. The writ petition was allowed in terms of the previous judgments.
The High Court held that instructions or circulars issued by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or render them otiose. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed strictly and 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 for implementation. Applying this principle, the Court held that notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings initiated without conducting faceless assessment as envisaged by Section 144B, were contrary to the provisions of the Act. Consequently, the notices dated 28.02.2023, 20.03.2023, 16.03.2023, 30.03.2023, and 30.03.2024, along with the Assessing Officer's order under Section 148 dated 06.04.2023, 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 if so advised.
The Tribunal held that vocational training imparted by the respondent-society does fall within the purview and scope of the term 'Education' as used in Section 2(15) of the Act. The Tribunal noted that the society was an empaneled Assessing Body under the Modular Employable Skills scheme of the Ministry of Skill Development & Entrepreneurship, and its training courses were systematic, recognized by NCVT and SCVT, Haryana, with examinations conducted at a national level. The Tribunal found that the income generated from carrying out its training programs, which were reimbursed by the government, was in the course of carrying out its charitable activity and not from property held under trust. The Tribunal also found that the purchase of two cars was not a sufficient ground for rejection, as the receipts were towards corpus funds and duly recorded. The Tribunal relied on the Kerala High Court judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax, Kottayam vs. M/s Annadan Trust, which held that vocational education is necessary for individual development and earning a living. The Tribunal concluded that the activities of the society were genuine and in accordance with its objects, and therefore, the CIT(E)'s order was without jurisdiction. The Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to register the society under Section 12A and 12AA of the Act.
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, in its order of even date, disposed of the appeal. The judgment states that the appeal was disposed of for reasons to be seen in another order passed in a related matter, ITA-394-2014, titled ‘M/s Vishal Paper Industries vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala’. Consequently, all pending applications associated with this appeal were also disposed of accordingly. No specific findings on any issues or operative directions beyond the disposal of the appeal are recorded in this extract.
The High Court held that the appeal had become infructuous and otiose. This was based on two primary reasons: firstly, the amalgamation of PGTI, Chandigarh, with PGTI, New Delhi, effective from 01.04.2010, which rendered the existence of PGTI, Chandigarh, as a separate entity for the purpose of the appeal moot. Secondly, the court noted that PGTI, Chandigarh, had never claimed any exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and had also not claimed benefits under the Chandigarh Society Act. Given these circumstances, the court concluded that adjudicating the appeal would serve no purpose. The ratio decidendi is that an appeal challenging an order concerning an entity that has subsequently ceased to exist due to amalgamation, and which never sought the benefit of the provisions it was seeking registration for, becomes infructuous. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as having become infructuous.
The High Court found a similar calculation mistake in the present appeals for AY 2008-09 and 2009-10. The court decided to apply the order passed in the earlier related appeal mutatis mutandis.
The High Court held that circulars or instructions issued by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or make them otiose. The Court agreed with the Coordinate Bench that such instructions, even when exercising powers under Sections 119, 120, and 144B(7 & 8) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, cannot be used to usurp legal provisions for convenience, causing hardship and confusion to assessees. Instructions and circulars are meant to supplement statutory provisions and aid in their implementation. Consequently, notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 and proceedings initiated without conducting faceless assessment as per Section 144B were found to be contrary to the Act. The Court set aside the impugned notices dated 20.02.2023, 14.03.2023, and 14.03.2023, and all consequential proceedings for want of jurisdiction. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the prescribed procedure if advised. The Court explicitly stated there was no occasion to distinguish the present case from the law laid down by the Coordinate Bench.
The High Court held that circulars or instructions issued by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or make them obsolete. Legislative enactments must be followed strictly and mandatorily. The court found that authorities, by exercising powers under Sections 119, 120, and 144B(7 & 8) of the Act, cannot usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship and confusion to taxpayers. Instructions and circulars can only supplement statutory provisions for their implementation. Consequently, the court found no reason to distinguish the present case from the precedents set by the Coordinate Bench. The notices issued by the JAO under Section 148A(b) dated 29.03.2024, under Section 148A(d) dated 10.04.2024, and under Section 148 dated 10.04.2024, along with all consequential proceedings, were set aside for want of jurisdiction, as they were initiated without conducting the faceless assessment envisaged under Section 144B. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act if advised. The writ petition was allowed in terms of the observations and order.
The High Court held that circulars or instructions issued by the Board could not override statutory provisions or render them otiose. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be strictly followed. The Court found that authorities, by exercising powers under Sections 119 and 120, and Section 144B (7 & 8) of the Act, 1961, cannot usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship and confusion to assessees. Instructions and circulars can only supplement statutory provisions. Consequently, notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 and subsequent proceedings initiated without conducting faceless assessments under Section 144B were found to be contrary to the Act. The 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 prescribed procedure. The writ petition was allowed in terms of the prior judgments, and the notice dated 20.02.2023 and consequential proceedings were set aside.
The High Court held that the writ petition has become infructuous in view of the final order passed by the ITAT. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed. The Court also clarified that the contentions raised by the petitioner shall remain open for consideration by the ITAT. This implies that the ITAT's decision is the operative one, and any issues not fully resolved or decided by the ITAT can still be pursued by the petitioner before that forum. No specific findings on the merits of the petitioner's original case before the ITAT were made by the High Court, as the matter was disposed of on procedural grounds.
The High Court 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. Instructions and circulars can only supplement statutory provisions and aid in their implementation. Consequently, notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 and subsequent proceedings initiated without conducting faceless assessment as per Section 144B were found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act. The notices dated 31.03.2024 under Section 148A(d) and Section 148, and all consequential proceedings, were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the prescribed procedure if advised. The Court allowed the writ petition in terms of its previous judgments.
The High Court held that notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings initiated without conducting the faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act, are contrary to the provisions of the Act. The Court relied on its 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. The reasoning was that circulars or instructions from the Board cannot override statutory provisions or be issued to make them otiose. The Court emphasized that legislative enactments having financial implications must be followed strictly and mandatorily. The Court observed that authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their own satisfaction or convenience, causing hardship and confusion to assessees. Instructions and circulars can only supplement statutory provisions for implementation. Therefore, the notices dated 31.08.2023, 20.03.2024, 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, and 30.03.2023, along with consequential proceedings, were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act if so advised.
The High Court held that instructions issued by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or make them obsolete. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed strictly and mandatorily. The authorities cannot usurp legal provisions to their own satisfaction and convenience, causing hardship to assessees and confusion. Circulars and instructions can only be issued for supplementing statutory provisions and for their implementation. The Court found that notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, and the proceedings initiated thereafter without conducting the faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B, were found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act, 1961. Consequently, the notices dated 28.02.2023, 20.03.2023, 16.03.2023, 30.03.2023, and the order dated 30.03.2023, along with the notice dated 30.08.2024 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, 1961, if so advised. The writ petitions were allowed.
The High Court, following its previous decisions in Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others and Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others, held that instructions issued by the Board under Section 119 and Section 120 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, cannot override statutory provisions or render them obsolete. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed mandatorily. The Court reiterated that authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their convenience or satisfaction, causing hardship and confusion to assessees. Instructions and circulars can only supplement statutory provisions and aid in their implementation. Consequently, notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Act, dated 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2024, 30.03.2023, and the order dated 30.03.2024 (Annexure P-2), along with consequential proceedings initiated without conducting the faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B (7 & 8), 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. All pending applications were also disposed of.
The Tribunal held that notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings initiated thereafter, including those under Section 144B (faceless assessment), were found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act, 1961. The Court relied on its previous decision in Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others, which held that Board circulars cannot override statutory provisions or make them obsolete. The Court found that such instructions are only for supplementing statutory provisions and their implementation. Consequently, the notices dated February 28, 2023, March 16, 2023, March 20, 2023, March 30, 2023, and the order dated August 28, 2024, were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure as laid down under the Act and proceed accordingly if so advised. The operative direction was to allow the writ petition.
The High Court held that notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the consequential proceedings initiated thereafter, including those conducted without conducting the faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B, were found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act. The Court relied on its previous decisions in Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others and Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others. The Court reiterated that circulars or instructions by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or make them obsolete, and that legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed strictly. The Court found that the authorities could not usurp legal provisions for their own satisfaction or convenience, causing hardship and confusion. Therefore, the notices dated 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2024, 30.03.2023, and the order dated 30.03.2023, along with the Assessing Officer's notice u/s 148 dated 24.03.2023, were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure as laid down under the Act and proceed accordingly if so advised. The writ petition was allowed.