Loading High Court cases…
601 orders · Page 9 of 13
The Tribunal held that administrative instructions, including those issued by the Board, cannot override statutory provisions or render them obsolete. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed strictly and mandatorily. The court found that the authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship and confusion to assessees. Instructions can only supplement statutory provisions and aid in their implementation. Consequently, notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings initiated without conducting the faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B were found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act. The notices dated 28.02.2023, 20.03.2023, 16.03.2023, 30.03.2023, and 30.03.2024 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 advised. The writ petitions were allowed, and interim orders merged with the final order.
The High Court held that notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the proceedings initiated thereafter, including those under Section 144B, were found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act. The Court relied on its previous decision in Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others, decided on July 29, 2024, and a coordinate bench's decision in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others, decided on July 19, 2024. The reasoning was that instructions by the Board (circulars) cannot override statutory provisions or make them obsolete. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed strictly and mandatorily. The Court emphasized that authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship and confusion. Therefore, the notices dated February 28, 2023, March 16, 2023, March 20, 2023, March 30, 2023, and the order dated August 30, 2024, 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 operative direction was to allow the writ petition.
The Tribunal held that notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the consequential proceedings initiated thereafter, particularly those without conducting the faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act, were found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act. Relying on the law laid down by a Coordinate Bench in Jasjit Singh (supra) and Jatinder Singh Bhangu (supra), the Court reiterated that circulars or instructions by the Board cannot override statutory provisions. The Court found that the notices and subsequent proceedings, specifically mentioning notices dated 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2024, 30.03.2023, and an order dated 30.03.2023, were issued for want of jurisdiction. Consequently, these notices and proceedings were set aside. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure as laid down under the Act and proceed accordingly, if advised. The writ petition was allowed, and the interim orders stood merged with the present order.
The ITAT had examined the record and found that the AO had indeed raised queries and demanded documents, which were duly furnished by the assessee. The PCIT did not point out any specific further inquiries that were necessary.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not legally obligated to deduct tax at source on the income component of payments made to distributors/franchisees for selling pre-paid coupons or starter kits. This decision was based on a Supreme Court judgment.
The High Court, in light of the consensus between the learned counsel for the parties, decided to grant the same relief to the petitioner as was granted in the case of Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India (CWP-15791-2024). The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to the same relief, which involved quashing the impugned notice dated 07.04.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and any consequential proceedings. The reasoning was based on the agreement of the parties and the precedent established in the Jyoti Sareen case. The operative direction was to allow the petition and quash the notice and proceedings. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The High Court held that the issue was no longer res integra in view of the Supreme Court judgment in Bharti Cellular Limited (Now Bharti Airtel Limited) Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 57, Kolkata and another, dated 28.02.2024. The Supreme Court had held that assessees would not be under a legal obligation to deduct tax at source on the income/profit component in the payments received by distributors/franchisees from third parties/customers, or while selling/transferring prepaid coupons or starter-kits to distributors. Therefore, Section 194H of the Act was not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. The High Court upheld the ITAT's order, which had followed this principle, and consequently dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. The operative direction was that the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The High Court held that notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings initiated without conducting the assessment under Section 144B of the Act, were 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 could not override statutory provisions or be issued to make them otiose. The Court emphasized that legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed strictly and mandatorily. It observed that authorities cannot usurp legal provisions to their own satisfaction or convenience, causing hardship to assessees and confusion. Therefore, the notices dated 22.03.2023, 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2023, 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. The writ petition was allowed, and the interim order stood merged with the present order.
The High Court allowed the writ petition. It held that notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings, including those conducted under Section 144B (7 & 8) without conducting the assessment in a faceless manner as envisaged by 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 instructions by the Board cannot override statutory provisions, and 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. Consequently, the notices dated 19.04.2024 (Annexure P-1), 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2023, 30.03.2023, and 30.03.2024, along with all consequential proceedings and pending applications, 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 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, were found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act. Specifically, the Court found that the assessments were not conducted in a faceless manner as envisaged by Section 144B. The Court relied on its previous decisions in Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India, which held that circulars or instructions by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or make them obsolete. The Court emphasized that legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed strictly and mandatorily. The authorities cannot usurp legal provisions to their own satisfaction or convenience, causing hardship to assessees. Consequently, the notices dated 22.03.2023, 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2024, 30.03.2023, and 30.03.2023, along with 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. The writ petition was allowed, and all pending applications were 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 and confusion. Instructions and circulars can only supplement statutory provisions for their implementation. 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 without jurisdiction. The specific notices dated 27.03.2024 and consequential proceedings were set aside. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, if advised. The ratio decidendi is that procedural mandates like faceless assessment, when statutorily prescribed, must be adhered to, and deviations without legal basis render subsequent actions void for want of jurisdiction. All pending applications were disposed of.
The High Court allowed the writ petition, holding that notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148A(b) dated August 9, 2024, and August 20, 2024, the order issued under Section 148A(d) dated August 28, 2024, and the notice issued under Section 148 dated August 28, 2024, along with consequential proceedings, were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The court's reasoning was based on its prior decision in Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India, which held that circulars or instructions cannot override statutory provisions and that authorities cannot usurp legal provisions. The court found that initiating proceedings without conducting faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act, 1961, was contrary to the Act. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, if so advised. No issues were expressly left undecided.
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 followed strictly. Authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship to assessees. Instructions and circulars can only supplement statutory provisions for implementation. Consequently, notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148 and proceedings initiated thereafter, without conducting faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B, were found to be contrary to the Act. The Court set aside the notices dated 09.04.2024 under Section 148 and the order dated 09.04.2024 under Section 148A(d), along with consequential proceedings, for want of jurisdiction. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act if advised. The ratio is that faceless assessment procedures mandated by statute cannot be bypassed by issuing notices without adhering to them, and such procedural lapses render the proceedings void.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not being prosecuted. Despite repeated opportunities and reminders from the Registry to reconstruct the file, no steps were taken by the parties. The Tribunal noted that the file was stated to have been burnt in a fire incident. In view of the lack of prosecution, the Income Tax Appeal (ITA) was dismissed for non-prosecution. All pending applications were also disposed of accordingly. The judgment does not provide reasoning on the merits of any substantive tax issue, as the dismissal was procedural. The questions of whether the judgment was speaking/reasoned and reportable were implicitly answered in the affirmative by the pronouncement of the dismissal order, but no explicit finding is recorded on these points.
The High Court held that circulars or instructions issued by the Board could not override statutory provisions or render them obsolete. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be strictly followed. The Court found that authorities, by exercising powers under Sections 119 and 120, as well as Section 144B(7) & (8) of the Act, cannot usurp 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 JAO under Section 148 and subsequent proceedings, initiated without conducting faceless assessments under Section 144B, were found to be contrary to the Act. The Court set aside specific notices (dated 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2024, and 30.03.2023) and an order dated 30.03.2023 for want of jurisdiction. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the prescribed procedure if advised. In the present case, the notice dated 14.03.2024 and consequential proceedings were set aside.
The High Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148A(b) dated 09.08.2024 and 20.08.2024, the order issued under Section 148A(d) dated 28.08.2024, and the notice issued under Section 148 dated 28.08.2024, along with consequential proceedings. The Court's reasoning was based on its previous decision in Jasjit Singh, which held that circulars or instructions by the Board cannot override statutory provisions. The Court found that legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed strictly. It was held that authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship to assessees, and that instructions and circulars can only supplement statutory provisions. The ratio decidendi is that proceedings initiated without adhering to the mandatory faceless assessment procedure under Section 144B are without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act if so advised.
The High Court dismissed the Income Tax Appeal (ITA). The Court noted that the Registry had repeatedly informed the parties to take steps for the reconstruction of the file. However, no such steps were taken by either party. The Court further observed that the file was completely burnt in a fire incident and was not available in the Registry. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution. The Court also directed that all pending applications would stand disposed of accordingly. The ratio decidendi is that an appeal cannot be prosecuted if the necessary records are destroyed and no efforts are made by the parties to reconstruct them, leading to dismissal for non-prosecution. No specific issue was left undecided; the appeal was disposed of on procedural grounds.
The High Court allowed the writ petition. It held that circulars or instructions issued by the Board could not override statutory provisions or render them obsolete. Legislative enactments with financial implications are mandatory. Authorities exercising powers under Sections 119, 120, and 144B(7 & 8) of the Act cannot usurp legal provisions to their satisfaction and convenience, causing hardship. Instructions and circulars can only supplement statutory provisions for their implementation. Consequently, notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 and proceedings initiated thereafter without conducting faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act, 1961, were found to be contrary to the provisions of 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 present case was allowed mutatis mutandis, setting aside the notice issued by the JAO u/s 148 dated 27.03.2024, and consequential proceedings.
The Tribunal held that instructions issued by the Board, whether circulars or otherwise, cannot override statutory provisions or render them obsolete. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be mandatorily followed. The court reiterated its previous stance 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. Consequently, notices issued by the JAO u/s 148 dated 26.03.2024 and consequential proceedings, including those initiated without conducting faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B, were found to be contrary to the Act and accordingly 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 petitions were allowed, and interim orders stood merged with the final order.
The Tribunal held that the rental income received by the co-owners was rightly assessed as income of an AOP, as the property was jointly owned and managed, and the income was deposited in a single account. The plinths constructed were not considered buildings for the purpose of income from house property.
The High Court held that once the Chief Commissioner's action of refusing exemption was quashed, the exemption would apply retrospectively. Therefore, the penalty imposed was rightly deleted.
The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Income Tax Department. The Court found that the ITAT had correctly held the order of the CIT cancelling the registration under Section 12AA(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to be without jurisdiction and authority in law. The ITAT's reasoning was based on the fact that the amendment to Section 12AA(3) by the Finance Act of 2010, empowering the Commissioner to cancel registration granted under Section 12A, was prospective and could not be applied retrospectively. The CIT had cancelled the registration on 02.03.2010, prior to the amendment's effective date. The Court also noted that the respondent institute was a duly registered educational trust under Section 10(23)(vi) and that its earnings were utilized for the advancement of education, thus it could not have been denied the benefit of Section 12AA as per the principles laid down in Ananda Social and Educational Trust v. Commissioner of Income Tax. Therefore, the Court found no error in the ITAT's holding that the respondent was entitled to registration under Section 12AA.
The Tribunal held that circulars or instructions issued by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or make them obsolete. Such instructions, especially those with financial implications, must be mandatorily followed. Authorities cannot use these instructions to usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship and confusion to assessees. The court reiterated its agreement with the view of the Coordinate Bench that instructions can only supplement statutory provisions for implementation. Consequently, notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings initiated without conducting faceless assessments under Section 144B, were found to be contrary to the Act and were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the prescribed procedure if so advised. The interim orders were merged with the final order.
The High Court held that the Assessing Officer had a statutory duty to consider the reply filed by the assessee before passing an order under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court found that the reply filed by the petitioner on March 24, 2022, was not considered when the order dated March 31, 2022, was drafted and passed. This was evidenced by the fact that the revenue had to raise an issue with the ITBA Helpdesk on May 23, 2022, to retrieve the assessee's response, which was subsequently confirmed to be available. The Court relied on a previous judgment by a Coordinate Bench in CWP-8784-2022 (Saroj Rani vs. Income Tax Officer) which emphasized the importance of considering the assessee's reply. Consequently, the Court set aside the order dated March 31, 2022, and directed the Assessing Officer to download the available reply and pass a fresh speaking order after considering it. The petitioner was granted liberty to challenge the fresh order if aggrieved.
The High Court held that notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the subsequent proceedings initiated under Section 144B, which were conducted without adhering to the principles of faceless assessment, were contrary to the provisions of the Act. The Court relied on its previous decision in Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others, which held that circulars or instructions from 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 or convenience, causing hardship and confusion to assessees. Instructions and circulars can only supplement statutory provisions and their implementation. Therefore, the notices dated 11.04.2023, 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2023, 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, if so advised. The writ petitions were allowed, and interim orders stood merged with the present order.
The High Court held that instructions by the Board (circulars) cannot override statutory provisions or make them obsolete. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be mandatorily followed. Exercising powers under Sections 119 and 120 of the Act, as well as Section 144B (7 & 8), cannot allow authorities to usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship and confusion to assessees. Instructions can only supplement statutory provisions for 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, were found to be 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 notice issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer u/s 148 dated 27.03.2024, 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 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 consequential proceedings initiated under Section 144B of the Act, without conducting the faceless assessment as envisaged by the Act, were found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act. The Court relied on its previous decision in Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others, which held that circulars or instructions from the Board cannot override statutory provisions or make them obsolete. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed strictly. The Court found that the notices dated 14.03.2023, 20.03.2023, 23.03.2023, 16.03.2023, 30.03.2023, and 30.03.2023 were issued for want of jurisdiction. Consequently, the notices and all consequential proceedings, including the order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 148 dated 14.03.2024 (Annexure P-1), were set aside. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure as laid down under the Act and proceed accordingly, if so advised. All pending applications were also disposed of.
The High Court held that notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the proceedings initiated thereafter, without conducting the faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act, 1961, were contrary to the provisions of the Act. The court agreed with the view taken by a Coordinate Bench that circulars or instructions by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or make them otiose. It was reasoned that legislative enactments have financial implications and must be followed mandatorily. The court further stated that authorities cannot usurp legal provisions under the guise of Sections 119, 120, and 144B(7 & 8) to their own satisfaction or convenience, causing hardship and confusion to assessees. Instructions and circulars can only supplement statutory provisions and aid their implementation. Consequently, the notices dated 26.03.2024 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, 1961, if so advised. The writ petition was allowed in these terms.
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 taken by a Coordinate Bench that legislative enactments require strict adherence and mandatory compliance. The Court found that authorities cannot use powers under Sections 119, 120, and 144B(7) & (8) to usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship and confusion to taxpayers. Instructions and circulars are meant to supplement, not supplant, 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 27.03.2024 and all consequential proceedings were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the prescribed procedure if advised. The Court allowed the writ petition.
The High Court held that, in light of the consensus between the parties and following the precedent set in the case of Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others (CWP-15791-2024), the petition should be allowed. The Court quashed the impugned notice dated 17.03.2024 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and any consequential proceedings arising therefrom. The reasoning was based on the agreement of both the petitioner and the revenue to extend the relief granted in the Jyoti Sareen case to the present petitioner. The ratio decidendi is that where parties consent to a particular outcome based on a prior judicial precedent, the court should grant that relief to maintain consistency and judicial economy. No issues were expressly left undecided.
The High Court held that instructions issued by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or render them otiose. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed strictly. The authorities cannot use 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 can only supplement statutory provisions for implementation. Therefore, notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings initiated without conducting faceless assessment under Section 144B, were found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act. Consequently, notices dated 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 at liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act and proceed accordingly. All pending applications were also disposed of.
The High Court held that circulars or instructions issued by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or make them obsolete. Such instructions, including those issued under Sections 119 and 120 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and Section 144B(7) & (8), must be followed strictly and mandatorily. The authorities cannot use these powers to usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship to assessees and confusion. Instructions and circulars are meant to supplement statutory provisions and aid in their implementation. The Court found no reason to distinguish the present case from the precedents set by the Coordinate Bench. 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 and were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the prescribed procedure. The notices dated 23.03.2024 and all consequential proceedings were set aside.
The High Court held that circulars or instructions issued by the Income Tax Board cannot override statutory provisions or render them otiose. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be strictly followed. The court affirmed that authorities cannot use powers under Sections 119 and 120, read with Section 144B(7) & (8), to usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship and confusion to assessees. Instructions and circulars are meant to supplement, not supersede, 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 court set aside the notices dated 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2024, and 30.03.2023, and the order dated 30.03.2023, for want of jurisdiction. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the prescribed procedure. The specific notice dated 29.08.2024 issued to the petitioner and consequential proceedings were also set aside. The ratio is that faceless assessment procedures mandated by Section 144B are a jurisdictional prerequisite for notices under Section 148 and subsequent proceedings.
The High Court held that the petitioner was entitled to the same relief as granted in the case of Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others, decided on 10.09.2026. Based on this consensus between the parties, the Court allowed the petition. The impugned notice dated 29.08.2024, issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was quashed, along with any consequential proceedings. The ratio decidendi is that if parties agree that a petitioner should receive the same relief as granted in a prior, similar case, the court will grant that relief. Any pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana held that the petitioner was entitled to the same relief as granted in the case of Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others, dated 10.09.2026. This was based on a consensus between the parties. Consequently, the impugned notice dated 23.03.2024 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and any consequential proceedings were quashed. The reasoning was that the parties had agreed to this outcome, and the court found it appropriate to follow the precedent established in the Jyoti Sareen case. The ratio decidendi is that where parties agree to a specific relief based on a prior binding precedent, the court should grant that relief. The operative direction was to quash the notice and proceedings.
The High Court held that the writ petition is maintainable against an order of the Income Tax Settlement Commission, citing the Supreme Court judgment in *Jyotendrasinhji v. S.I. Tripathi*. Regarding the interest under Section 234-A for assessment year 1989-90, the Court found that while the ITSC acknowledged the delay was due to the non-availability of seized papers, it failed to provide reasons for reducing the interest by only 50% and not waiving it entirely. Consequently, the Court waived the interest charged under Section 234-A. However, the Court declined to waive the interest under Sections 234-B and 234-C, reasoning that advance tax payments are distinct from the seizure of books of accounts and that the delay in filing returns did not excuse the default in paying advance tax. The Court also noted that the circular on waiver of interest did not apply to advance tax payments. The Court relied on *Gulraj Engineering Construction Co.* (AT) for not waiving interest under Sections 234-B and 234-C and *Shelly Mehta v. Commissioner of Income tax* for not waiving advance tax based on cash seizure.
The Tribunal held that the liability for interest did not accrue in the relevant assessment year, as the assessee's attempts to waive interest and arrange installment payments did not establish accrual at that point. The High Court found no substantial question of law and upheld the Tribunal's decision.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 148 were not sustainable. The "reasons to believe" must be based on tangible material available at the time of reopening and cannot be based on a personal opinion or material that may be supplied subsequently. The Court referred to the Supreme Court judgment in The Income-Tax Officer vs Lakhmani Mewal Das, which stated that reasons to believe must appear on the face of the notice or be available on record. The Court found that the assessment proceedings completed in March 2016 did not warrant any interference or re-opening. The proceedings initiated vide notice dated 20.03.2020 were contrary to law and thus unsustainable. On merits, the Tribunal found that the agricultural land purchased by the petitioner was not a capital asset as defined under Section 2(14)(iii)(b) of the Act because it was beyond the municipal limits and agricultural in nature. Therefore, no capital gain was liable to be taxed. The writ petition was allowed, and the notice dated 20.03.2020, the orders dated 08.09.2021 and 22.09.2021, and the demand notice dated 29.09.2021 were quashed.
The High Court allowed the writ petition, following its own previous decisions in Jasjit Singh and Jatinder Singh Bhangu. 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. The 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 can only supplement statutory provisions. 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 Act. The notice dated 24.03.2024 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 of Punjab and Haryana, comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Sibal and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sunish Bindlish, considered the request of the petitioner. The Court allowed the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition. Crucially, the Court granted liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action. Furthermore, the Court explicitly permitted the petitioner to challenge Section 147A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the fresh petition. The operative direction was to dismiss the petition as withdrawn with the aforementioned liberties granted.
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana, in light of the consensus between the parties and following the precedent set in the case of Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India (decided on 10.09.2026), allowed the petition. The Court quashed the impugned notice dated 12.04.2024 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and all consequential proceedings. The reasoning is based on the agreement of the parties and the established principle from the Jyoti Sareen case, which presumably dealt with similar grounds for challenging a notice under Section 148. The ratio decidendi is that if a similar case with identical relief has been decided, and the parties agree to the same outcome, the court will grant that relief. No issues were left undecided.
The High Court held that circulars or instructions issued by the Board could not override statutory provisions or render them otiose. It was emphasized that financial implications arising from legislative enactments must be followed strictly and mandatorily. Authorities, by exercising powers under Sections 119 and 120 of the Act, 1961, as well as Section 144B(7 & 8), cannot usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship and confusion to taxpayers. Instructions and circulars are permissible only for supplementing statutory provisions and their implementation. Following the law laid down by the Coordinate Bench in Jasjit Singh (supra), the Court found that notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 and proceedings initiated thereafter without conducting faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act, 1961, were contrary to the Act. Consequently, the notices dated 23.03.2024 under Section 148A(d) and Section 148, and the consequential proceedings, were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The respondents were granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, if advised. The writ petition was allowed.
This judgment does not contain any findings or reasoning on the merits of the appeal. It solely directs that for details, reference should be made to an order of even date passed in a related appeal, ITA-20-2012 (O&M) titled as Kamla Mehta Versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Ludhiana & Anr. Consequently, there is no ratio decidendi established in this judgment that could be cited for another case. No operative directions such as remand or deletion are provided herein, and no issues are expressly left undecided as the substantive decision is deferred to the referenced order.
The Tribunal, following the decision of a Coordinate Bench in Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others (CWP No. 21509 of 2023), held that circulars or instructions issued by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or make them otiose. Legislative enactments must be followed strictly and mandatorily. The Court found that exercising powers under Sections 119 and 120 of the Act, 1961, along with Sections 144B(7 & 8), does not permit authorities to usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship to assessees and confusion. Consequently, 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, 1961, if so advised. The writ petition was allowed, and the interim order stood merged with the final order.
The High Court held that the ITAT's order dismissing the assessee's appeal on technicalities without giving the assessee an opportunity to rectify procedural shortcomings was not appropriate. The Court observed that the ITAT should have confronted the assessee with the procedural shortcomings before passing the order. Consequently, the ITAT was directed to address the preliminary objection by way of a speaking order and thereafter pass a speaking order in accordance with law on the merits of the appeal, after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The High Court found no substantial question of law arising from the ITAT's order and accordingly dismissed the appeal. The operative direction was to the ITAT to re-adjudicate the assessee's appeal on merits after providing a hearing.
The tribunal held that once a resolution plan is approved, all claims not part of the plan are extinguished and cannot be pursued. Therefore, the Income Tax Department's claim against the auction purchaser is foreclosed.
The High Court held that the factual findings arrived at by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh, and the CIT(A) did not warrant any interference by the High Court. The Court found that the appeal was misconceived. The Tribunal had concluded that the amount of Rs. 2,25,000 stood withdrawn in an earlier year itself. Additionally, the remaining cash in hand claimed by the assessee of Rs. 24,00,000 was found to be only an account transfer, with no actual cash in hand. The High Court's reasoning was that Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, allows for appeals on substantial questions of law, and the present appeal, based on factual findings, did not meet this threshold. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as misconceived. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal held that the respondent company was declared insolvent under the IBC, 2016, and its resolution plan was accepted and approved by the Committee of Creditors and the NCLT on 08.07.2022. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Ghanashayam Mishra and Sons Private Limited vs Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited, the Tribunal found that all claims, including statutory dues owed to the Central Government, if not part of the resolution plan, stand extinguished. Consequently, the auction purchaser cannot be held liable for dues arising under any law from the Central Government. The Income Tax Department's claim was therefore considered foreclosed after the NCLT's order. The appeal was deemed infructuous and dismissed. No issues were expressly left undecided.