Loading High Court cases…
474 orders · Page 2 of 10
The Tribunal held that the appellant failed to prove the genuineness of transactions where old gold ornaments were received from customers for remaking. The weight of old and new ornaments remained the same, and customer verification failed, leading to the rejection of the appellant's plea.
The High Court allowed the application for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was consequently dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal held that reopening assessment based solely on a change of opinion due to a subsequent judgment is not permissible. Such action amounts to reviewing a prior decision, which is not allowed under Section 147.
The High Court held that the activities of the Improvement Trusts, such as selling plots and premises, were incidental and ancillary to their main purpose of town improvement and not commercial ventures per se. Therefore, their objects and activities were considered for charitable purposes.
The High Court disposed of the writ petition based on the statements made by the respondents' counsel and their specific stand. The court noted that the appeal was listed for hearing on various dates, with adjournments being sought by the petitioner on some occasions. The revenue assured that the appeal would be decided expeditiously, preferably within six weeks, contingent upon the petitioner not seeking further adjournments. The court expressed its expectation that the competent authority would decide the appeal within the stipulated period. No specific issue regarding the merits of the appeal or the assessment order was decided, as the petition was disposed of on procedural grounds based on the parties' submissions. The court also disposed of pending applications.
The High Court disposed of the writ petition in terms of the judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others. In Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case, the Court had held that Section 151A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the CBDT notification dated March 29, 2022, clearly indicate that the scheme of faceless assessment applies from the stage of show cause notice under Section 148. The Court found that the mandate of Section 144B and 151A, read with the notification, was lucid and unambiguous, and that office memorandums or other instructions could not override statutory provisions. Therefore, the issuance of a show cause notice under Section 148 by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer would defeat the object of faceless assessment. The Court granted liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly, if so advised.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated based on valid reasons. The notice issued under Section 148 was found to be in accordance with the law.
The High Court held that the delay of 94 days in the formal acknowledgment of the audit report in Form 10B should have been condoned. The Court found the petitioner's explanation plausible, stating that the petitioner bona fide believed the timely upload by its Chartered Accountant was sufficient compliance and that the formal acknowledgment was directory. The Court noted that the income tax return was filed well in time, and the delay in acknowledgment of the already filed audit report did not benefit the petitioner, but could lead to penalties. The Court also observed that ignoring the audit report would prejudice the petitioner's financial interests by denying claimed exemptions. Therefore, the impugned order dated 18.06.2025 was set aside. The respondent-authorities were directed to allow the petitioner to validly file Form 10B for AY 2022-23 and process its return under Section 143(1) of the 1961 Act. The ratio decidendi is that a short delay in formal acknowledgment of an audit report, when the report itself was filed timely and the delay is explained plausibly without any benefit to the assessee, should be condoned under Section 119(2)(b) to avoid genuine hardship.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal to be withdrawn. The reasoning provided is solely based on the appellant's request due to "low tax effect." The Tribunal noted the appellant's submission and, without delving into the merits of the case, granted the request. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn. Consequently, all pending applications associated with the appeal were also disposed of. The judgment does not discuss any substantive legal issues related to the assessment or the appeal itself, as the decision was purely procedural based on the withdrawal request.
The High Court dismissed the appeal. The court noted that the appellant's counsel had no instructions and the department had no record. The destruction of the case file in a fire in 2011 and the subsequent inability of the parties to reconstruct it were significant factors. The court also observed that sufficient opportunities had been provided to reconstruct the file, but to no avail. It was inferred that with the efflux of time, both parties had lost interest in pursuing the matter. The dismissal was granted with liberty to the appellant to move an appropriate application within six months from the date of the order, if the cause for the appeal still survived. Any pending applications were also disposed of.
The High Court disposed of all four writ petitions by directing the respondent-CBDT to issue a necessary circular, exercising its power under Section 119 of the Act. This circular is to extend the due date for filing of returns by assessees who are required to file an audit report as per clause (a) of Explanation 2 to sub-Section (1) of Section 139 of the Act, or who are required to file a report of audit under the provisions of the Act for the Financial Year 2024-2025 (Assessment Year 2025-26). The extended due date is to be November 30, 2025. The Court found no ground to further adjourn the petitions, noting that the UOI had repeatedly sought adjournments based on a proposal for extension being under consideration, despite a specific and categoric order dated October 13, 2025, passed by the High Court of Gujarat which had attained finality. The Court's reasoning was heavily influenced by the Gujarat High Court's order, which highlighted the statutory requirement of a one-month period between the uploading of the audit report and the due date of filing the return, and the CBDT's tendency to wait until the last moment. The issue regarding the extension of the deadline for renewal of registration under Section 12 of the Income Tax Act was not explicitly addressed in the operative part of the order.
The High Court disposed of the petition with a direction to the Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad, to reconsider the petitioner's case. This reconsideration is to be done in light of the order dated 06.08.2001 passed by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula, and the instructions issued by the authorities, specifically mentioning a circular dated 09.02.2001 from the Commissioner, Rohtak, which states that compensation and interest thereon would be considered income of the year of receipt. The Court noted that the revenue's counsel could not controvert the need for reconsideration based on these authorities. The Commissioner was directed to complete this exercise within three months. Additionally, if the petitioner had not filed an application for waiver for the assessment years in question, they were directed to move an appropriate application within four weeks.
The High Court held that the circular dated 03.04.1982 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, relied upon by the revenue, is not binding on the court, citing the Supreme Court's decision in CCE v. Ratan Melting & Wire Industries, (2008) 13 SCC 1. The court examined the statutory provisions of Section 156 and Section 220(2). Section 156(1) states that a notice of demand is to be served when any tax, interest, penalty, fine, or any other sum is payable in consequence of any order passed under the Act. Section 220(2) stipulates that interest is payable if the amount specified in a notice of demand under Section 156 is not paid within the period specified. The Court found that the first notice under Section 156, issued on 14.12.1994, lost its significance and ceased to exist when the First Appellate Authority allowed the petitioner's appeal, and the tax deposited was refunded along with interest. A fresh liability arose only after the Appellate Tribunal allowed the revenue's appeal. Consequently, a new notice under Section 156 was issued on 07.09.1998, which was in consequence of the Tribunal's order. The liability for interest under Section 220(2) commenced from the day immediately following the expiry of 30 days from this second notice, i.e., from 07.10.1998. The petitioner was not liable to pay interest as per the first notice. The court allowed the petitioner to calculate interest from 07.10.1998 till the date of payment.
The High Court, while acknowledging that the present writ petition raised the same issue as decided in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case and Jasjit Singh's case, noted that an appeal was pending before the Appellate Authority. The Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the Appellate Authority to decide the pending appeal in terms of the aforementioned judgments. These prior judgments had allowed writ petitions on similar grounds, holding that the scheme of faceless assessment, as per Section 151A and the notification dated 29.03.2022, applies from the stage of show cause notice under Section 148. The Court in those cases had observed that the mandate of Section 144B, 151A, read with the notification, was lucid, and departmental instructions could not override statutory provisions. The operative direction in this case was to the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal in line with those precedents.
The High Court allowed the writ petition, directing the revenue to follow the procedure laid down in the Income Tax Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if advised. The Court relied on the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India. The Court noted that Section 151A of the Act, along with Clause 3(b) of the notification dated 29.03.2022, clearly indicates that the faceless assessment scheme is applicable from the stage of the show cause notice under Section 148A. The Court emphasized that assessment proceedings commence from the issuance of the show cause notice and that the introduction of faceless assessment would be defeated if the notice is issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. The Court also stated that departmental authorities are bound by circulars and instructions issued by the Board, and that circulars cannot override statutory provisions. The Court found the language of Section 144B, 151A, and the notification dated 29.03.2022 to be lucid and unambiguous, leaving no room for reliance on office memorandums or other instructions that contradict statutory provisions.
The High Court noted that a co-ordinate bench had previously decided similar issues in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case and Jasjit Singh's case, where the writ petitions were allowed. In those cases, the Court held that the scheme of faceless assessment, as applicable from the stage of show cause notice under Section 148/148A, is evident from Section 151A and the notification dated 29.03.2022. The Court emphasized that while circulars from the Board are binding on authorities, courts are not bound by them, and the mandate of statutory provisions like Section 144B and 151A, read with the notification, is lucid. The Court found no ambiguity in the statutory provisions, thus precluding reliance on office memorandums or other departmental instructions that might override them. Given that an appeal was pending before the Appellate Authority in the present case, the High Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the Appellate Authority to decide the pending appeal in terms of the aforementioned judgments.
The Tribunal held that the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the revenue to follow the procedure as laid down in the Income Tax Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly, if so advised. This decision was based on the precedent set by a Co-ordinate Bench of the Court in the cases of Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others (CWP No. 15745-2023, decided on 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others (CWP No. 21509 of 2023, decided on 29.07.2024). The Court noted that the scheme of faceless assessment, as applicable from the stage of show cause notice under Section 148A and issuance of notice under Section 148, is clearly defined by the notification dated 29.03.2022 issued under Section 151A. The Court reiterated the settled proposition that assessment proceedings commence from the stage of show cause notice and that the mandate of statutory provisions cannot be overridden by office instructions or letters from the Board. The ratio decidendi is that the issuance of a Section 148 notice by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, when the scheme of faceless assessment is applicable, is beyond their jurisdiction.
The High Court allowed the application for withdrawal of the writ petition. The Court noted that the petitioner sought to withdraw CWP No. 26733 of 2025 due to an inability to place certain material facts on record and expressed a desire to pursue a subsequently filed writ petition, CWP No. 30598 of 2025. The respondents' counsel had no objection to this request. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty granted to the petitioner to pursue the other pending writ petition. The Court did not delve into the merits of the assessment order or the notice, as the matter was disposed of on a procedural basis.
The High Court dismissed the appeals, noting the appellant's inability to serve the respondents despite multiple opportunities and the lack of progress in a related prosecution. The court found the appeals to be academic given the circumstances.
The High Court allowed the application for withdrawal of the writ petition. The court noted that the petitioner sought to withdraw the writ petition due to the inability to place certain material facts on record and expressed a desire to pursue a subsequently filed writ petition (CWP No. 30598 of 2025). The respondents did not raise any objection to this request. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty granted to the petitioner to pursue the other writ petition as mentioned. No decision was made on the merits of the original petition.
The High Court disposed of the petition in the same terms as the judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu Vs. Union of India and others and Jasjit Singh Vs. Union of India and others. In those cited cases, writ petitions involving similar issues concerning the validity of Section 148 notices issued by jurisdictional Assessing Officers in the context of faceless assessment were allowed. Liberty was granted to the respondents (revenue) to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly, if so advised. The reasoning implicitly accepts the assessee's argument that the notice was issued by an unauthorized authority, aligning with the principle that such notices must be issued by the designated authority as per the prevailing faceless assessment scheme. The operative direction is to allow the petitioner to avail the benefit of the previous judgments, implying the quashing of the impugned notice and proceedings, subject to the revenue's right to re-initiate the process correctly.
The High Court disposed of the petition in the same terms as the judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu Vs. Union of India and others and Jasjit Singh Vs. Union of India and others. These prior judgments, as referenced by the petitioner, had allowed similar writ petitions concerning the invalidity of notices issued by jurisdictional Assessing Officers in the context of faceless assessment. In those cases, liberty was granted to the respondents to follow the prescribed procedure under the Act and proceed accordingly if advised. Therefore, the High Court implicitly accepted the petitioner's contention that the notice issued by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer was not in accordance with the faceless assessment scheme. The operative direction was to dispose of the current petition in line with the aforementioned precedents, implying that the impugned notice and consequential proceedings would be subject to the same treatment as in the cited cases.
The High Court disposed of the petition in terms similar to the judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu Vs. Union of India and others and Jasjit Singh Vs. Union of India and others. These prior judgments had allowed writ petitions involving similar issues concerning the issuance of Section 148 notices. In those cases, liberty was granted to the respondents to follow the procedure laid down under the Income Tax Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly, if so advised. Therefore, the present petition was disposed of on the same basis, implying that the respondents would need to re-issue the notice, if advised, following the correct procedure as per the faceless assessment framework. The specific finding on the invalidity of the notice issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer is implicit in the disposal order referencing prior judgments that allowed such challenges.
The High Court held that the impugned notice dated 31.03.2023, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, was invalid. This decision was based on the precedent set by two previous judgments of the same court in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case and Jasjit Singh's case. The court found that the respondents did not contest the applicability of these judgments to the present case. Consequently, the impugned notice was quashed. The respondents were granted liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with the law. The court did not explicitly leave any issue undecided.
The High Court held that the appeal should be dismissed as withdrawn. The reasoning was based on the submission by the learned counsel for the appellant (Revenue) that the tax effect involved was under Rs. 2 Crores, and he had specific instructions to withdraw the appeal in accordance with circular No.9 of 2024 dated 17.09.2024 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, CBDT. The Court noted that the respondent was not present. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn. No issue was expressly left undecided, as the appeal was disposed of on procedural grounds.
The High Court held that the appeal should be dismissed as withdrawn. The reasoning was based on the submission by the appellant's counsel that the tax effect involved was under Rs. 2 Crores and that they had specific instructions to withdraw the appeal in view of Circular No. 9 of 2024. The Court accordingly dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. No specific findings were made on the merits of the case as the appeal was withdrawn. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal. No issues were left undecided, as the appeal was disposed of on procedural grounds.
The High Court held that the appeal should be dismissed as withdrawn. The reasoning was based on the specific instructions received by the appellant's counsel to withdraw the appeal due to the tax effect being below the threshold stipulated in circular No.9 of 2024. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn. No issues were expressly left undecided.
The High Court held that the appeal could be withdrawn by the appellant. The reasoning was based on the specific instructions from the appellant's counsel to withdraw the appeal due to the tax effect being under Rs. 2 Crores, as per CBDT Circular No. 9 of 2024 dated 17.09.2024. The Tribunal noted that the appeal was filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. No specific finding was made on the merits of the original dispute before the Tribunal. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.
The High Court held that the appeal should be dismissed as withdrawn. The reasoning provided was based on the specific instructions received by the learned counsel for the appellant (Revenue) to withdraw the appeal. This instruction was given in view of CBDT Circular No.9 of 2024 dated 17.09.2024, which deals with monetary limits for filing appeals. The Court noted that the tax effect involved in the appeal was under Rs.2 Crores, making it eligible for withdrawal under the said circular. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn. No issues were expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal noted that the learned counsel for the appellant (Income Tax Department) submitted that the tax effect involved in the appeal was under Rs.2 Crores and he had specific instructions to withdraw the appeal in view of Circular No.9 of 2024 dated 17.09.2024 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, CBDT, Government of India. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. No decision on the merits of the case was made.
The High Court noted that the appellant, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, had specific instructions to withdraw the appeal. This instruction was based on Circular No. 9 of 2024 dated 17.09.2024, issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, CBDT, Government of India, which stipulates a threshold for filing appeals based on the tax effect. As the tax effect in this particular appeal was stated to be under Rs. 2 Crores, the appellant chose to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. No decision on the merits of the case was made.
The High Court held that the appeal should be dismissed as withdrawn. The reasoning was based on the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant, who stated that he had specific instructions to withdraw the appeal due to the tax effect being under Rs.2 Crores, as per Circular No. 9 of 2024. The Tribunal did not decide any substantive issue on merits. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn. No issues were left undecided.
The High Court held that the appeal is to be dismissed as withdrawn. The reasoning provided is that the appellant, the Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS)-1, Chandigarh, has received specific instructions to withdraw the appeal. This instruction is based on Circular No. 9 of 2024 dated 17.09.2024, issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, CBDT, Government of India, due to the tax effect involved being under Rs. 2 Crores. The Tribunal's order dated 19.11.2020, which is the subject of the appeal, was not decided on its merits. The operative direction is the dismissal of the appeal as withdrawn. No issues were expressly left undecided as the appeal was disposed of on a procedural ground.
The High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, upon being informed by the learned counsel for the appellant that he has specific instructions to withdraw the appeal due to the tax effect being under Rs.2 Crores and in view of CBDT Circular No. 9 of 2024, dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The court noted that the circular mandates withdrawal of appeals where the tax effect is below a certain threshold. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal. No specific issue was decided on merits.
The High Court noted the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant (Revenue) that the tax effect involved in the appeal is under Rs.2 Crores and that he has specific instructions to withdraw the appeal in view of Circular No. 9 of 2024 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, CBDT, Government of India. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. No decision was made on the merits of the case. Any pending applications were also disposed of.
The High Court held that the appeal should be dismissed as withdrawn. The reasoning was based on the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant, who stated that he had specific instructions to withdraw the appeal due to the tax effect being under Rs. 2 Crores, in accordance with Circular No. 9 of 2024 dated 17.09.2024 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, CBDT. The Tribunal did not decide any substantive issue on merits. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn. No issue was left undecided as the appeal was disposed of on a procedural ground.
The High Court held that the appeal is to be dismissed as withdrawn. The reasoning provided is that the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the tax effect involved in the appeal is under Rs.2 Crores, and he has specific instructions to withdraw the appeal in view of Circular No.9 of 2024 dated 17.09.2024 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, CBDT, Government of India. The operative direction is that the appeal is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn. No issues were left undecided.
The High Court noted that the learned counsel for the appellant, the Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS)-1, Chandigarh, submitted that as the tax effect involved in the appeal was under Rs.2 Crores, he had specific instructions to withdraw the appeal in view of Circular No.9 of 2024 dated 17.09.2024 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, CBDT. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. No decision on the merits of the original appeal before the ITAT was made. Any pending applications were also disposed of.
The High Court held that the appeal should be dismissed as withdrawn. The reasoning was based on the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant (revenue) who stated that as the tax effect involved in the appeal was under Rs. 2 Crores, he had specific instructions to withdraw the appeal in view of Circular No. 9 of 2024 dated 17.09.2024 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, CBDT. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn. No specific issue was left undecided as the appeal was disposed of on a procedural ground.
The High Court noted that a co-ordinate bench had previously allowed writ petitions on the same issue in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case and Jasjit Singh's case. In those judgments, the Court held that the scheme of faceless assessment, as per Section 151A and the notification dated March 29, 2022, applies from the stage of the show cause notice under Section 148. The Court emphasized that the mandate of Section 144B and 151A read with the notification is lucid, and departmental instructions cannot override statutory provisions. The Court granted liberty to the revenue to follow the prescribed procedure if advised. In the present case, as an appeal was pending before the Appellate Authority, the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the Appellate Authority to decide the pending appeal in terms of the aforementioned judgments.
The High Court, referring to its own coordinate bench decisions in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case and Jasjit Singh's case, allowed the writ petition. The Court noted that these previous judgments had allowed writ petitions on the same issue, granting liberty to the revenue to follow the prescribed procedure under the Income Tax Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if advised. The Court's reasoning, as per the cited Jatinder Singh Bhangu case, emphasized that Section 151A and the notification dated 29.03.2022 clearly indicate the applicability of the faceless assessment scheme from the stage of the show cause notice under Section 148. The Court found the statutory provisions lucid and held that departmental circulars or instructions cannot override statutory provisions. Since an appeal was pending before the Appellate Authority, the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the Appellate Authority to decide the pending appeal in terms of the aforementioned judgments.
The High Court noted that a Co-ordinate Bench had previously allowed writ petitions on the same issue in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case and Jasjit Singh's case. In those cases, the Court held that Section 151A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, read with the notification dated 29.03.2022, mandates that the scheme of faceless assessment, including the issuance of show cause notices under Section 148, is applicable. The Court emphasized that the object of faceless assessment would be defeated if jurisdictional assessing officers issued such notices. While circulars and instructions cannot override statutory provisions, the mandate of Section 144B and 151A read with the notification was clear and unambiguous. The Court disposed of the present writ petition with a direction to the Appellate Authority to decide the pending appeal in terms of the aforementioned judgments.
The High Court held that the impugned notice dated 26.06.2025 (Annexure P-1), issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, was liable to be quashed. This decision was based on the law laid down in the cases of Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh, which were relied upon by the petitioner. The respondents' counsel did not dispute that these judgments covered the present case in favour of the petitioner. The reasoning was that the notification dated 29.03.2022 mandated faceless assessment, and the issuance of the notice by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer was in contravention of this mandate. The ratio decidendi is that a notice issued under Section 148 by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, when faceless assessment is mandated by a government notification, is invalid. The operative direction was to quash the notice with liberty to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The High Court noted that a Co-ordinate Bench had previously allowed writ petitions on the same issue in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case and Jasjit Singh's case. In those cases, the Court had held that the scheme of faceless assessment, as per Section 151A and the notification dated March 29, 2022, is applicable from the stage of the show cause notice under Section 148. The Court emphasized that the mandate of Section 144B and 151A, read with the notification, is lucid, and departmental circulars or instructions cannot override statutory provisions. The Court found that the issuance of a Section 148 notice by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer would defeat the object of faceless assessment. Given that an appeal was pending before the Appellate Authority in the present case, the High Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal in terms of the aforementioned judgments.
The High Court allowed the writ petition, disposing of it with a direction to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Income Tax Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly, if so advised. The Court relied on its previous decisions in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others, decided on 19.07.2024. The Court noted that Section 151A of the Act applies from the stage of show cause notice under Section 148A. Clause 3(b) of the notification dated 29.03.2022, issued under Section 151A, clearly provides that the scheme would be applicable to notices under Section 148. The Court reiterated the settled proposition of law that assessment proceedings commence from the issuance of the show cause notice and that the object of faceless assessment would be defeated if the show cause notice under Section 148 is issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. The Court emphasized that circulars and instructions cannot override statutory provisions and that authorities are bound by the language of the statute.
The High Court held that the impugned notice dated 22.03.2025, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, was liable to be quashed. This decision was based on the law laid down in two previous judgments of the same court, namely Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others. The court found that the respondents did not dispute that the present case was covered by these precedents. Consequently, the notice was quashed with liberty granted to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. The petition was allowed in terms of this relief.
The High Court noted that a coordinate bench of the same court had previously allowed writ petitions on identical issues in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case and Jasjit Singh's case. In those cases, the petitions were allowed, and the revenue was granted liberty to follow the prescribed procedure under the Act, 1961, if so advised. The Court quoted from Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case, emphasizing that Section 151A and the notification dated 29.03.2022 clearly indicate the applicability of the faceless assessment scheme from the stage of show cause notice under Section 148. The Court held that departmental circulars or letters cannot override statutory provisions, and the mandate of Section 144B and 151A read with the notification is lucid. Since an appeal was pending before the Appellate Authority, the High Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal in terms of the aforementioned judgments.
The High Court noted that a coordinate bench had previously decided the same issue in *Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case* and *Jasjit Singh's case*. In those cases, the writ petitions were allowed, and the revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, if so advised. The Court quoted from *Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case*, emphasizing that Section 151A and the notification dated 29.03.2022 clearly indicate the applicability of the faceless assessment scheme from the stage of show cause notice under Section 148. The Court reiterated that departmental circulars or letters cannot override statutory provisions. Since an appeal was pending before the Appellate Authority in the present case, the High Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal in terms of the aforementioned judgments.
The High Court noted that a co-ordinate bench had previously allowed writ petitions on the same issue in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case and Jasjit Singh's case. In those cases, the court held that the scheme of faceless assessment, as per Section 151A and notification dated 29.03.2022, applies from the stage of show cause notice under Section 148. The court emphasized that the mandate of Section 144B and 151A read with the notification is lucid, and departmental instructions cannot override statutory provisions. The court found that the object of faceless assessment would be defeated if the jurisdictional Assessing Officer issued the show cause notice. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the Appellate Authority to decide the pending appeal in terms of the aforesaid judgments, granting liberty to the revenue to follow the prescribed procedure if so advised.
The High Court noted that a Co-ordinate Bench had previously allowed writ petitions on the same issue in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case and Jasjit Singh's case. In those judgments, the Court had held that the scheme of faceless assessment, as applicable from the stage of show cause notice under Section 148/148A, is evident from Section 151A and Clause 3(b) of the notification dated 29.03.2022. The Court emphasized that assessment proceedings commence with the issuance of a show cause notice, and allowing the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer to issue it would defeat the object of faceless assessment. While acknowledging that departmental circulars cannot override statutory provisions, the Court found the mandate of Section 144B, 151A, and the notification to be lucid. Consequently, the present writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the Appellate Authority to decide the pending appeal in terms of the aforementioned judgments, granting liberty to the revenue to follow the prescribed procedure if so advised.