Loading High Court cases…
474 orders · Page 5 of 10
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. In those cited cases, writ petitions involving similar issues concerning the validity of Section 148 notices issued by jurisdictional officers instead of the NFAC were allowed. The respondents in those cases were granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if so advised. Therefore, the present petition is disposed of on the same basis, implying that the challenge to the notice is accepted, and the respondents are permitted to re-initiate proceedings correctly if they choose.
The High Court allowed the petition. It was held that the impugned notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer was liable to be quashed. This decision was based on the law laid down in the two previous judgments cited by the petitioner, 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 petitioner's case was covered by these precedents. Consequently, the notice was quashed with liberty to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. No specific amount in dispute was recorded.
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, similar writ petitions challenging notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were allowed. The respondents in those cases were granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if so advised. Therefore, the present petition is disposed of with a similar direction, implying that the impugned notice is likely to be set aside, and the revenue may have the opportunity to issue a fresh notice following the correct procedure if they choose to do so.
The High Court held that the case of the petitioner was covered by the two previous judgments rendered by its coordinate Benches in Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh (supra). Consequently, in terms of the law laid down in those judgments, the impugned notice dated 30.03.2025, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer to the petitioner, was quashed. The respondents were granted liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. The petition was allowed in the above terms. No specific issue was left undecided.
The High Court disposed of the petition in terms similar to the judgments in CWP No.15745-2024 (Jatinder Singh Bhangu Vs. Union of India and others) and CWP No.21509-2023 (Jasjit Singh Vs. Union of India and others). In those cited cases, writ petitions involving similar issues regarding the validity of notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the context of faceless assessment proceedings, were allowed. Liberty was granted to the respondents (Income Tax Department) to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly, if they were so advised. The reasoning in the cited judgments likely revolved around the procedural impropriety of the notice being issued by an officer without the requisite jurisdiction under the prevailing faceless assessment regime. The operative direction is to dispose of the current petition in line with the aforementioned precedents.
The High Court disposed of the writ petition in terms similar to its previous judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu Vs. Union of India and others and Jasjit Singh Vs. Union of India and others. In those cases, the writ petitions involving similar issues concerning the validity of Section 148 notices issued by jurisdictional officers instead of the NFAC were allowed. Liberty was granted to the respondents (revenue) in those cases to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly, if so advised. The present judgment follows this precedent, implying that the notice issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer is likely to be considered invalid, and the revenue may be permitted to re-initiate proceedings correctly. The specific reasoning for the decision in this case is not detailed beyond referencing the prior judgments.
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. In those cases, writ petitions challenging notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were allowed on the ground that the notices were issued by officers lacking jurisdiction under the faceless assessment scheme. The Coordinate Bench had granted liberty to the respondents to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if so advised. Therefore, the present petition was disposed of on the same basis, implying that the impugned notice was likely to be quashed or set aside, with the revenue permitted to issue a fresh notice if they complied with the correct procedure. The specific reasoning for the decision in this particular case is derived from the precedent set by the cited cases.
The High Court held that the impugned notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer was liable to be quashed in terms of the law laid down in the judgments of Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh (supra). The Court found that the respondents did not dispute that the petitioner's 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 Court allowed the petition in the above terms.
The High Court allowed the writ petition. It held that the impugned notice dated August 29, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, was liable to be quashed. This decision was based on the law laid down in the two co-ordinate bench judgments of the same court, Jatinder Singh Bhangu Vs. Union of India and others and Jasjit Singh Vs. Union of India and others. The reasoning was that the notice was not issued in accordance with the mandate of the notification dated March 29, 2022, which prescribed issuance through a faceless assessment system. The court quashed the notice with liberty to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. No other issue was expressly left undecided.
The High Court held that the impugned notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, 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: Jatinder Singh Bhangu Vs. Union of India and others, and Jasjit Singh and others. The court found that the respondents did not dispute that the petitioner's case was covered by these precedents. Consequently, the impugned notice was quashed. The respondents were granted liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. No specific amount in dispute was recorded.
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, similar writ petitions challenging notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were allowed. The respondents were granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if they were so advised. The reasoning in the cited cases likely revolved around the procedural impropriety of the jurisdictional officer issuing the notice when the faceless assessment scheme, as per the notification, designated the NFAC for such actions. The operative direction is to dispose of the petition in line with the precedent, implying the original notice is vitiated but allowing the revenue to re-initiate proceedings correctly if they choose.
The High Court allowed the appellant's request to withdraw the appeal. The reasoning provided is solely based on the submission made by the appellant's counsel regarding the low tax effect. The court's decision was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn, without delving into the merits of the original dispute. No specific finding was made on any substantive issue, and no principle can be derived for future citation regarding the tax matter itself. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.
The High Court held that the appeal filed by the petitioner, M K Proteins Ltd., against the assessment order for AY 2015-2016, had been pending for approximately three years with no progress. The Court referred to Section 250(6A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which mandates that appeals should ideally be heard and decided within one year from the end of the financial year in which they are filed. While acknowledging the phrase 'where it is possible', the Court emphasized the legislature's clear intent for the time-bound disposal of appeals. Citing a similar case, CWP No. 6388 of 2025 (‘Perfetti Van Melle India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India & Others’), where an appeal pending for about 10 years was directed to be decided within six months, the Court found the present situation warranted similar intervention. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to decide the petitioner's appeal within four months from the date of receiving the order.
The High Court allowed the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition. The court granted liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action. This liberty also extended to challenging Section 147A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court's decision was based on the petitioner's request for withdrawal with specific liberty. No specific findings were made on the merits of the case or the validity of Section 147A, as the petition was dismissed as withdrawn. The operative direction was to dismiss the petition as withdrawn with the granted liberty.
The Tribunal held that the write-off of loans could not be allowed as a bad debt under Section 36(1)(vii) read with Section 36(2) because the appellant was not in the business of money lending and the loans were not taken into account in computing income in previous years. The claim was also not allowable as a revenue expenditure under Section 57(iii).
The High Court allowed the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file a fresh one on the same cause of action. The court also granted the petitioner the liberty to challenge Section 147A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the fresh petition. The petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. The court did not delve into the merits of the case or the validity of Section 147A, as the matter was disposed of based on the petitioner's request for withdrawal.
The High Court held that the issue raised in the present writ petition was covered by the judgments of a Co-ordinate Bench in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others (CWP No. 15745-2024) and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others (CWP No. 21509-2023). In those cases, the writ petitions were allowed on similar grounds, granting liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if advised. Consequently, the present writ petition was disposed of in terms of these previous judgments. The operative direction was to dispose of the writ petition in terms of the cited precedents, implying that the impugned notices and assessment order were set aside, with liberty to the revenue to re-initiate proceedings if they chose to do so following the correct procedure.
The High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh held that the appeal is to be dismissed as withdrawn. This decision was based on the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant (Revenue) that the tax effect involved in the appeal was under Rs.2 crores and that 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 Court accordingly dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. No decision on the merits of the original ITAT order was made. Pending applications, if any, were also disposed of.
The Tribunal held that the impugned notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was liable to be quashed. The reasoning was based on the fact that the revenue did not dispute the petitioner's contention that the case was covered by the two previous judgments of the High Court, namely Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh. These judgments had laid down the principle that notices issued under a faceless assessment scheme by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer were invalid. Therefore, in terms of the law laid down in these precedents, the notice issued to the petitioner by the JAO was quashed. The revenue was granted liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal held that the case of the petitioner was covered by the two judgments previously rendered by the High Court in Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh. Consequently, the impugned notice dated March 30, 2025, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, was quashed. The respondents were granted liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with the law. The reasoning was based on the established precedent that notices under Section 148 must adhere to the faceless assessment scheme. The ratio decidendi is that a notice issued in contravention of the faceless assessment scheme, when such a scheme is applicable, is invalid. The operative direction was to quash the notice and allow the respondents to initiate fresh proceedings as per law.
The High Court held that the case of the petitioner was covered by the law laid down in the two judgments previously rendered by its co-ordinate Benches in *Jatinder Singh Bhangu Vs. Union of India* and *Jasjit Singh Vs. Union of India*. Consequently, the impugned notice dated March 25, 2025, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, was quashed. The respondents were granted liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
The High Court held that the case of the petitioner was covered by the law laid down in the two judgments previously rendered by different co-ordinate Benches of the Court, namely Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh (supra). Consequently, the impugned notice dated 30.03.2025, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, was quashed. The Court granted liberty to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. The petition was allowed in the above terms. No specific amount in dispute was recorded. The Court did not leave any issue undecided.
The High Court, in light of the consensus reached between the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents, allowed the petition. The Court quashed the impugned notice dated 30.03.2023 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with any consequential proceedings. The reasoning was based on the agreement of the parties that the petitioner was entitled to the same relief as had been granted in a previous judgment of the Court dated 10.09.2026 in CWP No.15791 of 2024 (Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others). The ratio decidendi is that where parties agree to extend the benefit of a prior judgment to a subsequent, similar case, the court will uphold this consensus. All pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.
The High Court, in light of the consensus between the parties and following the precedent set in the case of Jyoti Sareen (supra), allowed the petition. The court quashed the impugned notice issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and any consequential assessment proceedings. The reasoning was based on the agreement of the parties to grant the petitioner the same relief as was granted in the aforementioned Jyoti Sareen case. The operative direction was to quash the notice and proceedings. No issues were expressly left undecided.
The High Court held that the impugned notice dated 27.03.2025, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was liable to be quashed. This decision was based on the precedent established in the cases of Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh, where similar notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer were held to be invalid in light of the notification dated 29.03.2022 mandating faceless assessment. The Court found that the respondent did not contest this legal position. Consequently, the notice was quashed, with liberty granted to the respondent to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with the law. The petition was allowed in these terms.
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh 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. In those cited cases, writ petitions involving similar issues regarding the validity of Section 148 notices issued by jurisdictional Assessing Officers in the context of faceless assessment were allowed. The respondents in those cases were granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly, if so advised. The High Court's decision in the present case implies that the challenge to the notice based on jurisdictional grounds, as argued by the petitioner, is accepted, following the precedent set by the earlier judgments. The operative direction is to dispose of the petition in line with the aforementioned judgments, which suggests that the notice is likely quashed with liberty to the revenue to issue a fresh notice if permissible under the law and procedure.
The High Court noted that a Co-ordinate Bench had previously allowed writ petitions on the same issue in the cases of Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh, granting liberty to the revenue to follow the prescribed procedure. In the present case, the court observed that the petitioner had an appeal pending before the Appellate Authority. Consequently, the High Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the Appellate Authority to decide the petitioner's appeal in terms of the aforementioned judgments. The court did not decide the validity of the Section 148 notice on merits but directed the pending appeal to be decided in light of the precedent.
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn. The court granted the petitioner, Chakshu SA, liberty to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action. This liberty specifically included the right to challenge Section 147A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court's decision was based on the petitioner's request to withdraw and the subsequent grant of liberty. No decision was made on the merits of the challenge to Section 147A.
The High Court held that the impugned notice dated 24.03.2025, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, was invalid. This decision was based on the law laid down in two previous judgments of the same court, Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case and Jasjit Singh's case. These judgments established that notices under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, should have been issued through the faceless assessment procedure as per the notification dated 29.03.2022. The revenue did not contest this position. Consequently, the impugned notice was quashed. The court granted liberty to the respondent (revenue) to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with the law. No specific amount in dispute was mentioned. The court did not leave any issue undecided.
The High Court allowed the writ petition. The Court noted that the petitioner's primary ground of challenge was that the assessment order, demand notice, and penalty notices were issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, which is contrary to the notification dated 29.03.2022 mandating faceless assessment. The petitioner relied on two previous judgments of the High Court, Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case and Jasjit Singh's case. The respondent's counsel conceded that the case was covered by these precedents. Therefore, following the law laid down in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's and Jasjit Singh's cases, the High Court allowed the petition. The operative direction was to quash the impugned notices and assessment order.
The High Court, in light of the consensus between the parties, allowed the petition. The court followed its previous decision in Jyoti Sareen's case (CWP-15791-2024). The reasoning was based on the parties agreeing to the same relief as granted in the cited case. Consequently, the impugned notice dated March 26, 2024, issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and any consequential assessment proceedings were quashed. The operative direction was to quash the notice and proceedings. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The High Court held that 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). Based on this consensus, the petition was allowed. The impugned notice dated 27.03.2025 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with any consequential proceedings, was quashed. The reasoning is based on the agreement between the parties to follow the precedent set in the Jyoti Sareen case. The operative direction is the quashing of the notice and consequential proceedings. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The High Court allowed the writ petition. The Court noted that the petitioner's primary ground of challenge was that the impugned demand notice, penalty notices, and assessment order were issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, despite a notification dated 29.03.2022 from the Ministry of Finance mandating faceless assessment. The petitioner relied on two previous judgments of the High Court, CWP No.15745 of 2024 (Jatinder Singh Bhangu) and CWP No.21509 of 2023 (Jasjit Singh), which had dealt with similar issues. Crucially, the counsel for the respondent did not dispute that the petitioner's case was covered in its favor by the law laid down in these two prior judgments. Therefore, following the precedent set by Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh, the Court allowed the present petition.
The High Court held that the impugned notice dated 27.03.2025, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, was invalid. This decision was based on the law laid down in the judgments of Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh, which were relied upon by the petitioner. The Court noted that the respondents did not dispute that these judgments covered the petitioner's case. Consequently, the impugned notice was quashed. The respondents were granted liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. No specific amount in dispute was mentioned. The Court did not leave any issue undecided.
The High Court held that the impugned notice dated March 19, 2024, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer to the petitioner was invalid. This decision was based on the law laid down in two previous judgments of the same court: 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 these judgments applied to the present case. Consequently, the notice was quashed. The respondents were granted liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with the law. No specific amount in dispute was mentioned. The court did not leave any issue undecided.
The High Court held that the impugned notice dated 30.03.2025, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, was liable to be quashed. This decision was based on the principle laid down in the cases of Jatinder Singh Bhangu Vs. Union of India and Jasjit Singh Vs. Union of India (supra). The Court found that the notice was not issued in terms of the faceless assessment procedure mandated by the notification dated 29.03.2022. Consequently, the notice was quashed. The respondents were granted liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law, implying they could issue a fresh notice if permissible under the correct procedure. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The High Court held that the case of the petitioner was covered by the law laid down in the two judgments previously rendered by the Court, namely Jatinder Singh Bhangu Vs. Union of India and others and Jasjit Singh Vs. Union of India and others. Consequently, the impugned notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer was quashed. The Court granted liberty to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. The ratio decidendi is that notices issued under Section 148 must adhere to the faceless assessment procedure as mandated by relevant notifications, and deviations render such notices invalid. The operative direction was to quash the notice and permit fresh proceedings as per law.
The High Court held that the impugned notice dated 27.03.2025, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, was invalid. This decision was based on the law laid down in two previous judgments of the same Court: Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case and Jasjit Singh's case. The Court found that the respondents did not dispute that the petitioner's case was covered by these precedents. Consequently, the notice was quashed. The respondents were granted liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
The High Court allowed the writ petition. The Court noted that the petitioner's primary ground of challenge was that the notice under Section 148 was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, which was contrary to the notification dated 29.03.2022 mandating faceless assessment. The respondent did not dispute that the case was covered by two previous judgments of the High Court, namely Jatinder Singh Bhangu Vs. Union of India and Jasjit Singh Vs. Union of India. Consequently, following the precedent set by these judgments, the Court held that the impugned notice and subsequent assessment order were invalid. The petition was allowed in terms of the relief granted in the cited cases.
The High Court held that the impugned notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer was liable to be quashed. This decision was based on the law laid down in the two previously decided cases, Jatinder Singh Bhangu Vs. Union of India and others, and Jasjit Singh Vs. Union of India and others. The Court found that the respondent did not dispute that the petitioner's case was covered by these judgments. Therefore, in terms of the precedent, the notice issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer was set aside. The Court granted liberty to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. No other issues were expressly left undecided.
The High Court allowed the petition. It held that the present petition was covered by the judgments in *Jatinder Singh Bhangu’s* case and *Jasjit Singh’s* case, which were decided on 19.07.2024 and 29.07.2024, respectively. The reasoning implicitly adopted is that the notice issued by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, in contravention of the faceless assessment procedure notified by the Ministry of Finance, is invalid. The ratio decidendi is that notices under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2020-2021, issued after the notification dated 29.03.2022, must adhere to the faceless assessment procedure. Consequently, the impugned notice dated 14.03.2024, the consequential order dated 30.03.2025, the demand dated 30.03.2025, and the penalty show cause notice dated 31.03.2025 were quashed. All pending applications were also disposed of.
The High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Sibal and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sunish Bindlish, decided to allow the petitioner's request. The Court held that the petition should be dismissed as withdrawn. Crucially, the Court granted the petitioner the 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 reasoning for this decision is based on the petitioner's request and the Court's discretion to grant such liberty. No findings were made on the merits of the case, as the petition was withdrawn.
The High Court of Punjab & Haryana held that the impugned notice dated 27.03.2025, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, was liable to be quashed. The Court's decision was based on the law laid down in two previous judgments of coordinate benches: Jatinder Singh Bhangu Vs. Union of India and others (decided on 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh Vs. Union of India and others (decided on 29.07.2024). These judgments had established that notices under Section 148 could only be issued through the faceless assessment procedure as per the notification dated 29.03.2022. The Court quashed the notice, granting liberty to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. No other issues were expressly left undecided.
The High Court held that the impugned notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, was liable to be quashed. This decision was based on the principle laid down in the two cited judgments of the same court, Jatinder Singh Bhangu Vs. Union of India and Jasjit Singh Vs. Union of India. The reasoning was that the notice, in the given circumstances of a faceless assessment, was not issued in accordance with the law as established by these precedents. Consequently, the notice was quashed, with liberty granted to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. No other issues were expressly left undecided.
The High Court held that the impugned notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer was liable to be quashed. The Court's decision was based on the fact that the respondents did not dispute the petitioner's contention that the case was covered by the previous judgments of the Court in Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh. In terms of the law laid down in those judgments, the notice issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer was considered to be contrary to the faceless assessment procedure. Consequently, the Court quashed the notice with liberty to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. The petition was allowed in these terms.
The High Court allowed the writ petition. It 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, nor can they create confusion for taxpayers. Instructions and circulars can only supplement statutory provisions for 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. The Court set aside the notice dated 17.04.2025 and all consequential proceedings for want of jurisdiction. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the prescribed procedure if advised. The ratio decidendi is that faceless assessment procedures mandated by statute cannot be bypassed by executive instructions or by initiating proceedings without adhering to the prescribed legal framework, and such deviations render the proceedings void for want of jurisdiction.
The High Court of Punjab & Haryana, in light of the submissions made and the law laid down in the cited judgments (Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh), quashed the impugned notice dated 27.03.2025. The Court held that the notice issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer was not in accordance with the prevailing procedure for faceless assessments. The reasoning was based on the precedent established by coordinate benches of the same court. The respondents were granted liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law, implying they could issue a fresh notice under the correct procedure if permissible. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The High Court disposed of the petition in the same terms as its previous judgments in CWP No.15745-2024 (Jatinder Singh Bhangu Vs. Union of India and others) and CWP No.21509-2023 (Jasjit Singh Vs. Union of India and others), decided on 19.07.2024 and 29.07.2024 respectively. In those cases, the writ petitions involving similar issues were allowed, and the respondents were granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly, if so advised. The principle established is that notices under Section 148 should be issued by the appropriate authority as per the prevailing faceless assessment scheme. The operative direction is to dispose of the petition in line with the cited precedents, granting liberty to the revenue to proceed as advised after following the correct procedure.
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. In those cases, writ petitions involving similar issues were allowed, and liberty was granted to the respondents to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if so advised. The Court did not specifically address the validity of the notice itself but rather disposed of the current petition based on the precedent. The operative direction is to dispose of the petition in the same terms as the cited judgments.
The High Court 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 usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship 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 as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act, were found to be contrary to the Act. The Court set aside the notice dated 15.03.2024 and all consequential proceedings for want of jurisdiction. The respondents were granted liberty to follow the prescribed procedure under the Act if advised. The Court applied the ratio from Jasjit Singh (supra) mutatis mutandis to the present case.