CWP/32041/2024 of VIJAYANT KUMAR BANSAL Vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, ITO WARD GOBINDGARH PUNJAB on 14 September 2026

1. Notice

2. Mr. Sau respond

3. Both th petition No.215 decided No.157 and oth held as

HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA CHANDIGAR

KUMAR BANSAL Vs.

AX OFFICER, ITO WARD 1, GO **** HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAN HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAN **** Mr. S.K. Mukhi, Advocate with Mr. Iqbal Roshan, Advocate for t Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Sr. Standin Ms. Muskaan Gupta, Advocate for the respondent/Revenue. **** RAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) of motion. urabh Kapoor, Sr. Standing Cou dent/Revenue. he counsel are ad idem that the n stands finally examined and co 509 of 2023 titled as Jasjit Singh d on 29.07.2024, and by the 745 of 2024 titled as Jatinder Sin hers, decided on 19.07.2024. Th under: AB AND HARYANA AT RH CWP-32041-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 28.11.2024 . . . . Petitioner OBINDGARH, PUNJAB . . . . Respondent NJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA NJAY VASHISTH the petitioner. ng Counsel with ) unsel accepts notice on behalf of e issue involved in the present oncluded by this Court in CWP h vs. Union of India and others, e Coordinate Bench in CWP ngh Bhangu vs. Union of India his Court in Jasjit Singh (supra)

)

r t f t P , P a ) MOHIT GOYAL

b i o o i m S S a s a t a s i n s w C u i a A p d f

“16. We are in agreemen by the Coordinate Bench and hol nstructions by the Board could n override statutory provisions or t obsolete. Legislative enactmen mplications are required to be mandatorily. By exercising the Sections 119 and 120 of the A Section 144B (7 & 8), the a allowed to usurp the legal pro satisfaction and convenience ca assessees. It also leaves confusio taxpayers. In the opinion of th and circulars can be issued on supplementing the statutory pro mplementation.

17. In view of the aforesa no occasion to distinguish or ta suggested by the learned counse what has already been held by th

18. Keeping in view the Coordinate Bench (supra), notic under Section 148 of the Act, 196 nitiated thereafter without con assessment as envisaged under Act, 1961, have been found to provisions of the Act, 1961 an dated 28.02.2023, 16.03.202 30.03.2023 and order dated 30. for want of jurisdiction. nt with the view taken ld that such circular or not have been issued to to make them otiose or nts having financial followed strictly and powers contained in Act, 1961 as well as authorities cannot be ovisions to their own ausing hardship to the on in the minds of the his Court, instructions nly for the purpose of ovisions and for their aid discussion, there is ake a different view as el for the revenue from he Coordinate Bench. law laid down by the ces issued by the JAO 61 and the proceedings nducting the faceless r Section 144B of the o be contrary to the d accordingly notices 23, 20.03.2024 and 03.2023, are set aside

MOHIT GOYAL

a t i w

4. Keepin terms. mutand issued Jurisdic proceed

5. All pen

November 28, Mohit goyal

1. Whethe

2. Whethe

19. The respondents-reven at liberty to follow the procedur the Act, 1961 and proceed accord

20. All the writ petition nterim order passed by the Cou with the present order.”

ng in view above, we allow this The observations and order pa dis to the present case. Accord under Section 148 of the ctional Assessing Officer as dings are set aside. nding applications also stand disp

(SANJ , 2024 r speaking/reasoned?

Y r reportable?

Y nue would be, however, re as laid down under dingly, if so advised. ns are allowed. The urt shall stand merged s Writ Petition in the aforesaid assed above shall apply mutatis dingly, notice dated 05.04.2024 Income Tax Act, 1961 by s well as the consequential posed of accordingly. JEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE

(SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No

d s y l MOHIT GOYAL