CWP/7968/2023 of HERO CYCLES LTD. Vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUDHIANA-1 AND ANOTHER on 10 September 2026

1. H by the petitio Annexure A-1 CWP-7968-20

2. I 25.04.2023, w respondents h demand and m

3. L involved in th this Court in India and oth HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA CHANDIGAR C C D LES LIMITED

COMMISSIONER OF INCOM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJ Mr. Alok Mittal, Advocate for th Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Senior Stand for the respondent. *** RAKASH SHARMA, J. (Oral) WP-2024 Having regard to the reasons me oner, the same is allowed and d

1. 023 (O&M) In spite of the interim order pass which was duly served on the res have proceeded to pass final o making additions, which has been Learned counsel for both the pa he present petition stands final CWP No.21509 of 2023 titled hers, decided on 29.07.2024, an AB AND HARYANA AT RH CM-9208-CWP-2024 in/and CWP-7968-2023 (O&M) Date of Decision: 10.09.2024

..…...Petitioner V/s. ME TAX, LUDHIANA-1 AND

….....Respondents

NJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA NJAY VASHISTH he applicant-petitioner. ding Counsel, entioned in the application filed document is taken on record as sed by this Court in this case on spondents, it is informed that the order dated 22.03.2024 raising n taken on record today itself. arties are ad idem that the issue lly examined and concluded by d as Jasjit Singh vs. Union of nd by the Coordinate Bench in D s d s n e g e y f n

CWP No.1574 and others, de

4. T

C i o o i m p c i i p t t l h

B

745 of 2024 titled as Jatinder Sin ecided on 19.07.2024. This Court in Jasjit Singh (supra “16. We are in agreement wi Coordinate Bench and hold instructions by the Board could override statutory provisions o obsolete. Legislative enactm implications are required to mandatorily. By exercising the po 119 and 120 of the Act, 1961 as 8), the authorities cannot be a provisions to their own satis causing hardship to the assessee in the minds of the taxpayers. In instructions and circulars can purpose of supplementing the st their implementation.

17. In view of the aforesaid discu to distinguish or take a differen learned counsel for the revenue f held by the Coordinate Bench.

18. Keeping in view the law lai Bench (supra), notices issued by ngh Bhangu vs. Union of India

a) held as under: ith the view taken by the d that such circular or d not have been issued to r to make them otiose or ments having financial be followed strictly and owers contained in Sections well as Section 144B (7 & allowed to usurp the legal sfaction and convenience es. It also leaves confusion n the opinion of this Court, n be issued only for the tatutory provisions and for ussion, there is no occasion nt view as suggested by the from what has already been id down by the Coordinate the JAO under Section 148 a o w u c n w t a p o

5. K aforesaid term mutandis to th 17.03.2023, 2 Another orde petition based also set aside.

6. W that the final Assessment U interim order of the Act, 1961 and the proce without conducting the faceless under Section 144B of the Act, 1 contrary to the provisions of the notices dated 28.02.2023, 16. 30.03.2023 and order dated 30 want of jurisdiction.

19. The respondents-revenue wo to follow the procedure as laid and proceed accordingly, if so ad

20. All the writ petitions are a passed by the Court shall stan order.” Keeping in view above, we a ms. The observations and order p he present case. Accordingly, im 29.03.2023 passed/issued by t er dated 22.03.2024 passed dur d on the notice issued under Sect . We find that the contents of the order dated 22.03.2024 has be Unit, Income Tax Department, of this Court dated 25.04.2023, eedings initiated thereafter s assessment as envisaged 1961, have been found to be e Act, 1961 and accordingly .03.2023, 20.03.2024 and .03.2023, are set aside for ould be, however, at liberty down under the Act, 1961 dvised. allowed. The interim order d merged with the present allow this Writ Petition in the passed above shall apply mutatis mpugned order(s)/ notice(s) dated the respondents are set aside. ring the pendency of this writ tion 148 of the Act, therefore, is e CM to be correct to the extent een passed by the respondent – though it is in violation of the whereby we have restrained the e s d . t s t – e e respondents f writ petition i issue notice 22.03.2024 to issuance of no Section 12 of For the said p

September 10 Ess Kay

Whether Whether R

from passing the final order. Wh in terms of the judgment in Jasj to the concerned officer, wh o explain his conduct within a pe otice, as to why the contempt pro f the Contempt of Courts Act, 19 purpose, the Registry is directed t

[SANJ

0, 2024

speaking / reasoned

: Reportable

: hile we have decided the present jit Singh (supra), we propose to o has passed the order dated eriod of 15 days from the date of oceedings within the meaning of 971, be not initiated against him. to issue notice to him. JEEV PRAKASH SHARMA]

JUDGE [SANJAY VASHISTH]

JUDGE Yes / No Yes / No t o d f f .