CWP/30472/2024 of MUKESH GOEL Vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND OTHERS on 10 September 2026

1. Notice

2. Mr. Va respond

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

HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA CHANDIGAR

Vs.

mmissioner of Income Tax and o **** HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAN HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAN **** Mr. Kartik Bansal, Advocate for Mr. Varun Issar, Sr. Standing Co **** RAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) of motion. arun Issar, Sr. Standing Couns dents/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: “16. We are in agreemen by the Coordinate Bench and hol

AB AND HARYANA AT RH CWP-30472-2024 Date of Decision: 12.11.2024 . . . . Petitioner others . . . . Respondents NJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA NJAY VASHISTH the petitioner. ounsel for respondents/revenue. ) sel 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) nt with the view taken ld that such circular or r s f t P , P a ) RASHMI

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 a t 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.

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

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 nue would be, however, re as laid down under dingly, if so advised.

RASHMI

i w

4. Keepin terms. mutand

2) issu Income

5. All pen

November 12, rashmi

1. Whethe

2. Whethe

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. Accordin ued by Jurisdictional Assessing O e Tax Act, 1961 and the consequ nding applications also stand disp

(SANJ , 2024 r speaking/reasoned?

Y r reportable?

Y

ns are allowed. The urt shall stand merged s Writ Petition in the aforesaid assed above shall apply mutatis ngly, notice dated 29.03.2024(P- Officer under Section 148 of the uential proceedings are set aside. posed of accordingly. JEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE

(SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No

d s - e RASHMI