Anita Aggarwal v. Income Tax Officer And Others

CWP-21849-2024 (O&M) -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-21849-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 02.09.2024 Anita Aggarwal . . . . Petitioner Vs.

Income Tax Officer and others . . . . Respondents **** CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH ****

Present:

Mr. Nikhil Goyal, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Sr. Standing Counsel for the respondents/Revenue.

**** SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral)

1.
 

2. Ms. Urvashi Dhugga         

  

3.      
    

   !"

 #$ %&    '       (  ' )  *+,-. -,

CWP-21849-2024 (O&M) -2- /  

   
     



 % /.

/

4.         

- "

*+,-/%,/0 



1


 
       ' % /.

/ 2       2   (    '    )  *+,-. -,/ 

   3, "16. We are in agreement with the view taken by the Coordinate Bench and hold that such circular or instructions by the Board could not have been issued to override statutory provisions or to make them otiose or obsolete. Legislative enactments having financial implications are required to be followed strictly and mandatorily. By exercising the powers contained in Sections 119 and 120 of the Act, 1961 as well as Section 144B (7 & 8), the authorities cannot be allowed to usurp the legal provisions to their own satisfaction and convenience causing hardship to the assessees. It also leaves confusion in the minds of the taxpayers. In the opinion of this Court, instructions and circulars can be issued only for the purpose of supplementing the statutory provisions and for their implementation.

17. In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no occasion to distinguish or take a different view as suggested by the learned counsel for the revenue from what has already been held by the Coordinate Bench.

18.

Keeping in view the law laid down by the Coordinate Bench (supra), notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and the proceedings initiated thereafter without conducting the faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act, 1961, have been found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act, 1961 and accordingly notices dated

CWP-21849-2024 (O&M) -328.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2024 and 30.03.2023 and order dated 30.03.2023, are set aside for want of jurisdiction.

19. The respondents-revenue would be, however, at liberty to follow the procedure as laid down under the Act, 1961 and proceed accordingly, if so advised.

20.

All the writ petitions are allowed. The interim order passed by the Court shall stand merged with the present order."

6. "

2 *+ 2  4  .

/0 /  #      '             52      ,   2    2     '    2   2  "

 #$ %&   '

  "  
    

   !"

 #$ %&   (



7. +     '

  '

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE September 02, 2024 dinesh

1. Whether speaking/reasoned?

Yes/No

2. Whether reportable?

Yes/No