Authority: High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

Order Date: 16 October 2024

Case Overview

  • Petitioners: Sirsa Deposits and Advances Limited.
  • Respondents: National Faceless Assessment Centre and others (Revenue).
  • Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Vashisht.
  • Counsel: Mr. Sachin Bhardwaj (advocate for petitioner); Mr. Yogesh Putney, Sr. Standing Counsel (for respondents – revenue).
  • The petition challenged notices and orders issued by the Assessing Officer under the Income Tax Act, 1961, alleging lack of faceless assessment as mandated by Section 144B.
  • The Court noted that the issue had been finally examined in earlier judgments: CWP No.21509 of 2023 (Jasjit Singh vs Union of India, decided 29 July 2024) and CWP No.15745 of 2024 (Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs Union of India, decided 19 July 2024).
  • Those judgments held that circulars or instructions cannot override statutory provisions and that notices issued without faceless assessment are contrary to the Act.

Findings & Reasoning

  • The Court affirmed the view of the Coordinate Bench that statutory provisions must be strictly followed; circulars may only supplement, not supplant, the law.
  • Notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148A(b) dated 23.08.2024, under Section 148A(d) dated 31.08.2024, and under Section 148 dated 31.08.2024 were issued without conducting faceless assessment as required by Section 144B(7 & 8).
  • Earlier notices dated 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2024 and 30.03.2023, together with the order dated 30.03.2023, were also found to be issued without faceless assessment and thus lacked jurisdiction.

Order

1. The notices dated 23.08.2024 (Section 148A(b)), 31.08.2024 (Section 148A(d)), and 31.08.2024 (Section 148), along with the consequential proceedings, are set aside for want of jurisdiction.

2. The earlier notices dated 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2024 and 30.03.2023 and the order dated 30.03.2023 are also set aside.

3. All pending applications in the present writ petition are disposed of accordingly.

4. The interim order previously passed by the Court stands merged with this final order.

5. The respondents‑revenue are at liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Income Tax Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if so advised.

6. All writ petitions are allowed.

Final Outcome

  • The writ petition filed by Sirsa Deposits and Advances Limited is allowed; the challenged tax notices and orders are annulled, and the revenue department must adhere to the faceless assessment procedure prescribed under the Act.

Topics: Tax Assessment, Judicial Review