Case Law Details
Mohan Lal Santwani Vs Union of India (Allahabad High Court)
From the averments made by the respondent nos. 2,3 and 4 in the aforesaid short counter affidavit, it is evident that the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2013-14 was issued to the petitioner on 01.04.2021, whereas the limitation of issuing the notice expired on 31.03.2021. Thus notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was time barred and consequently it was without jurisdiction.
Since large number of writ petitions are being filed in which the date and time of issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are in issue, and, importantly, those notices are being issued by e-mail, it is directed that the respondent no. 1 shall ensure that the date and time of triggering of e-mail for issuing notices and orders are reflected in the online portal relating to the concerned assessees.
Facts of the case as discussed above, particularly the observations made by the respondent no.4 in the last line of the impugned order dated 19.03.2022 noticed by us in our order dated 18.04.2022 quoted in paragraph 4above clearly indicates that the order dated 19.02.2022 has been passed by the respondents in breach of judicial discipline and propriety causing harassment to the petitioner/assessee on account of the failure to give effect to the order of this Court dated 10.03.2022 in Writ Tax No. 171 of 2022 which was filed by the petitioner. We propose to comment on the conduct of the officer concerned but the respondents have tendered unconditional apology by filing a short counter affidavit dated 22.04.2022, as noted in para 7 above, therefore, in view of the unconditional apology tendered by the deponent Sri Pawan Kumar Sharma, Additional Commissioner of Income Tax in the aforesaid short counter affidavit, we do not propose to proceed against the respondent no.4 by referring the matter for contempt. However, we direct the respondents to be careful in future and must have due regard to the judgments and orders of this Court, keeping in mind the settled principal of judicial propriety and discipline.
In view of the principles settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court and by High Courts in the judgments, briefly discussed above, we direct the respondents to maintain judicial discipline and follow the doctrine of binding precedent and be careful in future, having due regard to the authorities of the Court, keeping in mind the judicial propriety and discipline.
The impugned notice dated 31.03.2021 issued on 01.04.2021 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, being without jurisdiction, cannot be sustained and is hereby quashed. Consequently, the order dated 19.03.2022 and the Reassessment Order dated 29.03.2022 for the Assessment Year 2013-14 can also not be sustained and are hereby quashed inasmuch as, the jurisdictional notice itself was without jurisdiction.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Heard Sri Abhinav Mehtotra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Gaurav Mahajan, learned counsel for the Income Tax Department.
Order on Amendment Application No.02 of 2022 dated 18.04.2022
1. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, amendment application is allowed. Necessary amendment be carried out during the course of the day.
The applicant is also permitted to correct the Assessment Year in the prayer clause of the amendment application.
Order on Writ Petition
3. This writ petition has been filed praying for the following relief:-
“(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 19.03.2022 passed by the respondent revenue rejecting the objections taken by petitioner on the matter concerning “issue” of notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act.
(b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the notice under Section 148 of Income Tax Act, as also the Sanction, authorizing the issuance of such notice, both even dated 31.03.2021; and the connected proceeding for reassessment of Income for A.Y. 2013-14.
(c) That, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the impugned order of Assessment for A.Y. 2013-14 , dated 29.03.2022, bearing DIN ITBA/AST/S/147/2021-22/1041898744(1), passed by Assessing Officer.”
4. On 18.04.2022, this writ petition was heard at length and following order was passed.
1. Heard Shri Abhinav Mehrotra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Gaurav Mahajan, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 and Shri Arvind Kumar Goswami, learned Central Government Standing Counsel for the respondent no. 1.
2. This writ petition has been filed praying for the following relief: “(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dt. 19.03.2002 passed by the respondent revenue rejecting the objections taken by petitioner on the matter concerning “issue” of notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act. (b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, as also the sanction, authorising the issuance of such notice, both even dt. 31.03.2021; and the connected proceedings for reassessment of income for A.Y. 2013-14.”
3. The petitioner has earlier filed Writ Tax No. 171 of 2022 which was disposed of by order dated 10.3.2022 as under:
“Heard Sri Abhinav Mehrotra, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.S.G.I. for the Union of India – respondent No.1 and Sri Gaurav Mahajan, learned senior standing counsel for the Income Tax Department – respondent Nos.2 and 3.
All the learned counsels for the parties jointly state that the question of issuance of notice has been decided today by this court in Writ Tax No.78 of 2022 (Daujee Abhushan Bhandar Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India and 2 others). They jointly state that since the petitioner has raised objection before the Assessing Authority on the point of issue of notice which is pending disposal before the Assessing Authority, therefore, the Assessing Authority may be directed to decide the objection in accordance with law after considering the judgment in the case of Daujee Abhushan Bhandar Pvt. Ltd. (supra).
In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent-authority concerned to decide the objection of the petitioner against the notice under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, in accordance with law on the point of date of issuance of notice.”
4. Thereafter, the respondent no. 4 has passed the impugned order in which it observed as under:
“Further, Hon’ble Allahabad High Court has quashed such notices issued u/s 148 on or after 01.04.2021. But the Department has filed SLP before Hon’ble Supreme Court on this issue. Therefore, till the outcome of the issue pending before Hon’ble Court, it cannot be said that the notice is not valid. Therefore, your objections have no force and therefore rejected. Please this may be treated as disposal of your objections.”
5. Thus, the aforequoted observation made by the respondent no. 4 in the impugned order dated 19.3.2022, prima facie, appears to be highly contemptuous, whimsical and against all settled principles of propriety and law.
6. Apart from above, the impugned order, prima facie, appears to be misleading inasmuch as in the impugned order, the respondent no. 4 has deliberately not disclosed ‘sent time stamp’ reports which is always available with the department. That apart, as per reports being filed before this Court by means of counter affidavits and to be precise in Writ Tax No. 211 of 2022, there is ‘Income Tax Business Application Technical Team’ which used to give the date and time of (i) generation of notice, (ii) digital signing in ITBA by AO, and (iii) triggering of e-mail. These details are also totally lacking in the impugned order.
7. Under the circumstances, we direct the respondent no. 4 to file a personal affidavit of an officer of the Centre not below the rank of Additional Commissioner of Income Tax to explain the things as noted above and file copies of ‘sent time stamp’ and reports of Income Tax Business Application Technical Team, within three days.
8. Put up as a fresh case on 21.4.2022 at 10:00 AM.
(emphasis supplied by us)
5. On 21.04.2022, matter was again heard and following order was passed, as under”-
“1. Heard learned counsels for the parties.
2. Shri Gaurav Mahajan, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent-Income Tax Department prays for further time to enable the respondent no.4 to file his personal affidavit in compliance to the order dated 18.04.2022.
3. In our order dated 18.04.2022, we have noted the facts as well as the conduct of the respondents that they have clearly denied to obey the final judgment of this Court. That apart, the respondents have also attempted to mislead the Court by suppressing material facts. Despite time granted, personal affidavit is not being filed by the respondent no.4.
4. Instances of not obeying orders of this Court by the respondent-Income Tax authorities, are increasing day-by-day.
5. In view of the aforesaid, last opportunity is afforded to the respondent no.4 to file his personal affidavit in compliance of the order dated 18.04.2022 before the next date fixed subject to payment of cost of Rs.5000/- which shall be deposited with the High Court Legal Services Committee, High Court, Allahabad.
Put up as a fresh case for further hearing on 25.04.2022 at 10:00 a.m.”
6. Sri Gaurav Mahajan, learned counsel for the respondents has filed a print out of online deposit of Rs. 5,000/- as cost with the High Court Legal Services Committee, High Court Allahabad along with a receipt i.e. the amount of cost imposed by means of the previous order dated 21.04.2022.
7. Today, a short counter affidavit dated 24.04.2022 has been filed by the learned Senior Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondent nos. 2,3 and 4. In paragraph no. 3,5,6,7,8 and 9 of the aforesaid short counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no.2,3 and 4, it has been stated as under:-
3. That at the very outset it is most humbly and respectfully submitted that the deponent personally and on behalf of the officers of the ReFAC(AU) tenders an unconditional apology for the language used in the order dated 19.03.2022 by which supplementary/additional objection of the petitioner were decided.
Neither the deponent nor the officers of the Assessment Unit had any intention to disobey/disregard the judgment of this Hon’ble Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Agarwal and have the highest regard to the judgments of the Hon’ble Court.
5. That it is most respectfully submits that FAO who may be sitting in any corner of the Country for the Faceless Assessment Scheme is not aware of the technical information about date and stamp of issue of notice, dispatch of notice or service of notice. The FAO receives a digitally maintained Order Sheet which automatically got generated on the date of issuance of the notice u/s 148 of the Act. The digitally generated order sheet mentions the date wise, actions/descriptions, from user to user, remarks etc. A photocopy of the order sheet maintained digitally is enclosed herewith and marked as Annexure No. SCA-1.
6. That the information available with FAO was that the notice under 148 of the Act was issued by Jurisdictional assessing Officer on 31-03-2021 and that the notice u/s 148 was placed on the e filing portal of the assessee on 31-03-2021. The rest of information with regard to issuance of notice is now provided by the ITBA /JAO in response to the High Court Order vide his email dated 23-04-22 sent to office of the deponent.
7. That in the present case the Technical Team of ITBA provided the following details to the JAO through email on 22.04.2022 and the same was also shared with the office of the deponent. The reply received from the Technical Team of ITBA is as follows :-
Date & time of Generation of Notice u/s 148 in ITBA system by AO:
3/31/2021 9:01:29 PM
Date & time of Digital signing (DSC) in ITBA by AO :
3/31/2021 9:51:46 PM
Date &time of triggering of email automatedly by ITBA technical servers : 4/01/2021 5:30:08 AM
Date & time of delivery of email as per data in ITBA technical servers : 4/01/2021 5:30:10 AM
A photocopy of the email from JAO is enclosed herewith and marked as Annexure No. SCA-2.
8. That it is most respectfully submitted that there was no concealment on the part of FAO or ReFAC(AU) as such there was no attempt to misiead nor was there any intention to mislead. That it is most respectfully submitted that on the order dated 19.03.2022 was passed keeping in mind the directions of Hon’ble Court vide order dated 10.03.2022 “to decide the objection of the petitioner against the notice under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, in accordance with law on the point of date of issuance of notice” and as per the details available that the notice was issued on 31.03.2021, the FAO was under bonafide belief that the notice been duly reflected on the portal of the assessee on 31.03.2021. It is further most respectfully submitted that the details of time of issuing the notice and digitally signing have now been received from JAO/ITBA team.
9. That the deponent has examined the orders and letters issued by FAO and it is undeniable that the choice of words and language used by FAO is unacceptable. The FAO has represented before the deponent that he cannot even dream to think of disobeying or showing disregard to the orders of the Court. The only purpose was to communicate and convey to the assessee the fact that the SLP of the Department was pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and on the date of this affidavit the judgment has been reserved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.”
8. From the averments made by the respondent nos. 2,3 and 4 in the aforesaid short counter affidavit, it is evident that the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2013-14 was issued to the petitioner on 01.04.2021, whereas the limitation of issuing the notice expired on 31.03.2021. Thus notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was time barred and consequently it was without jurisdiction.
9. Since large number of writ petitions are being filed in which the date and time of issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are in issue, and, importantly, those notices are being issued by e-mail, it is directed that the respondent no. 1 shall ensure that the date and time of triggering of e-mail for issuing notices and orders are reflected in the online portal relating to the concerned assessees.
10. Facts of the case as discussed above, particularly the observations made by the respondent no.4 in the last line of the impugned order dated 19.03.2022 noticed by us in our order dated 18.04.2022 quoted in paragraph 4 above clearly indicates that the order dated 19.02.2022 has been passed by the respondents in breach of judicial discipline and propriety causing harassment to the petitioner/assessee on account of the failure to give effect to the order of this Court dated 10.03.2022 in Writ Tax No. 171 of 2022 which was filed by the petitioner. We propose to comment on the conduct of the officer concerned but the respondents have tendered unconditional apology by filing a short counter affidavit dated 22.04.2022, as noted in para 7 above, therefore, in view of the unconditional apology tendered by the deponent Sri Pawan Kumar Sharma, Additional Commissioner of Income Tax in the aforesaid short counter affidavit, we do not propose to proceed against the respondent no.4 by referring the matter for contempt. However, we direct the respondents to be careful in future and must have due regard to the judgments and orders of this Court, keeping in mind the settled principal of judicial propriety and discipline.
Breach of Judicial Discipline-Misconduct-Contemptuous.
11. In the case of Union of India Vs. Kamlakshmi Finance Corpn. Ltd. 1992 (Suppl) SC-C 443 (para 6) Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the observation of Hon’ble High Court on the conduct of an Assistant Collector and the harassment to the assessee caused by the failure of these officers to give effect to the order of authorities higher to them in the appellate hierarchy and has held as under:
“6. Sri Reddy is perhaps right in saying that the officers were not actuated by any mala fides in passing the impugned orders. They perhaps genuinely felt that the claim of the assessee was not tenable and that, if it was accepted, the Revenue would suffer. But what Sri Reddy overlooks is that we are not concerned here with the correctness or otherwise of their conclusion or of any factual mala fides but with the fact that the officers, in reaching their conclusion, by-passed two appellate orders in regard to the same issue which were placed before them, one of the Collector (Appeals) and the other of the Tribunal. The High Court has, in our view, rightly criticised this conduct of the Assistant Collectors and the harassment to the assessee caused by the failure of these officers to give effect to the orders of authorities higher to them in the appellate hierarchy. It cannot be too vehemently emphasised that it is of utmost importance that, in disposing of the quasi-judicial issues before them, revenue officers are bound by the decisions of the appellate authorities. The order of the Appellate Collector is binding on the Assistant Collectors working within his jurisdiction and the order of the Tribunal is binding upon the Assistant Collectors and the Appellate Collectors who function under the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The principles of judicial discipline require that the orders of the higher appellate authorities should be followed unreservedly by the subordinate authorities. The mere fact that the order of the appellate authority is not “acceptable” to the department — in itself an objectionable phrase — and is the subject matter of an appeal can furnish no ground for not following it unless its operation has been suspended by a competent court. If this healthy rule is not followed, the result will only be undue harassment to assessees and chaos in administration of tax laws.”
(Emphasis supplied by us)
12. In the case of Official Liquidator Versus Dayanand & Ors. (2008) 10 SCC (para 90) Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that “….it must be remembered that predictability and certainty is an important hallmark of judicial jurisprudence developed in this country in last six decades….”
13. In the case of Kishore Samrite versus State of U.P. and others 2013 (2) SCC 398 (para 29), Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:-
“29. Judicial discipline and propriety are the two significant facets of administration of justice. Every court is obliged to adhere to these principles to ensure hierarchical discipline on the one hand and proper dispensation of justice on the other. Settled canons of law prescribe adherence to the rule of law with due regard to the prescribed procedures. Violation thereof may not always result in invalidation of the judicial action but normally it may cast a shadow of improper exercise of judicial discretion.”
14. In the case of Bishnu Ram Borah and another Vs. Parag Saikia and others 1984 (2) SCC 488 ( para 11), Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under:-
“11. It is regrettable that the Board of Revenue failed to realize that like any other subordinate tribunal, it was subject to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Just as the judgments and orders of the Supreme Court have to be faithfully obeyed and carried out throughout the territory of India under Article 142 of the Constitution, so should be the judgments and orders of the High Court by all inferior courts and tribunals subject to their supervisory jurisdiction within the State under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution. We cannot but deprecate the action of the Board of Revenue in refusing to carry out direction of the Hon’ble High Court
15. In the case of Bhopal Suger Industries Ltd. Versus Income Tax Officer, Bhopal AIR 1961 (5) SC 182, Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that “ …..the Income Tax Officer had virtually refused to carry out the clear and unambiguous directions which a superior tribunal like the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, had given to him by its final order in exercise of its appellate powers in respect of an order of assessment made by him, such refusal is in effect a denial of justice, and is furthermore destructive of one of the basic principles in the administration of justice based as it is in this country on a hierarchy of courts….”
16. Law laid down in the aforesaid judgments has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax versus Ralson Industries Ltd 2007 (2) SCC 326 ( para 9).
17. In the case of Union of India Versus Namit Sharma 2013 (1) SCC 745 ( para 108.14) Hon’ble Supreme Court explained the precedent and judicial discipline and held as under:-
“108.14. Under the scheme of the Act of 2005, it is clear that the orders of the Commissions are subject to judicial review before the High Court and then before the Supreme Court of India. In terms of Article 141 of the Constitution, the judgments of the Supreme Court are law of the land and are binding on all courts and tribunals. Thus, it is abundantly clear that the Information Commission is bound by the law of precedence i.e. judgments of the High Court and the Supreme Court of India. In order to maintain judicial discipline and consistency in the functioning of the Commission, we direct that the Commission shall give appropriate attention to the doctrine of precedence and shall not overlook the judgments of the courts dealing with the subject and principles applicable, in a given case. It is not only the higher court’s judgments that are binding precedents for the Information Commission, but even those of the larger Benches of the Commission should be given due acceptance and enforcement by the smaller Benches of the Commission. The rule of precedence is equally applicable to intra-court appeals or references in the hierarchy of the Commission”.
18. In the case or H. Phunindre Singh and others Vs. K.K. Sethi and another (1998) 8 SCC 640 (para 2) Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the question of deliberate violation of the subsisting order of the Court and held as under:-
“2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. In our view, in the facts of the case, particularly when the order passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court was not stayed by the Division, Bench, the contempt petition should have been disposed of on merits instead of adjourning the same till disposal of the appeal, so that question of deliberate violation of the subsisting order of the Court is considered and enforceability of the Court’s order is not permitted to be diluted. In the facts of the case, we feel that the contempt petition should be disposed of within a period of three months from the date of the communication of this order and we order accordingly. It is further directed that before disposal of the contempt petition, the pending appeal should not be taken up hearing. The appeal is accordingly disposed of”.
19. In the case of Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs. Balbir Singh (2004) 5 SCC 65 (para 26) Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “ …..We therefore clarify that unless there is a stay obtained from a higher forum, the mere fact of filing of an appeal will not entitle the authority to not comply with the order of the Forum. Even though the authority may have filed an appeal/revision, if no stay is obtained or if stay is refused, the order must be complied with……”
20. In the case of Asit Kumar Das Versus J. Panda, the Chief Post Master Central and Ors. (Civil Appeal No.1227 of 2015), order dated 22.02.2015 Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that “….. it is trite that the filing of an Appeal does not result in the assailed order becoming inoperative and unworthy of being complied with. There was, therefore, no justification for taking the contempt petition off the list of the High Court, albeit with permission granted for its relisting……”
21. In the case of Pramod Kumar Dixit & another Vs. Central Administrative Tribunal & Ors Writ Petition No. 1082 (SB) of 2009, decided on 15.12.2010, Division Bench of this Court held that “ ……once this Court had given a direction to decide the matter on merit it was not open for the Tribunal to dilute the mandate of the order by declining the admission of original application. The order of the Tribunal seems to be bordering on the contempt of the order of the High Court…”
22. In the case of Sadanand Mukherji Vs. State of U.P. & others 2009 (1) UPLBEC 167 (para 4 and 5) Hon’ble Court held as under:-
“4. Now, while deciding the present controversy learned Tribunal recorded a finding that the claim petition is not maintainable for the same relief, when this Court while remitting back the case to the Tribunal directed the Tribunal to decide the same on merit, it was not open for the Tribunal to make observation that the claim petition was barred by principle of res judicata and not maintainable. Once the writ petition was allowed by the Division Bench of this Court, then Tribunal should have decided the case on merit alone and not on any other ground like being barred by principle of res judicata. It is for the second time that the Tribunal while recording the finding that the claim petition is barred by principle of res judicata. has dismissed the claim petition in violation of the judgment and order of this Court dated 23.8.2005 passed in Writ Petition No.1381 (S/B) of 2005.
5. In the hierarchy of system, the power of superintendence on all subordinate courts, authorities and tribunals is vested under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. After remitting of matter by this Court by the judgment and order dated 23.8.2005, it was not open for the Tribunal to reject the petitioner’s case with the finding that the claim petition is barred by res judicata. Learned member of the Tribunal while recording such finding have over stepped jurisdiction vested in them which at the face of record, amounts to contempt of this Court. Both the members of the Tribunal ought to have been cautious of the settled principles of law that they should not have rejected the claim petition in contravention of directions issued by this Court.”
23. In Income Tax Appeal No. 293 of 2016 ( The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-9, Mumbai Versus M/s Associated Cables Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai, decided on 03.08.2018 Division Bench of Bombay High Court held that “…… Merely filing of an SLP from the order of Hindustan Unilever Ltd. (supra) would not make the order of this Court bad in law or give a license to the Revenue to proceed on the basis that the order is stayed and/or in abeyance…..”
24. In view of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and High Court, the principles of judicial discipline and propriety and binding precedent, we hold as under:-
(a) Judicial discipline and propriety are the two significant facets of administration of justice. The principles of judicial discipline require that the orders of the higher appellate authorities should be followed unreservedly by the subordinate authorities. The mere fact that the order of the appellate authority is not “acceptable” to the department in itself an objectionable phrase or that is the subject matter of an appeal can furnish no ground for not following it unless its operation has been suspended by a competent court. If this healthy rule is not followed, the result will only be undue harassment to assessees and chaos in administration of tax laws.
(b) Just as the judgments and orders of the Supreme Court have to be faithfully obeyed and carried out throughout the territory of India under Article 141 of the Constitution, so should be the judgments and orders of the High Court by all inferior courts and tribunals subject to supervisory jurisdiction within the State under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution.
(c) If an officer under the Income Tax Act, 1961 refuses to carry out the clear and unambiguous direction in a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court or High Court or the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal then in effect, it is denial of justice and is destructive of one of the basic principles in the administration of justice based on hierarchy of the Court.
(d) Unless there is a stay obtained by the authorities under the Income Tax Act, 1961 from higher forum, the mere fact of filing appeal or SLP will not entitle the authority not to comply with the order of the High Court. Even though the authority may have filed an appeal or SLP but either could not obtain a stay or the stay is refused, the order of the High Court must be complied with. Mere filing of an appeal or SLP against the judgment or order of High Court does not result in the assailed judgment or order becoming inoperative and unworthy of being complied with.
25. In view of the principles settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court and by High Courts in the judgments, briefly discussed above, we direct the respondents to maintain judicial discipline and follow the doctrine of binding precedent and be careful in future, having due regard to the authorities of the Court, keeping in mind the judicial propriety and discipline.
26. The impugned notice dated 31.03.2021 issued on 01.04.2021 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, being without jurisdiction, cannot be sustained and is hereby quashed. Consequently, the order dated 19.03.2022 and the Reassessment Order dated 29.03.2022 for the Assessment Year 2013-14 can also not be sustained and are hereby quashed inasmuch as, the jurisdictional notice itself was without jurisdiction.
27. For all the reasons afore-stated, the writ petition is allowed to the extent and in terms herein above.
28. Let copy of this judgment be sent by the Registrar General of this Court to the respondent no.1 for circulation amongst the authorities under the Income Tax Act, 1961 and for observance of the principles of the judicial discipline and propriety, stated above.
Author Bio
