Parshotam Singh v. Income Tax Officer and others

1. FACTS OF THE CASE

In Parshotam Singh’s CWP-21054-2024, both sides agreed that the issue was covered by Jasjit Singh v. Union of India, CWP-21509-2023, decided on 29 July 2024. The present challenge concerned an order and notice dated 25 March 2023. The source does not identify an assessment year or disputed income.

Source: Paragraphs 3 and 5; PDF pp.1,3

2. DISCUSSION BY THE COURT

The Court reproduced Jasjit Singh’s reasoning that Board instructions could supplement but not override statutory provisions, and its conclusion that JAO section 148 notices and ensuing proceedings without the envisaged section 144B faceless process lacked jurisdiction. It applied that ruling on the parties’ agreed footing. The quoted ruling also preserved Revenue’s liberty to follow the statutory procedure.

Source: Paragraphs 3–4; PDF pp.1–3

3. JUDICIAL DECISION

The writ was allowed in those terms and the order and notice dated 25 March 2023 were set aside. The petitioner did not press the other questions; those were dismissed as not pressed. Pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of.

Source: Paragraphs 5–6; PDF p.3

4. OUTCOME

The petitioner obtained jurisdictional relief against the specified order and notice, not a determination of the underlying tax merits. The incorporated terms preserved Revenue’s ability to proceed according to law.

Source: Quoted paragraph 19 and paragraphs 5–6; PDF pp.2–3

5. Expert Comments

AKHB editorial analysis, distinct from the Court’s findings.

The decision applies an agreed governing precedent

The Court did not reconstruct the reassessment history or conduct a separate statutory analysis. Its reasoning adopts the quoted Jasjit Singh framework because both sides accepted coverage. This supports a source-specific account of why the present instruments were set aside, not an assumption that every reassessment dispute has identical jurisdictional facts.

Source: PDF p.1 · PDF p.2 · PDF p.3

Administrative instructions cannot displace the quoted statutory scheme

The reproduced reasoning treats sections 119, 120 and 144B powers as implementation powers, not a means to override the legislation. That is the stated basis for the jurisdictional result. The note records the 2024 ruling; later legislation, stays or appellate treatment would require separate verification before applying it to another proceeding.

Source: PDF p.2 · PDF p.3

Relief and issues abandoned must be tracked separately

Only the present order and notice of 25 March 2023 were expressly set aside. Dates listed inside the quotation concern Jasjit Singh. The other questions here were dismissed as not pressed, so they are not additional holdings. Revenue’s retained liberty is to follow the Act, not an unconditional extension of time or approval of a future notice.

Source: PDF p.2 · PDF p.3