VIJAYANT KUMAR BANSAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER GOBINDGARH PUNJAB

CWP/31620/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01162209202414 September 2026Author: MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH,MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that assessment proceedings initiated under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the subsequent proceedings without conducting a faceless assessment as envisaged by Section 144B of the Act, were contrary to the provisions of the Act. The Court relied on its previous decisions in Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India. It reiterated the principle that circulars or instructions issued by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or make them otiose, and legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed strictly and mandatorily. The Court found that the authorities cannot usurp legal provisions to their own satisfaction or convenience, causing hardship and confusion. Therefore, the notice dated 15.04.2024 (Annexure P-2) issued under Section 148 and all consequential assessment proceedings were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The Revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act if so advised. All pending applications were also disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Ess Kay, challenged a notice dated 15.04.2024 (Annexure P-2) issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and all consequential assessment proceedings. The petitioner argued that the assessment proceedings were initiated without conducting a faceless assessment as envisaged by Section 144B of the Act. The Revenue, represented by the Income Tax Department, accepted notice. The High Court noted that similar issues had been decided by coordinate benches in previous writ petitions, specifically Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India, both decided on 09.07.2024. The Court was asked to consider these precedents.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessment proceedings initiated under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without conducting a faceless assessment as mandated by Section 144B of the Act, are valid? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 148 and Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contention: The assessment proceedings were initiated without adhering to the mandatory faceless assessment procedure prescribed under Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, rendering them invalid. The petitioner relied on the decisions of coordinate benches in Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records that the Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents accepted notice and that both counsel were ad idem on the issue being concluded by previous judgments of the Court. No specific arguments were recorded for the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 144B,Section 119,Section 120

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

116 IN TH VIJAYANT K

INCOME TAX

CORAM: H

H

Present: M M M M f

* SANJEEV PR

1.

N

2.

M on behalf of th

3.

B present petitio No.21509 of decided on 29 2024 titled a decided on 19

C i o o i HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA CHANDIGAR

CWP-3 Date of UMAR BANSAL

V X OFFICER, ITO, WARD-1, GO HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJ

Mr. Sunil K. Mukhi, Advocate fo Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Senior Stan Ms. Pridhi Sandhu, Junior Standi Ms. Muskaan Gupta, Advocate for the respondent-Income Tax D ***** RAKASH SHARMA, J. (Oral) Notice of motion. Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Senior St he respondents/Income Tax Dep Both the counsel are ad idem on stands finally examined and c f 2023 titled as Jasjit Singh vs 9.07.2024, and by the Coordina as Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. 9.07.2024. This Court in Jasjit Si “16. We are in agreement with Coordinate Bench and hold t instructions by the Board could n override statutory provisions or t obsolete. Legislative enactmen implications are required to be AB AND HARYANA AT RH 31620-2024 (O&M) f Decision:25.11.2024

..…...Petitioner(s) V/s. OBINDGARH …......Respondent(s) NJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA NJAY VASHISTH or the petitione

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →