HARPREET SINGH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Facts

The petitioner, Harpreet Singh, challenged a notice dated 10.01.2024 issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent consequential proceedings. The petitioner argued that these proceedings were initiated without jurisdiction. The respondent, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, 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 presented with the question of whether certain circulars or instructions could override statutory provisions or render them obsolete.

Held

The High Court held that circulars or instructions issued by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or make them obsolete. The court agreed with the view of a coordinate bench that such instructions cannot be issued to usurp legal provisions for the convenience of authorities, causing hardship and confusion to assessees. The court found that notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the consequential proceedings initiated thereafter, without conducting the faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B, were contrary to the provisions of the Act. Therefore, the notices dated 10.01.2024, 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2024, and 30.03.2023, were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act and proceed accordingly, if advised. The writ petition was allowed.

Key Issues

1. Whether circulars or instructions issued by the Board, particularly those related to faceless assessment under Section 144B(7 & 8) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, can override statutory provisions or make them obsolete, thereby usurping legal provisions for the convenience of authorities and causing hardship to assessees? (Question of law and mixed fact and law, turning on Sections 119, 120, and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the notice under Section 148 and subsequent proceedings were without jurisdiction, implying the assessment process followed was invalid. The petitioner relied on the principle that instructions cannot override statutory provisions. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through its senior standing counsel, accepted notice. The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the revenue beyond accepting notice and agreeing that the issue was covered by previous judgments.