KAPIL DEV GOOMBER vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Facts

The petitioner, Kapil Dev Goomber, challenged a notice dated 29.03.2024 issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent 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 cases, specifically Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India, both decided on 19.07.2024.

Held

The High Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the notice dated 29.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and all consequential proceedings. The Court relied on its previous decisions in Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India. The reasoning was that instructions by the Board (under Section 119) cannot override statutory provisions or make them obsolete. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed mandatorily. The Court held that assessment authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship and confusion. Instructions and circulars can only supplement statutory provisions and aid implementation. Therefore, assessment proceedings initiated without conducting faceless assessments as envisaged by Section 144B were found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act if so advised. The interim order was merged with the present order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the assessment proceedings initiated under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and conducted without adhering to the faceless assessment scheme under Section 144B, are valid? (Question of law and fact, concerning Sections 148 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contention: The assessment proceedings, including the notice under Section 148 and subsequent actions, were initiated without conducting a faceless assessment as mandated by Section 144B of the Act, rendering them invalid. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through its counsel, accepted notice and did not present any arguments against the petitioner's claim. The judgment notes that both counsel were 'ad idem' that the issue was concluded by previous High Court decisions.