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 consequential proceedings. The petitioner argued that these proceedings, initiated without conducting faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act, were contrary to the provisions 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 other writ petitions, 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 held that notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings initiated without conducting faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B, were found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act. The Court agreed with the view taken by coordinate benches, stating that instructions by the Board (referring to Section 119 and 120) could not override statutory provisions or make them obsolete. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed strictly. The Court reasoned that authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their satisfaction or convenience, causing hardship and confusion. Therefore, notices dated 29.03.2023, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2023, 30.03.2023, and the order dated 30.03.2023 were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act. The ratio is that faceless assessment procedures mandated by statute must be followed, and administrative instructions or actions that deviate from these statutory mandates are invalid.

Key Issues

1. Whether notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings initiated without conducting faceless assessment as per Section 144B, are valid and in accordance with the law? (Question of law and fact, concerning Sections 148 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contention: The proceedings initiated under Section 148 and subsequent actions are invalid because they were not conducted through the faceless assessment scheme mandated by Section 144B of the Act. The JAO's actions are alleged to usurp legal provisions and cause hardship and confusion to assessees. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through its Senior Standing Counsel, accepted notice. No specific arguments or reliance on authorities were recorded for the revenue in the provided text.