BPL MEDIA LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Facts

This judgment concerns a writ petition filed by M/s. BPL Media Limited against the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Ludhiana, and others. The petitioner challenged a notice dated 27.03.2024 issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings. The High Court noted that similar issues were decided in previous writ petitions, specifically Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India, decided on 09.07.2024. The core of the dispute revolves around the validity of notices and proceedings initiated under Section 148, particularly in the context of faceless assessment procedures and the application of instructions and circulars from the Board.

Held

The High Court, following its own previous decisions in Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India, held that instructions issued by the Board under Section 119 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, cannot override statutory provisions or render them obsolete. Legislative enactments must be followed strictly. The Court found that exercising powers under Sections 119 and 120, as well as Section 144B (7 & 8), should not allow authorities to usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship and confusion to assessees. Instructions and circulars can only supplement statutory provisions. Consequently, notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 of the Act, and proceedings initiated thereafter without conducting the faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B, were found to be contrary to the Act and accordingly set aside for want of jurisdiction. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act if so advised. All writ petitions were allowed.

Key Issues

1. Whether notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings initiated under the faceless assessment scheme, are valid when they are found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act and its implementation guidelines? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning Section 148 and Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner implicitly argues that the notice and subsequent proceedings are invalid due to being contrary to statutory provisions and the faceless assessment scheme. The judgment references previous decisions which found such notices and proceedings to be without jurisdiction. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, represented by the Senior Standing Counsel, accepted notice. The judgment does not explicitly record separate arguments from the revenue on the merits of the case, but rather notes that both counsel were 'ad idem' that the issue was concluded by previous judgments of the High Court.