JITENDRA TIWARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

Facts

The petitioner, Jitendra Tiwari, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated 21.02.2023 issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and all consequential proceedings. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana 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. In those cases, the Court had held that instructions by the Board could not override statutory provisions and that faceless assessment proceedings initiated without conducting the assessment as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act were found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act. The Court also noted that the revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act. The present petition was disposed of in light of these previous judgments.

Held

The Tribunal, following the precedent set by a Coordinate Bench in Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India, held that instructions by the Board cannot override statutory provisions, nor can they be issued to make them obsolete. Legislative enactments with financial implications are mandatory. The Court found that notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings initiated without conducting faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act, were contrary to the provisions of the Act and therefore lacked jurisdiction. Consequently, the notices dated 21.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2024, and 30.03.2023, along with all consequential proceedings, were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act. The operative direction was to allow the writ petition and set aside the impugned notice and proceedings.

Key Issues

1. Whether notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent faceless assessment proceedings initiated without conducting the assessment as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act, are valid and in accordance with the statutory provisions. Assessee's Contention: The assessee implicitly argues that the notice and proceedings are invalid because they are contrary to the statutory provisions, particularly Section 144B, and that instructions or circulars cannot override legislative enactments. The assessee relies on the principle that legislative enactments with financial implications must be mandatorily followed and that authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship and confusion. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, represented by the Senior Standing Counsel, accepted notice and did not present any arguments against the petitioner's case, indicating an ad idem stance with the petitioner on the issue. The judgment does not record any specific arguments or reliance on authorities by the revenue.