ANU KUMAR GOEL vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CWP/31198/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01161251202420 November 2024Author: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the consequential assessment proceedings initiated thereafter, specifically those conducted without proper jurisdiction and in contravention of the Act's provisions, are liable to be set aside. The Court relied on its previous decisions in Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India, which established that instructions by the Board cannot override statutory provisions and that faceless assessment procedures under Section 144B, if improperly implemented or leading to jurisdictional defects, render the proceedings invalid. The Court found the notice dated 27.03.2024, and all consequential proceedings, to be without jurisdiction. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, if so advised. The writ petition was allowed, and interim orders were merged with the final order.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Anu Kumar, challenged a notice dated 27.03.2024 issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential assessment proceedings. The High Court noted that the issue was identical to previous cases, specifically CWP No. 21509 of 2023 (Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others) and CWP No. 15745 of 2023 (Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others), both decided on 19.07.2024. In those cases, notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 and subsequent faceless assessment proceedings under Section 144B were found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act and set aside for want of jurisdiction. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the prescribed procedure.

What were the issues?

1. Whether notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent faceless assessment proceedings under Section 144B, are valid when found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act and issued for want of jurisdiction? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The assessee implicitly relied on the decisions of coordinate benches in Jasjit Singh and Jatinder Singh Bhangu, arguing that the notice under Section 148 and subsequent proceedings were invalid. The core of the argument, as reflected in the court's reasoning, is that instructions by the Board cannot override statutory provisions, and faceless assessment procedures, when not followed correctly or when leading to jurisdictional issues, render the proceedings void. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through its counsel, accepted notice and did not present any arguments against the petitioner's case, indicating an ad idem position with the petitioner on the issue being concluded by previous judgments. No specific authorities or precedents were cited by the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 144B,Section 119,Section 120

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

123 IN TH ANU KUMAR

THE INCOME

CORAM: H

H

Present: M M M M M f

* SANJEEV PR

1.

N

2.

M on behalf of th

3.

B present petitio No.21509 of decided on 29 2024 titled a decided on 19

C i o o HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA CHANDIGAR

CWP-3 Date of R GOEL

V ME TAX OFFICER WARD-4, PAT

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJ

Mr. Sanjeev K. Sharma, Advocat Mr. Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Senior Stan Ms. Pridhi Sandhu, Junior Standi Ms. Muskaan Gupta, Advocate for the respondent-Income Tax D ***** RAKASH SHARMA, J. (Oral) Notice of motion. Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Senior St he respondents/Income Tax Dep Both the counsel are ad idem on stands finally examined and c f 2023 titled as Jasjit Singh vs 9.07.2024, and by the Coordina as Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. 9.07.2024. This Court in Jasjit Si “16. We are in agreement with Coordinate Bench and hold t instructions by the Board could n override statutory provisions or t obsolete. Legislative enactmen AB AND HARYANA AT RH 31198-2024 (O&M) f Decision:20.11.2024

..…...Petitioner(s) V/s. TIALA AND ANOTHER …......Respondent(s) NJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA NJAY VASHISTH te with e for the petitioner. nding Counsel, with ing Counsel and Department. tanding Counsel, accepts notice partment. that the issue involved in the concluded by this Court in CWP s. Union of India and others, ate Bench in CWP No.15745 of . Union of India and others, Singh (supra) held as under: the view taken by the that such circular or not have been issued to to make them otiose or nts having financial

) e e P , f , Suresh Kumar 2024.11.22 09:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-31198-202

i m S S a s a t a s i 1 o s w 1 C u p f o p d 3 f 1 l A 2 o p

4.

K aforesaid term 024 (O&M) implications are required to be mandatorily. By exercising the Sections 119 and 120 of the A Section 144B (7 & 8), the a allowed to usurp the legal pro satisfaction and convenience ca assessees. It also leaves confusio taxpayers. In the opinion of th and circulars can be issued on supplementing the statutory pro implementation.

17.

In view of the aforesaid d occasion to distinguish or take suggested by the learned counse what has already been held by th

18.

Keeping in view the law Coordinate Bench (supra), notic under Section 148 of the proceedings initiated thereafter w faceless assessment as envisage of the Act, 1961, have been foun provisions of the Act, 1961 an dated 28.02.2023, 16.03.202 30.03.2023 and order dated 30. for want of jurisdiction.

19.

The respondents-revenue w liberty to follow the procedure a Act, 1961 and proceed according

20.

All the writ petitions are order passed by the Court shall present order.” Keeping in view above, we a ms. The observations and order p e followed strictly and powers contained in Act, 1961 as well as authorities cannot be ovisions to their own ausing hardship to the on in the minds of the his Court, instructions nly for the purpose of ovisions and for their discussion, there is no e a different view as el for the revenue from he Coordinate Bench. w laid down by the ces issued by the JAO Act, 1961 and the without conducting the ed under Section 144B d to be contrary to the nd accordingly notices 23, 20.03.2024 and 03.2023, are set aside would be, however, at as laid down under the gly, if so advised. allowed. The interim stand merged with the allow this Writ Petition in the passed above shall apply mutatis e s Suresh Kumar 2024.11.22 09:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-31198-202

mutandis to (Annexure P- Income Tax aside.

5.

A

November 20 Ess Kay

Whether speak Whether Repor 024 (O&M) the present case. According -1) issued by the Jurisdictional A Act, 1961 and all consequenti All pending applications also stan [SANJEEV 0, 2024

[SAN

king / reasoned :

Y rtable

:

Y gly, notice dated 27.03.2024 Assessing Officer u/s 148 of the ial proceedings thereof are set nd disposed of accordingly.

V PRAKASH SHARMA] JUDGE

NJAY VASHISTH] JUDGE Yes / No Yes / No 4 e t Suresh Kumar 2024.11.22 09:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →