INDERJIT SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/30236/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01153599202407 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 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings initiated without conducting faceless assessment as envisaged by Section 144B of the Act, are contrary to the provisions of the Act. 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 circulars or instructions issued by the Board cannot override statutory provisions, and faceless assessment is a statutory requirement. The authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their convenience. The Court found that the notices dated 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2023, 30.03.2023, and 30.03.2024, along with the notice dated 14.03.2024 issued under Section 148, were issued for want of jurisdiction. The operative direction was to set aside these notices and consequential proceedings. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure as laid down under the Act and proceed accordingly, if so advised. The writ petition was allowed.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Inderjit Singh, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated 14.03.2024 issued by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential assessment proceedings. The petitioner argued that these proceedings were initiated without jurisdiction, particularly in light of faceless assessment procedures. The respondents are the Income Tax Officer and the Income Tax Department. The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated but relate to proceedings initiated under Section 148. The procedural history involves the issuance of the notice under Section 148 and the subsequent challenge through a writ petition before the High Court. The High Court referred to previous decisions in similar cases, Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India, both decided on 09.07.2024.

What were the issues?

1. Whether notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings initiated without conducting faceless assessment as envisaged by Section 144B of the Act, are valid and not contrary to the provisions of the Act. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the proceedings initiated under Section 148 were without jurisdiction because they were not conducted through the faceless assessment mechanism mandated by Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner relied on the principles laid down in the judgments of Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, represented by the Senior Standing Counsel, accepted notice and did not present any arguments against the petitioner's submissions, implicitly agreeing with the petitioner's reliance on the aforementioned precedents. The judgment notes that both counsel were 'ad idem' on the issue.

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

120 IN TH INDERJIT SIN

INCOME TA BHAWAN, SE CORAM: H

H

Present: M

M M M f

* SANJEEV PR

1.

N

2.

M behalf of the r

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 INGH

V AX OFFICER, ITO WARD 2(1 ECTOR-17, CHANDIGARH AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJ Mr. B.M. Monga, Advocate and Mr. Rohit Kaura, Advocate for th Mr. Yogesh Putney, Senior Stand Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Standing cou for the respondent-Income Tax D ***** RAKASH SHARMA, J. (Oral) Notice of motion. Mr. Yogesh Putney, Senior Stan respondents/Income Tax Departm 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 30236-2024 (O&M) f Decision:07.11.2024

..…...Petitioner(s) V/s. 1), CHANDIGARH, AAYAKAR D OTHERS

…......Respondent(s)

NJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA NJAY VASHISTH he petitioner. ding Counsel, with unsel, Department nding Counsel, accepts notice on ment. 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

R ) n e P , f , Suresh Kumar 2024.11.12 11:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-30236 -20

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 2024.11.12 11:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-30236 -20

mutandis to (Annexure P- Income Tax aside.

5.

A

November 7, 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 , 2024

[SAN

king / reasoned :

Y rtable

:

Y gly, notice dated 14.03.2024 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 2024.11.12 11:00 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 →