VINOD BANSAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/29040/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01145939202424 October 2024Author: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the writ petition. The Court held that notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the consequential proceedings initiated thereafter, without conducting the faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act, were found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act. The Court reiterated its previous decisions in Jasjit Singh and Jatinder Singh Bhangu, holding that instructions by the Board cannot override statutory provisions and that legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed strictly. The Court reasoned that authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship and confusion. Therefore, the notice dated 12.03.2024 and all consequential proceedings were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure as laid down under the Act and proceed accordingly, if so advised. The interim order was merged with the present order.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Ess Kay, challenged a notice dated 12.03.2024 issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and all consequential proceedings. The High Court noted that similar issues had been examined and concluded by the same court in two prior cases: Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others (decided on 29.07.2024) and Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others (decided on 19.07.2024). In those cases, the court had held that circulars or instructions from the Board could not override statutory provisions or render them obsolete. The court also observed that legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed strictly and mandatorily. The present petition was filed seeking to set aside the notice and proceedings initiated under Section 148, which were conducted without the faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act.

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 under Section 144B of the Act, are liable to be set aside for want of jurisdiction. (Mixed question of law and fact, turning on Section 148 and Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the notice dated 12.03.2024 under Section 148 and subsequent proceedings were invalid because they were not conducted through the faceless assessment mechanism prescribed under Section 144B of the Act, leading to a lack of jurisdiction. The assessee relied on the principles laid down in the High Court's own previous decisions in Jasjit Singh and Jatinder Singh Bhangu. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, represented by the Senior Standing Counsel, accepted notice. The judgment does not record any specific arguments or reliance on authorities by the revenue against the assessee's contentions.

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

127 IN TH VINOD BANS

INCOME TA OTHERS

CORAM: H

H

Present: M

M

M f

* SANJEEV PR

1.

N

2.

M behalf of the r

3.

B present petiti CWP No.215 decided on 29 2024 titled a decided on 19

C i o o i HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA CHANDIGAR

CWP-2 Date of SAL

V AX OFFICER WARD-2(3), FA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJ Mr. Nikhil Goyal, Advocate and Mr. Rana Gurtej Singh, Advocate Mr. Varun Issar, Senior Standing for the respondent-Income Tax D ***** RAKASH SHARMA, J. (Oral) Notice of motion. Mr. Varun Issar, Senior Standi respondents/Income Tax Departm Both the counsel are ad idem ion stands finally examined an 509 of 2023 titled as Jasjit Singh 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 implications are required to be AB AND HARYANA AT RH 29040-2024 (O&M) f Decision:24.10.2024

..…...Petitioner(s) V/s. FARIDABAD, HARYANA AND …......Respondent(s) 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 followed strictly and D ) n e n , f , Suresh Kumar 2024.10.25 09:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-29040-202

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) 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 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 2024.10.25 09:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-29040-202

mutandis to (Annexure P- Income Tax A 5. A

October 24, 2 Ess Kay

Whether speak Whether Repor 024 (O&M) the present case. According -2) issued by the Jurisdictional A Act, 1961 and all consequential p All pending applications also stan [SANJEEV 2024

[SAN

king / reasoned :

Y rtable

:

Y gly, notice dated 12.03.2024 Assessing Officer u/s 148 of the proceedings are set aside. nd disposed of accordingly.

V PRAKASH SHARMA] JUDGE

NJAY VASHISTH] JUDGE Yes / No Yes / No 4 e Suresh Kumar 2024.10.25 09:49 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 →