NARESH KUMAR DHINGRA HUF THROUGHT ITS KARTA SH NARESH KUMAR DHINGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CWP/29042/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01146052202424 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. It held that notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings initiated without conducting faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B (7 & 8) of the Act, were found to be 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 authorities cannot override statutory provisions or make them otiose, and legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed strictly. The Court found that the notices dated 28.03.2024, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2023, and 30.03.2023, along with consequential proceedings, were issued for want of jurisdiction. The operative direction was to set aside the notice and all consequential proceedings. The Revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act and proceed accordingly, if advised.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Naresh Kumar Dhimgra HUF, challenged a notice dated 28.03.2024 issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and all consequential proceedings. The Revenue, represented by Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal, Senior Standing Counsel, accepted notice. The High Court noted that the issue was identical to previous cases, specifically CWP No. 21509 of 2023 (Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India) decided on 19.07.2024, and CWP No. 15745 of 2023 (Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India) also decided on 19.07.2024. The Court was informed that both counsel were in agreement that the matter could be finally decided based on these prior judgments.

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 (7 & 8) of the Act, are valid and have jurisdiction. Assessee's Contention: The assessee contended that the notice and subsequent proceedings were invalid because they were not conducted through the faceless assessment mechanism mandated by Section 144B of the Act. The prior judgments relied upon by the assessee established that instructions by the Board could not override statutory provisions and that legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed mandatorily. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue, through its Senior Standing Counsel, did not present any argument against the assessee's position, having accepted notice and agreeing that the matter could be decided based on prior judgments of the High Court. The judgment notes the counsel were 'ad idem' that the issue was concluded by prior decisions.

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

128 IN TH NARESH KUM

INCOME TAX

CORAM: H

H

Present: 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 i m HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA CHANDIGAR

CWP-2 Date of UMAR DHINGRA HUF

V X OFFICER, WARD 1, KARNAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJ Mr. Dhananjay Singh, for the pet Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal, Senior S for the respondent-Income Tax D ***** RAKASH SHARMA, J. (Oral) Notice of motion. Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal, Senior S 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 implications are required to be mandatorily. By exercising the AB AND HARYANA AT RH 29042-2024 (O&M) f Decision:24.10.2024

..…...Petitioner(s) V/s. L, HARYANA AND OTHERS

…......Respondent(s) NJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA NJAY VASHISTH titioner. Standing Counsel Department Standing 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 followed strictly and powers contained in ) e e P , f , Suresh Kumar 2024.10.25 12:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-29042-202

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 mutandis to 024 (O&M) 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 the present case. According 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 gly, notice dated 28.03.2024 e s 4 Suresh Kumar 2024.10.25 12:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-29042-202

(Annexure P- Income Tax A 5. A

October 24, 2 Ess Kay

Whether speak Whether Repor 024 (O&M) -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 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 e Suresh Kumar 2024.10.25 12:25 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 →