JAGJIT SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

CWP/26061/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01136005202404 October 2024Author: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MR. JUSTICE ALOK JAIN3 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 all consequential proceedings initiated thereafter, including those under Section 144B, were found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act and were therefore set aside for want of jurisdiction. The Court relied on the decision of a coordinate bench in Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others, which held that circulars or instructions from the Board cannot override statutory provisions or make them obsolete. The Court emphasized that legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed mandatorily. It was further held that authorities cannot usurp legal provisions to their own satisfaction or convenience, causing hardship and confusion to assessees. Instructions and circulars can only supplement statutory provisions for implementation. Consequently, the notices dated February 28, 2023, March 16, 2023, March 20, 2023, March 30, 2023, and the order dated March 20, 2024, were set aside. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure as laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if so advised. The writ petitions were allowed, and interim orders stood merged with the present order.

What were the facts?

The petitioners, identified as Jagjit Singh and others, filed writ petitions challenging notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings initiated under Section 144B. The assessment years are not explicitly stated, but the notices and orders under challenge are dated between February 28, 2023, and March 30, 2023, with a further order dated March 20, 2024. The core of the dispute revolves around the validity of these notices and proceedings, particularly in light of faceless assessment procedures. The petitioners contended that the notices and subsequent actions were issued without jurisdiction. The revenue, represented by the Income Tax Department, accepted notice. The High Court noted that the parties were in agreement that the issue had been finally examined and concluded by a coordinate bench in previous judgments.

What were the issues?

1. Whether notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings initiated under Section 144B, are valid when they are alleged to be contrary to the provisions of the Act and initiated without jurisdiction. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the notices issued under Section 148 and the subsequent faceless assessment proceedings under Section 144B were without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. They relied on the principle that instructions by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or make them obsolete. Revenue's Contention: The revenue did not record specific arguments but accepted notice. However, the judgment references a coordinate bench's decision which held that instructions by the Board could not override statutory provisions or make them otiose. The revenue's counsel was present and acknowledged the agreement on the issue being decided by prior judgments.

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

Cited by 19 judgments on BharatTax

See all citing judgments →

Counted from the text of the judgments hosted here. Most recent first.

163 IN TH JAGJIT SING

INCOME TAX

CORAM: H

H

Present: M M

M M f

* SANJEEV PR

1.

N

2.

M on behalf of th

3.

L involved in th this Court in India and oth CWP No.1574 and others, de under:

C i o o HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA CHANDIGAR

CWP-2 Date of GH

V X OFFICER WARD-3, PATIALA

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

Mr. Nikhil Goyal, Advocate and Ms. Dewangana Chhillar, Advoc Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Senior Stan Ms. Pridhi Sandhu, Jr. Standing C for the respondent-Income Tax D ***** RAKASH SHARMA, J. (Oral) Notice of motion. Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Senior St he respondent-Income Tax Depa Learned counsel for all the par he present petition stands final CWP No.21509 of 2023 titled hers, decided on 29.07.2024, an 745 of 2024 titled as Jatinder Sin ecided on 19.07.2024. This Cour “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 26061-2024 (O&M) f Decision:04.10.2024

..…...Petitioners (s) V/s. A, AND OTHERS …......Respondent(s) NJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA OK JAIN

cate for the petitioner. nding Co

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →