SUNAINA KUMARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/24021/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01126723202419 September 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 the consequential proceedings initiated without conducting faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act, 1961, were 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. It reiterated that instructions by the Board cannot override statutory provisions and that authorities cannot use their powers to usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship to assessees. The Court found the notices dated March 14, 2024, March 20, 2024, March 28, 2023, March 30, 2023, and March 30, 2023, to be without jurisdiction and set them aside. The Revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act and proceed accordingly if advised. The operative direction was to allow the writ petition and set aside the notices and consequential proceedings.

What were the facts?

The petitioners, Sunaina Kumari and Ess Kay Enterprises, challenged notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings. The notices were dated March 14, 2024, March 20, 2024, March 28, 2023, March 30, 2023, and March 30, 2023. The Revenue accepted notice. The High Court noted that similar issues were decided in previous writ petitions, specifically Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India, both decided on July 9, 2024. The Court was asked to decide if the notices and subsequent proceedings were valid.

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, 1961, are valid, considering the mandate of statutory provisions and instructions by the Board. (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The notices and subsequent proceedings were invalid because they were initiated without conducting the faceless assessment as required under Section 144B of the Act. The instructions by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or make them obsolete. Authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship and confusion to assessees. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue, through its Senior Standing Counsel, accepted notice and did not present any arguments against the assessee's position, indicating agreement with the assessee's stance based on 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

125 IN TH SUNAINA KU

INCOME TAX

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-2 Date of UMARI

V X OFFICER, ITO WARD 2(1), C 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, Advocate, 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 24021-2024 (O&M) f Decision:19.09.2024

..…...Petitioners (s) V/s. CHANDIGARH, AND OTHERS …......Respondent(s) NJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA NJAY VASHISTH he petitioner. ding Counsel, with 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 ) n e P , f , Suresh Kumar 2024.09.20 17:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-24021-202

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 2024.09.20 17:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-24021-202

mutandis to th Assessing O consequential

5.

A

September 19 Ess Kay

Whether speak Whether Repor 024 (O&M) he present case. Accordingly, no Officer u/s 148 dated 14.03 l proceedings are set aside. All pending applications also stan [SANJEEV 9, 2024 [SAN

king / reasoned :

Y rtable

:

Y otice issued by the Jurisdictional 3.2024 (Annexure P-1), and nd disposed of accordingly.

V PRAKASH SHARMA] JUDGE

NJAY VASHISTH] JUDGE Yes / No Yes / No l d Suresh Kumar 2024.09.20 17:03 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 →