AMIT KUMAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/23834/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01125154202418 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 consequential proceedings initiated without conducting the mandatory faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act, were contrary to the provisions of the Act and therefore lacked jurisdiction. The Court agreed with the view taken by coordinate benches, stating that circulars or instructions from the Board cannot override statutory provisions or make them otiose. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed mandatorily. The Court found that the authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their own satisfaction or convenience, causing hardship and confusion to assessees. Instructions and circulars can only supplement statutory provisions for their implementation. Consequently, the notices dated 26.03.2024 (Annexure P-3) issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148 were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act if so advised. All pending applications were also disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Amit Kumar, challenged notices issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings. The petitioner argued that these notices and proceedings were initiated without adhering to the mandatory provisions of faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act. The revenue, represented by Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal, Senior Standing Counsel, accepted notice. The High Court noted that similar issues had been decided by coordinate benches 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 presented with notices dated 26.03.2024 (Annexure P-3) issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148.

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 mandated by Section 144B of the Act, are valid and possess jurisdiction? (Question of law and fact, turning on Section 144B and Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961) Assessee's Contention: The assessee contended that the notices and subsequent proceedings were invalid because they were not conducted through the faceless assessment procedure prescribed by Section 144B of the Act, which is a mandatory statutory requirement. The assessee relied on the decisions of coordinate benches in Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India. Revenue's Contention: The revenue did not present any specific arguments against the assessee's contentions. The Senior Standing Counsel accepted notice and acknowledged that the issue was concluded by previous judgments of the High Court.

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 AMIT KUMAR

INCOME TAX

CORAM: H

H

Present: M f 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 HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA CHANDIGAR

CWP-2 Date of R

V X OFFICER, WARD-4, HISAR, A HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJ

(Through Video Conferencin Mr. Nikhil Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner. 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 AB AND HARYANA AT RH 23834-2024 (O&M) f Decision:18.09.2024

..…...Petitioners (s) V/s. AND OTHERS

…......Respondent(s) NJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA NJAY VASHISTH ng/Hybrid Mode)

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 ) e e P , f , Suresh Kumar 2024.09.19 10:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-23834-202

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 2024.09.19 10:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-23834-202

mutandis to Jurisdictional and conseque

5.

A

September 18 Ess Kay

Whether speak Whether Repor 024 (O&M) the present case. Accordin Assessing Officer u/s 148 dat ntial proceedings are set aside. All pending applications also stan [SANJEEV 8, 2024 [SAN

king / reasoned :

Y rtable

:

Y gly, notice(s) issued by the ted 26.03.2024 (Annexure P-3) nd disposed of accordingly.

V PRAKASH SHARMA] JUDGE

NJAY VASHISTH] JUDGE Yes / No Yes / No e ) Suresh Kumar 2024.09.19 10:38 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 →