RABINA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/23395/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01123405202413 September 2024Author: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal held that notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings initiated thereafter, including those under Section 144B (faceless assessment), were found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act, 1961. The Court relied on its previous decision in Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others, which held that Board circulars cannot override statutory provisions or make them obsolete. The Court found that such instructions are only for supplementing statutory provisions and their implementation. Consequently, the notices dated February 28, 2023, March 16, 2023, March 20, 2023, March 30, 2023, and the order dated August 28, 2024, 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 operative direction was to allow the writ petition.

What were the facts?

The petitioners, Rabina Enterprises Private Ltd., are challenging notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings, including those under Section 144B. The assessment years are not explicitly stated, but the notices are dated between February 28, 2023, and March 30, 2023, with a further notice under Section 148A dated August 28, 2024. The revenue, represented by the Income Tax Department, issued these notices. The procedural history involves the issuance of these notices and the initiation of faceless assessment proceedings. The petitioners contend that these proceedings are without jurisdiction. The High Court is considering the validity of these notices and proceedings.

What were the issues?

1. Whether notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings initiated under Section 144B, including faceless assessments, are valid when they are alleged to be contrary to the provisions of the Act and potentially obsolete or otiose due to Board instructions? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argues that the notices and subsequent proceedings are without jurisdiction. They rely on the principle that instructions by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or make them obsolete. They contend that legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed strictly and mandatorily, and that authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship and confusion. They cite the judgment in Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through its Senior Standing Counsel, accepted notice. The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the revenue beyond accepting notice and agreeing that the issue has been examined by a Coordinate Bench.

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

113 IN TH RABINA ENT

INCOME TAX ROAD, NEW

CORAM: H

H

Present: M 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 TERPRISES PRIVATE LTD. V X OFFICER, WARD 4(3), C.R W WING, JALANDHAR AND OTH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJ Ms. Radhika Suri, Senior Advoca Mr. Abhinav Narang, Advocate a Ms. Pranika Singla, Advocate for Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Senior Stand for the respondents/Income Tax D ***** RAKASH SHARMA, J. (Oral) Notice of motion. Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Senior Stan respondent-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 23395-2024 (O&M) f Decision:13.09.2024

..…...Petitioners (s) V/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 N ) n e n , f , Suresh Kumar 2024.09.13 16:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-23395-202

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 mutandis to th 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 he present case. Accordingly, no 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 otice issued by the Jurisdictional e s l Suresh Kumar 2024.09.13 16:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-23395-202

Assessing O consequential

5.

A

September 13 Ess Kay

Whether speak Whether Repor 024 (O&M) Officer u/s 148 dated 28.08 l proceedings are set aside. All pending applications also stan [SANJEEV 3, 2024 [SAN

king / reasoned :

Y rtable

:

Y 8.2024 (Annexure P-4), and nd disposed of accordingly.

V PRAKASH SHARMA] JUDGE

NJAY VASHISTH] JUDGE Yes / No Yes / No d Suresh Kumar 2024.09.13 16:52 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 →