DINESH KUMAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/22828/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01120182202409 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 subsequent proceedings initiated under Section 144B, which were conducted without adhering to the principles of faceless assessment, were contrary to the provisions of the Act. The Court relied on its previous decision 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. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed mandatorily. The Court found that the authorities could not usurp legal provisions to their own satisfaction or convenience, causing hardship and confusion to assessees. Instructions and circulars can only supplement statutory provisions and their implementation. Therefore, the notices dated 11.04.2023, 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2023, and 30.03.2023 were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, if so advised. The writ petitions were allowed, and interim orders stood merged with the present order.

What were the facts?

The petitioners, Dinesh Kumar and others, challenged notices issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings initiated under Section 144B. These proceedings were related to assessment years not explicitly stated in the judgment. The petitioners argued that the faceless assessment procedures were not followed correctly. The revenue, represented by the Income Tax Department, accepted notice. The High Court was considering the validity of these notices and proceedings, which were issued on various dates including 11.04.2023, 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2023, and 30.03.2023. The amount in dispute is not specified. The procedural history involves the issuance of notices and initiation of faceless assessment proceedings, which are now under challenge.

What were the issues?

1. Whether notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings initiated under Section 144B, which were conducted without adhering to the principles of faceless assessment as envisaged by the Act, are valid and maintainable? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning Sections 148 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contentions: The petitioners argued that the faceless assessment proceedings were initiated and conducted in a manner contrary to the provisions of the Act, specifically Section 144B, and that the notices issued under Section 148 were consequently invalid. They relied on the principles laid down by a Coordinate Bench of the same High Court in similar cases. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue, through its counsel, accepted notice and did not present any arguments against the petitioners' claims. The judgment notes that the counsel for the revenue was ad idem with the counsel for the petitioner, indicating no opposition to the relief sought.

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

143 IN TH DINESH KUM

INCOME TAX

CORAM: H

H

Present: M M

M f

* SANJEEV PR

1.

N

2.

M on behalf of th

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 MAR

V X OFFICER AND OTHERS HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJ (Through Video Conferencin Mr. B.M. Monga, Advocate, and Mr. Rohit Kaura, Advocate for th 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 respondent-Income Tax Depa 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 22828-2024 (O&M) f Decision:09.09.2024

..…...Petitioners (s) V/s.

......Respondent(s) NJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA NJAY VASHISTH ng/Hybrid Mode) 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 n , f , Suresh Kumar 2024.09.10 09:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-22828-202

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 2024.09.10 09:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-22828-202

Assessing O consequential

5.

A

September 9, Ess Kay

Whether speak Whether Repor 024 (O&M) Officer u/s 148 dated 11.04 l proceedings are set aside. All pending applications also stan [SANJEEV , 2024 [SAN

king / reasoned :

Y rtable

:

Y 4.2023 (Annexure P-1), and nd disposed of accordingly.

V PRAKASH SHARMA] JUDGE

NJAY VASHISTH] JUDGE Yes / No Yes / No d Suresh Kumar 2024.09.10 09:36 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 →