MANISH KUMAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/19681/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01104875202413 August 2024Author: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the writ petition. It relied on its own previous judgment in CWP-21509-2023 (Jasjit Singh Vs. Union of India and Others) and a Coordinate Bench's judgment in CWP-15745-2024. The Court held that notices issued under Section 148 and subsequent proceedings initiated without conducting a faceless assessment as per Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were contrary to the Act and set aside. Specifically, notices dated 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2024, and 30.03.2023, along with an order dated 30.03.2023, were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the prescribed procedure if advised. The challenge to the vires of Explanation 2(iv) to Section 148 was expressly left open for future adjudication. The operative direction was to set aside the notice dated 31.03.2024 and consequential proceedings.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Manish Kumar, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana challenging certain actions of the Income Tax Officer and others. The petitioner sought to challenge the vires of Explanation 2(iv) to Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. However, the petitioner's counsel stated that the challenge to the vires could be left open and the case disposed of in terms of a previous judgment by a Coordinate Bench in CWP-15745-2024. The petitioner also stated that other grounds in the petition were not being pressed. The revenue, through its Senior Standing Counsel, accepted notice.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the proceedings initiated thereafter, without conducting a faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act, are contrary to the provisions of the Act and liable to be set aside for want of jurisdiction? (Question of law, turning on Section 148 and Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's contentions: The petitioner did not press grounds other than the challenge to the vires of Explanation 2(iv) to Section 148. The petitioner relied on the judgment in CWP-15745-2024, titled Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others, decided on 19.07.2024, for disposal of the case. Revenue's contentions: The revenue, through its Senior Standing Counsel, accepted notice of motion.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-19681-2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 114 CWP-19681-2024

Decided on : 13.08.2024 Manish Kumar . . . Petitioner(s) Versus Income Tax officer and others . . . Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH PRESENT: Mr. Rana Gurtej Singh, Advocate and Mr. Nikhil Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Sr. Standing Counsel for the respondents – revenue. **** SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

, J. (Oral)

1.

Notice of motion.

2.

Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Senior Standing Counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits so far as challenge to vires to explanation 2 (iv) to Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the same may be left open and the case of the petitioner can be disposed of in terms of judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench in CWP-15745-2024, 2024.08.14 18:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

CWP-19681-2024

5.

In CWP-21509-2023, titled as Jasjit Singh Vs. Union of India and Others and other bunch of petitions, decided by us on 29.07.2024, we have also concurred with the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench in CWP-15745-2024 (Supra) and held as under:- “18. Keeping in view the law laid down by the Coordinate Bench (supra), notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and the proceedings initiated thereafter without conducting the faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act, 1961, have been found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act, 1961 and accordingly notices dated 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2024 and 30.03.2023 and order dated 30.03.2023, are set aside for want of jurisdiction.

19.

The respondents-revenue would be, however, at liberty to follow the procedure as laid down under the Act, 1961 and proceed accordingly, if so advised.

20.

All the writ petitions are allowed. The interim order passed by the Court shall stand merged with the present order.”

6.

In view thereof, the Writ Petition is allowed and notice dated 31.03.2024 as well as the consequential proceedings are set aside. The observations and order passed above shall apply mutatis mutandis to the present case. However, the respondents-revenue would be at liberty to follow the procedure as laid down under the Income Tax Act, 1961 and proceed accordingly, if so advised. It is made clear that challenge to vires to explanation 2(iv) to Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is left open for proper adjudication. JAWALA RAM 2024.08.14 18:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

CWP-19681-2024

7.

Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly. (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE August 13, 2024 J.Ram Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No JAWALA RAM 2024.08.14 18:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity 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 →