INDER KUMAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/17679/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01095754202429 July 2024Author: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that circulars or instructions by the Board could only be issued for supplementing statutory provisions and for their implementation, not to override them or make them obsolete. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed strictly. Authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their own satisfaction and convenience, as this causes hardship and confusion for taxpayers. The Court agreed with the view of a Coordinate Bench that such actions were impermissible. Consequently, the notices dated 24.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2023, 24.03.2023, and 30.03.2023, along with the order dated 15.04.2024 passed under Section 148A(d) and the notice dated 15.04.2024 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961. The writ petitions were allowed, and the interim order stood merged with the final order.

What were the facts?

The petitioners filed writ petitions challenging notices and orders issued by the Assessing Officer. The core of the dispute revolved around the procedure followed in conducting faceless assessments under Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioners contended that the notices and subsequent proceedings were vitiated due to procedural irregularities and a lack of jurisdiction. The revenue, represented by the Senior Standing Counsel, accepted notice. The High Court noted that the issues raised had been finally adjudicated by a Coordinate Bench in a previous bunch of writ petitions titled Jasjit Singh Vs. Union of India and Others, where the notice issued by the Assessing Officer was held to be unjustified. The present petitions were disposed of in light of that prior decision.

What were the issues?

1. Whether notices issued by the JAO under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and proceedings initiated thereafter, including the notice dated 15.04.2024 under Section 148 of the Act, are valid when conducted without adhering to the procedure envisaged under Section 144B of the Act, 1961? (Question of law and mixed fact and law, turning on Section 144B). Assessee's Contention: The notices and proceedings were contrary to the provisions of the Act, 1961, and caused hardship. Circulars and instructions issued by the Board could not override statutory provisions or make them obsolete, especially when they had financial implications and were required to be followed strictly. Authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their own satisfaction or convenience, causing confusion. Revenue's Contention: The revenue's counsel did not present any distinct arguments to distinguish or take a different view from the judgment of the Coordinate Bench.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 119,Section 120,Section 144B,Section 148,Section 148A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
119 IN TH INDER KUMA INCOME TAX CORAM: H H Present: M M f M f * SANJEEV PR 1. N 2. M on behalf of th 3. L raised in thes Court vide or which the lea India and O jurisdictional 4. T “1 1 1 C HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA CHANDIGAR CWP-1 Date of MAR V X OFFICER, WARD-1, SIRSA A HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJ Mr. B.M. Monga, Advocate, Mr. Rohit Kaura, Advocate and M for the petitioner(s). Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal, Senior S for the respondents. ***** RAKASH SHARMA, J. (Oral) Notice of motion. Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal, Senior S he respondents. Learned counsel for both the si se connected Writ Petitions sta rder dated 29.07.2024 passed i ad case is CWP-21509-2023 title Others, whereby this Court has Assessing Officer as unjustified The Court has passed the followi 14 xxx xxx xxx xxx 15 xxx xxx xxx xxxx 16. We are in agreement wi Coordinate Bench and hold that su AB AND HARYANA AT RH 17679-2024 (O&M) f Decision:29.07.2024 ..…...Petitioners (s) V/s. AND OTHERS …......Respondent(s) NJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA NJAY VASHISTH Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate Standing Counsel, Standing Counsel, accepts notice ides are ad idem that the issue ands finally adjudicated by this in a bunch of Writ Petitions in ed as Jasjit Singh Vs. Union of held the notice issued by the d.

ing order:- ith the view taken by the uch circular or instructions by ) e e s n f e Suresh Kumar 2024.08.03 10:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-17679-2024

t p e f c S t c m a s i 1 t l b 1 B t c 1 p 2 d 1 f p 4 (O&M) the Board could not have been provisions or to make them otio enactments having financial impl followed strictly and mandatorily contained in Sections 119 and 120 Section 144B (7 & 8), the authoritie the legal provisions to their own causing hardship to the assessees. I minds of the taxpayers. In the opin and circulars can be issued supplementing the statutory p mplementation.

17.

In view of the aforesaid dis to distinguish or take a differen earned counsel for the revenue fro by the Coordinate Bench.

18.

Keeping in view the law la Bench (supra), notices issued by th the Act, 1961 and the proceeding conducting the faceless assessmen 144B of the Act, 1961, have been provisions of the Act, 1961 and 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 20.03.202 dated 30.03.2023, are set aside for 19. The respondents-revenue wo follow the procedure as laid dow proceed accordingly, if so advised. issued to override statutory ose or obsolete. Legislative lications are required to be y. By exercising the powers 0 of the Act, 1961 as well as es cannot be allowed to usurp satisfaction and convenience It also leaves confusion in the ion of this Court, instructions only for the purpose of provisions and for their scussion, there is no occasion nt view as suggested by the m what has already been held aid down by the Coordinate he JAO under Section 148 of gs initiated thereafter without t as envisaged under Section n found to be contrary to the d accordingly notices dated 24 and 30.03.2023 and order want of jurisdiction. ould be, however, at liberty to wn under the Act, 1961 and Suresh Kumar 2024.08.03 10:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-17679-2024

2 p 2 2

5.

I terms. Accord 148A (d) of t under Section 6. P

July 29, 2024 Ess Kay

Whether speak Whether Repor

4 (O&M)

20.

All the writ petitions are passed by the Court shall stand mer 21. xxx xxx xxxx 22. xxx xxx xxxx” In view of the above, we allow th dingly, impugned order dated 15 the Income Tax Act, 1961 and n 148 of the Income Tax Act, 196 Pending applications, if any, shal [SANJEEV 4 [SAN

king / reasoned :

Y rtable

:

Y allowed. The interim order rged with the present order. his Writ Petition in the aforesaid 5.04.2024 passed under Section notice dated 15.04.2024 issued 61 are set aside. ll stand disposed of accordingly.

V PRAKASH SHARMA] JUDGE

NJAY VASHISTH] JUDGE Yes / No Yes / No d n d

Suresh Kumar 2024.08.03 10:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

More judgments on Section 119

All 707 judgments and leading authorities on Section 119 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →