AMIT YADAV vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1) GURUGRAM

PDF · subscribers
CWP/16813/2023HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01093464202306 November 2024Bench: 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, holding that notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings, including the consequential orders dated 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2024, and 30.03.2023, were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The Court agreed with the view taken by a coordinate bench in Jasjit Singh (supra) and held that instructions by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or make them otiose. The Court emphasized that legislative enactments having financial implications must be followed strictly and mandatorily. By exercising powers contained in Sections 119 and 120 of the Act, as well as Section 144B (7 & 8), the authorities cannot usurp legal provisions to their own satisfaction and convenience, causing hardship and confusion. The ratio decidendi is that faceless assessment procedures mandated by Section 144B are statutory and must be followed, and any proceedings initiated without adhering to these provisions are without jurisdiction. The Revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act and proceed accordingly, if so advised. All pending applications were also disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Amit Yadav, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana challenging notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings. The petitioner argued that these proceedings were initiated without conducting a proper assessment as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act. The Court noted that the issue involved was similar to those decided in previous writ petitions, specifically CWP No. 215 of 2023 (Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India) and CWP No. 157 of 2024 (Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India). The Revenue was represented by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Gurugram. The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated, nor is the specific amount in dispute. The procedural history involves the issuance of notices under Section 148 and consequential 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 without conducting a faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act, are contrary to the provisions of the Act. Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the assessment proceedings were initiated without adhering to the mandatory provisions of Section 144B of the Act, which mandates faceless assessments. They contended that the authorities could not usurp legal provisions to their own satisfaction and convenience, causing hardship and confusion to taxpayers. The petitioner relied on the decisions of coordinate benches in similar cases. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue, represented by the learned Senior Standing Counsel, did not present any arguments to distinguish the present case from the precedents cited by the petitioner. The judgment notes that the counsel for the revenue was not in a position to distinguish the case from the decision in Jasjit Singh (supra).

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

CWP-16813-202 103+249

IN TH AMIT YADA ASSISTANT GURUGRAM CORAM: H

H Present: M M

f SANJEEV P

CM-18056-CW

A is allowed.

R Main case 1. Both th petition No.215 decided No.157 23 (O&M) Page 1 of 3 HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA CHANDIGAR

AV Vs.

COMMISSIONER OF INCOM M **** HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAN HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAN **** Mr. Salil Kapoor, Advocate for Mr. Govind Rana, Advocate for t Mr. Varun Issar, Sr. Standing Co for the respondent/Revenue. **** RAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) WP-2024 Application for placing on record Registry to place the same at app he counsel are ad idem that the n stands finally examined and co 509 of 2023 titled as Jasjit Singh d on 29.07.2024, and by the 745 of 2024 titled as Jatinder Sin AB AND HARYANA AT RH CM-18056-CWP-2024 in/and CWP-16813-2023 (O&M) Date of Decision: 06.11.2024 . . . . Petitioner ME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1) . . . . Respondent NJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA NJAY VASHISTH the petitioner. ounsel ) d reply on behalf of respondents propriate place. e issue involved in the present oncluded by this Court in CWP h vs. Union of India and others, e Coordinate Bench in CWP ngh Bhangu vs. Union of India

d ) 4 r t s t P , P a MOHIT GOYAL 2024.11.08 13:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-16813-202 and oth held as b i o o i m S S a s a t a s i n s w C u i a A p d 23 (O&M) Page 2 of 3 hers, decided on 19.07.2024. Th under: “16. We are in agreemen by the Coordinate Bench and hol nstructions by the Board could n override statutory provisions or t obsolete. Legislative enactmen mplications are required to be 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 mplementation. 17. In view of the aforesa no occasion to distinguish or ta suggested by the learned counse what has already been held by th 18. Keeping in view the Coordinate Bench (supra), notic under Section 148 of the Act, 196 nitiated thereafter without con assessment as envisaged under Act, 1961, have been found to provisions of the Act, 1961 an dated 28.02.2023, 16.03.202 his Court in Jasjit Singh (supra) nt with the view taken ld that such circular or not have been issued to to make them otiose or nts having financial followed strictly and 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 aid discussion, there is ake a different view as el for the revenue from he Coordinate Bench. law laid down by the ces issued by the JAO 61 and the proceedings nducting the faceless r Section 144B of the o be contrary to the d accordingly notices 23, 20.03.2024 and

) MOHIT GOYAL 2024.11.08 13:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-16813-202 3 f a t i w 2. Keepin terms. mutand issued Jurisdic proceed 3. All pen

November 06, Mohit goyal 1. Whethe 2. Whethe 23 (O&M) Page 3 of 3 30.03.2023 and order dated 30. for want of jurisdiction. 19. The respondents-reven at liberty to follow the procedur the Act, 1961 and proceed accord 20. All the writ petition nterim order passed by the Cou with the present order.”

ng in view above, we allow this The observations and order pa dis to the present case. Accord under Section 148 of the ctional Assessing Officer as dings are set aside. nding applications also stand disp

(SANJ , 2024 r speaking/reasoned?

Y r reportable?

Y 03.2023, are set aside nue would be, however, re as laid down under dingly, if so advised. ns are allowed. The urt shall stand merged s Writ Petition in the aforesaid assed above shall apply mutatis dingly, notice dated 28.04.2023 Income Tax Act, 1961 by s well as the consequential posed of accordingly. JEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE

(SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No

d s 3 y l MOHIT GOYAL 2024.11.08 13:23 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 →