HARJINDER KAUR vs. PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX NWR AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/17541/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01095669202413 August 2024Bench: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that circulars or instructions issued by the Board could not override statutory provisions or render them otiose. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed strictly. The Court found that authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship to assessees, and that instructions and circulars can only supplement statutory provisions. Consequently, notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, and proceedings initiated thereafter without conducting faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B, were found to be contrary to the Act and set aside for want of jurisdiction. The Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the notice and order dated 08.04.2024. Other questions raised by the petitioner were not pressed and were dismissed as not pressed. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, if advised.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Harjinder Kaur, filed a writ petition challenging an order and notice dated 08.04.2024. The respondents are the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, NWR, Chandigarh, and others. The High Court noted that the issue raised in this writ petition had been adjudicated in a batch of writ petitions, with the lead case being Jasjit Singh Vs. Union of India and Others (CWP-21509-2023). In that lead case, the Court had held notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) as unjustified. The present writ petition was decided based on the findings in the lead case.

What were the issues?

1. Whether notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings initiated without conducting faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act, are contrary to the provisions of the Act, 1961 and liable to be set aside for want of jurisdiction. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner, by reference to the lead case, implicitly argued that the notices and proceedings were unjustified and contrary to law, particularly concerning the non-adherence to faceless assessment procedures. The petitioner relied on the decision in Jasjit Singh Vs. Union of India and Others. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through its counsel, argued that there was occasion to distinguish or take a different view from what had already been held by a Coordinate Bench. However, the Court found no basis for this argument.

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-17541-2024 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 107 CWP-17541-2024

Decided on : 13.08.2024 Harjinder Kaur . . . Petitioner(s) Versus Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, NWR, Aayakar Bhawan, Chandigarh and others . . . Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH PRESENT: Mr. Rohit Sud, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Mr. Yogesh Putney, Sr. Standing Counsel and Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Sr. Standing Counsel for the respondents – revenue. **** SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

, J. (Oral) 1. Notice of motion. 2. Mr. Yogesh Putney, Sr. Standing Counsel and Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Sr. Standing Counsel, accept notice for the respondents - revenue. 3. Learned counsel for both the sides are ad idem that the issue raised in this writ petition stands finally adjudicated by this Court vide order dated 29.07.2024 in a bunch of Writ Petitions in which the lead case is CWP-21509-2023 titled as Jasjit Singh Vs. Union of India and Others

, whereby this Court has held the notice issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer as unjustified. 4. The Court has passed the following order:- “14. xxx xxx xxx xxx 15. xxx xxx xxx xxxx JAWALA RAM 2024.08.14 15:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

CWP-17541-2024 - 2 - 16. We are in agreement with the view taken by the Coordinate Bench and hold that such circular or instructions by the Board could not have been issued to override statutory provisions or to make them otiose or obsolete. Legislative enactments having financial implications are required to be followed strictly and mandatorily. By exercising the powers contained in Sections 119 and 120 of the Act, 1961 as well as Section 144B (7 & 8), the authorities cannot be allowed to usurp the legal provisions to their own satisfaction and convenience causing hardship to the assessees. It also leaves confusion in the minds of the taxpayers. In the opinion of this Court, instructions and circulars can be issued only for the purpose of supplementing the statutory provisions and for their implementation. 17. In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no occasion to distinguish or take a different view as suggested by the learned counsel for the revenue from what has already been held by the Coordinate Bench. 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 JAWALA RAM 2024.08.14 15:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

CWP-17541-2024 - 3 - 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. 21. xxx xxx xxxx 22. xxx xxx xxxx” 5. In view of the above, we allow this Writ Petition in the aforesaid terms. Accordingly, order and notice dated 08.04.2024 are set- aside. The other questions raised in the present Writ Petition are not pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Accordingly, the same are dismissed as not pressed. 6. Pending misc. 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 15:16 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 →