MALWINDER SINGH SANGARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD NO 1, PATHANKOT AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/18655/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01101115202405 August 2024Bench: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal, agreeing with the view taken by a coordinate bench, held that instructions or circulars issued by the Board could not override statutory provisions or render them obsolete. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed strictly. The authorities cannot usurp legal provisions to their own satisfaction or convenience, causing hardship to assessees and confusion. Instructions and circulars can only supplement statutory provisions for their implementation. Consequently, the notices issued by the Joint Assessing Officer (JAO) under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, and the proceedings initiated thereafter without conducting faceless assessments as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act, 1961, were found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act. The notices dated 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2023, 24.03.2023, and 30.03.2023, and the order dated 30.03.2023, were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly. All writ petitions were allowed, and the interim order passed by the Court stood merged with the present order. Other questions raised were not pressed and were dismissed.

What were the facts?

The petitioners, including Malwinder Singh Sangari, filed writ petitions challenging notices and proceedings initiated under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent faceless assessment proceedings under Section 144B. The assessment years are not explicitly stated. The core of the challenge was that the notices and proceedings were issued without jurisdiction and in contravention of statutory provisions. The revenue, represented by the Assessing Officer, had issued these notices. The procedural history indicates that this court had previously dealt with similar issues in a lead case, Jasjit Singh Vs. Union of India and Others, where a coordinate bench had held the notices issued by the Assessing Officer as unjustified. The present petitions were heard along with connected writ petitions.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the subsequent faceless assessment proceedings under Section 144B of the Act, were issued without jurisdiction and in contravention of statutory provisions? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning Sections 148 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contention: The notices and proceedings were contrary to the provisions of the Act and were issued without jurisdiction. The petitioner relied on the decision of a coordinate bench in Jasjit Singh Vs. Union of India and Others, which had held similar notices as unjustified. Revenue's Contention: The revenue did not present any argument to distinguish or take a different view from what was already held by the coordinate bench. The judgment notes that the learned counsel for the revenue did not suggest a different view.

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

128 IN TH MALWINDER

INCOME TAX

CORAM: H

Present: M f M M f

* SANJEEV PR

1.

N 2. M Urvashi Dhug as she is not a 3. L raised in thes Court vide or lead case is C Others, wher Assessing Off 4. T “1 1 HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA CHANDIGAR

CWP-1 Date of R SINGH SANGARI

V X OFFICER, WARD-1, PATHAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJ Mr. Shubhendu Bhattacharyya, A for the petitioner(s). Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Senior Stan Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Senior Stan for the respondents. ***** RAKASH SHARMA, J. (Oral) Notice of motion. Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Senior Stan gga, Senior Standing counsel ac available due to bereavement in t Learned counsel for both the si se connected Writ Petitions sta rder dated 29.07.2024 in a bunch CWP-21509-2023 titled as Jasjit eby this Court has held the not ficer as unjustified. The Court has passed the followi 14. xxx xxx xxx xxx 15. xxx xxx xxx xxxx AB AND HARYANA AT RH 18655-2024 (O&M) f Decision:05.08.2024

..…...Petitioners (s) V/s. NKOT AND OTHERS …......Respondent(s) NJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA NJAY VASHISTH Advocate, nding Counsel for nding Counsel nding Counsel, on behalf of Ms. cepts notice for the respondents the family. ides are ad idem that the issue ands finally adjudicated by this h of Writ Petitions in which the t Singh Vs. Union of India and tice issued by the Jurisdictional ing order:- ) . s e s e d l Suresh Kumar 2024.08.07 09:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-18655-2024

1 C t p e f c S t c m a s i 1 t l b 1 B t c 1 p 2 d 4 (O&M) Page 2 of 3

16.

We are in agreement wi Coordinate Bench and hold that su 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 ith the view taken by the uch circular or instructions by 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. Suresh Kumar 2024.08.07 09:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-18655-2024

1 f p 2 p 2 2

5.

I terms. Accord aside. The oth by the learned as not pressed 6. P

August 5, 202 Ess Kay

Whether speak Whether Repor

4 (O&M) Page 3 of 3

19.

The respondents-revenue wo follow the procedure as laid dow proceed accordingly, if so advised. 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, order/notice dated 12.0 her questions raised in the prese d counsel for the petitioner. Acco d. Pending applications, if any, shal [SANJEEV 24 [SAN

king / reasoned :

Y rtable

Y ould be, however, at liberty to wn under the Act, 1961 and allowed. The interim order rged with the present order. his Writ Petition in the aforesaid 03.2024 and 29.03.2024 are set ent Writ Petition are not pressed ordingly, the same are dismissed ll stand disposed of accordingly.

V PRAKASH SHARMA] JUDGE

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

Suresh Kumar 2024.08.07 09:20 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 →