BINDIA GUPTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/21279/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01110172202429 August 2024Bench: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal, following the decision of a Coordinate Bench in Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others (CWP No. 21509 of 2023), held that circulars or instructions issued by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or make them otiose. Legislative enactments must be followed strictly and mandatorily. The Court found that exercising powers under Sections 119 and 120 of the Act, 1961, along with Sections 144B(7 & 8), does not permit authorities to usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship to assessees and confusion. Consequently, notices dated 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2024, 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, if so advised. The writ petition was allowed, and the interim order stood merged with the final order.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Bindia Gupta, filed a writ petition challenging notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings, including an order dated 23.03.2024 (Annexure P-3). The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated for the petitioner's case, but the challenge pertains to notices and proceedings initiated under the faceless assessment scheme. The respondents are the Income Tax Officer, Ludhiana, and others (Revenue). The procedural history involves the issuance of notices and the initiation of proceedings which the petitioner contends are without jurisdiction. The Revenue, through its Sr. Standing Counsel, accepted notice and stated that the issue is covered by a previous judgment of the same Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether notices issued 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, 1961, are contrary to the provisions of the Act, 1961, and thus without jurisdiction? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner implicitly argues that the notices and proceedings are invalid due to non-compliance with the faceless assessment scheme mandated by Section 144B. The petition is allowed based on a prior judgment which held that circulars cannot override statutory provisions and that authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue, through its Sr. Standing Counsel, fairly stated that the issue in the present petition is covered by the judgment in Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others (CWP No. 21509 of 2023), decided on 29.07.2024. This implies the Revenue does not contest the petitioner's claim based on the precedent.

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-21279 of 2 162

IN TH Bindia Gupta Income Tax O CORAM: H

H Present: M

M SANJEEV P

1.

Notice 2. Mr. Ra respond present CWP N others, “ C in o o fo c S u c le a 1 o 2024(O&M)

HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA CHANDIGAR

Vs.

Officer, Ludhiana and others **** HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAN HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAN **** Mr. Nikhil Goyal, Advocate for t Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Sr. Standing **** RAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) of motion. anvijay Singh, Sr. Standing Coun dents/Revenue and fairly states t petition stands covered by the ju No.21509 of 2023 titled as Jasji decided on 29.07.2024, wherein “16. We are in agreement with Coordinate Bench and hold th nstructions by the Board could n override statutory provisions or t obsolete. Legislative enactments followed strictly and mandatorily. B contained Sections 119 and 120 of Section 144B (7 & 8), the authoriti usurp the legal provisions to thei convenience causing hardship to eaves confusion in the minds of th and supplementing the statutory pro 17. In view of the aforesaid d occasion to distinguish or take Page 1 of 2 AB AND HARYANA AT RH CWP-21279-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 29.08.2024 . . . . Petitioner . . . . Respondents NJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA NJAY VASHISTH the petitioner. g counsel for the respondents. ) nsel accepts notice on behalf of s that the issue involved in the udgment passed by this Court in it Singh vs. Union of India and n this Court held as under: the view taken by the hat such circular or not have been issued to to make them otiose or having financial be By exercising the powers the Act, 1961 as well as ies cannot be allowed to ir own satisfaction and the assessees. It also he taxpayers instructions ovisions and discussion, there is no e a different view as ) 4 r f e n d RASHMI 2024.08.29 17:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-21279 of 2 s h 1 C u in a 1 th 1 3 1 l 1 2 p o 3. Keepin terms. mutand (Annex consequ 4. All pen

August 29, 202 Rashmi 1. Whethe 2. Whethe 2024(O&M)

suggested by the learned counsel fo has already been held by the Coord 18. Keeping in view the law Coordinate Bench (supra), notic under Section 148 of the Act, 196 nitiated thereafter without con assessment as envisaged under Se 1961, have been found to be contr he Act, 1961 and accordingly no 16.03.2023, 20.03.2024 and 30.03 30.03.2023, are set aside for want o 19. The respondents-revenue w iberty to follow the procedure as la 1961 and proceed accordingly, if so 20. All the writ petitions are allo passed by the Court shall stand m order.” ng in view above, we allow this The observations and order pa dis to the present case. Accord xure P-3) under Section 14 uential proceedings are hereby s nding applications also stand disp

(SANJ 24 r speaking/reasoned?

Y r reportable?

Y Page 2 of 2 or the revenue from what dinate Bench. w laid down by the ces issued by the JAO 61 and the proceedings nducting the faceless ection 144B of the Act, rary to the provisions of otices dated 28.02.2023, 3.2023 and order dated of jurisdiction. would be, however, at aid down under the Act, o advised. owed. The interim order merged with the present s Writ Petition in the aforesaid assed above shall apply mutatis dingly, notice dated 23.03.2024 8 of Income Tax Act and et aside. posed of accordingly. JEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE

(SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No d s 4 d RASHMI 2024.08.29 17:34 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 →