SUNIL NAYYAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/22409/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01117884202405 September 2024Bench: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that instructions issued by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or render them otiose. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed strictly. The authorities cannot use powers under Sections 119 and 120 of the Act, as well as Section 144B (7 & 8), to usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship and confusion to assessees. Instructions can only supplement statutory provisions for implementation. Therefore, notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings initiated without conducting faceless assessment under Section 144B, were found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act. Consequently, notices dated 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2024, 30.03.2023, and the order dated 30.03.2023, were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The revenue was at liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act and proceed accordingly. All pending applications were also disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Sunil Nayyar, filed a writ petition (CWP-22409-2024) before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The respondents are the Income Tax Officer and others (Revenue). The petition challenges notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings. The High Court notes that the issue has been finally examined and concluded in similar writ petitions: CWP No. 215 of 2023 (Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India) decided on 29.07.2024, and CWP No. 157 of 2024 (Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India) decided on 19.07.2024. The court refers to the reasoning provided in the Jasjit Singh judgment.

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 and thus without jurisdiction? Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not explicitly record separate contentions for the assessee in this specific writ petition. However, the court's decision implies acceptance of the assessee's position that the notices and proceedings were invalid. Revenue's Contention: The learned counsel for the revenue suggested distinguishing or taking a different view from the Coordinate Bench's decision in Jasjit Singh (supra). The revenue's argument implicitly defends the validity of the notices and proceedings initiated.

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-22409-202 143

IN TH Sunil Nayyar Income Tax O CORAM: H

H Present: M

SANJEEV P

1.

Notice 2. Ms. Ur respond 3. Both th petition No.215 decided No.157 and oth held as 24 (O&M)

Page 1 of 3 HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA CHANDIGAR

Vs.

Officer and others **** HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAN HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAN **** Mr. Nikhil Goyal, Advocate for Mr. Rana Gurtej Singh, Advocate Ms. Urvashi Dugga, Sr. Standing for the respondents/Revenue. **** RAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) of motion. rvashi Dugga, Sr. Standing Coun dents/Revenue. 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 hers, decided on 19.07.2024. Th under:

AB AND HARYANA AT RH CWP-22409-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 05.09.2024 . . . . Petitioner . . . . Respondents NJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA NJAY VASHISTH e for the petitioner. g Counsel ) nsel accepts notice on behalf of 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 his Court in Jasjit Singh (supra)

) 4

r s f t P , P a ) MOHIT GOYAL 2024.09.05 17:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-22409-202 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 3 f 24 (O&M)

Page 2 of 3 “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 30.03.2023 and order dated 30. for want of jurisdiction.

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 03.2023, are set aside

MOHIT GOYAL 2024.09.05 17:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-22409-202 a t i w 4. Keepin terms. mutand No.1 u proceed 5. All pen

September 05 Mohit goyal 1. Whethe 2. Whethe 24 (O&M)

Page 3 of 3 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. According under Section 148 dated 29.03 dings are set aside. nding applications also stand disp

(SANJ , 2024 r speaking/reasoned?

Y r reportable?

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 gly, notice issued by respondent 3.2024(P-3), and consequential posed of accordingly. JEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE

(SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No

d s t l MOHIT GOYAL 2024.09.05 17:23 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 →