KARAN SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/22821/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01119919202409 September 2024Bench: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal held that instructions issued by the Board, whether circulars or otherwise, cannot override statutory provisions or render them obsolete. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be mandatorily followed. The court reiterated its previous stance that authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their own satisfaction or convenience, causing hardship and confusion to assessees. Instructions and circulars can only supplement statutory provisions for implementation. Consequently, notices issued by the JAO u/s 148 dated 26.03.2024 and consequential proceedings, including those initiated without conducting faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B, were found to be contrary to the Act and accordingly set aside for want of jurisdiction. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act if so advised. The writ petitions were allowed, and interim orders stood merged with the final order.

What were the facts?

The petitioners, Karan Singh and others, challenged notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent consequential proceedings. The case was heard by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The revenue department was represented by Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal, Senior Standing Counsel. The court noted that the issue was similar to previously decided cases, specifically CWP No. 21509 of 2023 (Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others) and CWP No. 15745 of 2023 (Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others), both decided on July 19, 2024. The court was informed that both parties were in agreement regarding the resolution of the present petition based on these prior judgments.

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 thereafter, including those conducted without conducting faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B, are valid and in accordance with the law, particularly in light of Board instructions and statutory provisions. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that notices issued under Section 148 and subsequent proceedings were contrary to the provisions of the Act, especially when faceless assessment under Section 144B was not conducted. They relied on the principles laid down in prior judgments by the same court. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through its Senior Standing Counsel, accepted notice and agreed that the issue had been finally examined and concluded by the court in previous, similar writ petitions. They did not present any arguments contrary to the assessee's position based on the prior judgments.

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

137 IN TH KARAN SING

INCOME TA SECTOR-12,

CORAM: H

Present: M M

M f

* SANJEEV PR

1.

N 2. M on behalf of th 3. B present petiti CWP No.215 decided on 29 2024 titled a decided on 19

C i o o HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA CHANDIGAR

CWP-2 Date of GH

V AX OFFICER, WARD-1, KA KARNAL, HARYANA, AND OTH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJ (Through Video Conferencin Mr. B.M. Monga, Advocate, and Mr. Rohit Kaura, Advocate for th Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal, Senior S for the respondent-Income Tax D ***** RAKASH SHARMA, J. (Oral) Notice of motion. Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal, Senior S he respondent-Income Tax Depa Both the counsel are ad idem ion stands finally examined an 509 of 2023 titled as Jasjit Singh 9.07.2024, and by the Coordina as Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. 9.07.2024. This Court in Jasjit Si “16. We are in agreement with Coordinate Bench and hold t instructions by the Board could n override statutory provisions or t obsolete. Legislative enactmen AB AND HARYANA AT RH 22821-2024 (O&M) f Decision:09.09.2024

..…...Petitioners (s) V/s. ARNAL, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, HERS

......Respondent(s) NJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA NJAY VASHISTH ng/Hybrid Mode) d he petitioner. Standing Counsel, Department Standing Counsel accepts notice artment that the issue involved in the nd concluded by this Court in h vs. Union of India and others, ate Bench in CWP No.15745 of . Union of India and others, Singh (supra) held as under: the view taken by the that such circular or not have been issued to to make them otiose or nts having financial

) e e n , f , Suresh Kumar 2024.09.10 09:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-22821-202

i m S S a s a t a s i 1 o s w 1 C u p f o p d 3 f 1 l A 2 o p 4. K aforesaid term 024 (O&M) Page 2 of 3

implications 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 implementation. 17. In view of the aforesaid d occasion to distinguish or take suggested by the learned counse what has already been held by th 18. Keeping in view the law Coordinate Bench (supra), notic under Section 148 of the proceedings initiated thereafter w faceless assessment as envisage of the Act, 1961, have been foun provisions of the Act, 1961 an dated 28.02.2023, 16.03.202 30.03.2023 and order dated 30. for want of jurisdiction. 19. The respondents-revenue w liberty to follow the procedure a Act, 1961 and proceed according 20. All the writ petitions are order passed by the Court shall present order.” Keeping in view above, we a ms. The observations and order p e 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 discussion, there is no e a different view as el for the revenue from he Coordinate Bench. w laid down by the ces issued by the JAO Act, 1961 and the without conducting the ed under Section 144B d to be contrary to the nd accordingly notices 23, 20.03.2024 and 03.2023, are set aside would be, however, at as laid down under the gly, if so advised. allowed. The interim stand merged with the allow this Writ Petition in the passed above shall apply mutatis e s Suresh Kumar 2024.09.10 09:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-22821-202

mutandis to th Assessing O consequential 5. A

September 9, Ess Kay

Whether speak Whether Repor 024 (O&M) Page 3 of 3

he present case. Accordingly, no Officer u/s 148 dated 26.03 l proceedings are set aside. All pending applications also stan [SANJEEV , 2024 [SAN

king / reasoned :

Y rtable

Y otice issued by the Jurisdictional 3.2024 (Annexure P-1), and nd disposed of accordingly.

V PRAKASH SHARMA] JUDGE

NJAY VASHISTH] JUDGE Yes / No Yes / No l d Suresh Kumar 2024.09.10 09:36 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 →