JASWINDER SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/22940/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01120947202410 September 2024Bench: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the writ petition. It held that circulars or instructions issued by the Board could not override statutory provisions or render them obsolete. Legislative enactments with financial implications are mandatory. Authorities exercising powers under Sections 119, 120, and 144B(7 & 8) of the Act cannot usurp legal provisions to their satisfaction and convenience, causing hardship. Instructions and circulars can only supplement statutory provisions for their implementation. Consequently, notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 and proceedings initiated thereafter without conducting faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act, 1961, were found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act. The specific 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, if advised. The present case was allowed mutatis mutandis, setting aside the notice issued by the JAO u/s 148 dated 27.03.2024, and consequential proceedings.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Jaswinder Singh, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The petition challenged notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings. The revenue, represented by the Income Tax Officer and others, accepted notice. Both parties agreed that the issue was concluded by previous decisions of the High Court in similar cases: CWP No.21509 of 2023 (Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others) decided on 29.07.2024, and CWP No.15745 of 2024 (Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others) decided on 19.07.2024. The core of the dispute revolved around the procedure followed for assessment.

What were the issues?

1. Whether notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings are valid when faceless assessment, as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act, was not conducted? (Question of law and fact, concerning Sections 148 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contention: The assessee implicitly argued, by relying on the cited judgments, that the notices and proceedings were contrary to the Act because faceless assessment was not conducted as mandated. The High Court's previous decisions indicated that circulars or instructions could not override statutory provisions or make them obsolete, and that legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed strictly. Authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship. Revenue's Contention: The revenue's counsel, while accepting notice, did not present any distinct arguments against the petitioner's reliance on the prior judgments. They were 'ad idem' that the issue was concluded by the Court's previous pronouncements.

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-22940-2024 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 128 CWP-22940-2024

Decided on : 10.09.2024 Jaswinder Singh . . . Petitioner(s) Versus Income Tax Officer and others . . . Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH PRESENT: Mr. B.M. Monga, Advocate and Mr. Rohit Kaura, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Mr. Yogesh Putney, Sr. Standing Counsel and Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, 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. Vaibhav Gupta, Sr. Standing Counsel, accept notice for the respondents – revenue. 3. Both the counsel are ad idem that the issue involved in the present petition stands finally examined and concluded by this Court in CWP No.21509 of 2023 titled as Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others, decided on 29.07.2024, and by the Coordinate Bench in CWP No.15745 of 2024 titled as Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others, decided on 19.07.2024. This Court in Jasjit Singh (supra) held as under: “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 JAWALA RAM 2024.09.11 13:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

CWP-22940-2024 - 2 - 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 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.” JAWALA RAM 2024.09.11 13:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

CWP-22940-2024 - 3 - 4. Keeping in view above, we allow this Writ Petition in the aforesaid terms. The observations and order passed above shall apply mutatis mutandis to the present case. Accordingly, notice issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer u/s 148 dated 27.03.2024, and consequential proceedings are set aside. 5. All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly. (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE September 10, 2024 J.Ram Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No JAWALA RAM 2024.09.11 13:34 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 →