KULBIR SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CWP/22953/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01120683202410 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, setting aside the notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148A(b) dated 09.08.2024 and 20.08.2024, the order issued under Section 148A(d) dated 28.08.2024, and the notice issued under Section 148 dated 28.08.2024, along with consequential proceedings. The Court's reasoning was based on its previous decision in Jasjit Singh, which held that circulars or instructions by the Board cannot override statutory provisions. The Court found that legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed strictly. It was held that authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship to assessees, and that instructions and circulars can only supplement statutory provisions. The ratio decidendi is that proceedings initiated without adhering to the mandatory faceless assessment procedure under Section 144B are without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act if so advised.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Kulbir Singh, filed a writ petition challenging notices and an order issued by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Amritsar. The respondent, the revenue, accepted notice. Both parties agreed that the issue was concluded by previous judgments of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in CWP No.21509 of 2023 (Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others) decided on July 29, 2024, and CWP No.15745 of 2024 (Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others) decided on July 19, 2024. The High Court in the cited cases had examined the validity of certain circulars and instructions issued by the Board and their impact on statutory provisions, particularly concerning faceless assessment procedures.

What were the issues?

1. Whether notices issued under Section 148A(b) dated 09.08.2024 and 20.08.2024, order issued under Section 148A(d) dated 28.08.2024, and notice issued under Section 148 dated 28.08.2024, along with consequential proceedings, are liable to be set aside for want of jurisdiction, considering the mandate of faceless assessment under Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee's Contention: The assessee relied on the judgments in Jasjit Singh and Jatinder Singh Bhangu, arguing that the proceedings initiated without conducting faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B were contrary to the Act and thus without jurisdiction. Revenue's Contention: The revenue did not record any specific arguments against the assessee's position, having accepted notice and agreeing that the matter was concluded by previous judgments. The Court noted that the revenue's counsel suggested a distinction from the previous judgments, but the Court found no occasion to take a different view.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 119,Section 120,Section 144B,Section 148,Section 148A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-22953-2024 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 139 CWP-22953-2024

Decided on : 10.09.2024 Kulbir Singh . . . Petitioner(s) Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Amritsar . . . Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH PRESENT: Mr. Salil Kapoor, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Sr. Standing Counsel for the respondents – revenue. **** SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

, J. (Oral) 1. Notice of motion. 2. Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Sr. Standing Counsel, accepts 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 make them otiose or obsolete. Legislative enactments having JAWALA RAM 2024.09.11 13:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

CWP-22953-2024 - 2 - 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-22953-2024 - 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, notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer u/s 148A(b) dated 09.08.2024 and 20.08.2024, order issued u/s 148A(d) dated 28.08.2024, and notice issued under Section 148 dated 28.08.2024, as well as 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 119

All 707 judgments and leading authorities on Section 119 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →