ASHU MOHAN PUNCHHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CWP/23391/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01122941202413 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 make them obsolete. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed strictly and mandatorily. The authorities cannot usurp legal provisions to their own satisfaction and convenience, causing hardship to assessees and confusion. Circulars and instructions can only be issued for supplementing statutory provisions and for their implementation. The Court found that notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, and the proceedings initiated thereafter without conducting the faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B, were found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act, 1961. Consequently, the notices dated 28.02.2023, 20.03.2023, 16.03.2023, 30.03.2023, and the order dated 30.03.2023, along with the notice dated 30.08.2024 under Section 148, and all consequential proceedings, were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure as laid down under the Act, 1961, if so advised. The writ petitions were allowed.

What were the facts?

The petitioners, Ashu Moha and others, challenged notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings, including those under faceless assessment. The Assessing Officer issued a notice dated 30.08.2024 under Section 148. The petitioners argued that the faceless assessment proceedings, initiated without proper jurisdiction and in contravention of statutory provisions, were invalid. The revenue, represented by the Income Tax Department, accepted notice. The High Court was considering the validity of these notices and the subsequent assessment proceedings.

What were the issues?

1. Whether notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings initiated under the faceless assessment scheme, are valid when they allegedly contravene statutory provisions and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court and the High Court in similar cases? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning Section 148 and Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contention: The petitioners argued that instructions by the Board, if they override statutory provisions or make them obsolete, are not permissible. They contended that legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed strictly and mandatorily. The authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship and confusion. They relied on the principle that circulars and instructions can only supplement statutory provisions and aid implementation. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through its counsel, accepted notice and did not present a separate argument against the precedent cited by the petitioners. They acknowledged that the issue was already examined and concluded by the Court in 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

111 IN TH ASHU MOHA

ASSISTANT AYKAR BHAW

CORAM: H

Present: M M M

M M f

* SANJEEV PR

1.

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

C i o o i HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA CHANDIGAR

CWP-2 Date of AN PUNCHHI

V COMMISSIONER OF INCOM WAN, CHANDIGARH

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJ Ms. Radhika Suri, Senior Advoca Mr. Abhinav Narang, Advocate a Ms. Pranika Singla, Advocate for Mr. Yogesh Putney, Senior Stand Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Standing Co for the respondent-Income Tax D ***** RAKASH SHARMA, J. (Oral) Notice of motion. Mr. Yogesh Putney, Senior Stan respondent-Income Tax Departm 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 implications are required to be AB AND HARYANA AT RH 23391-2024 (O&M) f Decision:13.09.2024 ..…...Petitioners (s) V/s. ME TAX, DCIT/ACIT, CIR1(1), ......Respondent(s) NJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA NJAY VASHISTH ate, assisted by and r the petitioner. ding Counsel, with ounsel, Department nding Counsel, accepts notice on ment 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 followed strictly and

n e n , f , Suresh Kumar 2024.09.13 16:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-23391-20

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 mutandis to th 024 (O&M) Page 2 of 3

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 he present case. Accordingly, no 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 otice issued by the Jurisdictional e s l Suresh Kumar 2024.09.13 16:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-23391-20

Assessing O consequential 5. A

September 13 Ess Kay

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

Officer u/s 148 dated 30.08 l proceedings are set aside. All pending applications also stan [SANJEEV 3, 2024 [SAN

king / reasoned :

Y rtable

Y 8.2024 (Annexure P-1), and nd disposed of accordingly.

V PRAKASH SHARMA] JUDGE

NJAY VASHISTH] JUDGE Yes / No Yes / No d Suresh Kumar 2024.09.13 16:52 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 →