DEVINDER PAUL SINGH SANDHU vs. PR CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CWP/23401/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01123458202413 September 2024Bench: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, following its previous decisions in Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others and Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others, held that instructions issued by the Board under Section 119 and Section 120 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, cannot override statutory provisions or render them obsolete. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed mandatorily. The Court reiterated that authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their convenience or satisfaction, causing hardship and confusion to assessees. Instructions and circulars can only supplement statutory provisions and aid in their implementation. Consequently, notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Act, dated 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2024, 30.03.2023, and the order dated 30.03.2024 (Annexure P-2), along with consequential proceedings initiated without conducting the faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B (7 & 8), were found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act and were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act and proceed accordingly if so advised. All pending applications were also disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioners, Devinder Paul Singh Sandhu and others, challenged notices issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings, including those conducted under the faceless assessment scheme as envisaged by Section 144B. The assessment years are not explicitly stated. The petitioners contended that these notices and proceedings were without jurisdiction. The revenue, represented by the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, NWR, Chandigarh, and others, accepted notice. The High Court was presented with the issue of the validity of these notices and proceedings.

What were the issues?

1. Whether notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings, including those under the faceless assessment scheme (Section 144B), are liable to be set aside for want of jurisdiction. (Question of law and mixed fact and law) Assessee's Contention: The notices and proceedings were without jurisdiction. The petitioners relied on the judgment in CWP No. 21509 of 2023 titled Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others, decided on 29.07.2024, and a Coordinate Bench decision in CWP No. 15745 of 2024 titled Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others, decided on 19.07.2024. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through its Senior Standing Counsel, accepted notice and did not present any arguments against the petitioners' submissions, indicating an ad idem position with the petitioners on the issue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

116 IN TH DEVINDER P

PR. CHIEF BHAWAN, CH

CORAM: H

Present: 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 m HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA CHANDIGAR

CWP-2 Date of PAUL SINGH SANDHU V COMMISSIONER OF INCO HANDIGARH AND OTHERS HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJ Mr. Rohit Sud Advocate with Mr. Vralika Bassi, Advocate for Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Senior Stand for the respondents/Income Tax D ***** RAKASH SHARMA, J. (Oral) Notice of motion. Mr. Ranvijay Singh, 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 mandatorily. By exercising the AB AND HARYANA AT RH 23401-2024 (O&M) f Decision:13.09.2024

..…...Petitioners (s) V/s. OME TAX NWR, AAYAKAR

......Respondent(s) NJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA NJAY VASHISTH the petitioner. ding Counsel, 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 powers contained in R n e n , f , Suresh Kumar 2024.09.13 17:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-23401-202

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

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 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 17:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-23401-202

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 30.03 l proceedings are set aside. All pending applications also stan [SANJEEV 3, 2024 [SAN

king / reasoned :

Y rtable

Y 3.2024 (Annexure P-2), and nd disposed of accordingly.

V PRAKASH SHARMA] JUDGE

NJAY VASHISTH] JUDGE Yes / No Yes / No d Suresh Kumar 2024.09.13 17:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

More judgments on Section 119

All 707 judgments and leading authorities on Section 119 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →