BHAWNA SURI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/23425/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01123357202413 September 2024Bench: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal held that administrative instructions, including those issued by the Board, cannot override statutory provisions or render them obsolete. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed strictly and mandatorily. The court found that the authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship and confusion to assessees. Instructions can only supplement statutory provisions and aid in their implementation. Consequently, notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings initiated without conducting the faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B were found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act. The notices dated 28.02.2023, 20.03.2023, 16.03.2023, 30.03.2023, and 30.03.2024 were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure as laid down under the Act and proceed accordingly if advised. The writ petitions were allowed, and interim orders merged with the final order.

What were the facts?

The petitioners challenged notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings, including those under Section 144B, for assessment years not explicitly stated but implied to be subject to faceless assessment. The core issue revolved around the validity of these notices and assessments conducted without adhering to the prescribed procedures. The revenue department, represented by the Income Tax Department, accepted notice. The High Court was presented with the procedural history and the arguments concerning the interpretation of statutory provisions versus administrative instructions. The case was decided in light of previous judgments by coordinate benches.

What were the issues?

1. Whether notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent faceless assessment proceedings under Section 144B are valid when they allegedly deviate from statutory provisions and established procedures. Assessee's contention: The assessee argued that administrative instructions, including those related to faceless assessment, cannot override statutory provisions. They contended that the authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship and confusion to taxpayers. The issuance of notices and the subsequent assessment proceedings were flawed as they did not adhere to the mandatory requirements of the Act. Revenue's contention: The revenue, through its counsel, accepted notice. The judgment does not explicitly record separate arguments from the revenue beyond their acceptance of notice and the court's reference to their counsel's stance on distinguishing or taking a different view from prior judgments. However, the court's reliance on prior judgments implies that the revenue's position was considered in that context.

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

133 IN TH BHAWNA SU

INCOME TA BHAWAN, JA

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 i HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA CHANDIGAR

CWP-2 Date of URI

V AX OFFICER, WARD 1, YA AGADHARI, HARYANA AND OT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJ Mr. B.M. Monga, Advocate and Mr. Rohit Kaur, Advocate for the Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Senior Stan Ms. Pridhi Sandhu Junior Standin for the respondent-Income Tax D ***** RAKASH SHARMA, J. (Oral) Notice of motion. Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Senior St 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 implications are required to be AB AND HARYANA AT RH 23425-2024 (O&M) f Decision:13.09.2024 ..…...Petitioners (s) V/s. YAMUNA NAGAR, AAYAKAR THERS

......Respondent(s) NJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA NJAY VASHISTH

e petitioner. nding Counsel, with ng Counsel, Department tanding 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 followed strictly and R ) e e n , f , Suresh Kumar 2024.09.13 17:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-23425-202

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

CWP-23425-202

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

king / reasoned :

Y rtable

Y 3.2024 (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 17:53 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 →