JASJIT SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/23591/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01124341202416 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 circulars or instructions issued by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or make them obsolete. Legislative enactments must be followed strictly and mandatorily. The court found that authorities, by exercising powers under Sections 119, 120, and 144B(7 & 8) of the Act, cannot usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship and confusion to taxpayers. Instructions and circulars can only supplement statutory provisions for their implementation. Consequently, the court found no reason to distinguish the present case from the precedents set by the Coordinate Bench. The notices issued by the JAO under Section 148A(b) dated 29.03.2024, under Section 148A(d) dated 10.04.2024, and under Section 148 dated 10.04.2024, along with all consequential proceedings, were set aside for want of jurisdiction, as they were initiated without conducting the faceless assessment envisaged under Section 144B. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act if advised. The writ petition was allowed in terms of the observations and order.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Jasjit Singh, filed a writ petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court challenging notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) under Section 148A(b) and 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and a notice under Section 148, along with consequential proceedings. The revenue, represented by the Income Tax Officer and others, accepted notice. The High Court noted that the substantial issue was already decided in similar cases, specifically CWP No. 21509 of 2023 (Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others) decided on 29.07.2024, and CWP No. 1574 of 2024 (Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others) decided on 19.07.2024. The court was considering the validity of faceless assessment proceedings initiated without adhering to the provisions of Section 144B of the Act.

What were the issues?

1. Whether circulars or instructions issued by the Board can override statutory provisions or render them otiose, particularly concerning the mandatory procedural requirements for assessments under the Income Tax Act, 1961? (Question of law) 2. Whether notices issued under Section 148A and Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings initiated without conducting faceless assessments as envisaged under Section 144B are valid and have jurisdiction? Assessee's Contention: The assessee implicitly relied on the decisions in Jasjit Singh (supra) and Jatinder Singh Bhangu (supra), which held that statutory provisions must be followed strictly and that instructions and circulars can only supplement, not override, these provisions. The assessee argued that the notices and proceedings were contrary to the Act because faceless assessment under Section 144B was not conducted. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through its learned counsel, suggested that there might be grounds to distinguish the present case from the previously decided ones. However, the judgment does not record specific arguments made by the revenue beyond accepting notice and appearing through counsel.

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

142

I Jasjit Singh

Income Tax O

CORAM: H

Present M

SANJEEV P 1.

N 2.

M behalf of the r 3.

L issue involved by this Court India and oth CWP No.1574 and others, de under: “ B c m f IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUN AT CHANDIGA C D

Vs. Officer and others

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAN HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAN Mr. Nikhil Goyal, Advocate for t ***

RAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) Notice of motion. Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Sr. Standi revenue. Learned counsel for the parties d in the present petition stands f in CWP No.21509 of 2023 title hers, decided on 29.07.2024, an 745 of 2024 titled as Jatinder Sin ecided on 19.07.2024. This Cour “16. We are in agreement with th Bench and hold that such circul could not have been issued to ove make them otiose or obsolete. financial implications are requi NJAB AND HARYANA ARH CWP-23591-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 16.09.2024 …Petitioner

…Respondents NJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA NJAY VASHISTH the petitioner.

) ing Counsel, accepts notice on are ad idem that the substantial finally examined and concluded ed as Jasjit Singh vs. Union of nd by the Coordinate Bench in ngh Bhangu vs. Union of India rt in Jasjit Singh (supra) held as he view taken by the Coordinate lar or instructions by the Board erride statutory provisions or to Legislative enactments having ired to be followed strictly and n l d f n a s e d

g d RAJESH KUMAR 2024.09.17 13:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh.

[2]

CWP- 23591-2024 (O&M)

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.”

RAJESH KUMAR 2024.09.17 13:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh.

[3]

CWP- 23591-2024 (O&M)

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 under Section 148A (b) dated 29.03.2024 (Annexure P/2), under Section 148A (d) date 10.04.2024 (Annexure P/3) and under Section 148 dated 10.04.2024 (Annexure P/4), and all consequential proceedings are set aside. 5.

All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly.

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE

(SANJAY VASHISTH)

JUDGE 16.09.2024 rajesh 1. Whether speaking/reasoned? : Yes/No 2. Whether reportable?

: Yes/No

RAJESH KUMAR 2024.09.17 13:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh.

More judgments on Section 119

All 707 judgments and leading authorities on Section 119 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →