SURJIT SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/23679/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01124375202417 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 Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India, held that notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings initiated without conducting the assessment in a faceless manner as envisaged by Section 144B, were contrary to the provisions of the Act. The Court reiterated that instructions by the Board (circulars) cannot override statutory provisions or make them obsolete. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed strictly. The Court found that the notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148, dated 09.04.2024, and consequential proceedings, including those under Section 144B, were without jurisdiction. The ratio decidendi is that faceless assessment procedures mandated by statute must be adhered to, and deviations leading to assessments by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer without following these procedures render the proceedings void for want of jurisdiction. The Court set aside the impugned notices and consequential proceedings.

What were the facts?

The petitioners, Surjit Singh and others, challenged notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings, including those under Section 144B, by the Assessing Officer, Ward 3(1), Ludhiana. The assessment years are not explicitly stated but the notices are dated between February 2023 and March 2024. The petitioners argued that the faceless assessment proceedings were initiated without jurisdiction and were contrary to the Act and relevant circulars. The revenue was represented by the Senior Standing Counsel. The High Court noted that similar issues had been decided by its coordinate benches in previous writ petitions.

What were the issues?

1. Whether notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings, including those under Section 144B, are liable to be set aside for want of jurisdiction, particularly when faceless assessment procedures were not followed as envisaged by the Act. Assessee's Contention: The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the faceless assessment proceedings were initiated without jurisdiction and were contrary to the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and relevant circulars. They relied on the decisions of coordinate benches of the High Court in Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India. Revenue's Contention: The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent accepted notice. The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the revenue beyond accepting notice and acknowledging the coordinate bench decisions.

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

115 IN TH SURJIT SING

INCOME TAX

CORAM: H

Present: M M

* SANJEEV PR

1.

N 2. M behalf of the r 3. B present petitio No.21509 of 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 GH

V X OFFICER, WARD 3(1), LUDH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJ

Mr. Nikhil Goyal, Advocate and Mr. Tejeshwar Singh, Advocate f Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Senior Stand for the respondent. ***** RAKASH SHARMA, J. (Oral) Notice of motion. Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Senior Stan respondents/Income Tax Departm Both the counsel are ad idem on stands finally examined and c f 2023 titled as Jasjit Singh vs 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 23679-2024 (O&M) f Decision:17.09.2024

..…...Petitioners (s) V/s. HIANA AND OTHERS …......Respondent(s) NJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA NJAY VASHISTH

for the petitioner. ding Counsel, nding Counsel, accepts notice on ment. that the issue involved in the concluded by this Court in CWP s. 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 ) n e P , f , Suresh Kumar 2024.09.18 09:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-23679-202

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 2024.09.18 09:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-23679-202

Assessing O consequential 5. A

September 17 Ess Kay

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

Officer u/s 148 dated 09.04 l proceedings are set aside. All pending applications also stan [SANJEEV 7, 2024 [SAN

king / reasoned :

Y rtable

Y 4.2024 (Annexure P-4), and nd disposed of accordingly.

V PRAKASH SHARMA] JUDGE

NJAY VASHISTH] JUDGE Yes / No Yes / No d Suresh Kumar 2024.09.18 09:30 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 →