SUBASH CHANDER vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIOENR OF INCOME TAX, AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/24957/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01130877202426 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 notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the consequential proceedings, including those conducted under Section 144B, were liable to be set aside for want of jurisdiction. The Court agreed with the view taken by a Coordinate Bench in similar cases, stating that circulars or instructions by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or be issued to make them obsolete. The Court emphasized that legislative enactments with financial implications are mandatory. It was observed that authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship and confusion to assessees. The Court found the faceless assessment proceedings initiated under Section 144B to be contrary to the provisions of the Act, 1961. Consequently, the notices dated 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2023, 30.03.2023, and 30.03.2024 were set aside. The Revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if advised. The present writ petition was allowed, and all pending applications were disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioners, identified as Assessee(s), challenged notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings, including those under Section 144B, before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The assessment years involved are not explicitly stated but relate to proceedings initiated by the Income Tax Department (Revenue). The challenge was primarily against the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to issue these notices and conduct faceless assessments. The High Court was presented with similar matters previously decided by a Coordinate Bench. The impugned notices were dated 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2023, 30.03.2023, and 30.03.2024. The Revenue was represented by its counsel.

What were the issues?

1. Whether notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings, including those under Section 144B, are liable to be set aside for want of jurisdiction, particularly when faceless assessments were conducted without adhering to statutory provisions. Assessee's Contention: The Assessee argued that the notices issued under Section 148 and subsequent faceless assessment proceedings under Section 144B were without jurisdiction. They relied on the principle that instructions by the Board (circulars) cannot override statutory provisions or make them obsolete, and that legislative enactments with financial implications must be mandatorily followed. The Assessee contended that exercising powers under Sections 119 and 120, along with Section 144B (7 & 8), by authorities should not usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship and confusion to taxpayers. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue's counsel accepted notice and did not present any arguments opposing the Assessee's position. The judgment notes that the Revenue's counsel was present but no specific arguments were recorded in their favor.

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

128 IN TH SUBASH CHA

DEPUTY CO AYAKAR BHA

CORAM: H

Present: M M

M f

* SANJEEV PR

1.

N 2. M on behalf of th 3. B present petitio No.21509 of decided on 29 2024 titled a decided on 19

C i o o HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA CHANDIGAR

CWP-2 Date of ANDER

V OMMISSIONER OF INCOME AWAN, KARNAL, HARYANA AN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJ

Mr. B.M. Monga, Advocate and Mr. Rohit Kaura, Advocate for th Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Senior Stan Ms. Samdesha Kaur, Advocate for the respondent/Income Tax D ***** RAKASH SHARMA, J. (Oral) Notice of motion. Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Senior St he respondents/Income Tax Dep 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 AB AND HARYANA AT RH 24957-2024 (O&M) f Decision:26.09.2024

..…...Petitioners (s) V/s. E TAX, CENTRAL, KARNAL, ND OTHERS

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

he petitioner. nding Counsel, with Department. tanding Counsel, accepts notice partment. 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 e P , f , Suresh Kumar 2024.09.27 09:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-24957-202

i 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 024 (O&M) Page 2 of 3

implications are required to be 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 e followed strictly and 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 e s Suresh Kumar 2024.09.27 09:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-24957-202

mutandis to th Assessing O consequential 5. A

September 26 Ess Kay

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

he present case. Accordingly, no Officer u/s 148 dated 30.03.2 l proceedings are set aside. All pending applications also stan [SANJEEV 6, 2024 [SAN

king / reasoned :

Y rtable

Y otice issued by the Jurisdictional 2024 (Annexure P-1) and all nd disposed of accordingly.

V PRAKASH SHARMA] JUDGE

NJAY VASHISTH] JUDGE Yes / No Yes / No l l Suresh Kumar 2024.09.27 09:20 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 →