HARBANS SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/24962/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01129529202426 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 by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148 dated 31.08.2023, and all consequential proceedings, were liable to be set aside for want of jurisdiction. The Court agreed with the view taken by a Coordinate Bench that instructions by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or make them obsolete. Legislative enactments having financial implications must be followed strictly. The Court found that faceless assessment proceedings initiated under Section 144B, without conducting the assessment as envisaged, were contrary to the provisions of the Act. Therefore, notices dated 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2024, 30.03.2023, and 30.03.2023 were set aside. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act and proceed accordingly if advised. The writ petition was allowed, and the interim order stood merged with the present order.

What were the facts?

The petitioners, including Harbans Singh, filed writ petitions before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana challenging notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings initiated under faceless assessment. The petitions were filed in 2024. The revenue, represented by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Karnal, and others, contested the petitions. The High Court considered prior judgments by a Coordinate Bench in similar matters, specifically CWP No. 21509 of 2023 (Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India) decided on 29.07.2024, and CWP No. 1574 of 2024 (Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India) decided on 19.07.2024. The core of the dispute revolved around the validity of notices and assessments conducted without adhering to statutory provisions, particularly concerning faceless assessment.

What were the issues?

1. Whether notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent faceless assessment proceedings are valid when they are found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act and the principles of natural justice, particularly in light of instructions issued by the Board that may override statutory provisions or make them otiose? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the notices and subsequent proceedings were invalid because they were issued without conducting the assessment in accordance with the faceless assessment scheme envisaged under Section 144B of the Act, 1961, and were contrary to the statutory provisions. They relied on the Coordinate Bench's decisions in Jasjit Singh and Jatinder Singh Bhangu. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through its counsel, accepted notice and did not present a separate argument beyond acknowledging the prior judgments. The judgment notes that the revenue's counsel did not suggest distinguishing the present case from the precedents cited by the assessee.

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

129 IN TH HARBANS SIN

INCOME TAX

CORAM: H

Present: M

M f M M

* SANJEEV PR

1.

N 2. M on behalf of Standing Cou 3. L involved in th this Court in India and oth CWP No.1574 and others, de under:

C HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA CHANDIGAR

CWP-2 Date of INGH

V X OFFICER, WARD-1, KARNAL

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJ

(Through Video Conferencin Mr. Nikhil Goyal, Advocate for t Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal, Senior S for the respondents No.1 to 4. Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Senior Stan Ms. Samdesha Kaur, Advocate fo ***** RAKASH SHARMA, J. (Oral) Notice of motion. Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal, Senior S the respondents No.1 to 4 and unsel accepts notice on behalf of Learned counsel for all the par he present petition stands final CWP No.21509 of 2023 titled 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 Coordinate Bench and hold t AB AND HARYANA AT RH 24962-2024 (O&M) f Decision:26.09.2024

..…...Petitioners (s) V/s. L, HARYANA AND OTHERS …......Respondent(s) NJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA NJAY VASHISTH ng/Hybrid Mode) the petitioner. Standing Counsel nding Counsel, with for respondent No.5 Standing Counsel, accepts notice d Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Senior respondent No.5. rties are ad idem that the issue lly examined and concluded by d 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 the view taken by the that such circular or ) e r e y f n a s Suresh Kumar 2024.09.27 09:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-24962-202

i o o 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 024 (O&M) Page 2 of 3

instructions by the Board could n override statutory provisions or t obsolete. Legislative enactmen 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.” not have been issued to to make them otiose or nts having financial 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 Suresh Kumar 2024.09.27 09:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-24962-202

4.

K aforesaid term mutandis to th Assessing O consequential 5. A

September 26 Ess Kay

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

Keeping in view above, we a ms. The observations and order p he present case. Accordingly, no Officer u/s 148 dated 31.08.2 l proceedings are set aside. All pending applications also stan [SANJEEV 6, 2024 [SAN

king / reasoned :

Y rtable

Y allow this Writ Petition in the passed above shall apply mutatis otice issued by the Jurisdictional 2024 (Annexure P-4) and all nd disposed of accordingly.

V PRAKASH SHARMA] JUDGE

NJAY VASHISTH] JUDGE Yes / No Yes / No e s 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 →