PRITPAL SINGH KHURANA ALIAS PRITPAL SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/25121/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01131877202403 October 2024Bench: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that instructions issued by the Board under Sections 119 and 120 of the Act, as well as Section 144B(7 & 8), cannot override statutory provisions or make them otiose. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed strictly and mandatorily. The authorities cannot usurp legal provisions to their own satisfaction and convenience, causing hardship and confusion to assessees. Instructions can only supplement statutory provisions for their implementation. Therefore, notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, and proceedings initiated thereafter without conducting faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act, 1961, were found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act. Accordingly, notices dated 28.02.2023, 20.03.2024, 16.03.2023, and 30.03.2023, and the notice dated 28.02.2024 (P-1) under Section 148A(d) and notice dated 28.02.2024 (P-2) under Section 148, along with consequential proceedings, were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The revenue was at liberty to follow the procedure as laid down under the Act and proceed accordingly. All pending applications were disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Pritpal Singh Khurana, filed a writ petition challenging notices issued under Section 148A(d) and Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with consequential proceedings. The revenue, represented by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(1), Ludhiana, was the respondent. The assessment year is not explicitly stated. The High Court noted that the issue involved had been examined and concluded by a Coordinate Bench in similar cases, specifically CWP No. 509 of 2023 (Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India) decided on 29.07.2024, and CWP No. 745 of 2024 (Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India) decided on 19.07.2024. The Court was informed that both parties were in agreement that the present petition could be decided based on the precedents set in those cases. The Court also noted that the revenue's counsel accepted notice.

What were the issues?

1. Whether notices issued by the JAO under Section 148A(d) and Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings initiated without conducting faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act, are contrary to the provisions of the Act and liable to be set aside for want of jurisdiction? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning Sections 148, 148A, and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner's case is to be decided based on the precedents set in Jasjit Singh (supra) and Jatinder Singh Bhangu (supra). Revenue's Contention: The revenue's counsel accepted notice and agreed that the issue involved in the present petition stands finally examined and concluded by the Coordinate Bench in the aforementioned cases. The revenue did not present any distinct arguments against the application of the precedent.

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

CWP-25121-202

116

IN TH Pritpal Singh Income Tax O CORAM: H

H Present: M M f

SANJEEV P

1.

Notice 2. Mr. Ra respond 3. Both th petition No.215 decided No.157 and oth held as 24

Page 1 of 3 HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA CHANDIGAR

Khurana Alias Pritpal Singh Vs.

Officer, ITO Ward 4(1), Ludhian **** HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAN HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAN **** Mr. B.M. Monga, Advocate and Mr. Rohit Kaura, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Sr. Standin for the respondents/Revenue. **** RAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) of motion. anvijay Singh, Sr. Standing Coun dents/Revenue. he counsel are ad idem that the n stands finally examined and co 509 of 2023 titled as Jasjit Singh d on 29.07.2024, and by the 745 of 2024 titled as Jatinder Sin hers, decided on 19.07.2024. Th under:

AB AND HARYANA AT RH CWP-25121-2024 Date of Decision: 03.10.2024 . . . . Petitioner na and others . . . . Respondents NJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA NJAY VASHISTH

ng Counsel ) nsel accepts notice on behalf of e issue involved in the present oncluded by this Court in CWP h vs. Union of India and others, e Coordinate Bench in CWP ngh Bhangu vs. Union of India his Court in Jasjit Singh (supra)

4 4

r s f t P , P a ) RASHMI 2024.10.03 16:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-25121-202

b i o o i m S S a s a t a s i n s w C u i a A p d 3 f 24

Page 2 of 3 “16. We are in agreemen by the Coordinate Bench and hol nstructions by the Board could n override statutory provisions or t obsolete. Legislative enactmen mplications 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 mplementation. 17. In view of the aforesa no occasion to distinguish or ta suggested by the learned counse what has already been held by th 18. Keeping in view the Coordinate Bench (supra), notic under Section 148 of the Act, 196 nitiated thereafter without con assessment as envisaged under Act, 1961, have been found to provisions of the Act, 1961 an dated 28.02.2023, 16.03.202 30.03.2023 and order dated 30. for want of jurisdiction.

nt with the view taken ld that such circular or not have been issued to to make them otiose or nts having financial 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 aid discussion, there is ake a different view as el for the revenue from he Coordinate Bench. law laid down by the ces issued by the JAO 61 and the proceedings nducting the faceless r Section 144B of the o be contrary to the d accordingly notices 23, 20.03.2024 and 03.2023, are set aside

RASHMI 2024.10.03 16:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-25121-202

a t i w 4. Keepin terms. mutand Jurisdic (P-1) an as the c 5. All pen

October 03, 20 rashmi 1. Whethe 2. Whethe 24

Page 3 of 3 19. The respondents-reven at liberty to follow the procedur the Act, 1961 and proceed accord 20. All the writ petition nterim order passed by the Cou with the present order.”

ng in view above, we allow this The observations and order pa dis to the present case. Ac ctional Assessing Officer under nd notice dated 28.02.2024(P-2) consequential proceedings are se nding applications also stand disp

(SANJ 024 r speaking/reasoned?

Y r reportable?

nue would be, however, re as laid down under dingly, if so advised. ns are allowed. The urt shall stand merged s Writ Petition in the aforesaid assed above shall apply mutatis ccordingly, notices issued by r Section 148 dated 28.02.2024 ) under Section 148A(d) as well t aside. posed of accordingly. JEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE

(SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No

d s y 4 l RASHMI 2024.10.03 16:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

More judgments on Section 119

All 707 judgments and leading authorities on Section 119 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →