NAVDEEP KUMAR HUF vs. PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX PATIALA AND ANOTHER

PDF · subscribers
CWP/25135/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01131857202427 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 own previous decisions in Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others and Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others, allowed the writ petition. The Court reiterated its finding that circulars or instructions issued by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or render them obsolete. It held that legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed strictly. The Court found that authorities, by exercising powers under Sections 119 and 120, and Section 144B (7 & 8) of the Act, cannot usurp legal provisions for their satisfaction or convenience, causing hardship to assessees. Consequently, notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 and subsequent proceedings initiated without conducting faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act, 1961, were found to be contrary to the Act and set aside for want of jurisdiction. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the prescribed procedure if advised. The ratio decidendi is that faceless assessment is a mandatory procedural requirement, and deviations therefrom without statutory basis render subsequent actions, including notices under Section 148, invalid.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Navdeep Kumar HUF, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana challenging notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the consequential proceedings. The revenue, represented by the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax and another, accepted notice. Both parties agreed that the issue had been decided by previous judgments of the same court in CWP No.21509 of 2023 (Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others) decided on 29.07.2024, and CWP No.15745 of 2024 (Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others) decided on 19.07.2024. The present petition sought similar relief as granted in those earlier cases.

What were the issues?

1. Whether notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings are valid when faceless assessment, as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act, was not conducted. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued, by relying on the precedent set in Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others, that notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 and initiated proceedings without conducting faceless assessment under Section 144B were contrary to the provisions of the Act and thus without jurisdiction. The assessee implicitly relied on the court's reasoning that circulars or instructions cannot override statutory provisions and that authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their convenience causing hardship. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through its counsel, accepted notice and did not raise any distinct arguments against the assessee's position, agreeing that the matter was concluded by prior judgments. The revenue did not present any arguments to distinguish the present case from the precedents cited.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 119,Section 120,Section 144B,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-25135-2024 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 110 CWP-25135-2024

Decided on : 27.09.2024 Navdeep Kumar HUF . . . Petitioner(s) Versus Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax and anr. . . . Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH PRESENT: Mr. Rishabh Kapoor, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Mr. Amanpreet (A.P.) Singh, Sr. Standing Counsel for the respondents – revenue. **** SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

, J. (Oral) 1. Notice of motion. 2. Mr. Amanpreet (A.P.) Singh, Sr. Standing Counsel, accepts notice for the respondents – revenue. 3. Both the counsel are ad idem that the issue involved in the present petition stands finally examined and concluded by this Court in CWP No.21509 of 2023 titled as Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others, decided on 29.07.2024, and by the Coordinate Bench in CWP No.15745 of 2024 titled as Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others, decided on 19.07.2024. This Court in Jasjit Singh (supra) held as under: “16. We are in agreement with the view taken by the Coordinate Bench and hold that such circular or instructions by the Board could not have been issued to override statutory provisions or to make them otiose or obsolete. Legislative enactments having JAWALA RAM 2024.10.03 18:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

CWP-25135-2024 - 2 - financial implications are required to be followed strictly and 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.” JAWALA RAM 2024.10.03 18:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

CWP-25135-2024 - 3 - 4. 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 u/s 148 dated 27.03.2024, and consequential proceedings are set aside. 5. All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly. (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE September 27, 2024 J.Ram Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No JAWALA RAM 2024.10.03 18:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

More judgments on Section 119

All 707 judgments and leading authorities on Section 119 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →