SURESH KUMAR SAIN vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 CHANDIGARH

PDF · subscribers
CWP/25321/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01132312202403 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 circulars or instructions issued by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or make them obsolete. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed strictly. The Court found that by exercising powers contained in Sections 119 and 120 of the Act, as well as Section 144B (7 & 8), the authorities cannot usurp legal provisions to their own satisfaction or convenience, causing hardship and confusion to assessees. Instructions and circulars can only supplement statutory provisions for their implementation. Therefore, the Court agreed with the view taken by the Coordinate Bench. Consequently, notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, and the consequential proceedings initiated thereafter without conducting faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act, were found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act. The notices dated 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2024, and 30.03.2023 were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The Revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure as laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly. The writ petition was allowed, and the interim order stood merged with the present order.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Suresh Kumar Sain, filed a writ petition (CWP-25321-2024) before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The petition challenged notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings initiated under Section 144B of the Act. The petitioner argued that these actions were taken without proper jurisdiction and were contrary to the provisions of the Act. The Revenue, represented by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and others, accepted notice. The Court noted that similar issues had been decided by a Coordinate Bench in other writ petitions, specifically CWP No. 509 of 2023 (Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others) decided on 29.07.2024, and CWP No. 745 of 2024 (Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others) decided on 19.07.2024.

What were the issues?

1. Whether notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and proceedings initiated under Section 144B of the Act are liable to be set aside for want of jurisdiction, particularly when they are alleged to be contrary to the provisions of the Act and the instructions issued by the JAO dated 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2024, and 30.03.2023. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the notices and proceedings were without jurisdiction and contrary to the Act. The petitioner relied on the decisions of the Coordinate Bench in Jasjit Singh (supra) and Jatinder Singh Bhangu (supra). Revenue's Contention: The Revenue, through its counsel, accepted notice and did not present any distinct arguments beyond acknowledging the binding nature of the Coordinate Bench's decisions. The judgment states that the counsel for both parties were ad idem that the issue had been finally examined and concluded by the Court in previous similar writ petitions.

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

CWP-25321-202

130

IN TH Suresh Kumar Principal Com CORAM: H

H Present: M M

SANJEEV P

1.

Notice 2. Mr. Yo 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

r Sain Vs.

mmissioner of Income Tax and o **** HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAN HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAN **** Mr.Viraj Gandhi, Advocate and Mr. Adarsh Dubey, Advocate for Mr. Yogesh Putney, Sr. Standing Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Advocate for the respondents/Revenue. **** RAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) of motion. ogesh Putney, 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-25321-2024 Date of Decision: 03.10.2024 . . . . Petitioner thers . . . . Respondents NJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA NJAY VASHISTH r the petitioner. g Counsel and ) 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-25321-202

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-25321-202

a t i w 4. Keepin terms. mutand Jurisdic (P-1) as 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 s well as the consequential proce 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, notice issued by r Section 148 dated 27.03.2024 eedings are set aside. posed of accordingly. JEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE

(SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No

d s y 4 RASHMI 2024.10.03 16:49 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 →