PRIYANKA BHATIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CWP/26022/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01133336202404 October 2024Bench: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MR. JUSTICE ALOK JAIN3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the writ petitions. It held that instructions issued by the Board (presumably referring to the CBDT) cannot override statutory provisions or render them otiose. Legislative enactments, having financial implications, must be followed strictly and mandatorily. The Court reiterated that authorities cannot exercise powers under Sections 119 and 120 of the Act to usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship and confusion to assessees. The Court found that the notices issued under Section 148 of the Act and the subsequent proceedings, particularly those conducted without adhering to the faceless assessment scheme under Section 144B, were contrary to the provisions of the Act. Consequently, the notices dated 27.03.2024, 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2024, and the order dated 30.03.2023 were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, if so advised. The interim orders were merged with the final order.

What were the facts?

The petitioners, Priyanka Bhatia and others, filed writ petitions challenging notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings. The revenue department, represented by the Income Tax Officer and others, contested these petitions. The assessment years are not explicitly stated, but the notices challenged are dated 27.03.2024, 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2024, and an order dated 30.03.2023. The core issue revolves around the validity of these notices and proceedings, particularly in light of the faceless assessment scheme under Section 144B of the Act. The High Court was asked to decide if these notices and proceedings were in accordance with the law.

What were the issues?

1. Whether notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings, including those initiated under the faceless assessment scheme as envisaged under Section 144B, are valid when found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act? (Question of law and fact, concerning Sections 148 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contention: The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the notices and consequential proceedings were contrary to the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and therefore, liable to be set aside for want of jurisdiction. They relied on the decisions of coordinate benches of the High Court in similar matters. Revenue's Contention: The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents-Income Tax Department accepted that the issue involved in the present petition stands finally examined and concluded by this Court in previous judgments. They did not present any arguments contrary to the established precedent.

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-26022

144 IN TH Priyanka Bh

Income Tax

CORAM:

Present:

SANJEEV P

1.

2. notice on be 3. present peti CWP No.21 others, dec No.15745 of others, deci under: -1- 2-2024 (O&M)

HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA CHANDIGAR

CWP Date hatia

Officer and Ors.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AL

Mr. Vishav Bharti Gupta and Ms. Mamta Gupta, Advocates f Mr. Gauri Neo Rampal, Senior for the respondents-Income Tax

***** PRAKASH SHARMA, J. (Oral)

Notice of motion. Mr. Gauri Neo Rampal, Sen ehalf of the respondents-Income Both the counsel are ad idem ition stands finally examined a 1509 of 2023 titled as Jasjit S ided on 29.07.2024, and by th f 2024 titled as Jatinder Singh B ided on 19.07.2024. This Court “16. We are in agreement with Coordinate Bench and hold AB AND HARYANA AT RH P-26022-2024 (O&M) of Decision:04.10.2024

..…...Petitioners (s) V/s. …......Respondent(s) NJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA OK JAIN for the petitioner. Standing Counsel x Department. ) nior Standing Counsel, accepts Tax Department. m that the issue involved in the and concluded by this Court in Singh vs. Union of India and he Coordinate Bench in CWP Bhangu vs. Union of India and in Jasjit Singh (supra) held as h the view taken by the that such circular or ) ) s e n d P d s Manju 2024.10.15 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-26022

-2- 2-2024 (O&M)

instructions by the Board could to override statutory provisio otiose or obsolete. Legislativ financial implications are req strictly and mandatorily. By e contained in Sections 119 and 1 well as Section 144B (7 & 8), be allowed to usurp the legal p satisfaction and convenience c assessees. It also leaves confus taxpayers. In the opinion of th and circulars can be issued on supplementing the statutory pr implementation. 17. In view of the aforesaid d occasion to distinguish or tak suggested by the learned cou from what has already been h Bench. 18. Keeping in view the law Coordinate Bench (supra), noti under Section 148 of the proceedings initiated thereafte the faceless assessment as env 144B of the Act, 1961, hav contrary to the provisions of accordingly notices dated 28 20.03.2024 and 30.03.2023 30.03.2023, are set aside for wa 19. The respondents-revenue w liberty to follow the procedur the Act, 1961 and proceed acco d not have been issued ons or to make them ve enactments having quired to be followed exercising the powers 120 of the Act, 1961 as the authorities cannot provisions to their own ausing hardship to the sion in the minds of the his Court, instructions nly for the purpose of rovisions and for their discussion, there is no ke a different view as unsel for the revenue held by the Coordinate w laid down by the ices issued by the JAO Act, 1961 and the er without conducting visaged under Section ve been found to be of the Act, 1961 and 8.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 3 and order dated ant of jurisdiction. would be, however, at re as laid down under ordingly, if so advised. Manju 2024.10.15 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-26022

4.

aforesaid te mutatis mut Jurisdictiona and all cons 5.

October 04 Manju

Whether spe Whether Rep

-3- 2-2024 (O&M)

20.

All the writ petitions are order passed by the Court sha the present order.”

Keeping in view above, we a erms. The observations and or tandis to the present case. Acc al Assessing Officer u/s 148 da sequential proceedings are set asi All pending applications also st [SANJEE , 2024.

eaking / reasoned : portable

: allowed. The interim all stand merged with allow this Writ Petition in the rder passed above shall apply cordingly, notice issued by the ated 27.03.2024 (Annexure P-1) ide. tand disposed of accordingly.

EV PRAKASH SHARMA] JUDGE

[ALOK JAIN] JUDGE Yes / No Yes / No e y e ) Manju 2024.10.15 10:42 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 →