INNOVATIVE INFRACITY PRIVATE LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/28325/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01143105202419 October 2024Bench: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal held that circulars or instructions issued by the Board 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 or convenience, causing hardship and confusion to assessees. Instructions and circulars can only supplement statutory provisions for their implementation. In light of the law laid down by the Coordinate Bench in Jasjit Singh and Jatinder Singh Bhangu, the Tribunal found that notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, and the subsequent proceedings initiated without conducting the faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act, 1961, were contrary to the provisions of the Act. Consequently, the notices dated 31.08.2024, and consequential proceedings were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The Revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, if so advised. All pending applications were also disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Innovative Infracity Private Limited, challenged notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The Revenue, represented by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, was the respondent. The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated for this specific petition but relate to proceedings initiated under Section 148. The challenge was to the validity of notices and faceless assessment proceedings. The procedural history indicates that this writ petition was decided in light of prior judgments by a Coordinate Bench in CWP No. 21509 of 2023 (Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India) and CWP No. 157745 of 2024 (Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India), which dealt with similar issues. The notices under challenge were dated 31.08.2024, and the consequential proceedings were initiated by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer.

What were the issues?

1. Whether notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent faceless assessment proceedings initiated without conducting a proper assessment as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act, are valid and in accordance with the law? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning Sections 148 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued, by relying on the Coordinate Bench's decisions in Jasjit Singh and Jatinder Singh Bhangu, that notices issued under Section 148 and subsequent faceless assessment proceedings were contrary to the provisions of the Act and thus liable to be set aside. The core of the argument was that instructions by the Board could not override statutory provisions and that faceless assessment procedures, if not conducted as per Section 144B, would be invalid. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue, through its counsel, accepted notice and did not present a distinct argument against the petitioner's position, essentially conceding that the issue had been finally examined and concluded by this Court in prior, similar writ petitions. The Revenue's counsel was 'ad idem' with the petitioner's counsel that the issue was concluded.

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-28325-202 130 IN TH INNOVATIV ASSISTANT

CORAM: H

H Present: M

SANJEEV P

1.

Notice 2. Mr. Yo respond 3. Both th petition No.215 decided No.157 and oth held as 24 (O&M) Page 1 of 3 HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA CHANDIGAR

VE INFRACITY PRIVATE LIM Vs.

COMMISSIONER OF INCOM **** HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAN HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAN **** Mr. Nikhil Goyal, Advocate for t Mr. Yogesh Putney, Sr. Standing Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Standing Co 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-28325-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 19.10.2024 MITED . . . . Petitioner ME TAX AND OTHERS . . . . Respondents NJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA NJAY VASHISTH the petitioner. g Counsel with ounsel ) 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 r s f t P , P a ) MOHIT GOYAL 2024.10.22 09:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-28325-202 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 (O&M) 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

MOHIT GOYAL 2024.10.22 09:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-28325-202 a t i w 4. Keepin terms. mutand issued Jurisdic proceed 5. All pen

October 19, 20 Mohit goyal 1. Whethe 2. Whethe 24 (O&M) 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. Accord under Section 148 of the ctional Assessing Officer as dings are set aside. nding applications also stand disp

(SANJ 024 r speaking/reasoned?

Y r reportable?

Y 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 dingly, notice dated 31.08.2024 Income Tax Act, 1961 by s well as the consequential posed of accordingly. JEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE

(SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No

d s 4 y l MOHIT GOYAL 2024.10.22 09:48 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 →