TARSEM SINGH vs. PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANOTHER

PDF · subscribers
CWP/28779/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01144672202423 October 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 precedents in Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others and the Coordinate Bench's decision in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others, held that circulars or instructions issued by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or render them obsolete. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed strictly. The Court found that authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship to assessees, and that instructions and circulars can only supplement statutory provisions. Consequently, notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings initiated without conducting faceless assessments 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 specific notices dated 24.03.2024 and consequential proceedings in the present case were set aside. The ratio decidendi is that faceless assessment procedures mandated by Section 144B are statutory and cannot be bypassed by issuing notices under Section 148 without adhering to this procedure.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Tarsem Singh, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana challenging certain actions of the revenue. The revenue, represented by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala, and another, accepted notice. Both parties agreed that the issue in the present petition was identical to those decided by the High Court in CWP No. 21509 of 2023 (Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others) decided on July 29, 2024, and by a Coordinate Bench in CWP No. 15745 of 2024 (Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others) decided on July 19, 2024. The core of the dispute involved notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings initiated without conducting faceless assessments as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act.

What were the issues?

1. Whether notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings initiated without conducting faceless assessments as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act, 1961, are contrary to the provisions of the Act, 1961, and liable to be set aside for want of jurisdiction (question of law and fact, turning on Sections 148 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contention: The assessee, through counsel, argued that the notices and proceedings were invalid because they bypassed the mandatory faceless assessment procedure stipulated by Section 144B of the Act. They relied on the High Court's previous decisions in Jasjit Singh and Jatinder Singh Bhangu. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through Sr. Standing Counsel, accepted notice and did not present any distinct arguments against the assessee's position, implicitly agreeing that the matter was concluded by prior judgments.

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-28779-2024 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 114 CWP-28779-2024

Decided on : 23.10.2024 Tarsem Singh . . . Petitioner(s) Versus Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala and another . . . 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. Ranvijay Singh, Sr. Standing Counsel for the respondents – revenue. **** SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

, J. (Oral) 1. Notice of motion. 2. Mr. Ranvijay 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 2024.10.24 13:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

CWP-28779-2024 - 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 2024.10.24 13:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

CWP-28779-2024 - 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 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 24.03.2024, and consequential proceedings are set aside. 5. All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly. (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE October 23, 2024 J.Ram Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No JAWALA RAM 2024.10.24 13:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity 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 →