MANJIT KAUR vs. PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATIALA AND ANOTHER

PDF · subscribers
CWP/30395/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01155793202411 November 2024Bench: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, following its previous decisions in Jasjit Singh and Jatinder Singh Bhangu, held that notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings initiated without conducting a faceless assessment as envisaged by Section 144B, are contrary to the provisions of the Act. The Court reiterated its view that circulars or instructions cannot override statutory provisions or render them obsolete, and legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed strictly. The Court found that the notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148, and the subsequent proceedings initiated without conducting a faceless assessment, were without jurisdiction. Consequently, the impugned notice dated 28.08.2024 and all consequential proceedings were set aside. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act and proceed accordingly, if so advised. All pending applications were also disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Manjit Kaur, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated 28.08.2024 issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and all consequential proceedings. The petitioner argued that the proceedings were initiated without conducting a faceless assessment as envisaged by Section 144B of the Act. The revenue, represented by the Income Tax Department, accepted notice. The High Court noted that similar issues had been decided by its Coordinate Benches in previous writ petitions, specifically Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India, both decided on 19.07.2024. The present petition was filed in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.

What were the issues?

1. Whether notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings initiated without conducting a faceless assessment as mandated by Section 144B of the Act, are valid and possess jurisdiction. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the faceless assessment procedure, as envisaged under Section 144B, must be followed mandatorily, and any deviation vitiates the proceedings. The petitioner relied on the principle that instructions by the Board cannot override statutory provisions and that legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed strictly. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records that the revenue's counsel accepted notice and that both counsel were ad idem that the issue involved had been finally examined and concluded by this Court in previous judgments. No specific arguments were recorded for the revenue beyond this agreement.

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

134 IN TH MANJIT KAU

PRINCIPAL C

CORAM: H

Present: M M

* SANJEEV PR

1.

N 2. M behalf of the r 3. B present petitio No.21509 of decided on 29 2024 titled a decided on 19

C i o o i m HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA CHANDIGAR

CWP-3 Date of UR

V COMMISSIONER OF INCOE TA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJ Mr. Rishabh Kapoor, Advocate f Ms. Pridhi Sandhu, Junior Standi for the respondent-Income Tax D *****

RAKASH SHARMA, J. (Oral) Notice of motion. Ms. Pridhi Sandhu, Junior Stand respondents/Income Tax Departm Both the counsel are ad idem on stands finally examined and c f 2023 titled as Jasjit Singh vs 9.07.2024, and by the Coordina as Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. 9.07.2024. This Court in Jasjit Si “16. We are in agreement with Coordinate Bench and hold t instructions by the Board could n override statutory provisions or t obsolete. Legislative enactmen implications are required to be mandatorily. By exercising the AB AND HARYANA AT RH 30395-2024 (O&M) f Decision:11.11.2024 ..…...Petitioner(s) V/s. TAX, PATIALA AND ANOTHER …......Respondent(s) NJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA NJAY VASHISTH for the petitioner. ing Counsel, Department. ding Counsel, accepts notice on ment. that the issue involved in the concluded by this Court in CWP s. Union of India and others, ate Bench in CWP No.15745 of . Union of India and others, Singh (supra) held as under: the view taken by the that such circular or not have been issued to to make them otiose or nts having financial e followed strictly and powers contained in ) n e P , f , Suresh Kumar 2024.11.13 10:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-30395-202

S S a s a t a s i 1 o s w 1 C u p f o p d 3 f 1 l A 2 o p

4.

K aforesaid term mutandis to (Annexure P- 024 (O&M) Page 2 of 3

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 implementation. 17. In view of the aforesaid d occasion to distinguish or take suggested by the learned counse what has already been held by th 18. Keeping in view the law Coordinate Bench (supra), notic under Section 148 of the proceedings initiated thereafter w faceless assessment as envisage of the Act, 1961, have been foun provisions of the Act, 1961 an dated 28.02.2023, 16.03.202 30.03.2023 and order dated 30. for want of jurisdiction. 19. The respondents-revenue w liberty to follow the procedure a Act, 1961 and proceed according 20. All the writ petitions are order passed by the Court shall present order.” Keeping in view above, we a ms. The observations and order p the present case. According -2) issued by the Jurisdictional A 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 discussion, there is no e a different view as el for the revenue from he Coordinate Bench. w laid down by the ces issued by the JAO Act, 1961 and the without conducting the ed under Section 144B d to be contrary to the nd accordingly notices 23, 20.03.2024 and 03.2023, are set aside would be, however, at as laid down under the gly, if so advised. allowed. The interim stand merged with the allow this Writ Petition in the passed above shall apply mutatis gly, notice dated 28.08.2024 Assessing Officer u/s 148 of the e s 4 e Suresh Kumar 2024.11.13 10:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-30395-202

Income Tax aside. 5. A

November 11 Ess Kay

Whether speak Whether Repor 024 (O&M) Page 3 of 3

Act, 1961 and all consequenti All pending applications also stan [SANJEEV 1, 2024

[SAN

king / reasoned :

Y rtable

Y ial proceedings thereof are set nd disposed of accordingly.

V PRAKASH SHARMA] JUDGE

NJAY VASHISTH] JUDGE Yes / No Yes / No t Suresh Kumar 2024.11.13 10:37 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 →