RAJESH MEHTA vs. PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATIALA AND ANOTHER

PDF · subscribers
CWP/30496/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01155829202412 November 2024Bench: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that instructions by the Board could not override statutory provisions or make them otiose. Legislative enactments must be followed strictly. The Court found that by exercising powers under Sections 119 and 120, as well as Section 144B (7 & 8) of the Act, the authorities could not usurp legal provisions to their own satisfaction or convenience, causing hardship and confusion to assessees. Instructions from the Board can only supplement statutory provisions for their implementation. Consequently, notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 of the Act and the proceedings initiated thereafter without conducting faceless assessment under Section 144B were found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act, 1961, and 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. The Court allowed the writ petition and stated that the interim order passed by the Court shall stand merged with this order.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Rajesh Mehta, filed a writ petition challenging notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings. The Revenue, represented by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala, accepted notice. Both parties agreed that the issue had been finally examined and concluded by the High Court in previous writ petitions, specifically CWP-215509 of 2023 (Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others, decided on 29.07.2024) and CWP-157745 of 2024 (Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others, decided on 19.07.2024). The Court noted that the notices under challenge were dated 22.03.2024, 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2024, and 30.03.2023, and consequential proceedings were initiated without conducting faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act.

What were the issues?

1. Whether notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings initiated without conducting faceless assessment under Section 144B of the Act, are liable to be set aside for want of jurisdiction. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the notices and subsequent proceedings were contrary to the provisions of the Act and the established law laid down by the Coordinate Bench in similar cases. The assessee relied on the decisions in Jasjit Singh (supra) and Jatinder Singh Bhangu (supra). Revenue's Contention: The Revenue's counsel accepted notice and agreed that the issue had been finally examined and concluded by the Coordinate Bench in the aforementioned cases. The Revenue did not present any arguments to distinguish the present case from the precedents.

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-30496-202

126 IN TH Rajesh Mehta Pr. Commissi CORAM: H

H Present: M

SANJEEV P

1.

Notice 2. Ms. Pri respond 3. Both th petition No.215 decided No.157 and oth held as b 24

Page 1 of 3 HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA CHANDIGAR

a Vs.

oner of Income Tax, Patiala and **** HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAN HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAN **** Mr. Rishab Kapoor, Advocate fo Ms. Pridhi Sandhu, Jr. Standing C for the respondents/Revenue. **** RAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) of motion. idhi Sandhu, Jr. 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: “16. We are in agreemen by the Coordinate Bench and hol AB AND HARYANA AT RH CWP-30496-2024 Date of Decision: 12.11.2024 . . . . Petitioner d another . . . . Respondents NJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA NJAY VASHISTH or the petitioner. Counsel ) 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) nt with the view taken ld that such circular or

4 4

r s f t P , P a ) RASHMI 2024.11.13 17:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-30496-202

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 a t 24

Page 2 of 3 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. 19. The respondents-reven at liberty to follow the procedur the Act, 1961 and proceed accord 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 nue would be, however, re as laid down under dingly, if so advised.

RASHMI 2024.11.13 17:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-30496-202

i w 4. Keepin terms. mutand 2) issu Income set asid 5. All pen

November 12, rashmi 1. Whethe 2. Whethe 24

Page 3 of 3 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. According ued by Jurisdictional Assessing O e Tax Act, 1961 and the conseq de. nding applications also stand disp

(SANJ , 2024 r speaking/reasoned?

Y r reportable?

Y ns are allowed. The urt shall stand merged s Writ Petition in the aforesaid assed above shall apply mutatis gly, notice dated 22.03.2024 (P- Officer under Section 148 of the quential proceedings thereof are posed of accordingly. JEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE

(SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No

d s - e e RASHMI 2024.11.13 17:19 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 →