GURJANT KAUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CWP/31233/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01159924202420 November 2024Bench: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the writ petition. The Court held that instructions issued by the CBDT cannot override statutory provisions, nor can they be used to make legislative enactments otiose or obsolete. Legislative enactments must be followed mandatorily. The Court agreed with the coordinate bench that by exercising powers contained in Sections 119 and 120 of the Act, as well as Section 144B (7 & 8), the assessing authorities cannot usurp legal provisions to their own satisfaction and convenience, causing hardship and confusion to assessees. Instructions and circulars can only supplement statutory provisions and aid in their implementation. Consequently, notices issued under Section 148 of the Act, and proceedings initiated thereafter without conducting faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B, were found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act. The notices dated 28.02.2023, 20.03.2023, 16.03.2023, and 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 order stood merged with the final order.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Gurjant Kaur, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated 13.02.2024 issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and all consequential proceedings. The High Court noted that similar issues were decided in previous writ petitions, specifically Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others, decided on 09.07.2024, and Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others, decided on 19.07.2024. The Court was informed that the counsel for the respondents accepted notice and were ad idem with the previous judgments. The present petition was therefore considered for final disposal on the same grounds.

What were the issues?

1. Whether notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent faceless assessment proceedings are valid when they are found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act and CBDT instructions, particularly concerning the mandate of faceless assessment and the limitations on the Assessing Officer's powers? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued, by relying on the precedent set in Jasjit Singh (supra) and Jatinder Singh Bhangu (supra), that the notices and subsequent proceedings were liable to be set aside for want of jurisdiction. The core of the argument was that instructions by the Board cannot override statutory provisions, and faceless assessment procedures, as envisaged under Section 144B, were not followed, leading to a lack of jurisdiction. Revenue's Contention: The revenue's counsel accepted notice and agreed with the position taken by the coordinate bench in the cited cases. They did not present any arguments against the assessee's position or attempt to distinguish the facts or law from the precedents relied upon by the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 119,Section 120,Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

129 IN TH GURJANT KA

THE INCOM OTHERS

CORAM: H

Present: M M M M f M

* SANJEEV PR

1.

N 2. M on behalf of Standing Cou Department. 3. B present petitio No.21509 of decided on 29 2024 titled a decided on 19 HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA CHANDIGAR

CWP-3 Date of AUR

V ME TAX OFFICER WARD, S

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJ

Mr. Navneet Jindal, Advocate fo Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Senior Stan Ms. Pridhi Sandhu, Junior Standi Ms. Muskaan Gupta, Advocate for the respondent No.1 and 3. Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Senior Stan for the respondent No.2. ***** RAKASH SHARMA, J. (Oral) Notice of motion. Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Senior St the respondents No.1 and 3 an unsel accepts notice on behalf o 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 AB AND HARYANA AT RH 31233-2024 (O&M) f Decision:20.11.2024 ..…...Petitioner(s) V/s. SAMANA AT PATIALA AND …......Respondent(s) NJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA NJAY VASHISTH r the petitioner. nding Counsel, with ing Counsel and nding Counsel, tanding Counsel, accepts notice nd Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Senior of respondent No.2/Income Tax 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: D ) e r x e P , f , Suresh Kumar 2024.11.22 09:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-31233-202

C i o o i m 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 024 (O&M) Page 2 of 3

“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 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 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 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. Suresh Kumar 2024.11.22 09:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-31233-202

2 o p

4.

K aforesaid term mutandis to (Annexure P- Income Tax aside. 5. A

November 20 Ess Kay

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

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 -3) issued by the Jurisdictional A Act, 1961 and all consequenti All pending applications also stan [SANJEEV 0, 2024

[SAN

king / reasoned :

Y rtable

Y allowed. The interim stand merged with the allow this Writ Petition in the passed above shall apply mutatis gly, notice dated 13.02.2024 Assessing Officer u/s 148 of the ial proceedings thereof are set nd disposed of accordingly.

V PRAKASH SHARMA] JUDGE

NJAY VASHISTH] JUDGE Yes / No Yes / No e s 4 e t Suresh Kumar 2024.11.22 09:21 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 →