SHIKHAR GADH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1, YAMUNA NAGAR

PDF · subscribers
CWP/31483/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01154132202422 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, holding that the notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the consequential proceedings, including those conducted under Section 144B, were contrary to the provisions of the Act. The Court relied on its previous decisions in CWP No. 21509 of 2023 (Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India) and CWP No. 15745 of 2024 (Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India), which held that circulars or instructions from the Board cannot override statutory provisions and that authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their convenience. The Court found that the notices and proceedings were issued without jurisdiction and were therefore set aside. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, if so advised. Any interim orders passed by the Court were to stand merged with the present order.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Shikhar Ga, filed a writ petition challenging notices and proceedings initiated under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential orders. The revenue, represented by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Yamuna Nagar, contested the petition. The assessment years are not explicitly stated, but the notices are dated 30.08.2024, 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2024, and 30.03.2023, with a consequential order dated 30.03.2023. The core of the dispute revolves around the validity of these notices and proceedings, particularly in light of faceless assessment procedures. The High Court was asked to decide if these actions were in accordance with the law.

What were the issues?

1. Whether notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings, including faceless assessments under Section 144B, were valid when they allegedly contravened statutory provisions and the principles of natural justice? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning Section 148 and Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the notices and proceedings were contrary to the provisions of the Act and the principles of natural justice, likely implying a challenge to the procedural fairness and adherence to statutory mandates. The petitioner relied on the High Court's own previous decisions in similar matters. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through its counsel, accepted that the issue had been finally examined and concluded by the High Court in prior writ petitions. They did not present an independent argument but acknowledged the binding nature of previous 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-31483-202 109 IN TH SHIKHAR GA INCOME TA

CORAM: H

H Present: M M M f

M M f

SANJEEV P

1.

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

ADH Vs.

AX OFFICER WARD-1, YAMU **** HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAN HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAN **** Mr. Chetan Jain, Advocate Mr. Mahesh Kumar, Advocate (t Mr. Anand Chaudhuri, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Sr. Standin Ms. Pridhi Sandhu, Jr. Standing C for the respondents/Revenue. **** RAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) of motion. urabh Kapoor, Sr. Standing Cou dent/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 AB AND HARYANA AT RH CWP-31483-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 22.11.2024 . . . . Petitioner UNA NAGAR . . . . Respondent NJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA NJAY VASHISTH through VC) e (through VC) ng Counsel with Counsel ) unsel 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

) 4 r t f t P , P a MOHIT GOYAL 2024.11.22 11:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-31483-202 and oth held as 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 24 (O&M) Page 2 of 3 hers, decided on 19.07.2024. Th under: “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 his Court in Jasjit Singh (supra) 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

) MOHIT GOYAL 2024.11.22 11:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-31483-202 3 f a t i w 4. Keepin terms. mutand issued Jurisdic proceed 5. All pen

November 22, Mohit goyal 1. Whethe 2. Whethe 24 (O&M) Page 3 of 3 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 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 , 2024 r speaking/reasoned?

Y r reportable?

Y 03.2023, are set aside 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 30.08.2024 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 2024.11.22 11:36 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 →