MANPREET SINGH BADAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/31946/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01164730202427 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, setting aside the notice issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated March 1, 2023, the order issued under Section 148A(d) of the Act, dated April 6, 2023, and the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act, dated April 6, 2023, along with consequential proceedings. The Court reiterated its finding in Jasjit Singh (supra) 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 held that authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship to assessees, and that instructions and circulars can only supplement statutory provisions. The ratio decidendi is that faceless assessment, as envisaged under Section 144B, is mandatory, and proceedings initiated without adhering to it are without jurisdiction. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, if advised.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Manpreet Singh Badal, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana challenging notices and orders issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Bathinda, and others. The petitioner argued that the assessment proceedings were initiated without conducting a faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The revenue accepted notice. Both parties agreed that the issue was concluded by previous judgments of the High Court in similar cases, specifically CWP No. 21509 of 2023 (Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India) decided on July 29, 2024, and CWP No. 15745 of 2024 (Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India) decided on July 19, 2024. The High Court was asked to decide if the assessment proceedings were validly conducted.

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 envisaged under Section 144B of the Act, are contrary to the provisions of the Act, 1961? (Question of law and mixed fact and law, turning on Sections 144B and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contention: The assessment proceedings were initiated without conducting the mandatory faceless assessment as required by Section 144B of the Act, rendering the notices and subsequent actions without jurisdiction. The petitioner relied on the High Court's decisions in Jasjit Singh and Jatinder Singh Bhangu. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through Sr. Standing Counsel, accepted notice and did not present any arguments against the petitioner's reliance on the previously decided cases. The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-31946-2024 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 129 CWP-31946-2024

Decided on : 27.11.2024 Manpreet Singh Badal . . . Petitioner(s) Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Bathinda and others . . . Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH PRESENT: Ms. Kajal Garg, Advocate for Mr. Nikhil Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Sr. Standing Counsel for the respondent(s) - revenue. **** SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

, J. (Oral) 1. Notice of motion. 2. Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, 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 JAWALA RAM 2024.11.28 19:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

CWP-31946-2024 - 2 - make them otiose or obsolete. Legislative enactments having 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 2024.11.28 19:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

CWP-31946-2024 - 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 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 01.03.2023, order issued u/s 148A(d) of the Act, dated 06.04.2023 and notice issued u/s 148 of the Act, dated 06.04.2023, as well as consequential proceedings are set aside. 5. All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly. (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE November 27, 2024 J.Ram Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No JAWALA RAM 2024.11.28 19:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

More judgments on Section 144B

All 10,521 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →