SWARAN SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/32068/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01165272202428 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 circulars or instructions issued by the Board under Section 119 and 120 of the Act cannot override statutory provisions or render them obsolete. Legislative enactments must be followed strictly, and powers under Sections 119 and 120, as well as Section 144B (7 & 8), cannot be exercised to usurp legal provisions for the convenience of authorities, causing hardship to assessees and confusion. Instructions and circulars can only supplement statutory provisions for their implementation. Following the precedent set in Jasjit Singh (supra) and Jatinder Singh Bhangu (supra), the Court found that notices issued under Section 148 and proceedings initiated under Section 144B without conducting the faceless assessment as envisaged were contrary to the Act. Consequently, the notices dated 18.03.2024, 20.03.2024, 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, and 30.03.2023 were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The Revenue was at liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act if so advised. All pending applications were also disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Swaran Singh, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The Revenue (Income Tax Officer, Kapurthala) is the respondent. The core of the dispute revolves around notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings conducted under Section 144B, which the petitioner contends were without jurisdiction. The High Court noted that the issue had been examined and concluded by a Coordinate Bench in similar cases, specifically CWP No. 215 of 2023 (Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India) decided on 29.07.2024, and CWP No. 157 of 2024 (Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India) decided on 19.07.2024. The present writ petition was filed challenging notices dated 18.03.2024, 20.03.2024, 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, and 30.03.2023.

What were the issues?

1. Whether notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings under Section 144B of the Act, conducted without complying with the envisaged assessment procedure, are contrary to the provisions of the Act and thus liable to be set aside for want of jurisdiction? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the notices and consequential proceedings were without jurisdiction. The judgment indicates that the assessee's counsel accepted that the issue had been finally examined and concluded by the Court in prior judgments. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue's counsel accepted notice and did not present a distinct argument, but relied on the Court's prior decisions. The judgment notes that the counsel for the revenue did not suggest any reason to distinguish the present case from the earlier ones.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-32068-202 114 IN TH SWARAN SI INCOME TA

CORAM: H

H Present: M f

SANJEEV P

1.

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

INGH Vs.

AX OFFICER, KAPURTHALA A **** HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAN HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAN **** Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Sr. Standing for the respondents/Revenue. **** RAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) of motion. anvijay Singh, Sr. 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: AB AND HARYANA AT RH CWP-32068-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 28.11.2024 . . . . Petitioner AND OTHERS . . . . Respondents NJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA NJAY VASHISTH g 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)

) 4 r s f t P , P a ) MOHIT GOYAL 2024.11.29 10:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-32068-202 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 3 f 24 (O&M) Page 2 of 3 “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 30.03.2023 and order dated 30. for want of jurisdiction. 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 03.2023, are set aside

MOHIT GOYAL 2024.11.29 10:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-32068-202 a t i w 4. Keepin terms. mutand issued Jurisdic proceed 5. All pen

November 28, Mohit goyal 1. Whethe 2. Whethe 24 (O&M) Page 3 of 3 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 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 18.03.2024 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 2024.11.29 10:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

More judgments on Section 119

All 707 judgments and leading authorities on Section 119 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →