ANIL SHARMA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/32193/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01166437202417 December 2024Bench: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the issue involved in the present petition had already been decided by the Court in CWP No. 509 of 2023 (Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India) and CWP No. 157 of 2024 (Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India). The Court reiterated its previous finding that instructions by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or be issued to make them obsolete. The Court emphasized that legislative enactments must be followed mandatorily and that powers under Sections 119 and 120 of the Act, 1961, as well as Section 144B (7 & 8), cannot be exercised to usurp legal provisions for the convenience of authorities, causing hardship and confusion to assessees. Therefore, notices issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, and proceedings initiated thereafter without conducting faceless assessment under Section 144B of the Act, 1961, were found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act, 1961. Consequently, the notices dated August 28, 2024, and other consequential proceedings were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The Revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, if advised. The Court allowed the writ petition and merged any interim orders with the present order.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Anil Sharma, filed a writ petition challenging notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings. The Revenue was the respondent. The High Court noted that the issue involved was identical to those decided in previous writ petitions, specifically CWP No. 509 of 2023 (Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India) decided on July 29, 2024, and CWP No. 157 of 2024 (Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India) decided on July 19, 2024. In those cases, the Court had held that circulars or instructions from the Board could not override statutory provisions or render them obsolete. The Court also noted that the present petition was filed in December 2024, and the notices under challenge were dated August 28, 2024. The Court also referred to earlier notices dated February 28, 2023, March 16, 2023, March 30, 2023, March 20, 2024, and March 30, 2023.

What were the issues?

1. Whether notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings initiated without conducting faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act, 1961, are contrary to the provisions of the Act, 1961, and thus liable to be set aside for want of jurisdiction? Assessee's Contention: The assessee, through their counsel, argued that the issue in the present petition has been finally examined and concluded by the High Court in previous writ petitions. They relied on the decisions in CWP No. 509 of 2023 (Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India) and CWP No. 157 of 2024 (Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India), which held that circulars or instructions from the Board cannot override statutory provisions or be issued to make them obsolete. The assessee contended that the notices and proceedings were contrary to the Act and lacked jurisdiction. Revenue's Contention: The learned counsel for the revenue suggested that there might be a reason to distinguish or take a different view from what was held by the Coordinate Bench. However, the judgment does not specify the exact nature of this suggestion or any specific authorities relied upon by the revenue.

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-32193-202 112 IN TH ANIL SHARM INCOME TA

CORAM: H

H Present: M

M M M f

SANJEEV P

1.

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

MA Vs.

AX OFFICER AND OTHERS **** HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAN HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAN **** Mr. Kartik Bansal, Advocate for Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Sr. Standin Ms. Pridhi Sandhu, Jr. Standing C Ms. Muskaan Gupta, Advocate for the respondents/Revenue. **** RAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) 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 nstructions by the Board could n AB AND HARYANA AT RH CWP-32193-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 17.12.2024 . . . . Petitioner . . . . Respondents NJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA NJAY VASHISTH the petitioner. ng Counsel with Counsel ) 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 not have been issued to

) 4 r s t P , P a ) MOHIT GOYAL 2024.12.18 11:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-32193-202 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 (O&M) Page 2 of 3 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 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.

MOHIT GOYAL 2024.12.18 11:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-32193-202 i w 2. Keepin terms. mutand issued Jurisdic proceed 3. All pen

December 17, Mohit goyal 1. Whethe 2. Whethe 24 (O&M) 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. 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 ns are allowed. The urt shall stand merged s Writ Petition in the aforesaid assed above shall apply mutatis dingly, notice dated 28.08.2024 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 2024.12.18 11:44 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 →