JITENDER KUMAR SHARMA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/32239/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01166069202417 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 instructions issued by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or render them otiose. Legislative enactments must be followed strictly. The Court affirmed its agreement with the view taken by a Coordinate Bench in Jasjit Singh (supra) and Jatinder Singh Bhangu (supra). It was held that authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship and confusion to assessees. Circulars and instructions can only supplement statutory provisions for implementation. Consequently, notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and proceedings initiated thereafter without conducting the faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act, were found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act. The notices dated 31.08.2024, 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2024, and 30.03.2023, along with the consequential order dated 30.03.2023, were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act and proceed accordingly if so advised. All pending applications were also disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Jitender Kumar Sharma, challenged notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings. The High Court noted that the issue was identical to previous cases, specifically CWP No. 215 of 2023 (Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others) decided on July 29, 2024, and CWP No. 157 of 2024 (Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others) decided on July 19, 2024. In those cases, the Court had held that instructions by the Board could not override statutory provisions. The present petition was filed by Jitender Kumar Sharma, and the respondents were the Income Tax Officer and others. The assessment year(s) and the specific amounts in dispute were not explicitly stated in the provided text.

What were the issues?

1. Whether notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings conducted under Section 144B of the Act are valid when they are found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act and the principles laid down by the Courts, particularly concerning the overriding effect of statutory provisions over Board instructions. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the notices and proceedings were contrary to the Act and previous judgments of the Court. The assessee relied on the decisions in Jasjit Singh (supra) and Jatinder Singh Bhangu (supra). Revenue's Contention: The revenue, represented by Sr. Standing Counsel Mr. Varun Issar, did not present separate arguments but agreed with the petitioner that the issue had been decided in prior cases. The revenue's counsel was ad idem with the petitioner's counsel.

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-32239-202 123 IN TH JITENDER K INCOME TA

CORAM: H

H Present: M

SANJEEV P

1.

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

KUMAR SHARMA Vs.

AX OFFICER AND OTHERS **** HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAN HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAN **** Mr. Nikhil Goyal, Advocate for t Mr. Varun Issar, Sr. Standing Co 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 override statutory provisions or t AB AND HARYANA AT RH CWP-32239-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 17.12.2024 . . . . Petitioner . . . . Respondents NJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA NJAY VASHISTH the petitioner. ounsel ) 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 to make them otiose or

) 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-32239-202 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 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 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-32239-202 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 31.08.2024 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 →