GAURAV GARG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/32377/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01167151202402 December 2024Bench: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held 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 and mandatorily. The Court found that the notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the subsequent proceedings conducted under Section 144B (7 & 8) of the Act were contrary to the provisions of the Act. The Court reasoned that authorities cannot usurp legal provisions to their own satisfaction or convenience, causing hardship and confusion to assessees. Instructions and circulars can only supplement statutory provisions for implementation. Consequently, the notices dated 19.03.2024, 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2024, and 30.03.2023, along with the 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. All pending applications were also disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Gaurav Garg, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana challenging notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings initiated by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. The Revenue, represented by Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal, Sr. Standing Counsel, accepted notice. The Court noted that the issue was similar to previously decided cases: CWP No. 509 of 2023 (Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others, decided on 29.07.2024) and CWP No. 15745 of 2024 (Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others, decided on 19.07.2024). The Court was informed that the present petition was to be decided in similar terms. The judgment refers to notices dated 19.03.2024, 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2024, and 30.03.2023, and an order dated 30.03.2023.

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 liable to be set aside for want of jurisdiction, considering that they were initiated without conducting a faceless assessment as envisaged by the Act and its relevant provisions. Assessee's Contention: The assessee, through their counsel Mr. Divya Arora, argued that the proceedings were contrary to the provisions of the Act and the established legal procedure. The judgment implies that the assessee's position aligns with the precedents cited. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue, represented by Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal, Sr. Standing Counsel, accepted notice. The judgment does not explicitly record the Revenue's arguments but notes that the counsel for the parties were 'ad idem' that the issue was concluded by previous judgments of the Court. The Revenue's stance implicitly accepts the findings in the cited precedents.

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-32377-202 111 IN TH GAURAV GA INCOME TA

CORAM: H

H Present: M

SANJEEV P

1.

Notice 2. Ms. Ga of respo 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

ARG Vs.

AX OFFICER AND OTHERS **** HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAN HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAS **** Mr. Divya Arora, Advocate for th Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal, Sr. Stand for the respondents/Revenue. **** RAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) of motion. auri Neo Rampal, Sr. Standing C ondents/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-32377-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 02.12.2024 . . . . Petitioner . . . . Respondents NJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA SJIT SINGH BEDI he petitioner. ding Counsel (through VC) ) Counsel accepts notice on behalf 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 2024.12.03 15:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-32377-202 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 2024.12.03 15:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-32377-202 a t i w 4. Keepin terms. mutand issued Jurisdic proceed 5. All pen

December 02, 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 19.03.2024 Income Tax Act, 1961 by s well as the consequential posed of accordingly. JEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE

(JASJIT SINGH BEDI) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No

d s 4 y l MOHIT GOYAL 2024.12.03 15:02 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 →