VIBHA ALIAS VIBHA ARORA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/33778/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01175107202416 December 2024Bench: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, in agreement with its prior decisions in Jasjit Singh (supra) and Jatinder Singh Bhangu (supra), allowed the writ petition. The Court reiterated its finding that circulars or instructions issued by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or render them otiose. Legislative enactments, especially those with financial implications, must be followed mandatorily. The Court held that authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship to assessees. Instructions and circulars are meant only to supplement statutory provisions and aid in their implementation. Consequently, notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148A(b) dated 19.03.2023, order passed under Section 148A(d) dated 06.04.2023, and notice under Section 148 dated 06.04.2023, along with consequential proceedings, were set aside for want of jurisdiction, as they were initiated without conducting the faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act. The respondents-revenue were granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, if so advised. The ratio is that faceless assessment procedures mandated by statute cannot be bypassed by administrative instructions or actions, and non-compliance vitiates the proceedings.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Vibha @ Vibha Arora, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The respondents are the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and others (Revenue). The petitioner and the Revenue agreed that the issue in the present petition was concluded by this Court's prior decisions in CWP No. 21509 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 High Court was considering a challenge to notices issued under Section 148A(b) and Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings initiated by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer.

What were the issues?

1. Whether notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer 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. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued, by consensus with the revenue, that the issue was concluded by previous judgments of the High Court. The High Court in Jasjit Singh (supra) held that circulars or instructions by the Board cannot override statutory provisions. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed strictly. Authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for convenience causing hardship. Instructions and circulars can only supplement statutory provisions. The notices and proceedings initiated without faceless assessment were found to be contrary to the Act. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through its counsel, accepted notice and agreed that the issue was concluded by prior judgments of the High Court. No separate arguments were recorded for the revenue beyond this agreement.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-33778-2024 (O&M) Page 1 of 3 118 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-33778-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 16.12.2024 VIBHA @ VIBHA ARORA . . . . Petitioner Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND OTHERS . . . . Respondents **** CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH **** Present: Mr. Mukul Panpher, Advocate, for Mr. Nikhil Goyal, Advocate, for the petitioner. and Mr. Yogesh Putney, Senior Standing Counsel, **** SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) 1. Notice of motion. 2. Mr. Yogesh Putney, Senior Standing Counsel, accept notice on behalf of 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: LAVISHA 2024.12.17 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh

CWP-33778-2024 (O&M) Page 2 of 3 “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 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. LAVISHA 2024.12.17 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh

CWP-33778-2024 (O&M) Page 3 of 3 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.” 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 dated 19.03.2023 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act, order dated 06.04.2023 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act, and notice dated 06.04.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer as well as the consequential proceedings are set aside. 5. All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly.

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE December 16, 2024 Lavisha 1. Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No 2. Whether reportable? Yes/No LAVISHA 2024.12.17 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh

More judgments on Section 119

All 707 judgments and leading authorities on Section 119 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →