ASHOK KUMAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD 2 (1)

PDF · subscribers
CWP/7833/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01044662202426 September 2024Bench: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the writ petition. It held that notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the proceedings initiated thereafter without conducting the faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act, 1961, were contrary to the provisions of the Act. Consequently, notices dated February 28, 2023, March 16, 2023, March 20, 2024, March 30, 2023, and an order dated March 30, 2023, were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The Court stated that the revenue would be at liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly, if so advised. The interim order passed by the Court was merged with the present order. The principle established is that faceless assessments must be conducted in accordance with Section 144B of the Act, and notices issued without adhering to this procedure are liable to be quashed.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Ashok Kumar, filed a writ petition (CWP-7833-2024) challenging a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer during the faceless regime. The revenue contended that the petitioner did not raise grounds that were examined by a Coordinate Bench. However, the Court noted that the petitioner was served a notice under Section 148 of the Act by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. The Court referred to its prior decision in Jatinder Singh v. Union of India and others (CWP-15745-2024) decided on July 19, 2024, which dealt with similar issues concerning notices issued under Section 148 and subsequent proceedings under the faceless regime.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the subsequent proceedings initiated by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer were valid, considering the faceless regime and the provisions of Section 144B of the Act? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner's counsel, Mr. Nikhil Goyal, submitted that he did not press the other grounds in the present petition, implying a focus on the validity of the notice and proceedings. The Court's observation suggests the petitioner's case raised grounds that were examined by a Coordinate Bench. Revenue's Contention: The revenue's counsel, Mr. Yogesh Putney and Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, argued that the petitioner did not essentially raise grounds that were examined by the Coordinate Bench. However, the Court found that the petitioner was served a notice under Section 148 of the Act by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-7833-202 109

IN TH ASHOK KUM INCOME TAX CORAM: H

H Present: M

SANJEEV P

CM-15788-CW

A is allowed. M Main case

1.

Learned petition Coordin Bhangu counsel petition

4 (O&M)

Page 1 of 3 HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA CHANDIGAR

MAR Vs.

X OFFICER AND ANOTHER **** HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAN HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAN **** Mr. Nikhil Goyal, Advocate for t Mr. Yogesh Putney, Sr. Standing Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Standing Co for the respondents/Revenue. **** RAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) WP-2024 Application for preponement of d Main case is taken on board for tod d counsel for the petitioner ner can be disposed of in term nate Bench in CWP-15745-2 u vs. Union of India and others, l submits that he does not press n. AB AND HARYANA AT RH CM-15788-CWP-2024 in/and CWP-7833-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 26.09.2024 . . . . Petitioner . . . . Respondents NJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA NJAY VASHISTH the petitioner. g Counsel with ounsel ) date of hearing of the main case day itself. submits that the case of the ms of judgment passed by the 024, titled as Jatinder Singh decided on 19.07.2024. Learned the other grounds in the present

d ) 4 r s e e e h d t MOHIT GOYAL 2024.09.26 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-7833-202 2. Learned by the p examin 3. Howev 148 of Officer 4. In CW concurr 15745-2 C u i a A p d 3 f a t i w 5. In view 22.03.2

4 (O&M)

Page 2 of 3 d counsel for the revenue submit petitioner does not essentially ra ned by the Coordinate Bench. ver, we find that the petitioner wa f the Income Tax Act, 1961, b r during the faceless regime. WP-21509-2023 and other bunc red with the judgment passed by 2024 (supra) and held as under:- “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 20. All the writ petition nterim order passed by the Cou with the present order.”

w thereof, the writ petition 2024 is set aside. The observatio ts that the writ petition preferred aise the said grounds which were as served a notice under Section by the Jurisdictional Assessing ch of petitions, we have also y the Coordinate Bench in CWP- - e 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. ns are allowed. The urt shall stand merged is allowed and notice dated ons and order passed above shall

d e n g o - d l MOHIT GOYAL 2024.09.26 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-7833-202 apply m revenue down u 6. All pen

September 26 Mohit goyal 1. Whethe 2. Whethe

4 (O&M)

Page 3 of 3 mutatis mutandis to the present c e would be, however, at liberty under the Act, 1961 and proceed nding applications also stand disp

(SANJ , 2024 r speaking/reasoned?

Y r reportable?

Y case. However, the respondents- to follow the procedure as laid accordingly, if so advised. posed of accordingly. JEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE

(SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No

- d MOHIT GOYAL 2024.09.26 17:49 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 →