SANDEEP PADIA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/13677/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01076433202514 May 2025Author: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the writ petition. It held that circulars or instructions issued by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or render them obsolete. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be strictly followed. Authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship to assessees, nor can they create confusion for taxpayers. Instructions and circulars can only supplement statutory provisions for implementation. Consequently, notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 and subsequent proceedings initiated without conducting faceless assessment under Section 144B were found to be contrary to the Act. The Court set aside the notice dated 17.04.2025 and all consequential proceedings for want of jurisdiction. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the prescribed procedure if advised. The ratio decidendi is that faceless assessment procedures mandated by statute cannot be bypassed by executive instructions or by initiating proceedings without adhering to the prescribed legal framework, and such deviations render the proceedings void for want of jurisdiction.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Sandeep Padia, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh challenging a notice dated 17.04.2025 issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1, Faridabad (respondent No.1) under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and all consequential proceedings. The respondents, represented by senior standing counsel, accepted notice. Both parties agreed that the issue was concluded by previous High Court judgments 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 present writ petition was filed in the year 2025.

What were the issues?

1. Whether notices issued by the Joint Assessing Officer (JAO) 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, are contrary to the provisions of the Act and liable to be set aside? (Question of law and mixed fact and law, turning on Sections 148 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner, through their counsel, argued that the issue involved in the present petition stands concluded by previous judgments of the High Court. They relied on the decisions in Jasjit Singh and Jatinder Singh Bhangu, which held that circulars or instructions cannot override statutory provisions and that faceless assessment procedures must be followed. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through their counsel, accepted notice and did not present any distinct arguments against the petitioner's reliance on the prior judgments. They acknowledged that the issue had been examined and concluded by the coordinate benches.

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

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
165 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.13677 of 2025 Date of Decision: 14.05.2025 Sandeep Padia …..Petitioner. Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1, Faridabad and others .....Respondents. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA ***** Present:- Mr. Vishav Bharti Gupta, Advocate and Ms. Mamta Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) 1. Notice of motion. 2. Mr. Varun Issar, Senior Standing Counsel with Ms. Pridhi Sandhu, Junior Standing Counsel, accept notice on behalf of the respondent(s)-Income Tax Department. 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 Versus Union of India and others”, decided on 29.07.2024 and by the Co-ordinate Bench in CWP No.15745 of 2024 titled as “Jatinder Singh Bhangu Versus Union of India and others”, decided on 19.07.2024. This Court in Jasjit Singh’s YAG DUTT 2025.05.16 15:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this

order/judgment

CWP No.13677 of 2025 -2-

case (supra) held as under:- “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. YAG DUTT 2025.05.16 15:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

CWP No.13677 of 2025 -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 afore-said terms. The observations and order passed above shall apply mutatis mutandis to the present case. Accordingly, notice dated 17.04.2025 (Annexure P-1) issued by respondent No.1-Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO), under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and all consequential proceedings thereof are set-aside.

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA)

JUDGE

(MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA) May 14, 2025

JUDGE Yag Dutt

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No

Whether Reportable: Yes/No YAG DUTT 2025.05.16 15:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →