BHUPINDER SINGH vs. PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUDHIANA AND ANOTHER

PDF · subscribers
CWP/31060/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01160111202419 November 2024Author: 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 make them obsolete. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed strictly. The Court agreed with the view taken by a Coordinate Bench that administrative 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 their implementation. Consequently, notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, and the subsequent proceedings initiated without conducting faceless assessment, were found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act and 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 advised. The Court explicitly stated that there was no occasion to distinguish or take a different view from the Coordinate Bench's decision.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Bhupinder Singh, challenged notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings, including those under Section 144B, before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The petitioner argued that these proceedings were initiated without conducting a proper faceless assessment as envisaged by the Act. The revenue, represented by the Income Tax Department, accepted notice. The case was heard alongside similar petitions, including Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India, which were decided on 09.07.2024. The core of the dispute revolves around the validity of the assessment proceedings initiated by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) via notices dated 26.03.2024, 20.03.2024, 23.03.2023, 16.03.2023, 30.03.2023, and 30.03.2023, and the subsequent 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 initiated under Section 144B, are valid if faceless assessment procedures are not followed, thereby violating the statutory provisions of the Act? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning Sections 148 and 144B). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the proceedings were initiated without conducting the mandatory faceless assessment as envisaged by the Act, rendering them invalid and without jurisdiction. They relied on the principle that statutory provisions must be followed mandatorily and that administrative instructions cannot override them. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through its Senior Standing Counsel, accepted notice. The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the revenue against the petitioner's claims, but it notes that the counsel was present and accepted notice.

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

123 IN TH BHUPINDER

PR. COMM BHAWAN, RI

CORAM: H

H

Present: M M

f

* SANJEEV PR

1.

N

2.

M behalf of the r

3.

B present petitio No.21509 of decided on 29 2024 titled a decided on 19

C i o o i m HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA CHANDIGAR

CWP-3 Date of R SINGH

V MISSIONER OF INCOME T ISHI NAGAR, LUDHIANA AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJ

Mr.Rishabh Kapoor, Advocate fo Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Senior Stand for the respondent-Income Tax D ***** RAKASH SHARMA, J. (Oral) Notice of motion. Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Senior Stan respondents/Income Tax Departm Both the counsel are ad idem on stands finally examined and c f 2023 titled as Jasjit Singh vs 9.07.2024, and by the Coordina as Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. 9.07.2024. This Court in Jasjit Si “16. We are in agreement with Coordinate Bench and hold t instructions by the Board could n override statutory provisions or t obsolete. Legislative enactmen implications are required to be mandatorily. By exercising the AB AND HARYANA AT RH 31060-2024 (O&M) f Decision:19.11.2024

..…...Petitioner(s) V/s. TAX, LUDHIANA, AAYAKAR ANOTHER …......Respondent(s) NJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA NJAY VASHISTH or the petitioner. ding Counsel, Department. nding Counsel, accepts notice on ment. that the issue involved in the concluded by this Court in CWP s. Union of India and others, ate Bench in CWP No.15745 of . Union of India and others, Singh (supra) held as under: the view taken by the that such circular or not have been issued to to make them otiose or nts having financial e followed strictly and powers contained in R ) n e P , f , Suresh Kumar 2024.11.20 15:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-31060 -20

S S a s a t a s i 1 o s w 1 C u p f o p d 3 f 1 l A 2 o p

4.

K aforesaid term mutandis to (Annexure P- 024 (O&M) 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 implementation.

17.

In view of the aforesaid d occasion to distinguish or take suggested by the learned counse what has already been held by th

18.

Keeping in view the law Coordinate Bench (supra), notic under Section 148 of the proceedings initiated thereafter w faceless assessment as envisage of the Act, 1961, have been foun 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-revenue w liberty to follow the procedure a Act, 1961 and proceed according

20.

All the writ petitions are order passed by the Court shall present order.” Keeping in view above, we a ms. The observations and order p the present case. According -2) issued by the Jurisdictional A 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 discussion, there is no e a different view as el for the revenue from he Coordinate Bench. w laid down by the ces issued by the JAO Act, 1961 and the without conducting the ed under Section 144B d to be contrary to the nd accordingly notices 23, 20.03.2024 and 03.2023, are set aside would be, however, at as laid down under the gly, if so advised. allowed. The interim stand merged with the allow this Writ Petition in the passed above shall apply mutatis gly, notice dated 26.03.2024 Assessing Officer u/s 148 of the e s 4 e Suresh Kumar 2024.11.20 15:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-31060 -20

Income Tax aside.

5.

A

November 19 Ess Kay

Whether speak Whether Repor 024 (O&M) Act, 1961 and all consequenti All pending applications also stan [SANJEEV 9, 2024

[SAN

king / reasoned :

Y rtable

:

Y ial proceedings thereof are set nd disposed of accordingly.

V PRAKASH SHARMA] JUDGE

NJAY VASHISTH] JUDGE Yes / No Yes / No t Suresh Kumar 2024.11.20 15:52 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 →