REKHA GARG vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/30373/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01155544202411 November 2024Author: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, following its previous decisions in Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India, held that instructions issued by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or render them obsolete. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed strictly. The Court reiterated that circulars and instructions can only supplement statutory provisions and aid in their implementation, not usurp legal provisions for the convenience of authorities or cause hardship and confusion to assessees. Consequently, the Court found the notice dated 13.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and all consequential proceedings, including those initiated under Section 144B, to be without jurisdiction and contrary to the Act. The Court set aside the impugned notice and all subsequent proceedings. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, if so advised. The interim orders were merged with the final order.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Rekha Garg, challenged a notice dated 13.03.2024 issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings. The petitioner argued that these actions were taken without jurisdiction and were contrary to the provisions of the Act and relevant circulars. The revenue, represented by the Income Tax Department, accepted notice. The High Court noted that the issue was similar to previously decided cases: CWP No. 21509 of 2023 (Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India) and CWP No. 15745 of 2023 (Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India), both decided on 19.07.2024. The assessment year(s) and the specific amount in dispute are not explicitly stated in the provided text.

What were the issues?

1. Whether notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent faceless assessment proceedings initiated under Section 144B, are valid when they are found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act and relevant circulars, particularly concerning the authority of instructions issued by the Board versus statutory provisions. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the notice under Section 148 and the subsequent proceedings were without jurisdiction and contrary to the law. The assessee relied on the principles laid down in the judgments of Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India, which were cited as precedents. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through its Senior Standing Counsel, accepted notice and did not present any arguments against the assessee's position, implicitly agreeing with the precedents cited by the assessee.

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

122 IN TH REKHA GAR

ASSISTANT OTHERS

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 G

V COMMISSIONER OF INCOM

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJ Mr. Kartik Bansal, Advocate for Mr. Varun Issar, Senior Standing for the respondent-Income Tax D *****

RAKASH SHARMA, J. (Oral) Notice of motion. Mr. Varun Issar, Senior Standi 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 30373-2024 (O&M) f Decision:11.11.2024

..…...Petitioner(s) V/s. ME TAX, FARIDABAD AND …......Respondent(s) NJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA NJAY VASHISTH the petitioner. g Counsel, Department. ing 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 D n e P , f , Suresh Kumar 2024.11.12 11:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-30373 -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 -1) 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 13.03.2024 Assessing Officer u/s 148 of the e s 4 e Suresh Kumar 2024.11.12 11:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-30373 -20

Income Tax aside.

5.

A

November 11 Ess Kay

Whether speak Whether Repor 024 (O&M) Act, 1961 and all consequenti All pending applications also stan [SANJEEV 1, 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 2024.11.12 11:00 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 →