ROMILA SHARMA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/8476/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01047681202525 March 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. The Court agreed with the view taken by a Coordinate Bench in Jasjit Singh (supra) and held that circulars or instructions issued by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or render them otiose. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed strictly and mandatorily. The Court found that by exercising powers under Sections 119 and 120 of the Act, 1961, as well as Section 144B (7 & 8), authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship to assessees. Instructions and circulars can only supplement statutory provisions. Consequently, notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, and proceedings initiated thereafter without conducting faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act, 1961, were found to be contrary to the Act and set aside for want of jurisdiction. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act if advised. The specific notice dated 24.03.2024 (Annexure P-1) and consequential proceedings were set aside.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Romila Sharma, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh challenging a notice issued by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(1), Ludhiana. The respondents are the Income Tax Officer and others. The assessment year is not explicitly stated. The petitioner sought to set aside the notice dated 24.03.2024 issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and all consequential proceedings. Both parties agreed that the issue was covered by previous judgments of the High Court 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.

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 and liable to be set aside (question of law and mixed fact and law, turning on Sections 148 and 144B). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner, through counsel, argued that the issue involved in the present petition has been finally examined and concluded by this Court in previous judgments, specifically CWP No.21509 of 2023 (Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others) and CWP No.15745 of 2024 (Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others). The petitioner relied on the principles laid down in these judgments. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through Senior Standing Counsel, accepted notice and agreed that the issue was covered by the aforementioned judgments. No separate arguments were advanced by the revenue against the petitioner's submissions.

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
147 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.8476 of 2025 Date of Decision: 25.03.2025 Romila Sharma …Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(1), Ludhiana and others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA Present:- Mr. Umang Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent(s)-Income Tax Department. ***** SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) 1. Notice of motion. 2. Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Senior Standing Counsel, accepts the 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 vs. 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 vs. Union of India and others, decided on 19.07.2024. This Court in Jasjit Singh (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 NEETU RANI 2025.03.26 16:40 I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this order/judgment PHHC, CHD -2-

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.

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 24.03.2024 (Annexure NEETU RANI 2025.03.26 16:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment PHHC, CHD -3-

P-1) issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and all consequential proceedings thereof are set-aside.

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA)

JUDGE

25.03.

2025

(MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA) neetu

JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No

Whether Reportable:

Yes/No NEETU RANI 2025.03.26 16:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment PHHC, CHD

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →