RAJNI JAIN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/11457/2023HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01067792202316 December 2024Bench: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court 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 reiterated its agreement with the view taken by a Coordinate Bench that powers contained in Sections 119 and 120 of the Act, as well as Section 144B (7 & 8), do not allow revenue authorities to usurp legal provisions for their own satisfaction or convenience, causing hardship and confusion to assessees. Consequently, notices issued under Section 148 of the Act and proceedings conducted without adhering to the faceless assessment envisaged under Section 144B were found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act. The Court set aside the impugned notices and consequential assessment proceedings for want of jurisdiction. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act and proceed accordingly if so advised. All pending applications and interim orders were also disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Rajni Jain, filed a writ petition challenging notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential assessment proceedings. The petitioner argued that these actions were initiated without conducting a proper assessment as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act. The revenue contended that the notices and proceedings were valid. The High Court noted that the issue was identical to previously decided cases, specifically CWP No. 21509 of 2023 (Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India) and CWP No. 15745 of 2024 (Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India). The Court had previously held that certain instructions and circulars could not override statutory provisions and that faceless assessment provisions under Section 144B were mandatory. The notices in question were dated 13.04.2023, 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2024, and 30.03.2023, and the consequential order was dated 30.03.2023.

What were the issues?

1. Whether notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings for assessment under Section 144B of the Act are valid when not conducted in accordance with the mandatory provisions of faceless assessment. Assessee's Contentions: - The petitioner argued that the assessment proceedings were initiated without adhering to the mandatory requirements of Section 144B, specifically regarding faceless assessment, leading to a lack of jurisdiction. - Relied on the judgment in CWP No. 21509 of 2023 (Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India) and CWP No. 15745 of 2024 (Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India) where similar issues were decided. Revenue's Contentions: - The revenue contended that the notices and proceedings were valid. - Relied on the instructions and circulars issued by the Board, suggesting they could be interpreted to allow for deviations from strict statutory procedures.

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

CWP-11457-202 104 IN TH RAJNI JAIN INCOME TA CORAM: H

H Present: M M M

f SANJEEV P

1.

Applica seeking 2. For the case is 3. Both th petition No.215 decided No.157 23 (O&M) Page 1 of 3 HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA CHANDIGAR

Vs.

AX OFFICER AND OTHERS **** HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAN HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAN **** Ms. Kajal Garg, Advocate and Mr. Mukul Pampher, Advocate f Mr. Nikhil Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal, Sr. Stand for the respondents/Revenue. **** RAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) ation No.CM-19825-CWP-2024 g preponement of the main case. e reasons stated in the application preponed and taken up today itse he counsel are ad idem that the n stands finally examined and co 509 of 2023 titled as Jasjit Singh d on 29.07.2024, and by the 745 of 2024 titled as Jatinder Sin AB AND HARYANA AT RH CM-19825-CWP-2024 in/and CWP-11457-2023 (O&M) Date of Decision: 16.12.2024 . . . . Petitioner . . . . Respondents NJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA NJAY VASHISTH for ding Counsel (through VC) ) 4 has been filed by the petitioner n, the same is allowed and main elf. e issue involved in the present oncluded by this Court in CWP h vs. Union of India and others, e Coordinate Bench in CWP ngh Bhangu vs. Union of India

d ) 4 r s r n t P , P a MOHIT GOYAL 2024.12.16 18:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-11457-202 and oth held as b i o o i m S S a s a t a s i n s w C u i a A p d 23 (O&M) Page 2 of 3 hers, decided on 19.07.2024. Th under: “16. We are in agreemen by the Coordinate Bench and hol nstructions by the Board could n override statutory provisions or t obsolete. Legislative enactmen mplications are required to be mandatorily. By exercising the 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 mplementation. 17. In view of the aforesa no occasion to distinguish or ta suggested by the learned counse what has already been held by th 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 his Court in Jasjit Singh (supra) nt with the view taken ld that such circular or not have been issued to to make them otiose or nts having financial followed strictly and powers contained in 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 aid discussion, there is ake a different view as el for the revenue from he Coordinate Bench. 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

) MOHIT GOYAL 2024.12.16 18:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-11457-202 3 f a t i w 4. Keepin terms. mutand issued Jurisdic proceed 5. All pen

December 16, Mohit goyal 1. Whethe 2. Whethe 23 (O&M) Page 3 of 3 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.”

ng in view above, we allow this The observations and order pa dis to the present case. Accord under Section 148 of the ctional Assessing Officer as dings are set aside. nding applications also stand disp

(SANJ 2024 r speaking/reasoned?

Y r reportable?

Y 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 s Writ Petition in the aforesaid assed above shall apply mutatis dingly, notice dated 13.04.2023 Income Tax Act, 1961 by s well as the consequential posed of accordingly. JEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE

(SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No

d s 3 y l MOHIT GOYAL 2024.12.16 18:12 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 →