PRIDHI APPARELS LLP vs. PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANOTHER

PDF · subscribers
CWP/11500/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01065193202413 August 2024Bench: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the subsequent faceless assessment proceedings initiated under Section 144B of the Act, 1961, were contrary to the provisions of the Act and were passed for want of jurisdiction. The Court relied on its previous decision in Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others (CWP No. 21509 of 2023, decided on 29.07.2024). In that judgment, the Coordinate Bench had held that circulars or instructions issued by the Board could not override statutory provisions or make them obsolete. The High Court reiterated that legislative enactments must be followed strictly and mandatorily. The Court found no occasion to distinguish or take a different view from the Coordinate Bench's decision. Consequently, the notices dated 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2024, and 30.03.2023, along with all consequential proceedings, were set aside. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if so advised. The writ petitions were allowed, and any interim orders stood merged with the present order.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Pridhi Apparels LLP, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana challenging notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings. The revenue, represented by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, was the respondent. The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated but the notices challenged are dated 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2024, and 30.03.2023. The core of the dispute revolves around the validity of these notices and the subsequent faceless assessment proceedings initiated under Section 144B of the Act. The High Court was asked to decide if these actions were in accordance with the law. The procedural history indicates that the petitioner sought to quash these notices and proceedings.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the subsequent faceless assessment proceedings under Section 144B of the Act, 1961, were valid and in accordance with the statutory provisions, or if they were contrary to law and passed without jurisdiction. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the notices and proceedings were contrary to the provisions of the Act and lacked jurisdiction. The judgment does not explicitly detail the specific authorities or precedents relied upon by the assessee, but it refers to the arguments presented by their counsel. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through its counsel, argued that the notices and proceedings were valid. The judgment does not explicitly detail the specific authorities or precedents relied upon by the revenue, but it refers to the arguments presented by their counsel. The revenue's counsel suggested distinguishing the present case from prior judgments.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 144B,Section 119

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-11500-202 246-26

IN TH PRIDHI APPA PR. COMMIS CORAM: H

H Present: M

M M

SANJEEV P

1.

Both th petition this Co of India under: b i o o f 24 (O&M)

Page 1 of 3 HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA CHANDIGAR

ARELS LLP Vs.

SSIONER OF INCOME TAX A **** HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAN HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAN **** Mr. Vivek Bansal, Advocate Mr. Vishal Chechi, Advocate Mr. Kunwar Rajan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Varun Issar, Sr. Standing Co for the respondents/Revenue. **** RAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) he counsel are ad idem that the n stands finally adjudicated in v ourt in CWP No.21509 of 2023 a and others, decided on 29.07.2 “16. We are in agreemen by the Coordinate Bench and hol nstructions by the Board could n override statutory provisions or t obsolete. Legislative enactments followed strictly and mandator AB AND HARYANA AT RH CWP-11500-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 13.08.2024 . . . . Petitioner AND ANOTHER . . . . Respondents NJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA NJAY VASHISTH ounsel ) e issue involved in the present view of the judgment passed by titled as Jasjit Singh vs. Union 2024, wherein this Court held as nt with the view taken ld that such circular or not have been issued to to make them otiose or s having financial be rily. By exercising the

) 4

r s t y n s MOHIT GOYAL 2024.08.14 09:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-11500-202 p 1 c o t t s n s w C u i a A p d 3 f a t i w 2. Keepin terms. 24 (O&M)

Page 2 of 3 powers contained Sections 119 1961 as well as Section 144B (7 cannot be allowed to usurp the le own satisfaction and convenienc the assessees. It also leaves conf the taxpayers instructions an statutory provisions and 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), noti 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 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 and 120 of the Act, 7 & 8), the authorities egal provisions to their ce causing hardship to nfusion in the minds of d supplementing the 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 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

d s MOHIT GOYAL 2024.08.14 09:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-11500-202 mutand 30.03.2 3. All pen

August 13, 202 Mohit goyal 1. Whethe 2. Whethe 24 (O&M)

Page 3 of 3 dis to the present case. Acco 2024 and all consequential proce nding applications also stand disp

(SANJ 24 r speaking/reasoned?

Y r reportable?

Y ordingly, notice u/s 148 dated edings are set aside. posed of accordingly. JEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE

(SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No

d MOHIT GOYAL 2024.08.14 09:47 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 →