PARVINDER SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/11607/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01065169202508 May 2025Bench: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal, in agreement with the Coordinate Bench's view in Jasjit Singh and Jatinder Singh Bhangu, held that circulars or instructions issued by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or make them obsolete. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed strictly. The Court found that authorities, by exercising powers under Sections 119 and 120 of the Act, 1961, and Section 144B(7 & 8), cannot usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship and confusion to assessees. Instructions and circulars can only supplement statutory provisions and aid their implementation. Consequently, notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 and subsequent proceedings, initiated without conducting faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B, were found to be contrary to the Act, 1961. The notices dated 24.03.2024 and all consequential proceedings were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, if advised. The writ petition was allowed in these terms.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Parvinder Singh, filed a writ petition challenging notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings. The revenue was represented by Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Sr. Standing Counsel. The parties agreed that the substantial issue was already decided by the High Court in two previous cases: Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others (CWP No. 21509 of 2023, decided on 29.07.2024) and Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others (CWP No. 15745 of 2024, decided on 19.07.2024). The present petition was filed in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.

What were the issues?

1. Whether notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings initiated without conducting faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act, are contrary to the provisions of the Act, 1961? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning Sections 148 and 144B). Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued, by relying on the Coordinate Bench's decisions in Jasjit Singh and Jatinder Singh Bhangu, that notices and proceedings initiated without faceless assessment under Section 144B were invalid. The High Court's previous rulings held that circulars or instructions by the Board could not override statutory provisions or render them obsolete, and that authorities could not usurp legal provisions causing hardship. Revenue's Contention: The revenue suggested that the present case could be distinguished from the previous ones. However, the Court found no occasion to take a different view.

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

154

Parvinder Sin

Income Tax O CORAM: H

Present: M

SANJEEV P 1.

N 2.

M behalf of the r 3.

L issue involved by this Court India and oth CWP No.1574 and others, de under: “ B c IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUN AT CHANDIGA C D ngh

Vs. Officer Ward 6 (1) Ludhiana and

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAN HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ME Mr. Anurag Sharma, Advocate fo

*** RAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) Notice of motion. Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Sr. Standi revenue. Learned counsel for the parties d in the present petition stands f in CWP No.21509 of 2023 title hers, decided on 29.07.2024, an 745 of 2024 titled as Jatinder Sin ecided on 19.07.2024. This Cour “16. We are in agreement with th Bench and hold that such circul could not have been issued to ove NJAB AND HARYANA ARH CWP-11607-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: 08.05.2025

…Petitioner d others …Respondents NJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA EENAKSHI I. MEHTA or the petitioner. ) ing Counsel, accepts notice on are ad idem that the substantial finally examined and concluded ed as Jasjit Singh vs. Union of nd by the Coordinate Bench in ngh Bhangu vs. Union of India rt in Jasjit Singh (supra) held as he view taken by the Coordinate lar or instructions by the Board erride statutory provisions or to n l d f n a s e d

RAJESH KUMAR 2025.05.12 10:32 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

[2] CWP-11607-2025 (O&M)

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. RAJESH KUMAR 2025.05.12 10:32 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

[3] CWP-11607-2025 (O&M)

20.

All the writ petitions are allowed. The interim order passed by the Court shall stand merged with the present order.”

Keeping in view above, we allow this Writ Petition in the aforesaid terms. The observations and order passed above shall apply mutatis mutandis to the present case. Accordingly, notice issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, dated 24.03.2024 and all consequential proceedings are set aside. 5.

All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly.

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE

(MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA)

JUDGE 08.05.2025 rajesh 1. Whether speaking/reasoned? : Yes/No 2. Whether reportable?

: Yes/No RAJESH KUMAR 2025.05.12 10:32 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →