HARDEEP SINGH GUJRAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/17822/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01095412202408 August 2024Bench: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the proceedings initiated thereafter without conducting faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act, 1961, were contrary to the provisions of the Act and accordingly set aside for want of jurisdiction. The Court agreed with the view taken by a Coordinate Bench that circulars or instructions issued by the Board could not override statutory provisions or make them otiose. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed strictly and mandatorily. The Court found no occasion to distinguish or take a different view from the prior judgment in Jasjit Singh (supra). Consequently, the notice dated 15.03.2024 issued to the petitioner was set aside. Other questions raised in the writ petition were not pressed by the petitioner and were dismissed as not pressed. The revenue was at liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, if so advised.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Hardeep Singh Gujral, filed a Writ Petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The petitioner challenged a notice dated 15.03.2024 issued by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(1), Chandigarh. The learned counsel for both the petitioner and the revenue agreed that the issue in this writ petition had already been adjudicated by the High Court in a batch of writ petitions, with the lead case being CWP-21509-2023 titled Jasjit Singh Vs. Union of India and Others. In that prior judgment, the High Court had held notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer 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, to be contrary to the provisions of the Act and set aside for want of jurisdiction.

What were the issues?

1. Whether notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and proceedings initiated thereafter without conducting faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act, 1961, are contrary to the provisions of the Act, 1961 and liable to be set aside for want of jurisdiction. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner relied on the prior judgment of the High Court in CWP-21509-2023 (Jasjit Singh Vs. Union of India and Others), which held that notices issued under Section 148 without conducting faceless assessment under Section 144B were without jurisdiction. The petitioner argued that the present case is covered by this precedent. Revenue's Contention: The revenue suggested that there was occasion to distinguish or take a different view from the judgment in Jasjit Singh (supra). However, the judgment does not record specific arguments from the revenue beyond this suggestion.

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-17822-2024 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 247 CWP-17822-2024

Decided on : 08.08.2024 Hardeep Singh Gujral . . . Petitioner(s) Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(1) Chandigarh and others . . . Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH PRESENT: Mr. Rana Gurtej Singh, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Mr. Yogesh Putney, Sr. Standing Counsel for the respondents – revenue. **** SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

, J. (Oral) 1. Learned counsel for both the sides are ad idem that the issue raised in the present Writ Petition stands finally adjudicated by this Court vide order dated 29.07.2024 in a bunch of Writ Petitions in which the lead case is CWP-21509-2023 titled as Jasjit Singh Vs. Union of India and Others

, whereby this Court has held the notice issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer as unjustified. 2. The Court has passed the following order:- “14. xxx xxx xxx xxx 15. xxx xxx xxx xxxx 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 override statutory provisions or to make them otiose or obsolete. Legislative JAWALA RAM 2024.08.09 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

CWP-17822-2024 - 2 - 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. JAWALA RAM 2024.08.09 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

CWP-17822-2024 - 3 - 21. xxx xxx xxxx 22. xxx xxx xxxx” 3. In view of the above, we allow this Writ Petition in the aforesaid terms. Accordingly, notice dated 15.03.2024 is set-aside. The other questions raised in the present Writ Petition are not pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Accordingly, the same are dismissed as not pressed. 4. Pending misc. applications, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly. (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE August 08, 2024 J.Ram Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No JAWALA RAM 2024.08.09 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity 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 →