DINESH AGGARWAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/17841/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01097448202408 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 the issue raised in the present Writ Petition had already been finally adjudicated by the Court in its order dated 29.07.2024 in CWP-21509-2023 (Jasjit Singh Vs. Union of India and Others). The Court reiterated its previous finding that circulars or instructions issued by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or render them otiose. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be strictly followed. The Court found that authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship and confusion to assessees, by exercising powers under Sections 119, 120, and 144B of the Act. Instructions and circulars can only supplement statutory provisions. Consequently, notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 and proceedings initiated without conducting faceless assessment under Section 144B were found to be contrary to the Act. The specific notices dated 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2024, and 30.03.2023, and the order dated 30.03.2023, were set aside for want of jurisdiction. In the present case, notices dated 22.03.2024, 08.04.2024, and 29.06.2024 were set aside. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act if advised. Other questions raised by the petitioner were not pressed and were dismissed as not pressed.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Dinesh Aggarwal, filed a Writ Petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana challenging certain notices and proceedings initiated by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Officer, Circle-1, Chandigarh. The revenue was represented by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Officer and others. The assessment years are not explicitly stated. The challenge was to notices dated 22.03.2024, 08.04.2024, and 29.06.2024, and other related proceedings. The High Court noted that the issue had been adjudicated by a previous order dated 29.07.2024 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 Court had found notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings initiated without conducting faceless assessment under Section 144B of the Act, to be unjustified and contrary to the Act.

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 faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act, are valid and justified? (Question of law and mixed fact and law, concerning Sections 148 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contention: The assessee, through counsel, argued that the issue in the present Writ Petition stands finally adjudicated by this Court in a previous order dated 29.07.2024 in CWP-21509-2023 (Jasjit Singh Vs. Union of India and Others), which held such notices and proceedings to be unjustified. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through Sr. Standing Counsel, suggested that there was occasion to distinguish or take a different view from the previously decided case. However, the Court found no such occasion.

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-17841-2024 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 248 CWP-17841-2024

Decided on : 08.08.2024 Dinesh Aggarwal . . . Petitioner(s) Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Officer, Cirlce-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-17841-2024 - 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-17841-2024 - 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, notices dated 22.03.2024, 08.04.2024 and 29.06.2024 are 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 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →