JASBRINDER SINGH TEJA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/21243/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01113070202429 August 2024Bench: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal held that notices issued 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. The Court agreed with the view taken by a Coordinate Bench, which held that circulars or instructions from the Board cannot override statutory provisions or make them otiose. Legislative enactments must be followed strictly. The Court found that the authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship to assessees. Consequently, notices dated February 28, 2023, March 16, 2023, March 20, 2024, and March 30, 2023, along with the order dated March 30, 2023, were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The Revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961. All pending applications were also disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Jasbrinder Singh Teja, filed a writ petition challenging notices issued 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. The Revenue, represented by the Income Tax Officer and others, accepted notice. The Court noted that the issue in this petition was covered by a previous judgment in CWP No. 21509 of 2023, Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others, decided on July 29, 2024. The previous judgment dealt with the validity of notices and proceedings initiated without adhering to the mandatory provisions of Section 144B, particularly concerning faceless assessment.

What were the issues?

1. Whether notices issued 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? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner contended that the notices and subsequent proceedings were invalid because they were initiated without adhering to the mandatory faceless assessment procedure stipulated under Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner relied on the principle that instructions by the Board cannot override statutory provisions and that legislative enactments must be followed strictly. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue, through its counsel, accepted notice and fairly stated that the issue was covered by a previous judgment of the Court. No specific arguments were recorded for the Revenue beyond this acknowledgment.

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-21243 of 2

135

IN TH Jasbrinder Sin Income Tax O CORAM: H

H Present: M

f SANJEEV P

1.

Notice 2. Mr. Yo respond present CWP N others, “ C in o o fo c S u c 2024(O&M)

HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA CHANDIGAR ngh Teja Vs.

Officer, Chandigarh and others **** HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAN HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAN **** Mr. Nikhil Goyal, Advocate for t Mr. Yogesh Putney, Sr. Standing Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Standing Co for the respondents/Revenue. **** RAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) of motion. ogesh Putney, Sr. Standing Coun dents/Revenue and fairly states t petition stands covered by the ju No.21509 of 2023 titled as Jasji decided on 29.07.2024, wherein “16. We are in agreement with Coordinate Bench and hold th nstructions by the Board could n override statutory provisions or t obsolete. Legislative enactments followed strictly and mandatorily. B contained Sections 119 and 120 of Section 144B (7 & 8), the authoriti usurp the legal provisions to thei convenience causing hardship to

Page 1 of 2 AB AND HARYANA AT RH CWP-21243-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 29.08.2024 . . . . Petitioner

. . . . Respondents NJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA NJAY VASHISTH the petitioner. g Counsel and ounsel ) nsel accepts notice on behalf of s that the issue involved in the udgment passed by this Court in it Singh vs. Union of India and n this Court held as under: the view taken by the hat such circular or not have been issued to to make them otiose or having financial be By exercising the powers the Act, 1961 as well as ies cannot be allowed to ir own satisfaction and the assessees. It also

) 4 r f e n d RASHMI 2024.08.29 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-21243 of 2

le a 1 o s h 1 C u in a 1 th 1 3 1 l 1 2 p o 3. Keepin terms. mutand (Annex 4. All pen

August 29, 202 Rashmi 1. Whethe 2. Whethe 2024(O&M)

eaves confusion in the minds of th and supplementing the statutory pro 17. In view of the aforesaid d occasion to distinguish or take suggested by the learned counsel fo has already been held by the Coord 18. Keeping in view the law Coordinate Bench (supra), notic under Section 148 of the Act, 196 nitiated thereafter without con assessment as envisaged under Se 1961, have been found to be contr he Act, 1961 and accordingly no 16.03.2023, 20.03.2024 and 30.03 30.03.2023, are set aside for want o 19. The respondents-revenue w iberty to follow the procedure as la 1961 and proceed accordingly, if so 20. All the writ petitions are allo passed by the Court shall stand m order.” ng in view above, we allow this The observations and order pa dis to the present case. Accord xure P-2) and consequential proc nding applications also stand disp

(SANJ 24 r speaking/reasoned?

Y r reportable?

Page 2 of 2 he taxpayers instructions ovisions and discussion, there is no e a different view as or the revenue from what dinate Bench. w laid down by the ces issued by the JAO 61 and the proceedings nducting the faceless ection 144B of the Act, rary to the provisions of otices dated 28.02.2023, 3.2023 and order dated of jurisdiction. would be, however, at aid down under the Act, o advised. owed. The interim order merged with the present s Writ Petition in the aforesaid assed above shall apply mutatis dingly, notice dated 14.03.2024 ceedings are hereby set aside. posed of accordingly. JEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE

(SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No

d s 4 RASHMI 2024.08.29 17:17 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 →