SUNIL KUMAR SHARMA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/21259/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01107807202429 August 2024Bench: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, following its previous judgment in Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others (decided on July 29, 2024), held that circulars or instructions issued by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or make them otiose. Legislative enactments must be followed strictly. The Court agreed with the coordinate bench that authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship to assessees and confusion. Consequently, the notices issued by the Joint Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, dated February 28, 2023, March 20, 2023, March 30, 2023, and the order dated March 30, 2024, along with 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 so advised. The writ petition was allowed, and interim orders were merged with the final order.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Sunil Kumar Sharma, filed a writ petition challenging notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings, including those related to faceless assessment under Section 144B. The assessment years involved are not explicitly stated, but the notices challenged are dated between February 28, 2023, and March 30, 2024. The petitioner contended that these notices and proceedings were contrary to the provisions of the Income Tax Act. The Revenue, represented by Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal, Sr. Standing Counsel, accepted notice and conceded that the issue was covered by a previous judgment of the High Court in Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others, decided on July 29, 2024.

What were the issues?

1. Whether notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings, including those under Section 144B for faceless assessment, are valid when they allegedly contravene statutory provisions and cause hardship or confusion to assessees? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning Sections 148 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the notices and proceedings were contrary to the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and sought to set them aside. 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, conceded that the issue was covered by a prior judgment of a coordinate bench of the High Court. The Revenue did not present any arguments against the petitioner's claim.

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

Cited by 269 judgments on BharatTax

See all citing judgments →

Counted from the text of the judgments hosted here. Most recent first.

CWP-21259 of 2 143

IN TH Sunil Kumar

Income Tax O CORAM: H

H Present: M

M f ( SANJEEV P

1.

Notice 2. Ms. Ga of respo present CWP N others, “ C in o o fo c S u c le a 2024(O&M)

HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA CHANDIGAR Sharma

Vs. Officer, Bhiwani and others **** HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAN HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAN **** Mr. Nikhil Goyal, Advocate for t Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal, Sr.Stand for the respondents. (through video conferencing) **** RAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) of motion. auri Neo Rampal, Sr. Standing C ondents/Revenue and fairly stat 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 eaves confusion in the minds of th and supplementing the statutory pro Page 1 of 2 AB AND HARYANA AT RH CWP-21259-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 29.08.2024 . . . . Petitioner

. . . . Respondents NJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA NJAY VASHISTH the petitioner. ding Counsel ) Counsel accepts notice on behalf es 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 he taxpayers instructions ovisions and ) 4 r f e n d RASHMI 2024.08.29 17:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-21259 of 2 1 o s h 1 C u in a 1 th 1 3 1 l 1 2 p o 3. Keepin terms. mutand (Annex dated 2 hereby 4. All pen

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

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) under Section 148 of 29.06.2024 (P-6) as well as all set aside. nding applications also stand disp

(SANJ 24 r speaking/reasoned?

Y r reportable?

Y Page 2 of 2 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 30.03.2024 the Income Tax Act and notice l consequential proceedings are posed of accordingly. JEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE

(SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No d s 4 e e RASHMI 2024.08.29 17:34 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 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →