TAJINDER KAUR vs. PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AMRITSAR 1

PDF · subscribers
CWP/21831/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01115546202402 September 2024Bench: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the writ petition, following its own prior decisions in Jasjit Singh and Jatinder Singh Bhangu. The Court held that circulars or instructions issued by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or render them obsolete. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be strictly followed. Authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship to assessees. Instructions and circulars can only supplement statutory provisions. 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. The specific notices dated 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2024, and 30.03.2023, along with the order dated 30.03.2023, were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The Revenue was granted liberty to follow the prescribed procedure if advised. The present case was decided mutatis mutandis on the same terms, setting aside the notice dated 28.03.2024 and consequential proceedings.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Tajinder Kaur, has filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The petition challenges notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings. The Revenue, represented by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and another, has accepted notice. Both parties agree that the issue has been decided by this Court in previous writ petitions, specifically CWP No. 21509 of 2023 (Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others) decided on July 29, 2024, and by a Coordinate Bench in CWP No. 15745 of 2024 (Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others) decided on July 19, 2024. The core of the dispute relates to the procedure followed in reassessment proceedings.

What were the issues?

1. Whether notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings are valid when faceless assessment, as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act, was not conducted? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argues that the notices and proceedings are contrary to the Act because the mandatory procedure of faceless assessment under Section 144B was not followed. The High Court's previous decisions in Jasjit Singh and Jatinder Singh Bhangu are relied upon to support this contention. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue does not appear to have raised any specific argument against the assessee's position in this particular judgment, as both counsel are stated to be 'ad idem' that the issue stands concluded by prior judgments. The judgment implies the Revenue's prior arguments in the cited cases were considered and rejected.

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-21831-2024 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 124 CWP-21831-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 02.09.2024 Tajinder Kaur . . . . Petitioner Vs. PR. Commissioner of Income Tax and another . . . . Respondents **** CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH **** Present: Mr. Kunwar Rajan, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Sr. Standing Counsel for the respondents/Revenue. **** SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) 1. Notice of motion. 2. Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Sr. Standing Counsel accepts notice on behalf of respondents/Revenue. 3. Both the counsel are ad idem that the issue involved in the present petition stands finally examined and concluded by this Court in CWP No.21509 of 2023 titled as Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others, decided on 29.07.2024, and by the Coordinate Bench in CWP No.15745 of 2024 titled as Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others, decided on 19.07.2024. This Court in Jasjit Singh (supra) held as under: DINESH 2024.09.03 05:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-21831-2024 (O&M) “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 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. DINESH 2024.09.03 05:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-21831-2024 (O&M) 20. All the writ petitions are allowed. The interim order passed by the Court shall stand merged with the present order.” 4. 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 u/s 148 dated 28.03.2024, and consequential proceedings are set aside. 5. All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly.

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE September 02, 2024 dinesh 1. Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No 2. Whether reportable? Yes/No DINESH 2024.09.03 05:11 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 →