SEEMA BISHNOI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CWP/21884/2023HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01120812202307 August 2024Bench: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that notices issued by the Joint Assessing Officer (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, were contrary to the provisions of the Act. The Court agreed with the view taken by a Coordinate Bench in Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others, which held that circulars cannot override statutory provisions and that legislative enactments must be followed strictly. The Court found that the authorities cannot be allowed to usurp legal provisions to their own satisfaction, causing hardship and confusion. Consequently, the notices dated February 28, 2023, March 16, 2023, March 20, 2024, March 30, 2023, and April 30, 2023, were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if so advised. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging notices issued under Section 148A(d) and Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings. The petitioner argued that these actions were taken without conducting a proper faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act. The revenue contended that the notices and proceedings were valid. The High Court was considering the present writ petition in light of a previous judgment by a Coordinate Bench in Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others, decided on July 29, 2024. The assessment years and the specific amounts in dispute are not explicitly stated in the provided text.

What were the issues?

1. Whether notices issued under Section 148A(d) and Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings initiated without conducting a faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act, are contrary to the provisions of the Act, 1961. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the notices and proceedings were initiated without adhering to the mandatory provisions of Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which mandates faceless assessments. They relied on the principle that administrative instructions or circulars cannot override statutory provisions and that authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their convenience. Revenue's Contention: The revenue contended that the notices and proceedings were valid. The judgment does not explicitly record the specific authorities, circulars, or precedents relied upon by the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A,Section 148,Section 144B,Section 119,Section 120

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-21884- 249-2 IN TH CORAM: H

H Present:

f SANJEEV P

1.

Both th petition this Co of India under: C in o o fo c S u c le a -2023

Page 1 of 2 HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA CHANDIGAR Vs.

**** HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAN HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAN **** Mr. Varun Issar, Senior Standing for the respondent – Income Tax **** RAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) he counsel are ad idem that the is n stands finally adjudicated in v ourt in CWP No.21509 of 2023 a and others, decided on 29.07.2 “16. We are in agreement w 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

AB AND HARYANA AT RH

CWP-21884-2023 Date of Decision: 07.08.2024 . . . . Petitioner . . . . Respondent NJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA NJAY VASHISTH g Counsel, Department. ) ssue involved in the present writ view of the judgment passed by titled as Jasjit Singh vs. Union 2024, wherein this Court held as with 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 t y n s LAVISHA 2024.08.09 16:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh

CWP-21884- o s h C u in a 1 th 1 3 l 1 o p 2. Keepin terms. mutand 21.04.2 3. All pen

August 07, 202 Lavisha 1. Whethe 2. Whethe -2023

Page 2 of 2 17. In view of the aforesaid occasion to distinguish or take suggested by the learned counsel fo has already been held by the Coord 18. Keeping in view the 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 iberty to follow the procedure as la 1961 and proceed accordingly, if so 20. All the writ petitions ar order passed by the Court shall present order.”

ng in view above, we allow this The observations and order pa dis to the present case. Accord 2023 and notice u/s 148 dated 21 nding applications also stand disp

(SANJ 24 r speaking/reasoned?

Y r reportable?

d discussion, there is no e a different view as or the revenue from what dinate Bench. law 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. e would be, however, at laid down under the Act, o advised. re allowed. The interim stand merged with the s Writ Petition in the aforesaid assed above shall apply mutatis dingly, order u/s 148A(d) dated .04.2023 are set aside. posed of accordingly. JEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE

(SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No

d s d LAVISHA 2024.08.09 16:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh

More judgments on Section 148A

All 3,543 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →