CHANDERWATI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE AND ORS.

PDF · subscribers
CWP/22502/2023HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01128193202323 October 2024Bench: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH3 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 the subsequent faceless assessment proceedings initiated under Section 144B of the Act were found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act. The court relied on its previous decisions in Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India. The reasoning was that the authorities could not usurp legal provisions to their own satisfaction or convenience, causing hardship and confusion to assessees. Instructions and circulars are meant for supplementing statutory provisions and their implementation, not for overriding them. Consequently, the notices dated 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2024, 30.03.2023, and the order dated 30.03.2023 were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act and proceed accordingly, if so advised. All writ petitions were allowed, and interim orders stood merged with the present order.

What were the facts?

The petitioners, represented by their counsel, filed writ petitions challenging notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings initiated under the faceless assessment scheme. The core of the challenge was that these proceedings were conducted without adhering to the mandatory provisions of Section 144B of the Act, which mandates a specific procedure for faceless assessments. The revenue, represented by its senior standing counsel, was present. The application for pre-ponement of the hearing was disposed of as the main writ petition was also listed. The court noted that similar issues had been decided in previous cases titled Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India.

What were the issues?

1. Whether notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent faceless assessment proceedings initiated under Section 144B of the Act, are liable to be set aside for want of jurisdiction due to non-compliance with statutory provisions. (Mixed question of law and fact, turning on Section 148 and Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's contention: The assessment proceedings were conducted without adhering to the mandatory provisions of Section 144B, rendering them without jurisdiction. The court's previous decisions in similar cases, which held that circulars and instructions cannot override statutory provisions, are binding. Revenue's contention: The revenue did not record any specific arguments against the assessee's contentions. However, they were represented by their counsel, indicating their participation in the proceedings.

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

110+261 IN TH CHANDERWA

NATIONAL F

CORAM: H

Present: M

M f

M f

* SANJEEV PR

CM-16890-C 1. A itself, the inst the same is di CWP-22502-2

2.

B present petitio No.21509 of decided on 29 2024 titled a decided on 19

C HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA CHANDIGAR

CM-16 CWP-2 Date of WATI

V FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJ (Through Video Conferencin Mr. Divya Suri, Advocate with Mr. Sachin Bhardwaj and Mr. Yo for the applicant-petitioner. Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal, Senior S for the respondent-Income Tax D ***** RAKASH SHARMA, J. (Oral) CWP-2024 As the main Writ Petition is als tant application for pre-poneme isposed of as such. 2023 (O&M) Both the counsel are ad idem on stands finally examined and c f 2023 titled as Jasjit Singh vs 9.07.2024, and by the Coordina as Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. 9.07.2024. This Court in Jasjit Si “16. We are in agreement with Coordinate Bench and hold t AB AND HARYANA AT RH 6890-CWP-2024 in/and 22502-2023 (O&M) f Decision:23.10.2024

..…...Petitioner(s) V/s. TRE, DELHI AND OTHERS …......Respondent(s) NJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA NJAY VASHISTH ng/Hybrid Mode) ogesh Kumar Mittal, Advocates Standing Counsel Department. so listed before this Court today ent has become infructuous and that the issue involved in the concluded by this Court in CWP s. Union of India and others, ate Bench in CWP No.15745 of . Union of India and others, Singh (supra) held as under: the view taken by the that such circular or

) y d e P , f , Suresh Kumar 2024.10.24 12:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-22502-2023

i o o i m S S a s a t a s i 1 o s w 1 C u p f o p d 3 f 1 l A 2 o p 3 (O&M) Page 2 of 3

instructions by the Board could n override statutory provisions or t obsolete. Legislative enactmen implications are required to be mandatorily. By exercising the Sections 119 and 120 of the A Section 144B (7 & 8), the a allowed to usurp the legal pro satisfaction and convenience ca assessees. It also leaves confusio taxpayers. In the opinion of th and circulars can be issued on supplementing the statutory pro implementation. 17. In view of the aforesaid d occasion to distinguish or take suggested by the learned counse what has already been held by th 18. Keeping in view the law Coordinate Bench (supra), notic under Section 148 of the proceedings initiated thereafter w faceless assessment as envisage of the Act, 1961, have been foun provisions of the Act, 1961 an dated 28.02.2023, 16.03.202 30.03.2023 and order dated 30. for want of jurisdiction. 19. The respondents-revenue w liberty to follow the procedure a Act, 1961 and proceed according 20. All the writ petitions are order passed by the Court shall present order.” not have been issued to to make them otiose or nts having financial e followed strictly and powers contained in Act, 1961 as well as authorities cannot be ovisions to their own ausing hardship to the on in the minds of the his Court, instructions nly for the purpose of ovisions and for their discussion, there is no e a different view as el for the revenue from he Coordinate Bench. w laid down by the ces issued by the JAO Act, 1961 and the without conducting the ed under Section 144B d to be contrary to the nd accordingly notices 23, 20.03.2024 and 03.2023, are set aside would be, however, at as laid down under the gly, if so advised. allowed. The interim stand merged with the Suresh Kumar 2024.10.24 12:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-22502-2023

3.

K aforesaid term mutandis to (Annexure P- Income Tax A 4. All p

October 23, 2 Ess Kay

Whether speak Whether Repor 3 (O&M) Page 3 of 3

Keeping in view above, we a ms. The observations and order p the present case. According -5) issued by the Jurisdictional A Act, 1961 and all consequential p pending applications also stand d [SANJEEV 2024

[SAN

king / reasoned :

Y rtable

Y allow this Writ Petition in the passed above shall apply mutatis gly, notice dated 30.03.2023 Assessing Officer u/s 148 of the proceedings are set aside. disposed of accordingly.

V PRAKASH SHARMA] JUDGE

NJAY VASHISTH] JUDGE Yes / No Yes / No e s 3 e Suresh Kumar 2024.10.24 12:26 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 →