KRISHAN KUMAR JOHRI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD SAMANA

PDF · subscribers
CWP/22681/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01119239202409 September 2024Bench: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings initiated under the faceless assessment scheme (Section 144B) were contrary to the provisions of the Act and were therefore set aside for want of jurisdiction. The Court relied on its previous decision in Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India, which held that circulars or instructions by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or make them obsolete. The Court emphasized that legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed mandatorily, and administrative authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship and confusion to assessees. The Court found that the notices dated 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2024, and 30.03.2023 were issued without jurisdiction. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act and proceed accordingly if advised. The operative direction was to allow the writ petition and set aside the impugned notices and consequential proceedings. The Court also noted that the Assessing Officer's notice under Section 148 dated 27.03.2024 was also set aside.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Captain Kashish Singh, challenged notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings initiated under the faceless assessment scheme. The assessment years are not explicitly stated. The challenge is to the validity of these notices and proceedings. The case was heard by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The respondents are the Income Tax Officer and other revenue authorities. The Court noted that similar issues had been decided by its Coordinate Bench in previous writ petitions, specifically Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India, both decided on July 19, 2024. The Court was presented with the arguments of both the petitioner and the revenue.

What were the issues?

1. Whether notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings initiated under the faceless assessment scheme, as envisaged by Section 144B of the Act, are valid when they are found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act and circulars issued by the Board, particularly concerning financial implications and the overriding nature of statutory provisions over administrative instructions. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the notices and proceedings were invalid. The judgment implies reliance on the principles laid down in previous judgments by the Coordinate Bench, which held that administrative instructions or circulars cannot override statutory provisions or make them obsolete. The petitioner likely contended that the faceless assessment procedures, if not implemented in accordance with the Act, could lead to hardship and confusion for assessees. Revenue's Contention: The revenue's counsel accepted notice and was present. The judgment does not explicitly detail the revenue's arguments but notes that the Coordinate Bench had considered the revenue's position in prior similar cases. The revenue's counsel was present and accepted the Court's prior decisions.

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

115 IN TH KRISHAN KU

THE INCOM CAPTAIN KA ROAD, SANG

CORAM: H

Present: M f

M f

* SANJEEV PR

1.

N 2. M notice on beh 3. B present petitio No.21509 of decided on 29 2024 titled a decided on 19

C i o o HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA CHANDIGAR

CWP-2 Date of UMAR JOHRI

V ME TAX OFFICER, WARD SAM ARAM SINGH NAGAR, GOBIN GRUR, PUNJAB AND OTHERS HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJ Mr. Dhruv Mittal and Mr. Rocha for the petitioner. Mr. Amanpreet (A.P.) Singh, Sen for the respondents. ***** RAKASH SHARMA, J. (Oral) Notice of motion. Mr. Amanpreet (A.P.) Singh, Se alf of the respondents/Income Ta 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 instructions by the Board could n override statutory provisions or t obsolete. Legislative enactmen AB AND HARYANA AT RH 22681-2024 (O&M) f Decision:09.09.2024

..…...Petitioners (s) V/s. MANA, INCOME TAX OFFICE, IND PURA COLONY, SUNAM …......Respondent(s) NJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA NJAY VASHISTH ak Singla, Advocates, nior Standing Counsel, enior Standing Counsel, accepts ax Department. 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 not have been issued to to make them otiose or nts having financial

M ) s e P , f , Suresh Kumar 2024.09.10 09:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-22681-202

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 4. K aforesaid term 024 (O&M) Page 2 of 3

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.” Keeping in view above, we a ms. The observations and order p 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 allow this Writ Petition in the passed above shall apply mutatis e s Suresh Kumar 2024.09.10 09:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-22681-202

mutandis to th Assessing O consequential 5. A

September 9, Ess Kay

Whether speak Whether Repor 024 (O&M) Page 3 of 3

he present case. Accordingly, no Officer u/s 148 dated 27.03 l proceedings are set aside. All pending applications also stan [SANJEEV , 2024 [SAN

king / reasoned :

Y rtable

Y otice issued by the Jurisdictional 3.2024 (Annexure P-2), and nd disposed of accordingly.

V PRAKASH SHARMA] JUDGE

NJAY VASHISTH] JUDGE Yes / No Yes / No l d Suresh Kumar 2024.09.10 09:36 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 →