MAHINDER SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD MOHALI 1

PDF · subscribers
CWP/22803/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01120230202409 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, holding that notices issued under Section 148A(b) and Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings initiated under Section 148, without conducting the assessment in a faceless manner as envisaged by Section 144B, were contrary to the provisions of the Act. The Court relied on the decisions of coordinate benches in Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India. The reasoning was that instructions by the Board (referring to Section 119 and 120) could not override statutory provisions or make them obsolete, and legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed strictly. The Court found that the notices and orders dated 21.02.2024, 16.03.2023, 30.03.2023, 20.03.2024, and the order dated 30.03.2024 were issued for want of jurisdiction. The operative direction was to set aside these notices and orders. The Revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act and proceed accordingly, if advised. The interim orders stood merged with the present order.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Mahinder Singh, challenged notices and orders issued by the Income Tax Department under Section 148A and Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential assessment proceedings. The petitioner argued that these actions were taken without proper jurisdiction and in violation of statutory provisions. The Revenue, represented by the Income Tax Officer, SAS Nagar, accepted notice. The High Court noted that similar issues had been decided by coordinate benches in previous writ petitions, specifically citing Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India. The core of the dispute revolved around the validity of faceless assessment proceedings initiated through notices dated 21.02.2024, 16.03.2023, 30.03.2023, and 20.03.2024, and an order dated 30.03.2024.

What were the issues?

1. Whether notices issued under Section 148A(b) and Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings initiated under Section 148 of the Act, without conducting the assessment in a faceless manner as envisaged by Section 144B of the Act, are valid and in accordance with law. (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning Sections 144B, 148, and 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the notices and subsequent proceedings were contrary to the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, particularly Section 144B, which mandates faceless assessments. They contended that the authorities usurped legal provisions and caused hardship and confusion. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue, through the Senior Standing Counsel, accepted notice and did not present any arguments against the petitioner's claims, implicitly agreeing with the petitioner's position as the court noted both counsels were 'ad idem' on the issue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

127 IN TH MAHINDER S

THE INCOME

CORAM: H

Present: M f

M f

* SANJEEV PR

1.

N 2. M behalf of the r 3. B present petiti CWP No.215 decided on 29 2024 titled a decided on 19

C i o o i m HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA CHANDIGAR

CWP-2 Date of SINGH

V ME TAX OFFICER, SAS NAGAR, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJ Mr. Dhruv Mittal and Mr. Rocha for the petitioner. Mr. Yogesh Putney, Senior Stand for the respondents-Income Tax D ***** RAKASH SHARMA, J. (Oral) Notice of motion. Mr. Yogesh Putney, Senior Stan respondents/Income Tax Departm Both the counsel are ad idem ion stands finally examined an 509 of 2023 titled as Jasjit Singh 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 implications are required to be mandatorily. By exercising the AB AND HARYANA AT RH 22803-2024 (O&M) f Decision:09.09.2024

..…...Petitioners (s) V/s. PUNJAB AND OTHERS …......Respondent(s) NJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA NJAY VASHISTH ak Singla, Advocates, ding Counsel, Department nding Counsel, accepts notice on ment. that the issue involved in the nd concluded by this Court in h vs. 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 e followed strictly and powers contained in ) n e n , f , Suresh Kumar 2024.09.10 09:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-22803-202

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 mutandis to th 024 (O&M) Page 2 of 3

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 he present case. Accordingly, no 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 otice issued by the Jurisdictional e s l Suresh Kumar 2024.09.10 09:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-22803-202

Assessing Of 30.03.2024 u Section 148 a 5. A

September 9, Ess Kay

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

fficer under Section 148A(b) under Section 148A(d) and n and consequential proceedings ar All pending applications also stan [SANJEEV , 2024 [SAN

king / reasoned :

Y rtable

Y dated 21.02.2024, order dated notice dated 30.03.2024 under re set aside. nd disposed of accordingly.

V PRAKASH SHARMA] JUDGE

NJAY VASHISTH] JUDGE Yes / No Yes / No d r Suresh Kumar 2024.09.10 09:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

More judgments on Section 119

All 707 judgments and leading authorities on Section 119 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →