MANOJ KUMAR vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/22818/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01120229202409 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. It held that instructions issued by the Board (presumably referring to procedural guidelines for faceless assessment) could not override statutory provisions or render them obsolete. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed strictly. The Court reiterated its view, consistent with its previous judgments in Jasjit Singh and Jatinder Singh Bhangu, that authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their convenience or satisfaction, causing hardship and confusion to assessees. Instructions and circulars can only supplement statutory provisions and aid in their implementation. Consequently, notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings initiated under Section 144B, without conducting faceless assessment, were found to be contrary to the Act and set aside for want of jurisdiction. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act if so advised. The interim orders stood merged with the final order.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Manoj Kumar, challenged notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings, including those under Section 144B, before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The assessment years in question were not explicitly stated, but the notices were dated between February 28, 2023, and April 8, 2024. The core of the challenge was that these notices and proceedings were issued without conducting the faceless assessment as envisaged by the Act. The revenue, represented by the Income Tax Department, accepted notice. The High Court noted that similar issues had been decided by its Coordinate Benches in previous cases, specifically CWP No. 21509 of 2023 (Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India) and CWP No. 15745 of 2023 (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 consequential proceedings initiated under Section 144B, are invalid if conducted without adhering to the faceless assessment scheme as mandated by the Act. (Question of law and fact, concerning Sections 148 and 144B). Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the notices and subsequent proceedings were flawed because they were not conducted through the faceless assessment mechanism, which is a statutory requirement. The petitioner relied on the decisions of Coordinate Benches of the High Court in similar matters. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through its counsel, accepted notice and did not present any arguments against the assessee's position. The judgment states that "Both the counsel are ad idem that the issue involved in the present petition stands finally examined and concluded by this Court in the aforesaid cases."

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

136 IN TH MANOJ KUM

UNION OF IN

CORAM: H

Present: M

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 MAR

V NDIA AND OTHERS

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJ Mr. Dhruv Khanna, Advocate, an Mr. Navdeep Monga, Advocate f Mr. Yogesh Putney, Senior Stand for the respondent-Income Tax D ***** RAKASH SHARMA, J. (Oral) Notice of motion. Mr. Yogesh Putney, Senior Stan respondent-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 22818-2024 (O&M) f Decision:09.09.2024

..…...Petitioners (s) V/s.

......Respondent(s) NJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA NJAY VASHISTH nd for the petitioner. 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-22818-202

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 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 the present case. Accordin 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 ngly, notices issued by the e s e Suresh Kumar 2024.09.10 09:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-22818-202

Jurisdictional (Annexures P 5. A

September 9, Ess Kay

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

Assessing Officer u/s 148 dat P-4 and P-5), and consequential p All pending applications also stan [SANJEEV , 2024 [SAN

king / reasoned :

Y rtable

Y ted 28.03.2024 and 08.04.2024 proceedings are set aside. nd disposed of accordingly.

V PRAKASH SHARMA] JUDGE

NJAY VASHISTH] JUDGE Yes / No Yes / No 4 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 →