AMARJIT KAUR vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/23092/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01120566202411 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 circulars or instructions issued by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or make them obsolete. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed mandatorily. The Court reiterated that instructions can only supplement statutory provisions and aid in their implementation, not usurp them. Consequently, notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings initiated without conducting the assessment under Section 144B, were found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act and were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The Court also noted that the faceless assessment scheme, as envisaged by Section 144B, was not properly followed. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act and proceed accordingly, if so advised. The interim orders stood merged with the present order.

What were the facts?

The petitioners, Amarjit Kaur and others, challenged notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings, including those conducted under the faceless assessment scheme envisaged by Section 144B. The assessment years are not explicitly stated. The petitioners argued that the notices and proceedings were invalid. The revenue, represented by the Income Tax Department, accepted notice. The High Court was considering the validity of these notices and the procedure followed. The case was heard by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings, including those under the faceless assessment scheme (Section 144B), are valid when they allegedly contravene statutory provisions or are issued without proper jurisdiction. Assessee's Contention: The petitioners contended that the notices and consequential proceedings were invalid. They relied on the principle that instructions by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or render them obsolete, and legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed strictly. They argued that authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship and confusion. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through its counsel, accepted notice. No specific arguments were recorded for the revenue in the provided text.

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 IN TH AMARJIT KA

UNION OF IN

CORAM: H

Present: M 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 AUR

V NDIA AND OTHERS

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJ Mr. Anurag Sharma, Advocate an Mr. Kapish Chawla, Advocate fo Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Senior Stand for the respondents/Income Tax D ***** RAKASH SHARMA, J. (Oral) Notice of motion. Mr. Ranvijay Singh, 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 23092-2024 (O&M) f Decision:11.09.2024

..…...Petitioners (s) V/s. …......Respondent(s) NJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA NJAY VASHISTH nd or 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 2024.09.11 16:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-23092-202

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 2024.09.11 16:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-23092-202

Assessing O consequential 5. A

September 1 Ess Kay

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

Officer u/s 148 dated 23.03 l proceedings are set aside. All pending applications also stan [SANJEEV 1, 2024 [SAN

king / reasoned :

Y rtable

Y 3.2024 (Annexure P-2), and nd disposed of accordingly.

V PRAKASH SHARMA] JUDGE

NJAY VASHISTH] JUDGE Yes / No Yes / No d Suresh Kumar 2024.09.11 16:48 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 →