KAVNEET KAUR vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/23103/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01121774202411 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 the subsequent proceedings initiated under Section 144B, including the consequential orders, were contrary to the provisions of the Act and were therefore without jurisdiction. 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 instructions by the Board (referring to Section 119 and 120) could not override statutory provisions or make them obsolete. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed strictly. The Court found that the faceless assessment provisions under Section 144B (7 & 8) were not followed, leading to the notices and proceedings being set aside. The ratio decidendi is that statutory provisions, especially those concerning assessment procedures like faceless assessment, must be adhered to, and administrative instructions or circulars cannot supersede them. The Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the notices and consequential proceedings, and permitted the respondents-revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act if so advised. Any pending applications were also disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Kavneet Kaur, challenged notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings initiated under Section 144B, including orders dated 21.03.2024, 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2023, 30.03.2023, and 30.03.2023. The Revenue, represented by the Income Tax Department, accepted notice. The case was heard by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The Court noted that similar issues had been decided 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), both decided on 19.07.2024. The amount in dispute is not explicitly stated.

What were the issues?

1. Whether notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings initiated under Section 144B, including the consequential orders, are valid, considering they were allegedly issued without conducting faceless assessments as envisaged by the Act, and thus are without jurisdiction. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the notices and subsequent proceedings were contrary to the provisions of the Act, particularly Section 144B, as they were initiated without conducting faceless assessments. The assessee relied on the decisions in Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India, which held that circulars or instructions cannot override statutory provisions or render them obsolete. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through the Senior Standing Counsel, accepted notice. No specific arguments were recorded for the revenue in opposition to the assessee's contentions regarding the validity of the notices and 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

116 IN TH KAVNEET 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 23103-2024 (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 16:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-23103-202

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 16:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-23103-202

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 21.03 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 16:56 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 →