DINESH KUMAR BANSAL vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/23125/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01121261202411 September 2024Bench: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal held that notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings initiated under faceless assessment as envisaged by Section 144B of the Act, 1961, are contrary to the provisions of the Act, 1961, and instructions issued by the JAO. The Court agreed with the view taken by the Coordinate Bench in Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others and Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others. It was reasoned that circulars or instructions by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or make them obsolete. The Court found that the notices and proceedings were initiated without conducting the assessment as per the provisions of the Act, 1961, and were therefore without jurisdiction. Consequently, the notice dated August 31, 2024, and all consequential proceedings were set aside. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure as laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly, if so advised. The interim order was merged with the final order.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Dinesh Kumar, challenged a notice issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated August 31, 2024 (Annexure P-4), and any consequential proceedings. The case was heard by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The revenue, represented by Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal, Senior Standing Counsel, accepted notice. The Court noted that the issue was identical to previous cases, specifically CWP No. 21509 of 2023 (Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others) and CWP No. 15745 of 2023 (Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others), both decided on July 19, 2024. The Court was informed that the petitioner's case was to be decided based on these precedents.

What were the issues?

1. Whether notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings initiated under faceless assessment as envisaged by Section 144B of the Act, 1961, are liable to be set aside for want of jurisdiction, given that they are found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act, 1961 and instructions issued by the JAO dated 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2023, 30.03.2023, and 30.03.2024. Assessee's Contention: The assessee implicitly argues that the notices and proceedings are invalid due to being contrary to statutory provisions and departmental instructions, leading to a want of jurisdiction. The assessee relies on the precedent set in Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others and Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through its counsel, accepted notice and did not present any arguments against the precedents cited by the assessee. The judgment notes that the counsel for the revenue did not suggest a different view from that taken by the Coordinate Bench in the cited 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

131 IN TH DINESH KUM

UNION OF IN

CORAM: H

Present: M M f

M f

* SANJEEV PR

1.

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

C i o o HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA CHANDIGAR

CWP-2 Date of MAR BANSAL

V NDIA AND OTHERS

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJ (Through Video Conferencin Mr. Sanjay Bansal, Senior Advoc Mr. Gurdeep Singh and Mr. Udit for the petitioner. Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal, Senior S for the respondents/revenue. ***** RAKASH SHARMA, J. (Oral) Notice of motion. Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal, Senior S he respondent-Income Tax Depa 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 AB AND HARYANA AT RH 23125-2024 (O&M) f Decision:11.09.2024

..…...Petitioners (s) V/s.

......Respondent(s) NJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA NJAY VASHISTH ng/Hybrid Mode) cate, assisted by t Jain, Advocates Standing Counsel Standing Counsel, accepts notice artment 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 e n , f , Suresh Kumar 2024.09.12 18:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-23125-202

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 2024.09.12 18:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-23125-202

mutandis to th Assessing O consequential 5. A

September 1 Ess Kay

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

he present case. Accordingly, no Officer u/s 148 dated 31.08 l proceedings are set aside. All pending applications also stan [SANJEEV 1, 2024 [SAN

king / reasoned :

Y rtable

Y otice issued by the Jurisdictional 8.2024 (Annexure P-4), and nd disposed of accordingly.

V PRAKASH SHARMA] JUDGE

NJAY VASHISTH] JUDGE Yes / No Yes / No l d Suresh Kumar 2024.09.12 18:22 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 →