ASHU MOHAN PUNCHHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CWP/23396/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01122907202413 September 2024Bench: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal held that instructions issued by the Board, particularly those concerning faceless assessment under Section 144B, cannot override statutory provisions or make them otiose. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed mandatorily. The Court reiterated its view from previous judgments (Jasjit Singh and Jatinder Singh Bhangu) that authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship and confusion. Consequently, the notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the subsequent faceless assessment proceedings initiated under Section 144B were found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act. The notices dated 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2023, 30.03.2023, and 28.03.2024 (Annexure P-1) were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act and proceed accordingly if so advised. The operative direction was to allow the writ petition and set aside the impugned notices and consequential proceedings.

What were the facts?

This judgment concerns a writ petition filed by Ashu Moha (the petitioner) against the Commissioner of Income Tax and others (the respondents). The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated, but the challenge is to notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings, including those initiated under Section 144B. The procedural history involves the issuance of several notices dated 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2023, 30.03.2023, and 28.03.2024 (Annexure P-1), and subsequent faceless assessment proceedings. The petitioner argues that these proceedings are without jurisdiction. The amount in dispute is not stated. The High Court has previously dealt with similar issues in other writ petitions, notably Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and 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 subsequent faceless assessment proceedings initiated under Section 144B are valid when they allegedly contravene statutory provisions and instructions issued by the Board. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argues that the notices and subsequent proceedings are without jurisdiction. They rely on the principle that instructions from the Board cannot override statutory provisions or render them obsolete, and that legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed strictly. The petitioner contends that authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship and confusion. They cite the High Court's previous decisions in Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, represented by the Senior Standing Counsel, accepted notice and stated that the issue involved in the petition has been finally examined and concluded by this Court in the aforementioned cases. No other specific arguments were recorded for the revenue.

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

114 IN TH ASHU MOHA

ASSISTANT AYKAR BHAW

CORAM: H

Present: M M 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 HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA CHANDIGAR

CWP-2 Date of AN PUNCHHI

V COMMISSIONER OF INCOM WAN, CHANDIGARH

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJ Ms. Radhika Suri, Senior Advoca Mr. Abhinav Narang, Advocate a Ms. Pranika Singla, Advocate for Mr. Yogesh Putney, Senior Stand Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Standing Co 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 AB AND HARYANA AT RH 23396-2024 (O&M) f Decision:13.09.2024 ..…...Petitioners (s) V/s. ME TAX, DCIT/ACIT, CIR1(1), ......Respondent(s) NJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA NJAY VASHISTH ate, assisted by and r the petitioner. ding Counsel, with ounsel, 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

n e n , f , Suresh Kumar 2024.09.13 16:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-23396-20

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

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 he present case. Accordingly, no 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 otice issued by the Jurisdictional e s l Suresh Kumar 2024.09.13 16:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-23396-20

Assessing O consequential 5. A

September 13 Ess Kay

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

Officer u/s 148 dated 28.03 l proceedings are set aside. All pending applications also stan [SANJEEV 3, 2024 [SAN

king / reasoned :

Y rtable

Y 3.2024 (Annexure P-1), and nd disposed of accordingly.

V PRAKASH SHARMA] JUDGE

NJAY VASHISTH] JUDGE Yes / No Yes / No d Suresh Kumar 2024.09.13 16:52 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 →