MUKUL HASTEER HUF vs. CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES NORTH BLOCK NEW DELHI AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/23405/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01122947202413 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 of Direct Taxes cannot override statutory provisions or render them obsolete. Legislative enactments must be followed strictly. The powers contained in Sections 119 and 120 of the Act, as well as Sections 144B (7 & 8), cannot be exercised by authorities to usurp legal provisions for their own satisfaction and convenience, as this causes hardship and confusion to assessees. Instructions can only supplement statutory provisions and aid in their implementation. Consequently, notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148 dated 05.04.2023, and subsequent proceedings initiated without conducting the assessment as envisaged under Section 144B, were found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act, 1961, and were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if so advised. The writ petition was allowed, and the interim order merged with the present order.

What were the facts?

The petitioners, Steer HUF, filed a writ petition challenging 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. The assessment years are not explicitly stated, but the notices challenged are dated 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2024, 30.03.2023, and 30.03.2023. The revenue, represented by the Income Tax Department, accepted notice. The High Court considered prior judgments on similar issues, including CWP No. 21509 of 2023 titled Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others, decided on 29.07.2024, and CWP No. 15745 of 2023 titled Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others, decided on 19.07.2024.

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 of the Act are valid when they are alleged to be contrary to the provisions of the Act and potentially usurp legal provisions for the convenience of authorities, causing hardship and confusion to assessees? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the notices and proceedings were contrary to the Act. The judgment refers to the assessee's reliance on prior decisions of the High Court, which held that instructions by the Board could not override statutory provisions or make them otiose. The assessee implicitly argued that the faceless assessment procedures, as applied, were not in line with legislative intent and caused prejudice. Revenue's Contention: The revenue's counsel accepted notice and did not record any specific arguments against the assessee's position. However, the judgment notes that the revenue's counsel was present and accepted notice, implying they were aware of the proceedings and the arguments made by the assessee.

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

118 IN TH MUKUL HAS

CENTRAL B THROUGH S OTHERS

CORAM: H

Present: M

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 HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA CHANDIGAR

CWP-2 Date of STEER HUF

V OARD OF DIRECT TAXES, N SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF F

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJ (Through Video Conferencin Mr. Divya Suri, Advocate with Mr. Sachin Bhardwaj, Advocate Mr. Yogesh Kumar Mittal, Advo Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal, Senior S for the respondent/Income Tax D ***** 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 AB AND HARYANA AT RH 23405-2024 (O&M) f Decision:13.09.2024

..…...Petitioners (s) V/s. NORTH BLOCK-NEW DELHI, FINANCE, NEW DELHI AND

......Respondent(s) NJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA NJAY VASHISTH ng/Hybrid Mode) and ocate for the petitioner. Standing Counsel Department. 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

D e e n , f , Suresh Kumar 2024.09.13 17:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-23405-202

o 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 024 (O&M) Page 2 of 3

obsolete. Legislative enactmen 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.” nts having financial 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 Suresh Kumar 2024.09.13 17:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-23405-202

4.

K aforesaid term mutandis to th Assessing O consequential 5. A

September 13 Ess Kay

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

Keeping in view above, we a ms. The observations and order p he present case. Accordingly, no Officer u/s 148 dated 05.04 l proceedings are set aside. All pending applications also stan [SANJEEV 3, 2024 [SAN

king / reasoned :

Y rtable

Y allow this Writ Petition in the passed above shall apply mutatis otice issued by the Jurisdictional 4.2023 (Annexure P-6), and nd disposed of accordingly.

V PRAKASH SHARMA] JUDGE

NJAY VASHISTH] JUDGE Yes / No Yes / No e s l d Suresh Kumar 2024.09.13 17:53 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 →