VANITA JOSHI vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/23412/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01123532202413 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 the notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the consequential proceedings initiated under Section 144B, were found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act. The court relied on its previous decisions in Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others and Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others. The reasoning was that instructions by the Board (referring to Section 119 and 120) could not override statutory provisions, and faceless assessment procedures, as envisaged under Section 144B, were not followed correctly. The court emphasized that legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed strictly. Therefore, the notices dated February 28, 2023, March 16, 2023, March 20, 2023, March 30, 2023, and the notice dated March 29, 2024, along with all consequential proceedings, were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure as laid down under the Act and proceed accordingly, if so advised. The interim orders were merged with the present order.

What were the facts?

The petitioners, represented by Ms. Nazuk Singhal, Advocate, filed a writ petition challenging notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings initiated under Section 144B. The assessment years are not explicitly stated but the notices are dated between February 28, 2023, and March 30, 2023, with a further notice dated March 29, 2024. The revenue, represented by Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Senior Standing Counsel, accepted notice. The High Court noted that the issue was similar to previously decided 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 9, 2024. The core of the dispute revolves around the validity of faceless assessment proceedings initiated through these notices.

What were the issues?

1. Whether notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings under Section 144B, are valid when they are alleged to be contrary to the provisions of the Act and the instructions issued by the Board, particularly concerning faceless assessment. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the notices and subsequent proceedings were initiated without jurisdiction and were contrary to the provisions of the Act, especially concerning faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B. They relied on the principles laid down in previous judgments by the same court. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through its counsel, did not present any specific arguments against the assessee's position, but rather acknowledged the court's prior decisions on similar matters. The court noted that the revenue's counsel was 'ad idem' with the petitioner's counsel regarding the final examination of the petition.

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

122 IN TH VANITA JOSH

UNION OF IN

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 o i m HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA CHANDIGAR

CWP-2 Date of HI

V NDIA AND OTHERS

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJ Ms. Nazuk Singhal, Advocate fo Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Senior Stan Ms. Samdesha Kaur, Advocate for the respondent/Income Tax D ***** RAKASH SHARMA, J. (Oral) Notice of motion. Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Senior St 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 implications are required to be mandatorily. By exercising the AB AND HARYANA AT RH 23412-2024 (O&M) f Decision:13.09.2024 ..…...Petitioners (s) V/s. ......Respondent(s) NJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA NJAY VASHISTH r the petitioner. nding Counsel, with Department. tanding 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 followed strictly and powers contained in e e n , f , Suresh Kumar 2024.09.13 17:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-23412-20

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 2024.09.13 17:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-23412-20

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 29.03 l proceedings are set aside. All pending applications also stan [SANJEEV 3, 2024 [SAN

king / reasoned :

Y rtable

Y 3.2024 (Annexure P-4) and nd disposed of accordingly.

V PRAKASH SHARMA] JUDGE

NJAY VASHISTH] JUDGE Yes / No Yes / No 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 →