SEEMA KAMAL vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/23436/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01123690202413 September 2024Bench: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the writ petition. It held that instructions issued by the Board under Section 119 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, cannot override statutory provisions or make them otiose. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed strictly and mandatorily. The court reiterated the view of coordinate benches that authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their convenience or satisfaction, causing hardship and confusion to assessees. Instructions can only supplement statutory provisions for implementation. Consequently, notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Act, dated February 28, 2023, March 16, 2023, March 20, 2023, March 30, 2023, and April 17, 2024, along with consequential assessment proceedings initiated without conducting faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B, were found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act and were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act if so advised. The operative part of the order stated that all writ petitions were allowed, and interim orders stood merged with the present order.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Seema Kam, filed a writ petition challenging notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent assessment proceedings. The petitioner argued that these proceedings were initiated without adhering to the prescribed faceless assessment procedures. The revenue department, represented by the Income Tax Department, did not contest the petitioner's arguments. The High Court noted that similar issues had been decided by coordinate benches in other writ petitions, 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 July 19, 2024. The court was presented with notices dated February 28, 2023, March 16, 2023, March 20, 2023, March 30, 2023, and April 17, 2024, along with consequential assessment orders.

What were the issues?

1. Whether notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings initiated without conducting a faceless assessment as envisaged by Section 144B of the Act, are valid and in accordance with the law. (Question of law and mixed fact and law, turning on Section 148 and Section 144B). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the assessment proceedings were initiated without following the mandatory faceless assessment procedures prescribed under Section 144B of the Act, rendering the notices and subsequent actions invalid. The petitioner relied on the decisions of coordinate benches in similar cases. Revenue's Contention: The revenue did not present any arguments against the petitioner's submissions. The counsel for the respondent accepted that the issue involved in the present petition stands finally examined and concluded by this Court in Jasjit Singh (supra).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 119,Section 120,Section 144B,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

142 IN TH SEEMA KAM

UNION OF IN

CORAM: H

Present: M

M f

* SANJEEV PR

1.

N 2. M notice on beh 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 MAL

V NDIA AND OTHERS

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJ Ms. Ridhi Bansal, Advocate, Mr. Sagar Ratisaria and Mr. Sidh for the petitioner 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 S alf of the respondent-Income Ta 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 23436-2024 (O&M) f Decision:13.09.2024 ..…...Petitioners (s) V/s. ......Respondent(s) NJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA NJAY VASHISTH hi Bansal, Advocates nding Counsel, with Department. Standing Counsel, with accepts ax Department 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 s e n , f , Suresh Kumar 2024.09.13 17:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-23436-202

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

CWP-23436-202

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

king / reasoned :

Y rtable

Y 4.2024 (Annexure P-3), 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 119

All 707 judgments and leading authorities on Section 119 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →