AMIT UPADHYAY vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/23536/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01123242202416 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 circulars or instructions issued by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or render them obsolete. Legislative enactments having financial implications must be followed strictly and mandatorily. By exercising powers under Sections 119 and 120 of the Act, authorities cannot usurp legal provisions to their own satisfaction or convenience, causing hardship and confusion to assessees. Instructions and circulars can only supplement statutory provisions and aid in their implementation. The Court found that notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 and proceedings initiated thereafter, without conducting the faceless assessment as envisaged by Section 144B of the Act, 1961, were contrary to the provisions of the Act and the law laid down by the courts. Consequently, the notices dated 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2024, 30.03.2023, and 30.03.2023, along with the notice under Section 148 dated 21.04.2023, were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure as laid down under the Act, 1961, 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?

The petitioners, represented by Mr. Jatinder Kumar Kamboj, Advocate, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The respondents are the Union of India and others, including the Income Tax Department, represented by Mr. Varun Issar, Senior Standing Counsel. The petition challenges notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings initiated thereafter, including those conducted under faceless assessment as envisaged by Section 144B of the Act. The assessment years are not explicitly stated, but the notices are dated 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2024, 30.03.2023, and 30.03.2023, with a notice under Section 148 dated 21.04.2023 (Annexure P-4). The amount in dispute is not stated. The procedural history involves the court considering similar matters previously decided by a Coordinate Bench.

What were the issues?

1. Whether notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings initiated thereafter, including those conducted under faceless assessment as envisaged by Section 144B of the Act, are valid and in accordance with the provisions of the Act, 1961, and the law laid down by the courts. Assessee's Contention: The assessee implicitly argues that the notices and proceedings are invalid. This is inferred from the fact that the court allowed the writ petition and set aside the notices and proceedings, aligning with the reasoning in previous judgments. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through its counsel Mr. Varun Issar, accepted notice. No specific arguments for the revenue are recorded in the judgment, other than their acceptance of notice and the court's observation that the counsel for the revenue did not suggest a different view from the Coordinate Bench's findings.

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

112 IN TH AMIT UPADH

UNION OF IN

CORAM: H

Present: M

M f

* SANJEEV PR

1.

N 2. M behalf of the r 3. B present petitio No.21509 of decided on 29 2024 titled a decided on 19

C i o o i m S HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA CHANDIGAR

CWP-2 Date of HYAY

V NDIA AND OTHERS

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJ

Mr. Jatinder Kumar Kamboj, Ad Mr. Varun Issar, Senior Standing for the respondent-Income Tax D ***** RAKASH SHARMA, J. (Oral) Notice of motion. Mr. Varun Issar, Senior Standi respondents/Income Tax Departm Both the counsel are ad idem on stands finally examined and c f 2023 titled as Jasjit Singh vs 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 Sections 119 and 120 of the A AB AND HARYANA AT RH 23536-2024 (O&M) f Decision:16.09.2024

..…...Petitioners (s) V/s. …......Respondent(s) NJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA NJAY VASHISTH dvocate for the petitioner. g Counsel, Department ing Counsel, accepts notice on ment. that the issue involved in the concluded by this Court in CWP s. 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 Act, 1961 as well as n e P , f , Suresh Kumar 2024.09.17 09:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-23536-202

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

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 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 2024.09.17 09:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-23536-202

Assessing O consequential 5. A

September 16 Ess Kay

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

Officer u/s 148 dated 21.04 l proceedings are set aside. All pending applications also stan [SANJEEV 6, 2024 [SAN

king / reasoned :

Y rtable

Y 4.2023 (Annexure P-4), and nd disposed of accordingly.

V PRAKASH SHARMA] JUDGE

NJAY VASHISTH] JUDGE Yes / No Yes / No d Suresh Kumar 2024.09.17 09:22 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 →