SURJIT SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/23674/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01124385202417 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 instructions or circulars issued by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or render them obsolete. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed mandatorily. The Court agreed with the view taken by a Coordinate Bench that authorities cannot usurp legal provisions to their own satisfaction and convenience, causing hardship and confusion to assessees. Instructions and circulars can only be issued for supplementing statutory provisions and for their implementation. In light of the law laid down by the Coordinate Bench, notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings initiated without conducting faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B, were found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act, 1961. Therefore, the notices dated 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2023, 30.03.2023, and the order dated 30.03.2024, along with the notice issued by the Assessing Officer u/s 148 dated 27.03.2024 and consequential proceedings, 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. All pending applications were also disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioners, Surjit Singh and others, have filed a writ petition challenging notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings, including those initiated under Section 144B. The assessment years are not explicitly stated. The revenue, represented by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), Ludhiana, and others, has accepted notice. The High Court notes that the issue is identical to two previous cases: Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others, decided on 09.07.2024, and Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others, also decided on 09.07.2024. The High Court had previously considered notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 and consequential proceedings under Section 144B.

What were the issues?

1. Whether notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings initiated under Section 144B, are valid when they are contrary to the provisions of the Act and the principles of natural justice, particularly concerning faceless assessment procedures. Assessee's contention: The assessee argues that instructions by the Board (circulars) cannot override statutory provisions or make them obsolete. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed strictly. The exercise of powers under Section 119 and 120, as well as Section 144B (7 & 8), should not allow authorities to usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship and confusion to assessees. Instructions and circulars can only supplement statutory provisions for implementation. Revenue's contention: The revenue's counsel accepted notice and did not present separate arguments, relying on the Court's previous pronouncements.

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

111 IN TH SURJIT SING

INCOME TAX

CORAM: H

Present: M M

* 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 HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA CHANDIGAR

CWP-2 Date of GH

V X OFFICER, WARD 3(1), LUDH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJ

Mr. Nikhil Goyal, Advocate and Mr. Tejeshwar Singh, Advocate f Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Senior Stand for the respondent. ***** RAKASH SHARMA, J. (Oral) Notice of motion. Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Senior Stan 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 AB AND HARYANA AT RH 23674-2024 (O&M) f Decision:17.09.2024

..…...Petitioners (s) V/s. HIANA AND OTHERS …......Respondent(s) NJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA NJAY VASHISTH

for the petitioner. ding Counsel, nding 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 ) n e P , f , Suresh Kumar 2024.09.18 09:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-23674-202

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 2024.09.18 09:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-23674-202

Assessing O consequential 5. A

September 17 Ess Kay

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

Officer u/s 148 dated 27.03 l proceedings are set aside. All pending applications also stan [SANJEEV 7, 2024 [SAN

king / reasoned :

Y rtable

Y 3.2024 (Annexure P-5), and nd disposed of accordingly.

V PRAKASH SHARMA] JUDGE

NJAY VASHISTH] JUDGE Yes / No Yes / No d Suresh Kumar 2024.09.18 09:30 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 →