GURDARSHAN SINGH vs. UNION OF INIDA AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/23685/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01124338202417 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 issued by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or make them obsolete. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed strictly. The authorities cannot usurp legal provisions to their own satisfaction and convenience, causing hardship and confusion to assessees. Circulars and instructions can only be issued for supplementing statutory provisions and for their implementation. Consequently, notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the proceedings initiated thereafter without conducting the faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act, were found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act. Therefore, the notices dated 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2024, 30.03.2023, and the order dated 30.08.2024 (Annexure P-2) 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 writ petitions were allowed, and interim orders stood merged with the present order.

What were the facts?

The petitioners, represented by Mr. Kapish Chawla, Advocate, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The petition challenged notices issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent consequential proceedings, including those initiated under Section 144B. The revenue, represented by Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Senior Standing Counsel, accepted notice. The High Court noted that the issue was identical to previous cases decided by the same court, 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 19.07.2024. The court also referred to an order dated 30.08.2024 (Annexure P-2) concerning the Assessing Officer's notice under Section 148.

What were the issues?

1. Whether notices issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings initiated under Section 144B, are valid when they are found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act and have been issued without conducting the faceless assessment as envisaged by the Act? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that instructions by the Board (presumably referring to procedural guidelines for faceless assessment) cannot override statutory provisions or render them obsolete. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed strictly. The authorities cannot usurp legal provisions to their own satisfaction or convenience, causing hardship and confusion. Circulars and instructions can only supplement statutory provisions and aid in their implementation. Revenue's Contention: The revenue did not present any arguments against the High Court's prior decisions on similar matters. The judgment notes that both counsel were ad idem that the issue had been finally examined and concluded by the court in previous writ petitions.

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

119 IN TH GURDARSHA

UNION OF IN

CORAM: H

Present: 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 S HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA CHANDIGAR

CWP-2 Date of AN SINGH

V NDIA AND OTHERS

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

Mr. Kapish Chawla, Advocate fo 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 Sections 119 and 120 of the A AB AND HARYANA AT RH 23685-2024 (O&M) f Decision:17.09.2024

..…...Petitioners (s) V/s. …......Respondent(s) NJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA NJAY VASHISTH or 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 Act, 1961 as well as n e P , f , Suresh Kumar 2024.09.18 09:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-23685-202

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

CWP-23685-202

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 30.08 l proceedings are set aside. All pending applications also stan [SANJEEV 7, 2024 [SAN

king / reasoned :

Y rtable

Y 8.2024 (Annexure P-2), 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 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →