SOHAN LAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/23690/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01124371202417 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, or by any authority, cannot override statutory provisions or render them obsolete. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed strictly and mandatorily. The Court found that authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their own satisfaction or convenience, causing hardship and confusion to assessees. Instructions can only supplement statutory provisions and aid in their implementation. Therefore, the Court held that notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, and the consequential proceedings initiated without conducting faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B, were found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act, 1961. Consequently, the notices dated April 29, 2023, and other consequential proceedings were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The Revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, if so advised. The Court allowed the writ petition, and interim orders were merged with the present order.

What were the facts?

The petitioners, Sohan Lal and others, challenged notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated April 29, 2023, and consequential assessment proceedings. The Revenue, represented by the Commissioner of Income Tax and others, accepted notice. The High Court noted that the issue was identical to previous cases, Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others, decided on July 29, 2024, and Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others, decided on July 19, 2024. In those cases, the Court had considered the validity of notices issued under Section 148 and proceedings conducted without adhering to the faceless assessment scheme as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act. The Court also considered instructions issued by the Joint Administrative Officer (JAO) dated February 28, 2023, March 16, 2023, March 20, 2023, and March 30, 2023.

What were the issues?

1. Whether notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings initiated without conducting faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act, are valid and in accordance with the provisions of the Act, 1961? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning Section 148 and Section 144B). Assessee's Contention: The petitioners argued that the notices issued under Section 148 and subsequent proceedings were invalid because they were not conducted through the faceless assessment scheme as mandated by Section 144B of the Act. They relied on the decisions in Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others and Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue did not present any specific arguments against the petitioners' claims but accepted notice. The judgment notes that the Revenue's counsel was present and accepted notice, and the Court proceeded to decide the matter based on previous judgments.

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

130 IN TH SOHAN LAL

ASSISTANT AMRITSAR A

CORAM: H

Present: M M

M f

* SANJEEV PR

1.

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

C i o o i HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA CHANDIGAR

CWP-2 Date of

V COMMISSIONER OF INCOM AND OTHERS HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJ

Mr. Nikhil Goyal, Advocate and Mr. Tejeshwar Singh, Advocate f Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Senior Stan for the respondent-Income Tax D ***** RAKASH SHARMA, J. (Oral) Notice of motion. Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Senior St he respondents/Income Tax Dep 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 AB AND HARYANA AT RH 23690-2024 (O&M) f Decision:17.09.2024

..…...Petitioners (s) V/s. ME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE …......Respondent(s) NJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA NJAY VASHISTH

for the petitioner. nding Counsel, Department tanding Counsel, accepts notice partment. 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 E ) e e P , f , Suresh Kumar 2024.09.18 09:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-23690-202

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 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 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 e s Suresh Kumar 2024.09.18 09:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-23690-202

mutandis to th Assessing O consequential 5. A

September 17 Ess Kay

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

he present case. Accordingly, no Officer u/s 148 dated 29.04 l proceedings are set aside. All pending applications also stan [SANJEEV 7, 2024 [SAN

king / reasoned :

Y rtable

Y otice issued by the Jurisdictional 4.2023 (Annexure P-5), and nd disposed of accordingly.

V PRAKASH SHARMA] JUDGE

NJAY VASHISTH] JUDGE Yes / No Yes / No l 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 →