VINOD CHANDER HASTEER vs. CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/23803/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01124898202418 September 2024Bench: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, following its own previous decisions in Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India, held that circulars or instructions issued by the Board could not override statutory provisions or be issued to make them obsolete. The Court reiterated that legislative enactments having financial implications must be mandatorily followed. It was observed that exercising powers under Sections 119 and 120 of the Act, 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 and aid in their implementation. Consequently, notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148 dated August 31, 2024, and consequential proceedings initiated without conducting faceless assessment 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 writ petition was allowed, and interim orders stood merged with the final order.

What were the facts?

The petitioners, represented by Mr. Divya Suri, Advocate, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana challenging notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated August 31, 2024, and consequential proceedings. The revenue, represented by Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal, Senior Standing Counsel, accepted notice. The High Court noted that the issue was identical to previously decided cases, specifically CWP No. 21509 of 2023 (Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India) decided on July 9, 2024, and CWP No. 15745 of 2023 (Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India) decided on July 19, 2024. The Court was informed that both counsels were in agreement on the matter.

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, particularly when they are found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act and circulars issued by the CBDT. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued, by implication through reliance on previous judgments, that notices issued under Section 148 and subsequent proceedings were invalid if they did not adhere to the faceless assessment scheme under Section 144B and were contrary to statutory provisions or obsolete circulars. The assessee relied on the High Court's decision in Jasjit Singh (supra) and Jatinder Singh Bhangu (supra). Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through its counsel, did not contest the issue and agreed with the assessee's position as established in the cited precedents. The revenue accepted that the issue had been concluded by this Court in the aforementioned 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

113 IN TH VINOD CHAN

CENTRAL BO

CORAM: H

Present: M 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 HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA CHANDIGAR

CWP-2 Date of NDER HASTEER

V OARD OF DIRECT TAXES, NEW HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJ

(Through Video Conferencin Mr. Divya Suri, Advocate Mr. Sachin Bhardwaj, Advocate Mr. Yogesh Kumar Mittal, Advo Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal, Senior S for the respondent-Income Tax D ***** RAKASH SHARMA, J. (Oral) Notice of motion. Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal, Senior S 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 AB AND HARYANA AT RH 23803-2024 (O&M) f Decision:18.09.2024

..…...Petitioners (s) V/s. W DELHI AND OTHERS …......Respondent(s) NJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA NJAY VASHISTH ng/Hybrid Mode) and ocate for the petitioner. Standing Counsel Department. Standing 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 e P , f , Suresh Kumar 2024.09.25 10:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-23803-202

i 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

implications are required to be 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 e followed strictly and 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 2024.09.25 10:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-23803-202

mutandis to th Assessing O consequential 5. A

September 18 Ess Kay

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

he present case. Accordingly, no Officer u/s 148 dated 31.08 l proceedings are set aside. All pending applications also stan [SANJEEV 8, 2024 [SAN

king / reasoned :

Y rtable

Y otice issued by the Jurisdictional 8.2024 (Annexure P-6) and nd disposed of accordingly.

V PRAKASH SHARMA] JUDGE

NJAY VASHISTH] JUDGE Yes / No Yes / No l d Suresh Kumar 2024.09.25 10:59 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 →