GURPREET KAUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/24556/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01128883202423 September 2024Bench: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, in the present case, allowed the writ petition in terms similar to the previously decided cases of Jasjit Singh and Jatinder Singh Bhangu. The Court held that circulars or instructions issued by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or render them otiose. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed strictly. The Court found that by exercising powers under Sections 119 and 120 of the Act, 1961, as well as Section 144B (7 & 8), authorities cannot usurp legal provisions to their satisfaction and convenience, causing hardship to assessees and confusion. Instructions and circulars can only supplement statutory provisions for their implementation. Consequently, notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 and proceedings initiated thereafter without conducting faceless assessment under Section 144B were found to be contrary to the Act, 1961, and set aside for want of jurisdiction. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the prescribed procedure if advised. The notice dated 24.02.2023 and consequential proceedings were set aside.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Gurpreet Kaur, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh challenging a notice issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 24.02.2023, and the consequential proceedings. The revenue, represented by the Income Tax Officer and others, accepted notice. Both parties agreed that the issue was concluded by previous judgments of the same court. Specifically, they referred to CWP No.21509 of 2023 (Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others) decided on 29.07.2024, and CWP No.15745 of 2024 (Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others) decided on 19.07.2024. The court was asked to apply the principles laid down in these prior decisions.

What were the issues?

1. Whether notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings initiated without conducting faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act, are contrary to the provisions of the Act, 1961, and liable to be set aside for want of jurisdiction? Assessee's Contention: The assessee, through counsel, argued that the issue in the present petition has been finally examined and concluded by this Court in previous judgments, specifically citing Jasjit Singh and Jatinder Singh Bhangu. The core of the argument, as reflected in the cited judgments, is that circulars or instructions issued by the Board cannot override statutory provisions, and authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship to assessees. Instructions and circulars can only supplement statutory provisions. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through Sr. Standing Counsel, accepted notice and did not present any arguments contrary to the precedents cited by the assessee. The judgment notes that both counsel were ad idem that the issue was concluded by prior 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

CWP-24556-2024 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 151 CWP-24556-2024

Decided on : 23.09.2024 Gurpreet Kaur . . . Petitioner(s) Versus Income Tax Officer and others . . . Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH PRESENT: Mr. B.M. Monga, Advocate and Mr. Rohit Kaura, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Sr. Standing Counsel for the respondents – revenue. **** SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

, J. (Oral) 1. Notice of motion. 2. Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Sr. Standing Counsel, accepts notice for the respondents – revenue. 3. Both the counsel are ad idem that the issue involved in the present petition stands finally examined and concluded by this Court in CWP No.21509 of 2023 titled as Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others, decided on 29.07.2024, and by the Coordinate Bench in CWP No.15745 of 2024 titled as Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others, decided on 19.07.2024. This Court in Jasjit Singh (supra) held as under: “16. We are in agreement with the view taken by the Coordinate Bench and hold that such circular or instructions by the Board could not have been issued to override statutory provisions or to make them otiose or obsolete. Legislative enactments having JAWALA RAM 2024.09.23 19:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

CWP-24556-2024 - 2 - financial implications are required to be followed strictly and mandatorily. By exercising the powers contained in Sections 119 and 120 of the Act, 1961 as well as Section 144B (7 & 8), the authorities cannot be allowed to usurp the legal provisions to their own satisfaction and convenience causing hardship to the assessees. It also leaves confusion in the minds of the taxpayers. In the opinion of this Court, instructions and circulars can be issued only for the purpose of supplementing the statutory provisions and for their implementation. 17. In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no occasion to distinguish or take a different view as suggested by the learned counsel for the revenue from what has already been held by the Coordinate Bench. 18. Keeping in view the law laid down by the Coordinate Bench (supra), notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and the proceedings initiated thereafter without conducting the faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act, 1961, have been found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act, 1961 and accordingly notices dated 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2024 and 30.03.2023 and order dated 30.03.2023, are set aside for want of jurisdiction. 19. The respondents-revenue would be, however, at liberty to follow the procedure as laid down under the Act, 1961 and proceed accordingly, if so advised. 20. All the writ petitions are allowed. The interim order passed by the Court shall stand merged with the present order.” JAWALA RAM 2024.09.23 19:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

CWP-24556-2024 - 3 - 4. Keeping in view above, we allow this Writ Petition in the aforesaid terms. The observations and order passed above shall apply mutatis mutandis to the present case. Accordingly, notice issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer u/s 148 dated 24.02.2023, and consequential proceedings are set aside. 5. All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly. (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE September 23, 2024 J.Ram Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No JAWALA RAM 2024.09.23 19:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity 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 →