SUBASH CHANDER vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/24947/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01130906202426 September 2024Bench: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the writ petition. It held that instructions issued by the Board under Sections 119 and 120 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, could not override statutory provisions or be issued to make them otiose or obsolete. Legislative enactments with financial implications are required to be mandatorily followed. The Court reiterated its view from previous judgments (Jasjit Singh and Jatinder Singh Bhangu) that authorities cannot usurp legal provisions to their own satisfaction or convenience, causing hardship and confusion to assessees. Instructions can only supplement statutory provisions for implementation. Consequently, notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148 dated 30.03.2024 (Annexure P-1) and all consequential proceedings initiated thereafter, including those under Section 144B, were set aside for want of jurisdiction, as they were found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act and the relevant instructions. The respondents-revenue were granted liberty to follow the procedure as laid down under the Act, if so advised.

What were the facts?

The petitioners, represented by Mr. B.M. Monga and Mr. Rohit Kaura, filed a writ petition challenging notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings initiated thereafter, including those under Section 144B. The respondent, represented by Ms. Urvashi Dhugga and Ms. Samdesha Kaur, 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) and CWP No. 15745 of 2024 (Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India), both decided on July 19, 2024. The Court was informed that the present petition was also being disposed of in light of these prior judgments.

What were the issues?

1. Whether notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings, including those under Section 144B, are valid when they are found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act and the instructions issued by the JAO dated 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2023, and 30.03.2023, for want of jurisdiction. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the notices and subsequent proceedings were invalid as they were issued without jurisdiction and were contrary to the Act and binding instructions. They relied on the High Court's previous decisions in Jasjit Singh and Jatinder Singh Bhangu. Revenue's Contention: The revenue did not present any arguments against the assessee's position, as indicated by the Court's observation that both counsel were 'ad idem' and the issue was concluded by prior judgments.

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

121 IN TH SUBASH CHA

DEPUTY CO AYAKAR BHA

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 HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA CHANDIGAR

CWP-2 Date of ANDER

V OMMISSIONER OF INCOME AWAN, KARNAL, HARYANA AN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJ

Mr. B.M. Monga, Advocate and Mr. Rohit Kaura, Advocate for th Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Senior Stan Ms. Samdesha Kaur, Advocate for the respondent/Income Tax D ***** RAKASH SHARMA, J. (Oral) Notice of motion. Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, 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 AB AND HARYANA AT RH 24947-2024 (O&M) f Decision:26.09.2024

..…...Petitioners (s) V/s. E TAX, CENTRAL, KARNAL, ND OTHERS

…......Respondent(s) NJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA NJAY VASHISTH

he petitioner. nding Counsel, with 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 e P , f , Suresh Kumar 2024.09.27 09:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-24947-202

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 2024.09.27 09:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-24947-202

mutandis to th Assessing O consequential 5. A

September 26 Ess Kay

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

he present case. Accordingly, no Officer u/s 148 dated 30.03.2 l proceedings are set aside. All pending applications also stan [SANJEEV 6, 2024 [SAN

king / reasoned :

Y rtable

Y otice issued by the Jurisdictional 2024 (Annexure P-1) and all nd disposed of accordingly.

V PRAKASH SHARMA] JUDGE

NJAY VASHISTH] JUDGE Yes / No Yes / No l l Suresh Kumar 2024.09.27 09:20 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 →