HARJINDER SINGH THIND vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/24952/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01130952202410 September 2026Bench: MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL,MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that instructions issued by the Board under Section 119 and 120 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, cannot override statutory provisions or render them obsolete. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed mandatorily. The Court found that the notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148 dated 23.03.2024, and consequential proceedings initiated thereafter, including those conducted without a proper faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B, were contrary to the provisions of the Act. Consequently, the notices dated 23.03.2023, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2024, and 30.03.2023 were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act and proceed accordingly, if so advised. The ratio decidendi is that administrative instructions or circulars cannot supersede statutory provisions, and faceless assessment procedures mandated by law must be strictly adhered to, failing which proceedings are liable to be quashed.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Harjinder Singh Thind, filed a writ petition challenging notices issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings initiated thereafter. The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated but relate to notices dated 23.03.2024, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2024, and 30.03.2023. The core of the challenge pertains to proceedings conducted without a proper faceless assessment as envisaged by Section 144B of the Act. The revenue, represented by the Income Tax Department, accepted notice. The High Court noted that similar issues had been decided by coordinate benches in previous writ petitions, specifically citing Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India.

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 of the Act, are valid when conducted without adhering to the principles of faceless assessment and potentially overriding statutory provisions or making them otiose. The assessee argued that instructions by the Board (presumably relating to faceless assessment) could not override statutory provisions or make them obsolete. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed strictly. The assessee contended that exercising powers under Section 119 and 120, along with Section 144B (7 & 8), should not allow authorities to usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship and confusion. The assessee relied on the principle that circulars and instructions can only supplement statutory provisions and aid implementation. The revenue, through its learned counsel, did not present any arguments against the position taken by the coordinate benches, implicitly accepting the established legal precedent.

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

125 IN TH HARJINDER

UNION OF IN

CORAM: H

Present: 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 m HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA CHANDIGAR

CWP-2 Date of SINGH THIND

V NDIA AND OTHERS

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

Ms. Nazuk Singhal, Advocate fo 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 implications are required to be mandatorily. By exercising the AB AND HARYANA AT RH 24952-2024 (O&M) f Decision:26.09.2024

..…...Petitioners (s) V/s.

…......Respondent(s) NJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA NJAY VASHISTH r the 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 followed strictly and powers contained in e e P , f , Suresh Kumar 2024.09.27 09:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-24952-202

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 mutandis to th 024 (O&M) Page 2 of 3

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 he present case. Accordingly, no 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 otice issued by the Jurisdictional e s l Suresh Kumar 2024.09.27 09:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-24952-202

Assessing O consequential 5. A

September 26 Ess Kay

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

Officer u/s 148 dated 23.03.2 l proceedings are set aside. All pending applications also stan [SANJEEV 6, 2024 [SAN

king / reasoned :

Y rtable

Y 2024 (Annexure P-6) and all nd disposed of accordingly.

V PRAKASH SHARMA] JUDGE

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