MANN CONSTRUCTION CO vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/25136/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01132006202427 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, setting aside the notice issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148 dated 01.03.2024 and the order issued under Section 148A(d) dated 01.03.2024, as well as the consequential proceedings. The Court relied on its previous decision in Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India, which held that circulars or instructions issued by the Board cannot override statutory provisions. The Court found that legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed strictly. It reasoned that authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship to assessees, and that instructions and circulars can only supplement statutory provisions. Consequently, notices issued without conducting faceless assessments as envisaged under Section 144B were found to be contrary to the Act and set aside for want of jurisdiction. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act if advised. The ratio decidendi is that faceless assessment procedures mandated by statute, such as under Section 144B, must be followed, and deviations without statutory backing render subsequent actions void for want of jurisdiction.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Mann Construction Co., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana challenging notices issued under Section 148 and an order under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with consequential proceedings. The petitioner argued that these actions were taken without conducting a faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act. The revenue accepted notice. The Court noted that similar issues had been decided in previous writ petitions, 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). The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated.

What were the issues?

1. Whether notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and proceedings initiated thereafter, without conducting a faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act, are contrary to the provisions of the Act and liable to be set aside? (Question of law and mixed fact and law, turning on Sections 148 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner contended that the assessment proceedings were initiated without adhering to the mandatory requirement of conducting a faceless assessment under Section 144B of the Act, rendering the notices and subsequent orders without jurisdiction. The petitioner relied on the decisions in Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India. Revenue's Contention: The revenue accepted notice and did not present any arguments against the petitioner's submissions, implicitly conceding to the precedent set in the cited cases.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 148A,Section 144B,Section 119,Section 120

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-25136-2024 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 111 CWP-25136-2024

Decided on : 27.09.2024 Mann Construction Co. . . . 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. Gauri Neo Rampal, Sr. Standing Counsel for the respondents – revenue. **** SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

, J. (Oral) 1. Notice of motion. 2. Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal, 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 2024.10.03 18:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

CWP-25136-2024 - 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 2024.10.03 18:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

CWP-25136-2024 - 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 01.03.2024 and order issued u/s 148A(d) dated 01.03.2024, as well as consequential proceedings are set aside. 5. All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly. (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE September 27, 2024 J.Ram Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No JAWALA RAM 2024.10.03 18:20 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 →