KARAN JUNEJA vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/27497/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01138945202415 October 2024Bench: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MR. JUSTICE ALOK JAIN3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that circulars or instructions issued by the Board could not override statutory provisions or render them otiose. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be strictly followed. The court found that authorities, by exercising powers under Sections 119 and 120 of the Act, 1961, as well as Section 144B (7 & 8), could not usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship and confusion to taxpayers. Instructions and circulars are only for supplementing statutory provisions and their implementation. Following the law laid down by coordinate benches, the court concluded that notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 and proceedings initiated without conducting faceless assessment under Section 144B were contrary to the Act. Consequently, the notices dated 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2024, and 30.03.2023, and the order dated 30.03.2023, were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the prescribed procedure. The specific notice dated 31.08.2024 and consequential proceedings in the present writ petition were also set aside. The ratio is that faceless assessment under Section 144B is mandatory, and deviations without statutory backing are invalid.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Karan Juneja, filed a writ petition challenging notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings. The revenue, Union of India and others, accepted notice. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the assessment proceedings were conducted in accordance with the faceless assessment scheme envisaged under Section 144B of the Act. The petitioner argued that the notices and proceedings were invalid as they bypassed the mandatory faceless assessment procedure. The High Court noted that similar issues had been decided by coordinate benches in previous cases, specifically CWP No. 21509 of 2023 and CWP No. 1574 of 2024.

What were the issues?

1. Whether notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the proceedings initiated thereafter, are invalid for not conducting faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act, and if so, whether such notices and proceedings are liable to be set aside. Assessee's Contention: The assessee contended that the notices and subsequent proceedings were contrary to the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, specifically Section 144B, as they were initiated without adhering to the mandatory faceless assessment procedure. The assessee relied on previous judgments of coordinate benches of the High Court that had dealt with similar issues. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through its learned counsel, accepted notice and did not present a distinct argument against the assessee's position. However, the court noted that the revenue suggested a distinction or a different view from the coordinate bench's findings, which the court ultimately rejected.

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

124

Karan Juneja

Union of Indi

CORAM: H

Present: M

SANJEEV P 1.

N 2.

M behalf of the r 3.

L issue involved by this Court India and oth CWP No.1574 and others, de under: “ B c IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUN AT CHANDIGA C D

Vs. a and others

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAN HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALO Mr. Satyam Aneja, Advocate for

RAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) Notice of motion. Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal, Sr. Stan revenue. Learned counsel for the parties d in the present petition stands f in CWP No.21509 of 2023 title hers, decided on 29.07.2024, an 745 of 2024 titled as Jatinder Sin ecided on 19.07.2024. This Cour “16. We are in agreement with th Bench and hold that such circul could not have been issued to ove NJAB AND HARYANA ARH CWP-27497-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 15.10.2024

…Petitioner

…Respondents NJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA OK JAIN r the petitioner. ) nding Counsel, accepts notice on are ad idem that the substantial finally examined and concluded ed as Jasjit Singh vs. Union of nd by the Coordinate Bench in ngh Bhangu vs. Union of India rt in Jasjit Singh (supra) held as he view taken by the Coordinate lar or instructions by the Board erride statutory provisions or to

n l d f n a s e d

RAJESH KUMAR 2024.10.16 11:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh.

[2]

CWP-27497-2024 (O&M)

make them otiose or obsolete. Legislative enactments having 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. RAJESH KUMAR 2024.10.16 11:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh.

[3]

CWP-27497-2024 (O&M)

20.

All the writ petitions are allowed. The interim order passed by the Court shall stand merged with the present order.”

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 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, dated 31.08.2024 and all consequential proceedings are set aside. 5.

All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly.

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE

(ALOK JAIN)

JUDGE 15.10.2024 rajesh 1. Whether speaking/reasoned? : Yes/No 2. Whether reportable?

: Yes/No RAJESH KUMAR 2024.10.16 11:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh.

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →