KARUNA ASIJA vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/27789/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01141380202416 October 2024Bench: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that circulars or instructions issued by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or render them obsolete. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed strictly and mandatorily. The court found 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 by the JAO under Section 148A(b) dated 13.08.2024, the order under Section 148A(d) dated 30.08.2024, and the notice under Section 148 dated 30.08.2024, along with consequential proceedings, were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, if advised. The ratio decidendi is that faceless assessment, as envisaged under Section 144B, is a mandatory procedural requirement, and failure to adhere to it invalidates the assessment proceedings. The writ petition was allowed in terms of the prior judgments.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Karuna Asija, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana challenging notices and orders issued under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The revenue, Union of India and others, accepted notice. Both parties agreed that the issue was concluded by previous judgments of the same court in Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India (CWP No.21509 of 2023, decided on 29.07.2024) and Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India (CWP No.15745 of 2024, decided on 19.07.2024). The core of the dispute involved proceedings initiated without conducting faceless assessments as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act.

What were the issues?

1. Whether notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the order issued under Section 148A(d), and the subsequent notice under Section 148, are valid when faceless assessment under Section 144B was not conducted? (Question of law and fact, concerning Sections 144B, 148, and 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contention: The assessee implicitly argued, by relying on the cited judgments, that proceedings initiated without adhering to the mandatory faceless assessment procedure under Section 144B are invalid and without jurisdiction. The judgments relied upon by the assessee (Jasjit Singh and Jatinder Singh Bhangu) held that circulars and instructions cannot override statutory provisions and that faceless assessment is mandatory. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through its Sr. Standing Counsel, accepted notice and did not present a distinct argument, instead agreeing that the matter was concluded by prior judgments. The judgment notes that the revenue suggested a distinction from the prior holdings, but the court found no occasion to do so.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-27789-2024 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 138 CWP-27789-2024

Decided on : 16.10.2024 Karuna Asija . . . Petitioner(s) Versus Union of India and others . . . Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH PRESENT: Mr. Satyam Aneja, 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 2024.10.18 10:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

CWP-27789-2024 - 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 2024.10.18 10:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

CWP-27789-2024 - 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 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 13.08.2024, order issued u/s 148A(d) dated 30.08.2024 and notice issued u/s 148 dated 30.08.2024, as well as consequential proceedings are set aside. 5. All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly. (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE October 16, 2024 J.Ram Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No JAWALA RAM 2024.10.18 10:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

More judgments on Section 144B

All 10,521 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →