AJAY VOHRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/27826/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01139920202416 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 otiose. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed strictly. The authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship to assessees or confusion. Instructions and circulars can only supplement statutory provisions. Consequently, notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 of the Act and subsequent proceedings initiated without conducting the faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act, 1961, were found to be contrary to the Act. The specific notices dated 08.02.2024 (under Section 148A(b)), 21.03.2024 (under Section 148A(d)), and 21.03.2024 (under Section 148) and consequential proceedings were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The Revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act if so advised. The ratio is that faceless assessment procedures mandated by statute cannot be bypassed by issuing notices through the JAO without adhering to the prescribed mechanism.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Ajay Vohra, filed a writ petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court challenging notices and orders issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The respondents are the Income Tax Officer and others (Revenue). The petitioner argued that the proceedings were initiated without conducting a faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act. The High 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 Revenue accepted that the present petition was covered by these earlier decisions.

What were the issues?

1. Whether notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings initiated without conducting a faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act, are contrary to the provisions of the Act, 1961? (Question of law and mixed fact and law, concerning Sections 148 and 144B). Assessee's Contention: The proceedings were initiated without conducting the faceless assessment as mandated by Section 144B of the Act, rendering them invalid. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue did not put forth any distinct argument against the assessee's claim, instead agreeing that the issue was concluded by previous judgments of the High Court.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 144B,Section 148A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-27826-2024 (O&M) Page 1 of 3 160 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-27826-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 16.10.2024 AJAY VOHRA . . . . Petitioner Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS . . . . Respondents **** CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH **** Present: Mr. Nikhil Goyal, Advocate, and Ms. Dewangana Chillar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Senior Standing Counsel, and Ms. Pridhi Sandhu, Jr. Standing Counsel, for the respondents/Revenue. **** SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) 1. Notice of motion. 2. Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Senior Standing Counsel, and Ms. Pridhi Sandhu, Jr. Standing Counsel, accept notice on behalf of 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 LAVISHA 2024.10.18 18:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh

CWP-27826-2024 (O&M) Page 2 of 3 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 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 LAVISHA 2024.10.18 18:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh

CWP-27826-2024 (O&M) Page 3 of 3 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.” 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 under Section 148A (b) of the Act dated 08.02.2024, order under Section 148A(d) dated 21.03.2024 and notice dated 21.03.2024 issued by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as well as the consequential proceedings are set aside. 5. All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly.

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE October 16, 2024 Lavisha 1. Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No 2. Whether reportable? Yes/No LAVISHA 2024.10.18 18:41 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 →