RAVINDER MEHAN vs. UNION OF INDIA

PDF · subscribers
CWP/28097/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01141447202418 October 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 dated March 27, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and all consequential proceedings. The Court relied on its previous decisions in Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India. The Tribunal 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. The Court reiterated that authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their satisfaction or convenience, causing hardship to assessees. Instructions and circulars can only supplement statutory provisions for their implementation. Therefore, notices issued without conducting faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B were found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act and 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. All pending applications were also disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Ravinder Mehra, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated March 27, 2024, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and all consequential proceedings. The petitioner argued that these proceedings were initiated without conducting a 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 cases, specifically Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India, both decided on July 19, 2024. The court was presented with the question of whether faceless assessment procedures were mandatory.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated March 27, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings are liable to be set aside for non-compliance with the mandatory faceless assessment procedure under Section 144B of the Act. Assessee's Contention: The assessee contended that the proceedings initiated under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the subsequent actions were invalid because they were not conducted through the faceless assessment mechanism prescribed by Section 144B of the Act. The assessee relied on the principle that statutory provisions, including those mandating faceless assessments, must be followed strictly. Revenue's Contention: The revenue did not record any specific arguments against the assessee's contention. The Senior Standing Counsel accepted notice and acknowledged that the issue involved had been concluded by this Court in previous writ petitions.

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

143 IN TH RAVINDER M

UNION OF IN

CORAM: H

Present: M

M M a 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 MEHAN

V NDIA AND OTHERS

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJ Mr. Mayank Mathur, Advocate, f Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Senior Stan Ms. Pridhi Sandhu, Junior Standi and Ms. Muskaan Gupta, Advoca for the respondent-Income Tax D ***** RAKASH SHARMA, J. (Oral) Notice of motion. Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, 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 28097-2024 (O&M) f Decision:18.10.2024

..…...Petitioner(s) V/s.

.......Respondent(s) NJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA NJAY VASHISTH for the petitioner. nding Counsel, with ing Counsel, ate 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 2024.10.19 11:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-28097-202

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 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 the present case. According 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 gly, notice dated 27.03.2024 e s 4 Suresh Kumar 2024.10.19 11:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-28097-202

(Annexure P- Income Tax A 5. A

October 18, 2 Ess Kay

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

-1) issued by the Jurisdictional A Act, 1961 and all consequential p All pending applications also stan [SANJEEV 2024

[SAN

king / reasoned :

Y rtable

Y Assessing Officer u/s 148 of the proceedings are set aside. nd disposed of accordingly.

V PRAKASH SHARMA] JUDGE

NJAY VASHISTH] JUDGE Yes / No Yes / No e Suresh Kumar 2024.10.19 11:31 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 →