JATINDER KUMAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/28291/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01141845202419 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 the notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the subsequent proceedings conducted under Section 144B of the Act were contrary to the provisions of the Act, 1961, and were therefore set aside for want of jurisdiction. The Court agreed with the view taken by a Coordinate Bench in similar cases. The reasoning was that circulars or instructions issued by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or make them obsolete. Legislative enactments having financial implications must be followed strictly and mandatorily. The Court found that by exercising powers under Sections 119 and 120 of the Act, as well as Section 144B (7 & 8), the authorities had usurped legal provisions to their own satisfaction and convenience, causing hardship and confusion to assessees. The Court reiterated that instructions and circulars can only supplement statutory provisions for their implementation. Consequently, notices dated 13.04.2023, 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2024, and 30.03.2023, along with consequential proceedings, were set aside. The Revenue was at liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, if so advised. All pending applications were also disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Jatinder Kumar, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana challenging notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings. The Revenue, represented by the Income Tax Officer and others, appeared through its counsel. The core of the dispute revolved around the validity of reassessment proceedings initiated without adhering to the prescribed procedure, particularly concerning faceless assessment. The Court noted that similar issues had been decided by a Coordinate Bench in other writ petitions, specifically CWP No. 509 of 2023 (Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others) and CWP No. 157 of 2024 (Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others). The judgment was delivered on October 19, 2024.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the consequential proceedings conducted under Section 144B of the Act are liable to be set aside for want of jurisdiction and for being contrary to the provisions of the Act, 1961, given the procedural irregularities in the faceless assessment process. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the notices and subsequent proceedings were invalid due to a lack of jurisdiction, implying a failure to follow the statutory procedures. The petitioner relied on the decisions of a Coordinate Bench in similar cases. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue, through its counsel, accepted notice and did not present a distinct argument against the petitioner's claim, implicitly agreeing that the matter had been concluded by prior judgments of the Court. The Revenue's counsel was 'ad idem' with the petitioner's counsel that the issue was already examined and concluded.

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

CWP-28291-202 104 IN TH JATINDER K INCOME TA CORAM: H

H Present: M

SANJEEV P

1.

Notice 2. Mr. Yo respond 3. Both th petition No.215 decided No.157 and oth held as

24 (O&M) Page 1 of 3 HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA CHANDIGAR

KUMAR Vs.

AX OFFICER AND OTHERS **** HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAN HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAN **** Mr. Nikhil Goyal, Advocate for t Mr. Yogesh Putney, Sr. Standing Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Standing Co for the respondents/Revenue. **** RAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) of motion. ogesh Putney, Sr. Standing Coun dents/Revenue. he counsel are ad idem that the n stands finally examined and co 509 of 2023 titled as Jasjit Singh d on 29.07.2024, and by the 745 of 2024 titled as Jatinder Sin hers, decided on 19.07.2024. Th under: AB AND HARYANA AT RH CWP-28291-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 19.10.2024 . . . . Petitioner . . . . Respondents NJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA NJAY VASHISTH the petitioner. g Counsel with ounsel ) nsel accepts notice on behalf of e issue involved in the present oncluded by this Court in CWP h vs. Union of India and others, e Coordinate Bench in CWP ngh Bhangu vs. Union of India his Court in Jasjit Singh (supra)

) 4 r s f t P , P a ) MOHIT GOYAL 2024.10.22 09:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-28291-202 b i o o i m S S a s a t a s i n s w C u i a A p d 3 f

24 (O&M) Page 2 of 3 “16. We are in agreemen by the Coordinate Bench and hol nstructions by the Board could n override statutory provisions or t obsolete. Legislative enactmen mplications are required to be mandatorily. By exercising the 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 mplementation. 17. In view of the aforesa no occasion to distinguish or ta suggested by the learned counse what has already been held by th 18. Keeping in view the Coordinate Bench (supra), notic under Section 148 of the Act, 196 nitiated thereafter without con assessment as envisaged under Act, 1961, have been found to provisions of the Act, 1961 an dated 28.02.2023, 16.03.202 30.03.2023 and order dated 30. for want of jurisdiction. nt with the view taken ld that such circular or not have been issued to to make them otiose or nts having financial followed strictly and powers contained in 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 aid discussion, there is ake a different view as el for the revenue from he Coordinate Bench. law laid down by the ces issued by the JAO 61 and the proceedings nducting the faceless r Section 144B of the o be contrary to the d accordingly notices 23, 20.03.2024 and 03.2023, are set aside

MOHIT GOYAL 2024.10.22 09:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-28291-202 a t i w 4. Keepin terms. mutand issued Jurisdic proceed 5. All pen

October 19, 20 Mohit goyal 1. Whethe 2. Whethe

24 (O&M) Page 3 of 3 19. The respondents-reven at liberty to follow the procedur the Act, 1961 and proceed accord 20. All the writ petition nterim order passed by the Cou with the present order.”

ng in view above, we allow this The observations and order pa dis to the present case. Accord under Section 148 of the ctional Assessing Officer as dings are set aside. nding applications also stand disp

(SANJ 024 r speaking/reasoned?

Y r reportable?

Y nue would be, however, re as laid down under dingly, if so advised. ns are allowed. The urt shall stand merged s Writ Petition in the aforesaid assed above shall apply mutatis dingly, notice dated 13.04.2023 Income Tax Act, 1961 by s well as the consequential posed of accordingly. JEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE

(SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No

d s 3 y l MOHIT GOYAL 2024.10.22 09:48 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 →