MINAKSHI HAVELIA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/28314/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01142857202419 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 or to the detriment of assessees, causing hardship and confusion. The Court agreed with the view taken by a Coordinate Bench that instructions issued by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (JAO) under Section 119 and 120 of the Act, as well as Section 144B (7 & 8), cannot be used to supplement statutory provisions in a manner that contradicts them. Consequently, notices issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, and proceedings initiated thereafter without conducting the faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B, were found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act. Accordingly, notices dated 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 30.03.2023, 20.03.2024, and 30.03.2023 were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The Revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act and proceed accordingly. All pending applications were also disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Minakshi Havelia, 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 Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, was the respondent. The Court noted that the issue was identical to those decided in previous writ petitions, specifically CWP-509 of 2023 (Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India) decided on 29.07.2024, and CWP-745 of 2024 (Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India) decided on 19.07.2024. These prior judgments had addressed the validity of notices and proceedings initiated under Section 148 and conducted under Section 144B of the Act, particularly concerning the impact of Board instructions and the procedure for faceless assessments.

What were the issues?

1. Whether notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings conducted under Section 144B of the Act are liable to be set aside for want of jurisdiction, considering the impact of Board instructions and the procedure for faceless assessments? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner implicitly relies on the arguments and findings in the previously decided cases (Jasjit Singh and Jatinder Singh Bhangu) which held that such notices and proceedings were contrary to the provisions of the Act and thus without jurisdiction. The petitioner's counsel is stated to be 'ad idem' with the arguments in those cases. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue's counsel, Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal, accepted notice and did not present any distinct arguments against the petitioner's position, implicitly accepting the precedent set by the Coordinate Bench. The judgment notes that the counsel are 'ad idem' that the issue stands finally examined and concluded in the cited cases.

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-28314-202 120 IN TH MINAKSHI H ASSISTANT

CORAM: H

H Present: M

SANJEEV P

1.

Notice 2. Ms. Ga of respo 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

HAVELIA Vs.

COMMISSIONER OF INCOM **** HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAN HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAN **** Mr. Nikhil Goyal, Advocate for t Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal, Sr. Stand for the respondents/Revenue. **** RAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) of motion. auri Neo Rampal, Sr. Standing C ondents/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-28314-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 19.10.2024 . . . . Petitioner ME TAX AND OTHERS . . . . Respondents NJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA NJAY VASHISTH the petitioner. ding Counsel (through VC) ) Counsel accepts notice on behalf 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-28314-202 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-28314-202 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 30.03.2024 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 4 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 →