GURNAM SINGH vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/28495/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01142995202421 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, following its own previous decisions in Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India. The Court held that circulars or instructions issued by the Board under Sections 119 and 120 of the Act could not override statutory provisions or render them obsolete. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed strictly. The Court found that authorities, by exercising powers under Sections 119, 120, and 144B(7 & 8), could not usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship and confusion to assessees. Instructions and circulars are meant to supplement statutory provisions. Consequently, notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 and subsequent proceedings initiated without conducting faceless assessments as envisaged under Section 144B were found to be contrary to the Act and set aside for want of jurisdiction. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the prescribed procedure if advised. The specific notices dated 12.02.2024 and consequential proceedings were set aside.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Gurnam Singh, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The petition challenged notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings. The revenue, Union of India and others, accepted notice. The parties agreed that the substantial issue had been decided by the High Court in previous cases, specifically CWP No. 21509 of 2023 (Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India) decided on 29.07.2024, and CWP No. 15745 of 2024 (Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India) decided on 19.07.2024. The core of the dispute involved the validity of proceedings initiated without conducting faceless assessments as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act.

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 faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act, 1961, are contrary to the provisions of the Act, 1961 and liable to be set aside (question of law and fact, concerning Sections 148 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner, through their counsel, relied on the High Court's decision in Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India, arguing that the issue was concluded by these precedents. The core argument was that proceedings initiated without following the faceless assessment procedure under Section 144B were invalid. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, represented by Sr. Standing Counsel, accepted notice. The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the revenue beyond their acceptance of notice and the implicit reliance on their position in the cited cases. However, the judgment notes that the revenue suggested a distinction or a different view in the Jasjit Singh case, which was rejected.

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

119 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-28495-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 21.10.2024 Gurnam Singh …Petitioner Vs. Union of India and others

…Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH Present: Mr. Ayush Sarna, Advocate for the petitioner.

SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) 1. Notice of motion. 2. Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Sr. Standing Counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the revenue. 3. Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that the substantial 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 JOYTI RANI 2024.10.22 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

[2] CWP-28495-2024 (O&M) 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 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. JOYTI RANI 2024.10.22 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

[3] CWP-28495-2024 (O&M) 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 issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, dated 12.02.2024 and all consequential proceedings are set aside. 5. All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly. (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE (SANJAY VASHISTH ) JUDGE 21.10.2024 joyti 1. Whether speaking/reasoned? : Yes/No 2. Whether reportable? : Yes/No JOYTI RANI 2024.10.22 17:17 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 →