SHREE JEE JEE GRAIN PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS
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 obsolete. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be strictly followed. The Court found that by exercising powers under Sections 119 and 120 of the Act, as well as Section 144B (7 & 8), authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship to assessees and confusion. Instructions and circulars can only supplement statutory provisions. Consequently, notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 and subsequent proceedings initiated without conducting faceless assessments under Section 144B were found to be contrary to the Act. The notices dated 05.04.2023 and all 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 administrative actions or circulars, and failure to comply renders the proceedings void for want of jurisdiction.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Shree Jee Jee Grain Products Private Limited, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana challenging notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings. The petitioner argued that these actions were taken without conducting a faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act. The revenue accepted notice. The High Court noted that the substantial issue had been decided in prior cases, specifically CWP No. 21509 of 2023 (Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others) and CWP No. 15745 of 2024 (Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others). The judgment under review is dated 21.10.2024.
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 and liable to be set aside. Assessee's Contention: The assessee contended that the proceedings were initiated without adhering to the mandatory faceless assessment procedure prescribed under Section 144B of the Act, rendering the notices and subsequent actions without jurisdiction. The assessee relied on the High Court's own previous decisions in similar matters. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through its learned counsel, accepted notice and did not present any distinct arguments against the assessee's position, implicitly agreeing that the matter was covered by previous judgments. The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
139 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-28528-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 21.10.2024 Shree Jee Jee Grain Products Private Limited …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 Mr. Rana Gurtej Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) 1. Notice of motion. 2. Mr. Gauri Neo Rampal, 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-28528-2024 (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-28528-2024 (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 05.04.2023 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
- Bha Associates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs ACIT, Central Circle- 29, New DelhiITA 5208/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: Disposed6 Nov 2026AY 2015-16
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Talasethi Sanmukharao vs. Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 11 Nov 2026
- M/S Ramamani Behera (Trade Name S.V.Enterprises) Bhubaneswar vs. Addl Commissioner Of GST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 11 Nov 2026
- Prasanta Kumar Biswal vs. The Chief Commissioner, CGST, Central Excise And Customs, BhubaneswarOrissa · 11 Nov 2026
- M/S.Dibyanee Agency., Keonjhar. vs. Chief Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 11 Nov 2026
- Anjanarani Jena vs. The Commissioner,CGST, Cx And CustomsOrissa · 10 Nov 2026