BAGGA SINGH vs. PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CWP/29419/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01147946202428 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 Order issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated March 28, 2023, and the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act dated March 28, 2023, along with consequential proceedings. The Court relied on its previous decisions in Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others and Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others. The reasoning was that circulars or instructions by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or render them obsolete. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be strictly followed. Authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship to assessees. Instructions and circulars can only supplement statutory provisions. Therefore, notices issued under Section 148 and proceedings initiated without conducting faceless assessment 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 procedure laid down under the Act if advised.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Bagga Singh, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana challenging an order issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated March 28, 2023, and a notice issued under Section 148 of the Act, also dated March 28, 2023. The petitioner argued that these proceedings were initiated without conducting a faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act. The revenue, represented by the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, NWR, Chandigarh, accepted notice. Both parties agreed that the issue had been decided by this Court in previous writ petitions.

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 for want of jurisdiction. Assessee's Contention: The assessee contended that the proceedings were initiated without conducting a faceless assessment as mandated by Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, rendering the notices and subsequent actions invalid. The assessee relied on the judgments of this Court in 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). Revenue's Contention: The revenue did not record any specific arguments against the assessee's contention. They accepted that the issue had been finally examined and concluded by this Court in the aforementioned cases.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A,Section 148,Section 144B,Section 119,Section 120

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-29419-2024 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 118 CWP-29419-2024

Decided on : 28.10.2024 Bagga Singh . . . Petitioner(s) Versus Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, NWR, Aayakar Bhawan, Sector 17-E, Chandigarh and others . . . Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH PRESENT: Mr. Rohit Sud, Advocate and Ms. Vralika Bassi, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Sr. Standing Counsel for the respondent(s) – revenue. **** SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

, J. (Oral) 1. Notice of motion. 2. Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Sr. Standing Counsel, accepts notice for the respondents – revenue. 3. Both the counsel are ad idem that the 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 JAWALA RAM 2024.10.28 18:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

CWP-29419-2024 - 2 - 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. 20. All the writ petitions are allowed. The interim order passed by the Court shall stand merged with the present order.” JAWALA RAM 2024.10.28 18:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

CWP-29419-2024 - 3 - 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, Order issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer u/s 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 28.03.2023 and notice issued u/s 148 of the Act dated 28.03.2023, as well as consequential proceedings are set aside. 5. All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly. (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE October 28, 2024 J.Ram Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No JAWALA RAM 2024.10.28 18:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

More judgments on Section 148A

All 3,543 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →