RAJINDER GOEL vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/29709/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01150857202404 November 2024Bench: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, following its previous decisions in 'Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India' and 'Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India', held that instructions issued by the Board under Sections 119 and 120 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, cannot override statutory provisions or make them obsolete. The Court emphasized that legislative enactments must be followed strictly, and authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship and confusion to assessees. Instructions can only supplement statutory provisions for implementation. Consequently, notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Act, dated 28.03.2024, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2024, and 30.03.2023, along with consequential 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.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Rajinder Goel, proprietor of M/s Pooja Jewellers, Patiala, filed a writ petition challenging notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings. The revenue, represented by the Income Tax Department, accepted notice. The High Court noted that the issue was identical to previously decided cases, specifically 'Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others' and 'Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others', decided on 09.07.2024. In those cases, the Court had examined the implications of instructions issued by the Board concerning faceless assessments and reassessment proceedings.

What were the issues?

1. Whether instructions issued by the Board under Section 119 and 120 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, can override statutory provisions or render them otiose, particularly concerning faceless assessments under Section 144B (7 & 8) of the Act? Assessee's Contention: The assessee, through the cited precedents, implicitly argued that the faceless assessment procedures and related instructions, if they conflict with statutory provisions or cause hardship, are invalid. The Court's prior judgments are relied upon to support this. Revenue's Contention: The revenue's counsel accepted notice and did not present a separate argument, indicating agreement with the position taken by the Court in the cited precedents.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

107 IN TH RAJINDER G

UNION OF IN

CORAM: H

Present: M M

M M M f

* SANJEEV PR

1.

N 2. M on behalf of th 3. B present petitio No.21509 of decided on 29 2024 titled a decided on 19

C i o HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA CHANDIGAR

CWP-2 Date of GOEL PROPRIETOR OF M/S PO

V NDIA AND OTHERS HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJ Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advocate Mr. Rakesh Cajla, Advocate and Mr. Armaan Cajla, Advocate, for Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Senior Stan Ms. Pridhi Sandhu, Junior Standi Ms. Muskaan Gupta, Advocate for the respondent-Income Tax D ***** RAKASH SHARMA, J. (Oral) Notice of motion. Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Senior St he respondents/Income Tax Dep Both the counsel are ad idem on stands finally examined and c f 2023 titled as Jasjit Singh vs 9.07.2024, and by the Coordina as Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. 9.07.2024. This Court in Jasjit Si “16. We are in agreement with Coordinate Bench and hold t instructions by the Board could n override statutory provisions or t AB AND HARYANA AT RH 29709-2024 (O&M) f Decision:04.11.2024 OOJA JEWELLERS, PATIALA

..…...Petitioner(s) V/s. …......Respondent(s) NJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA NJAY VASHISTH e,

r the petitioner. nding Counsel, with ing Counsel and Department. tanding Counsel, accepts notice partment. that the issue involved in the concluded by this Court in CWP s. Union of India and others, ate Bench in CWP No.15745 of . Union of India and others, Singh (supra) held as under: the view taken by the that such circular or not have been issued to to make them otiose or ) ) e e P , f , Suresh Kumar 2024.11.05 09:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-29709-202

o i m S S a s a t a s i 1 o s w 1 C u p f o p d 3 f 1 l A 2 o p 024 (O&M) Page 2 of 3

obsolete. Legislative enactmen implications 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 implementation. 17. In view of the aforesaid d occasion to distinguish or take suggested by the learned counse what has already been held by th 18. Keeping in view the law Coordinate Bench (supra), notic under Section 148 of the proceedings initiated thereafter w faceless assessment as envisage of the Act, 1961, have been foun provisions of the Act, 1961 an dated 28.02.2023, 16.03.202 30.03.2023 and order dated 30. for want of jurisdiction. 19. The respondents-revenue w liberty to follow the procedure a Act, 1961 and proceed according 20. All the writ petitions are order passed by the Court shall present order.” nts having financial e 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 discussion, there is no e a different view as el for the revenue from he Coordinate Bench. w laid down by the ces issued by the JAO Act, 1961 and the without conducting the ed under Section 144B d to be contrary to the nd accordingly notices 23, 20.03.2024 and 03.2023, are set aside would be, however, at as laid down under the gly, if so advised. allowed. The interim stand merged with the Suresh Kumar 2024.11.05 09:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-29709-202

4.

K aforesaid term mutandis to (Annexures P of the Income set aside. 5. A

November 4, Ess Kay

Whether speak Whether Repor 024 (O&M) Page 3 of 3

Keeping in view above, we a ms. The observations and order p the present case. According P-1 to P-3) issued by the Jurisdic e Tax Act, 1961 and all conseq All pending applications also stan [SANJEEV , 2024

[SAN

king / reasoned :

Y rtable

Y allow this Writ Petition in the passed above shall apply mutatis gly, notices dated 28.03.2024 ctional Assessing Officer u/s 148 quential proceedings thereof are nd disposed of accordingly.

V PRAKASH SHARMA] JUDGE

NJAY VASHISTH] JUDGE Yes / No Yes / No e s 4 8 e Suresh Kumar 2024.11.05 09:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

More judgments on Section 119

All 707 judgments and leading authorities on Section 119 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →