BAJINDER SINGH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH

PDF · subscribers
CWP/29872/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01151228202419 November 2024Bench: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that instructions by the Board (circulars) cannot override statutory provisions or make them obsolete. Legislative enactments and their implications must be followed mandatorily. The authorities cannot usurp legal provisions to their own satisfaction or convenience, causing hardship and confusion to assessees. Instructions and circulars can only supplement statutory provisions for their implementation. The Court agreed with the coordinate bench that notices issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings initiated without conducting the faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B, were contrary to the provisions of the Act. Consequently, the notices dated 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2023, 30.03.2023, and 30.03.2024 were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure as laid down under the Act, 1961, if so advised. The writ petition was allowed, and the interim order stood merged with the final order.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Bajinder Singh, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated 26.08.2024 issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings. The petitioner sought to quash these actions. The respondent was the Commissioner of Income Tax, DCIT/ACIT. The assessment year is not explicitly stated but relates to proceedings initiated under Section 148. The High Court considered two previous decisions: Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India, both decided on 19.07.2024. The High Court also noted an application for amendment of the petition, which was allowed. The core of the dispute revolves around the validity of faceless assessment proceedings initiated under Section 144B.

What were the issues?

1. Whether notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent faceless assessment proceedings initiated under Section 144B of the Act, 1961, are valid when they are found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act and circulars issued by the Board, particularly concerning the requirement of conducting assessments without personal hearings? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the faceless assessment proceedings, as envisaged under Section 144B, were contrary to the provisions of the Act and circulars, leading to a lack of jurisdiction. The assessee relied on the principles laid down in the coordinate bench decisions in Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, represented by the Senior Standing Counsel, accepted notice and did not present any arguments against the assessee's position, indicating an ad idem stance with the petitioner's counsel regarding the conclusion based on previous judgments.

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

116 IN TH BAJINDER SI

ASSISTANT C.R. BUILDIN

CORAM: H

Present: M M M M f

* SANJEEV PR

CM-18662-C 1. A memo of part CWP-29872-2

2.

N 3. M behalf of the r 4. B present petitio No.21509 of decided on 29 2024 titled a decided on 19 HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA CHANDIGAR

CWP-2 Date of INGH

V COMMISSIONER OF INCOM NG, INCOME TAX WING, SECT

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJ Ms. Ekakshra Mahajan Mandhar Mr. Atul Mandhar, Advocate for Mr. Yogesh Putney, Senior Stand Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Standing Co for the respondent-Income Tax D ***** RAKASH SHARMA, J. (Oral) CWP-2024 Application moved by the petit ies is taken on record. 2024 (O&M) Notice of motion. Mr. Yogesh Putney, Senior Stan respondents/Income Tax Departm 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 AB AND HARYANA AT RH 29872-2024 (O&M) f Decision:19.11.2024 ..…...Petitioner(s) V/s. ME TAX, DCIT/ACIT (CEN)-1, TOR, 17-E, CHANDIGARH. …......Respondent(s) NJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA NJAY VASHISTH r and r the applicant/petitioner. ding Counsel, with ounsel, Department. tioner is allowed and amended nding Counsel, accepts notice on ment. 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:

) d n e P , f , Suresh Kumar 2024.11.20 15:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-29872-202

C i o 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 024 (O&M) Page 2 of 3

“16. We are in agreement with Coordinate Bench and hold t instructions by the Board could n override statutory provisions or t 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 the view taken by the that such circular or not have been issued to to make them otiose or 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. Suresh Kumar 2024.11.20 15:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-29872-202

2 o p

5.

K aforesaid term mutandis to (Annexure P- Income Tax aside. 6. A

November 19 Ess Kay

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

20.

All the writ petitions are order passed by the Court shall present order.” Keeping in view above, we a ms. The observations and order p the present case. According -1) issued by the Jurisdictional A Act, 1961 and all consequenti All pending applications also stan [SANJEEV 9, 2024

[SAN

king / reasoned :

Y rtable

Y allowed. The interim stand merged with the allow this Writ Petition in the passed above shall apply mutatis gly, notice dated 26.08.2024 Assessing Officer u/s 148 of the ial proceedings thereof are set nd disposed of accordingly.

V PRAKASH SHARMA] JUDGE

NJAY VASHISTH] JUDGE Yes / No Yes / No e s 4 e t Suresh Kumar 2024.11.20 15:52 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 →