PROPHET BAJINDER SINGH MINISTRY vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CWP/29886/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01152416202419 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 reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the subsequent consequential proceedings, were contrary to the provisions of the Act and the mandatory faceless assessment procedure envisaged under Section 144B. The Court agreed with its Coordinate Bench that instructions by the Board could not override statutory provisions, and legislative enactments must be followed mandatorily. The Court found that the authorities could not usurp legal provisions to their own satisfaction or convenience, causing hardship and confusion to assessees. Therefore, notices issued without conducting faceless assessments were found to be without jurisdiction. The Court set aside the notice dated 26.08.2024 and all consequential proceedings for want of jurisdiction. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act if so advised.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Ess Kay Enterprises, 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, initiating reassessment proceedings. The petitioner argued that these proceedings were initiated without conducting a faceless assessment as envisaged by Section 144B of the Act. The respondent-Income Tax Department accepted notice. The High Court noted that the issue was identical to previously decided cases, specifically CWP No. 21509 of 2023 (Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India) and CWP No. 15745 of 2024 (Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India), decided on 19.07.2024 and 09.07.2024 respectively. The court was asked to decide if the reassessment proceedings were validly initiated.

What were the issues?

1. Whether reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without conducting a faceless assessment as mandated by Section 144B, are valid? (Question of law and fact, concerning Sections 148 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the reassessment proceedings were initiated without adhering to the mandatory faceless assessment procedure prescribed under Section 144B of the Act, rendering them invalid. They relied on the principles laid down in previous judgments by the High Court. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through its counsel, accepted notice and did not present any distinct arguments against the assessee's position, implicitly agreeing with the High Court's prior rulings on similar matters.

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

118 IN TH PROPHET BA

ASSISTANT C.R. BUILDIN

CORAM: H

Present: M M M M f

* SANJEEV PR

CM-18655-C 1. A memo of part CWP-29886-2

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 AJINDER SINGH MINISTRY 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 29886-2024 (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-29886-202

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-29886-202

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 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →