MANJIT SINGH vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/29897/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01151990202405 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 notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the consequential proceedings initiated without conducting a faceless assessment as envisaged by Section 144B of the Act, were contrary to the provisions of the Act. The Court agreed with the view taken by a Coordinate Bench that circulars or instructions from the Board cannot override statutory provisions or be issued to make them obsolete. The Court emphasized that legislative enactments having financial implications are required to be mandatorily followed. The Court found that the authorities could not usurp legal provisions to their own satisfaction or convenience, causing hardship and confusion to assessees. Therefore, the notices dated 03.04.2023, 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2023, and 30.03.2023, along with 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 provisions under Section 144B are mandatory and cannot be bypassed, even in reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 148.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Manjit Singh, challenged a notice dated 03.04.2023 issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings. The petitioner argued that these proceedings were initiated without conducting a faceless assessment as envisaged by the Act and its relevant provisions. The revenue, represented by the Income Tax Department, accepted notice. The High Court noted that similar issues had been dealt with in previous writ petitions, specifically Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India, decided on 09.07.2024.

What were the issues?

1. Whether notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings initiated without conducting a faceless assessment as mandated by the Act, are valid and legally sustainable? (Question of law and mixed fact and law, turning on Section 144B). Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner contended that the assessment proceedings initiated under Section 148 were contrary to the provisions of the Act, specifically Section 144B, which mandates faceless assessments. The petitioner relied on the principle that instructions by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or make them otiose. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue did not present any specific arguments against the petitioner's contentions. The Senior Standing Counsel accepted notice and acknowledged that the issue was concluded by this Court in prior 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

131 IN TH MANJIT SING

UNION OF IN

CORAM: H

Present: M M f

M f

* SANJEEV PR

1.

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

C i o o HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA CHANDIGAR

CWP-2 Date of GH

V NDIA AND OTHERS HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJ Mr. Sandeep Goyal, Advocate w Mr. Mohit Bassi and Mr. Samees for the petitioner. Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Senior Stand for the respondent-Income Tax D ***** RAKASH SHARMA, J. (Oral) Notice of motion. Mr. Ranvijay Singh, 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 “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 AB AND HARYANA AT RH 29897-2024 (O&M) f Decision:05.11.2024

..…...Petitioner(s) V/s. …......Respondent(s) NJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA NJAY VASHISTH with sh Bassi, Advocates ding Counsel, Department. 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: the view taken by the that such circular or not have been issued to to make them otiose or nts having financial ) ) n e P , f , Suresh Kumar 2024.11.06 10:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-29897-202

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 4. K aforesaid term 024 (O&M) Page 2 of 3

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.” Keeping in view above, we a ms. The observations and order p 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 allow this Writ Petition in the passed above shall apply mutatis e s Suresh Kumar 2024.11.06 10:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-29897-202

mutandis to (Annexure P- Income Tax aside. 5. A

November 5, Ess Kay

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

the present case. According -8) issued by the Jurisdictional A Act, 1961 and all consequenti All pending applications also stan [SANJEEV , 2024

[SAN

king / reasoned :

Y rtable

Y gly, notice dated 03.04.2023 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 3 e t Suresh Kumar 2024.11.06 10:17 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 →