RITU MEHTA vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/30004/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01151142202406 November 2024Bench: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal held that instructions by the Board, as reflected in circulars, cannot override statutory provisions or render them obsolete. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed strictly. The Court agreed with the view of a Coordinate Bench that instructions and circulars can only supplement statutory provisions and aid in their implementation, not usurp them. Exercising powers under Sections 119 and 120 of the Act, along with Section 144B (7 & 8), the authorities cannot override legal provisions for their convenience. Consequently, notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and all consequential proceedings initiated without conducting faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B, were found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act. The Court set aside the impugned notices and all consequential proceedings for want of jurisdiction. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure as laid down under the Act and proceed accordingly, if so advised. The writ petitions were allowed, and interim orders stood merged with the present order.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Ritu Mehta, filed a writ petition challenging notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings. The petitioner argued that these notices and proceedings were vitiated due to a lack of jurisdiction, as they were initiated without adhering to the mandatory provisions of faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act. The revenue, represented by the Income Tax Department, accepted notice. The High Court was considering the validity of notices dated 24.03.2024, 20.03.2023, 16.03.2023, and 30.03.2023, along with consequential proceedings. The core issue revolved around the proper procedure for issuing notices under Section 148 in the context of faceless assessment.

What were the issues?

1. Whether notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings initiated without conducting faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act, are valid and possess jurisdiction. (Question of law and mixed fact and law, turning on Section 148 and Section 144B). Assessee's Contention: The assessee contended that the notices and proceedings were invalid and lacked jurisdiction because they were initiated without adhering to the mandatory provisions of faceless assessment under Section 144B of the Act. The argument was that the authorities could not usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship and confusion. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through its Senior Standing Counsel, accepted notice. No specific arguments were recorded for the revenue in opposition to the assessee's claim regarding the procedural infirmities.

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

127 IN TH RITU MEHTA

UNION OF IN

CORAM: H

Present: M M

* 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 i m S HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA CHANDIGAR

CWP-3 Date of A

V NDIA AND OTHERS

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJ Mr. Anurag Sharma, Advocate fo 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 implications are required to be mandatorily. By exercising the Sections 119 and 120 of the A AB AND HARYANA AT RH 30004-2024 (O&M) f Decision:06.11.2024

..…...Petitioner(s) V/s. …......Respondent(s) NJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA NJAY VASHISTH or the petitioner. 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 e followed strictly and powers contained in Act, 1961 as well as

n e P , f , Suresh Kumar 2024.11.07 09:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-30004-202

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 mutandis to (Annexure P- 024 (O&M) Page 2 of 3

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 the present case. According -2) issued by the Jurisdictional A 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 gly, notice dated 24.03.2024 Assessing Officer u/s 148 of the e s 4 e Suresh Kumar 2024.11.07 09:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-30004-202

Income Tax aside. 5. A

November 6, Ess Kay

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

Act, 1961 and all consequenti All pending applications also stan [SANJEEV , 2024

[SAN

king / reasoned :

Y rtable

Y ial proceedings thereof are set nd disposed of accordingly.

V PRAKASH SHARMA] JUDGE

NJAY VASHISTH] JUDGE Yes / No Yes / No t Suresh Kumar 2024.11.07 09:25 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 →