MUNISH KUMAR vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/30250/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01150306202407 November 2024Bench: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal held that notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the proceedings initiated thereafter, without conducting the faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act, 1961, are contrary to the provisions of the Act. The Court agreed with the view taken by a Coordinate Bench that circulars or instructions by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or make them obsolete. Legislative enactments having financial implications must be followed strictly. The authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship and confusion to assessees. Instructions and circulars can only supplement statutory provisions and aid in their implementation. Consequently, the notices dated 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2024, and 30.03.2023, and the order dated 30.03.2023, were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The respondents-revenue were granted liberty to follow the prescribed procedure if so advised. In the present case, the notice dated 15.03.2024 issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and all consequential proceedings were set aside.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Munish Kumar, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated 15.03.2024 issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and all consequential proceedings. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh noted that the issue was identical to previous cases, specifically CWP No. 21509 of 2023 (Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others) decided on 29.07.2024, and CWP No. 15745 of 2023 (Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others) decided on 19.07.2024. The Court was informed that both counsel were in agreement and that the matter had been finally examined and concluded in the cited judgments. The present petition was disposed of in terms of the observations and order passed in Jasjit Singh (supra).

What were the issues?

1. Whether notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings initiated without conducting a faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act, are contrary to the provisions of the Act, 1961. Assessee's Contention: The assessee implicitly argued that the faceless assessment procedure mandated by Section 144B must be followed, and any deviation, particularly by issuing notices and initiating proceedings without adhering to it, renders such actions without jurisdiction and contrary to law. The assessee relied on the principle that legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed mandatorily and that instructions or circulars cannot override statutory provisions or make them obsolete. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through its Senior Standing Counsel, accepted notice and did not present any distinct arguments against the assessee's position, as both counsel were ad idem and the matter was concluded by 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

128 IN TH MUNISH KUM

UNION OF IN CORAM: H

Present: M M

* 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 o i m HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA CHANDIGAR

CWP-3 Date of UMAR

V NDIA AND OTHERS

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJ Mr. Prateek Gupta, Advocate for Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Senior Stan for the respondent/Income Tax D ***** RAKASH SHARMA, J. (Oral) Notice of motion. Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, 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 obsolete. Legislative enactmen implications are required to be mandatorily. By exercising the AB AND HARYANA AT RH 30250-2024 (O&M) f Decision:07.11.2024

..…...Petitioner(s) V/s. …......Respondent(s)

NJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA NJAY VASHISTH r the petitioner. nding Counsel, with 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 nts having financial e followed strictly and powers contained in

e e P , f , Suresh Kumar 2024.11.12 11:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-30250 -2024 (O&M)

Page 2 of 3

Sections 119 and 120 of the Act, 1961 as well as Section 144B (7 & 8), the authorities cannot be allowed to usurp the legal provisions to their own satisfaction and convenience causing hardship to the assessees. It also leaves confusion in the minds of the taxpayers. In the opinion of this Court, instructions and circulars can be issued only for the purpose of supplementing the statutory provisions and for their implementation. 17. In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no occasion to distinguish or take a different view as suggested by the learned counsel for the revenue from what has already been held by the Coordinate Bench. 18. Keeping in view the law laid down by the Coordinate Bench (supra), notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and the proceedings initiated thereafter without conducting the faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act, 1961, have been found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act, 1961 and accordingly notices dated 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2024 and 30.03.2023 and order dated 30.03.2023, are set aside for want of jurisdiction. 19. The respondents-revenue would be, however, at liberty to follow the procedure as laid down under the Act, 1961 and proceed accordingly, if so advised. 20. All the writ petitions are allowed. The interim order passed by the Court shall stand merged with the present order.” 4. Keeping in view above, we allow this Writ Petition in the aforesaid terms. The observations and order passed above shall apply mutatis mutandis to the present case. Accordingly, notice dated 15.03.2024 (Annexure P-1) issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer u/s 148 of the Suresh Kumar 2024.11.12 11:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-30250 -2024 (O&M)

Page 3 of 3

Income Tax Act, 1961 and all consequential proceedings thereof are set aside. 5. All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly.

[SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA] JUDGE

November 7, 2024 Ess Kay

[SANJAY VASHISTH] JUDGE

Whether speaking / reasoned :

Yes / No Whether Reportable

Yes / No

Suresh Kumar 2024.11.12 11:00 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 →