KAPIL DEV GOOMBER vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CWP/30367/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01155600202411 November 2024Bench: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, following the decisions of its coordinate benches in Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India, held that instructions by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or make them obsolete. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed strictly. The Court found that the notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, and the proceedings initiated thereafter without conducting the assessment as envisaged under Section 144B, were contrary to the provisions of the Act. Consequently, the notices dated 23.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2023, 30.03.2023, and the order dated 30.03.2023 were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act and proceed accordingly, if so advised. The writ petition was allowed, and all pending applications stood disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Kapil Dev Goomber, challenged a notice dated 29.03.2024 issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent consequential proceedings. The petitioner argued that these proceedings, particularly those conducted under Section 144B (faceless assessment), were contrary to the provisions of the Act and the instructions by the Board. The revenue, represented by Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Senior Standing Counsel, accepted notice. The High Court noted that similar issues had been decided by coordinate benches in other writ petitions, specifically citing Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India, both decided on 19.07.2024.

What were the issues?

1. Whether notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings conducted under Section 144B (faceless assessment) are liable to be set aside for want of jurisdiction, given that instructions by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or make them otiose. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the faceless assessment proceedings initiated under Section 144B were contrary to the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and that instructions by the Board could not override statutory provisions. The petitioner relied on the decisions of coordinate benches in Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India. Revenue's Contention: The revenue did not record any specific arguments against the petitioner's contentions. Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Senior Standing Counsel, accepted notice on behalf of the respondents.

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 KAPIL DEV G

ASSISTANT BATHINDA, P

CORAM: H

Present: M M

M f

* 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 GOOMBER

V COMMISSIONER OF INCOM PUNJAB

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJ Mr. Sidhant Suri, Advocate for th Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Senior Stan Ms. Samdisha Kaur, Advocate 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 30367-2024 (O&M) f Decision:11.11.2024

..…...Petitioner(s) V/s. ME TAX, DCIT/ACIT, CIR 1, …......Respondent(s) NJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA NJAY VASHISTH he 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-30367 -20

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

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 the present case. According -1) issued by the Jurisdictional A 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 gly, notice dated 29.03.2024 Assessing Officer u/s 148 of the e s 4 e Suresh Kumar 2024.11.12 11:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-30367 -20

Income Tax aside. 5. A

November 11 Ess Kay

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

Act, 1961 and all consequenti All pending applications also stan [SANJEEV 1, 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 2024.11.12 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 →