RUMIT KAUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CWP/30443/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01155032202412 November 2024Bench: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal held that circulars or instructions issued by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or render them otiose. Legislative enactments must be followed strictly and mandatorily. The Court agreed with the view taken by a Coordinate Bench that authorities cannot usurp legal provisions to their own satisfaction and convenience, causing hardship and confusion to assessees. Instructions and circulars can only supplement statutory provisions for their implementation. Therefore, notices issued under Section 148 of the Act and proceedings initiated thereafter without conducting the assessment as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act were found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act. Consequently, the notices dated 24.03.2024, 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 30.03.2023, 20.03.2024, and 30.03.2023, along with consequential proceedings, were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The Revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act and proceed accordingly. The operative part of the judgment stated that the writ petition was allowed, and the interim order stood merged with the final order.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Rumit Kumar, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana challenging notices and proceedings initiated under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent faceless assessment proceedings under Section 144B. The Revenue, represented by the Income Tax Officer and others, accepted notice. The Court noted that the issues involved had been decided in prior cases by the same Court, specifically CWP No. 215 of 2023 (Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India) decided on 29.07.2024, and CWP No. 157 of 2024 (Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India) decided on 19.07.2024. The Court was informed that the present petition's issues were identical to those in the aforementioned cases.

What were the issues?

1. Whether notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent faceless assessment proceedings under Section 144B of the Act, initiated without adhering to statutory provisions and judicial pronouncements, are valid? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning Sections 148 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961). The Assessee (Petitioner) argued that the proceedings were contrary to law and the principles laid down by the Court in earlier judgments. The Revenue (Respondents) contended that the circulars and instructions issued by the Board were to be followed, and that the assessment authorities had the power to proceed based on their satisfaction and convenience, even if it caused hardship or confusion to assessees. The Revenue relied on the powers contained in Sections 119 and 120 of the Act, as well as Section 144B(7 & 8).

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

CWP-30443-202

115

IN TH Rumit Kumar Income Tax O CORAM: H

H Present: M

SANJEEV P

1.

Notice 2. Mr. Ra respond 3. Both th petition No.215 decided No.157 and oth held as 24

Page 1 of 3 HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA CHANDIGAR

r Vs.

Officer and others **** HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAN HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAN **** Mr. Vishav Bharti Gupta, Advoc Mr. Ranvijay Singh,Sr. Standing for the respondents/Revenue. **** RAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) of motion. anvijay Singh, Sr. Standing Coun dents/Revenue. he counsel are ad idem that the n stands finally examined and co 509 of 2023 titled as Jasjit Singh d on 29.07.2024, and by the 745 of 2024 titled as Jatinder Sin hers, decided on 19.07.2024. Th under:

AB AND HARYANA AT RH CWP-30443-2024 Date of Decision: 12.11.2024 . . . . Petitioner . . . . Respondents NJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA NJAY VASHISTH cate for the petitioner. Counsel ) nsel accepts notice on behalf of e issue involved in the present oncluded by this Court in CWP h vs. Union of India and others, e Coordinate Bench in CWP ngh Bhangu vs. Union of India his Court in Jasjit Singh (supra)

4 4

r s f t P , P a ) RASHMI 2024.11.13 17:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-30443-202

b i o o i m S S a s a t a s i n s w C u i a A p d 3 f 24

Page 2 of 3 “16. We are in agreemen by the Coordinate Bench and hol nstructions by the Board could n override statutory provisions or t obsolete. Legislative enactmen mplications 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 mplementation. 17. In view of the aforesa no occasion to distinguish or ta suggested by the learned counse what has already been held by th 18. Keeping in view the Coordinate Bench (supra), notic under Section 148 of the Act, 196 nitiated thereafter without con assessment as envisaged under Act, 1961, have been found to provisions of the Act, 1961 an dated 28.02.2023, 16.03.202 30.03.2023 and order dated 30. for want of jurisdiction.

nt with the view taken ld that such circular or not have been issued to to make them otiose or nts having financial 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 aid discussion, there is ake a different view as el for the revenue from he Coordinate Bench. law laid down by the ces issued by the JAO 61 and the proceedings nducting the faceless r Section 144B of the o be contrary to the d accordingly notices 23, 20.03.2024 and 03.2023, are set aside

RASHMI 2024.11.13 17:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-30443-202

a t i w 4. Keepin terms. mutand (Annex Section proceed 5. All pen

November 12, rashmi 1. Whethe 2. Whethe 24

Page 3 of 3 19. The respondents-reven at liberty to follow the procedur the Act, 1961 and proceed accord 20. All the writ petition nterim order passed by the Cou with the present order.”

ng in view above, we allow this The observations and order pa dis to the present case. Accord xure P-1) issued by Jurisdict n 148 of the Income Tax Act dings thereof are set aside. nding applications also stand disp

(SANJ , 2024 r speaking/reasoned?

Y r reportable?

nue would be, however, re as laid down under dingly, if so advised. ns are allowed. The urt shall stand merged s Writ Petition in the aforesaid assed above shall apply mutatis dingly, notice dated 24.03.2024 tional Assessing Officer under t, 1961 and the consequential posed of accordingly. JEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE

(SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No

d s 4 r l RASHMI 2024.11.13 17:19 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 →