PARAMJIT KAUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/30774/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01156729202414 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 circulars or instructions issued by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or make them obsolete. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed strictly and mandatorily. The court found that the authorities, by exercising powers under Sections 119 and 120 of the Act, as well as Section 144B(7 & 8), cannot usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship and confusion to assessees. Instructions and circulars can only supplement statutory provisions for their implementation. Consequently, notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, 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. Therefore, the notices dated 31.03.2023, 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 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 if advised. All pending applications were also disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Paramjit Kaur, filed a writ petition (CWP-30774-2024) challenging notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings. The Revenue, represented by the Income Tax Officer and others, accepted notice. The High Court noted that the issue involved was similar to previously decided cases: CWP No. 215 of 2023 (Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others, decided on 29.07.2024) and CWP No. 157 of 2024 (Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others, decided on 19.07.2024). The core of the dispute revolved around the validity of notices and proceedings initiated under the faceless assessment scheme, particularly concerning Section 144B of the Act.

What were the issues?

1. Whether notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings conducted under Section 144B of the Act, are valid when they are contrary to the provisions of the Act and the principles of natural justice, particularly in light of instructions issued by the Board that may override statutory provisions or make them otiose? Assessee's Contentions: The assessee's petition implicitly argues that the notices and proceedings are invalid. The judgment refers to the assessee's counsel being present and the issue being concluded by prior judgments, suggesting the assessee relied on the principles established in those cases. The core argument, as reflected in the prior judgments, is that circulars and instructions cannot override statutory provisions and that faceless assessment procedures must comply strictly with the Act. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue's counsel accepted notice and did not present a distinct argument against the assessee's position, as the court found itself in agreement with the Coordinate Bench's prior decisions. The judgment states, "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." This implies the revenue did not successfully argue for the validity of the notices and proceedings in this instance.

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-30774-202 130 IN TH PARAMJIT K INCOME TA

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 (O&M) Page 1 of 3 HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA CHANDIGAR

KAUR Vs.

AX OFFICER AND OTHERS **** HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAN HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAN **** Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Sr. Standing for the respondents/Revenue. **** RAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) of motion. anvijay Singh, Sr. Standing Coun dent/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-30774-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 14.11.2024 . . . . Petitioner . . . . Respondents NJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA NJAY VASHISTH the petitioner. g 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 r s f t P , P a ) MOHIT GOYAL 2024.11.18 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-30774-202 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 (O&M) 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

MOHIT GOYAL 2024.11.18 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-30774-202 a t i w 4. Keepin terms. mutand issued Jurisdic proceed 5. All pen

November 14, Mohit goyal 1. Whethe 2. Whethe 24 (O&M) 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 under Section 148 of the ctional Assessing Officer as dings are set aside. nding applications also stand disp

(SANJ , 2024 r speaking/reasoned?

Y r reportable?

Y 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 31.03.2023 Income Tax Act, 1961 by s well as the consequential posed of accordingly. JEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE

(SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No

d s 3 y l MOHIT GOYAL 2024.11.18 14:50 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 →