MAHINDER AGGARWAL vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/30934/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01158968202418 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 notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings initiated under Section 144B, which were conducted without a proper faceless assessment, were contrary to the provisions of the Act. The Court relied on its previous decisions in 'Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others' and 'Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others'. The reasoning was that instructions by the Board could not override statutory provisions, and legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed mandatorily. The Court found that the assessment proceedings, as conducted, usurped legal provisions and caused hardship and confusion. Consequently, the notices dated 13.03.2024, 20.03.2024, 23.03.2024, 16.03.2023, 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 operative direction was to allow the writ petition and set aside the impugned notices and proceedings.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Mahinder Aggarwal, challenged notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings initiated under Section 144B. The petitioner argued that these proceedings were conducted without a proper faceless assessment, as envisaged by the Act. The revenue, represented by the Income Tax Department, accepted notice. The High Court noted that similar issues had been decided by coordinate benches in previous cases, specifically citing 'Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others' and 'Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others'. The core of the dispute revolved around the validity of assessments conducted without adhering to the prescribed faceless assessment procedures.

What were the issues?

1. Whether notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings under Section 144B are invalid if not conducted through a faceless assessment as envisaged by the Act? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 148 and Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the assessment proceedings, including the notices under Section 148 and the subsequent actions under Section 144B, were flawed because they were not conducted in accordance with the faceless assessment scheme. The petitioner relied on the principles laid down in the judgments of 'Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others' and 'Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others'. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through its counsel, accepted notice and did not present any arguments against the petitioner's submissions. The judgment states that both counsel were 'ad idem' that the issue had been concluded by previous decisions of the court.

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

136 IN TH MAHINDER A

UNION OF IN

CORAM: H

Present: M 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 AGGARWAL

V NDIA AND OTHERS HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJ Mr.Kashish Sahni, Advocate for Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Senior Stan Ms. Pridhi Sandhu, Junior Standi Ms. Muskaan Gupta, Advocate for the respondent-Income Tax D ***** RAKASH SHARMA, J. (Oral) Notice of motion. Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, 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 30934-2024 (O&M) f Decision:18.11.2024

..…...Petitioner(s) V/s. …......Respondent(s) NJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA NJAY VASHISTH the petitioner. nding Counsel, with ing Counsel and 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 2024.11.19 15:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-30934 -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 -5) 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 13.03.2024 Assessing Officer u/s 148 of the e s 4 e Suresh Kumar 2024.11.19 15:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-30934 -20

Income Tax aside. 5. A

November 18 Ess Kay

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

Act, 1961 and all consequenti All pending applications also stan [SANJEEV 8, 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 2024.11.19 15:28 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 →