KAWALJIT SINGH vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHER

PDF · subscribers
CWP/31047/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01160247202419 November 2024Bench: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, following its earlier decisions 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 and mandatorily. The Court found that by exercising powers under Sections 119 and 120 of the Act, along with Section 144B (7 & 8), authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship and confusion to assessees. The Court reiterated that instructions and circulars can only supplement statutory provisions and aid in their implementation. Consequently, notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 of the Act, and the faceless assessment proceedings initiated thereafter, were found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act and were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure as laid down under the Act. The writ petition was allowed, and all pending applications were disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Kawaljit Singh, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana challenging a notice dated 12.04.2024 issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and all consequential proceedings. The petitioner argued that the assessment proceedings were initiated without conducting a proper faceless assessment as envisaged by the Act. The revenue, represented by the Income Tax Department, accepted notice. The Court noted that similar issues had been decided by its Coordinate Bench in other writ petitions, specifically Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India, decided on 19.07.2024.

What were the issues?

1. Whether notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent faceless assessment proceedings initiated without adhering to the prescribed procedure under Section 144B of the Act are valid, particularly when such proceedings are contrary to the provisions of the Act and circulars issued by the Board, and whether such circulars can override statutory provisions or make them otiose? Assessee's Contention: The assessment proceedings were initiated without conducting a proper faceless assessment as envisaged by the Act, and the notice under Section 148 and subsequent proceedings are invalid. The petitioner relied on the principles laid down in the judgments of Jasjit Singh and Jatinder Singh Bhangu. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through its Senior Standing Counsel, accepted notice. No specific arguments were recorded for the revenue in the provided text, other than accepting notice and agreeing that the issue 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

121 IN TH KAWALJIT SI

UNION OF IN

CORAM: H

Present: M M f 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 HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA CHANDIGAR

CWP-3 Date of INGH

V NDIA AND OTHERS HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJ Mr.Avneet Singh, Advocate and Mr.Pranav Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal, Senior S for the respondent-Income Tax D ***** RAKASH SHARMA, J. (Oral) Notice of motion. Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal, Senior S 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 AB AND HARYANA AT RH 31047-2024 (O&M) f Decision:19.11.2024

..…...Petitioner(s) V/s. …......Respondent(s) NJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA NJAY VASHISTH Standing Counsel, Department. Standing 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

e e P , f , Suresh Kumar 2024.11.20 15:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-31047 -20

m 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 024 (O&M) Page 2 of 3

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 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 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 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 12.04.2024 e s 4 Suresh Kumar 2024.11.20 15:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-31047 -20

(Annexure P- Income Tax aside. 5. A

November 19 Ess Kay

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

-4) issued by the Jurisdictional A Act, 1961 and all consequenti All pending applications also stan [SANJEEV 9, 2024

[SAN

king / reasoned :

Y rtable

Y Assessing Officer u/s 148 of the ial proceedings thereof are set nd disposed of accordingly.

V PRAKASH SHARMA] JUDGE

NJAY VASHISTH] JUDGE Yes / No Yes / No e t Suresh Kumar 2024.11.20 15:52 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 →