RAVINDER SINGH vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/31099/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01159535202419 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 with financial implications must be followed strictly. The court agreed with the view taken by the Coordinate Bench that exercising powers under Sections 119 and 120, as well as Section 144B (7 & 8) of the Act, should not allow authorities to 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 by the JAO under Section 148 of the Act, and proceedings initiated thereafter without conducting faceless assessment under Section 144B, were found to be contrary to the Act and set aside for want of jurisdiction. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act and proceed accordingly. All pending applications were also disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Ravinder Singh, challenged notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings. The Revenue, represented by Mr. Yogesh Putney, Sr. Standing Counsel, accepted notice. Both parties agreed that the issue had been finally examined and concluded by the High Court in prior writ petitions: CWP No. 509 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 present writ petition, CWP-31099-2024, was filed on November 19, 2024. The court noted that the notices and proceedings were challenged on grounds of jurisdiction.

What were the issues?

1. Whether notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings initiated without conducting a faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act, are contrary to the provisions of the Act and liable to be set aside for want of jurisdiction? Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the notices and proceedings were invalid due to a lack of jurisdiction. The judgment implies reliance on the findings of the Coordinate Bench in Jasjit Singh and Jatinder Singh Bhangu, which dealt with similar issues concerning faceless assessments and the overriding effect of statutory provisions over administrative instructions. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue's counsel accepted notice and agreed that the matter had been decided by coordinate benches. The judgment does not explicitly record separate arguments from the revenue beyond this agreement, but it notes that the learned counsel for the revenue suggested distinguishing the present case from prior judgments, which the court did not accept.

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-31099-202

133

IN TH Ravinder Sing Union of Indi CORAM: H

H Present: M

SANJEEV P

1.

Notice 2. Mr. Yo 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

gh Vs.

a and others **** HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAN HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAN **** Mr. Avneet Singh, Advocate and Mr. Pranav Jain, Advocate for th Mr. Yogesh Putney,Sr. Standing Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Advocate for the respondents/Revenue. **** RAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) of motion. ogesh Putney, 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-31099-2024(O&M) Date of Decision: 19.11.2024 . . . . Petitioner . . . . Respondents NJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA NJAY VASHISTH d he petitioner. Counsel and ) 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 ) RASHMI 2024.11.21 11:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-31099-202

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 a t 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. 19. The respondents-reven at liberty to follow the procedur the Act, 1961 and proceed accord

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 nue would be, however, re as laid down under dingly, if so advised.

RASHMI 2024.11.21 11:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-31099-202

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

November 19, rashmi 1. Whethe 2. Whethe 24(O&M)

Page 3 of 3 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?

ns are allowed. The urt shall stand merged s Writ Petition in the aforesaid assed above shall apply mutatis dingly, notice dated 28.03.2024 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 2024.11.21 11:06 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 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →