ANU KUMAR GOEL vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CWP/31199/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01161035202420 November 2024Bench: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal held that notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the subsequent proceedings initiated without conducting the assessment under the faceless assessment scheme as envisaged under Section 144B, were found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act. The court agreed with the view taken by coordinate benches, stating that circulars or instructions issued by the Board could not override statutory provisions or make them obsolete. Authorities cannot usurp legal provisions to their own satisfaction or convenience, causing hardship and confusion to assessees. Instructions and circulars can only supplement statutory provisions and aid in their implementation. Therefore, the notices dated February 28, 2023, March 16, 2023, March 20, 2023, March 30, 2023, and April 30, 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 advised. The writ petition was allowed, and the interim order stood merged with the final order.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Anu Kumar, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated March 27, 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 initiated under Section 144B, which mandates faceless assessments, were contrary to the provisions of 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 writ petitions, specifically in Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India, both decided on July 19, 2024. The court was asked to decide whether the faceless assessment procedure, as envisaged under Section 144B, was correctly followed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings initiated under Section 144B, which mandates faceless assessments, are valid when they are found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act? (Question of law and fact, concerning Sections 148 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the assessment proceedings initiated under Section 144B, which envisages faceless assessments, were contrary to the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and therefore, the notices and consequential proceedings were liable to be set aside for want of jurisdiction. The petitioner relied on the decisions of coordinate benches in Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue, through its counsel, accepted notice and did not present any arguments against the petitioner's submissions. The judgment notes that both counsel were 'ad idem' (in agreement) that the issue involved had been finally examined and concluded by this Court in 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

124 IN TH ANU KUMAR

THE INCOME

CORAM: H

Present: M 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 HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA CHANDIGAR

CWP-3 Date of R GOEL

V ME TAX OFFICER WARD-4, PAT

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJ

Mr. Sanjeev K. Sharma, Advocat Mr. Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate 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 AB AND HARYANA AT RH 31199-2024 (O&M) f Decision:20.11.2024

..…...Petitioner(s) V/s. TIALA AND ANOTHER …......Respondent(s) NJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA NJAY VASHISTH te with e for 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 e P , f , Suresh Kumar 2024.11.22 09:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-31199-202

i 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 024 (O&M) Page 2 of 3

implications 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 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 e 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 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 e s Suresh Kumar 2024.11.22 09:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-31199-202

mutandis to (Annexure P- Income Tax aside. 5. A

November 20 Ess Kay

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

the present case. According -1) issued by the Jurisdictional A Act, 1961 and all consequenti All pending applications also stan [SANJEEV 0, 2024

[SAN

king / reasoned :

Y rtable

Y gly, notice dated 27.03.2024 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 4 e t Suresh Kumar 2024.11.22 09:20 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 →