SUNITA NIJHAWAN vs. UNION OF INDIA

PDF · subscribers
CWP/31232/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01160578202420 November 2024Bench: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, following the decisions in Jasjit Singh (supra) and Jatinder Singh Bhangu (supra), held that circulars or instructions issued by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or render them obsolete. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed strictly and mandatorily. The Court found that by exercising powers contained in Sections 119 and 120 of the Act, as well as Section 144B (7 & 8), the authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship and confusion to assessees. Instructions and circulars can only supplement statutory provisions for implementation. Consequently, notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, and the consequential proceedings initiated without conducting a faceless assessment under Section 144B, were found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act. The Court set aside the notices dated 21.03.2024, 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2024, and 30.03.2023, as well as the consequential order dated 30.03.2023, 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, Sunita Nijhawan, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The respondents are the Union of India and others (Revenue). The core of the dispute revolves around notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings initiated for assessment under Section 144B of the Act. The petitioner contended that these proceedings were vitiated due to procedural irregularities and a lack of jurisdiction. The Revenue, represented by Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal, Sr. Standing Counsel, accepted notice. The Court noted that the issue had been considered and decided by coordinate benches in previous writ petitions, specifically CWP No. 21509 of 2023 (Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India) and CWP No. 157745 of 2024 (Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India).

What were the issues?

1. Whether notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings under Section 144B of the Act, initiated without conducting a faceless assessment as envisaged by the Act, are contrary to the provisions of the Act and liable to be set aside? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the notices and subsequent proceedings were invalid. While not explicitly detailed, the context implies reliance on the findings of coordinate benches that dealt with similar issues. The petitioner's counsel, Mr. Mukesh Pandey, Advocate, implicitly supported the arguments made in the cited cases. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue, represented by Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal, Sr. Standing Counsel, did not present any distinct arguments against the petitioner's case, as the counsel for both parties were 'ad idem' (in agreement) that the issue had been finally examined and concluded by this Court in prior judgments. The Revenue did not advance any arguments to distinguish or take a different view from the coordinate bench.

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-31232-202 110 IN TH SUNITA NIJH UNION OF IN

CORAM: H

H Present: M

SANJEEV P

1.

Notice 2. Ms. Ga of respo 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

HAWAN Vs.

NDIA AND OTHERS **** HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAN HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAN **** Mr. Mukesh Pandey, Advocate fo Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal, Sr. Stand for the respondents/Revenue. **** RAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) of motion. auri Neo Rampal, Sr. Standing C ondents/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-31232-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 20.11.2024 . . . . Petitioner . . . . Respondents NJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA NJAY VASHISTH for the petitioner. ding Counsel (through VC) ) Counsel accepts notice on behalf 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 2024.11.20 17:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-31232-202 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 2024.11.20 17:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-31232-202 a t i w 4. Keepin terms. mutand issued Jurisdic proceed 5. All pen

November 20, 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 21.03.2024 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 4 y l MOHIT GOYAL 2024.11.20 17:01 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 →