SANDEEP SHARMA vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/31474/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01162006202422 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 circulars or instructions issued by the Board could not override statutory provisions or render them otiose. Legislative enactments having financial implications must be followed strictly and mandatorily. The Court found that by exercising powers contained in Sections 119 and 120 of the Act, 1961, as well as Section 144B (7 & 8), the authorities could not usurp legal provisions to their own satisfaction or convenience, causing hardship and confusion to assessees and taxpayers. The Court agreed with the view taken by the Coordinate Bench in Jasjit Singh (supra) and held that notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, and the proceedings initiated thereafter without conducting faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act, 1961, were contrary to the provisions of the Act, 1961. Consequently, the notices dated 27.03.2024, 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2024, and 30.03.2023, and the order dated 30.03.2023, were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The Revenue was at liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if so advised. All pending applications were also disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Sandeep Sharma, filed a writ petition challenging notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings. The respondents are the Union of India and others (Revenue). The High Court noted that the issue involved in this petition had been examined and concluded by a Coordinate Bench in CWP-509 of 2023 (Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others) decided on 29.07.2024, and by another Coordinate Bench in CWP-157745 of 2024 (Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others) decided on 19.07.2024. The Court was informed that the counsel for both parties were in agreement that the present petition could be decided based on the earlier judgments. The specific notices under challenge were dated 27.03.2024, 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2024, and 30.03.2023, along with an order dated 30.03.2023.

What were the issues?

1. Whether notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings for conducting faceless assessment under Section 144B of the Act, 1961, were contrary to the provisions of the Act, 1961, and consequently liable to be set aside for want of jurisdiction. The Assessee argued that the notices and proceedings were contrary to law and lacked jurisdiction. The Revenue, through its counsel, accepted notice and agreed that the issue had been decided by previous judgments of the High Court. The Revenue did not present any separate arguments but relied on the Court's previous pronouncements. The Court noted that both parties were ad idem, meaning in agreement, that the issue had been finally examined and concluded in prior cases.

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-31474-202 106 IN TH SANDEEP SH UNION OF IN

CORAM: H

H Present: M

M f

M f

SANJEEV P

1.

Notice 2. Mr. Sau respond 3. Both th petition No.215 decided No.157 24 (O&M) Page 1 of 3 HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA CHANDIGAR

HARMA Vs.

NDIA AND OTHERS **** HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAN HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAN **** Mr. Manpreet Singh Kanda, Adv Mr. Deepinder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Sr. Standin for the respondents/Revenue. **** RAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) of motion. urabh Kapoor, Sr. Standing Cou dent/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 AB AND HARYANA AT RH CWP-31474-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 22.11.2024 . . . . Petitioner . . . . Respondents NJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA NJAY VASHISTH vocate ng Counsel ) unsel 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

) 4 r s f t P , P a MOHIT GOYAL 2024.11.22 11:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-31474-202 and oth held as 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 24 (O&M) Page 2 of 3 hers, decided on 19.07.2024. Th under: “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 his Court in Jasjit Singh (supra) 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

) MOHIT GOYAL 2024.11.22 11:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-31474-202 3 f a t i w 4. Keepin terms. mutand issued Jurisdic proceed 5. All pen

November 22, Mohit goyal 1. Whethe 2. Whethe 24 (O&M) Page 3 of 3 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 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 03.2023, are set aside 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 27.03.2024 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 2024.11.22 11:36 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 →