LOVEMEET KAUR vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/32203/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01165617202417 December 2024Bench: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the subsequent proceedings conducted under Section 144B of the Act were contrary to the provisions of the Act and were without jurisdiction. The Court agreed with the view taken by the coordinate benches in Jasjit Singh (supra) and Jatinder Singh Bhangu (supra). It was held that instructions or circulars issued by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or make them otiose. The Court emphasized that legislative enactments must be followed strictly and that authorities cannot usurp legal provisions to their own satisfaction or convenience, causing hardship and confusion to assessees. Consequently, the notices dated February 28, 2023, March 16, 2023, March 20, 2023, March 30, 2023, and March 30, 2024, 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 so advised. All pending applications were also disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, an assessee, challenged notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings. The Revenue, represented by the Union of India and others, defended these actions. The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated but the notices were dated between February 28, 2023, and March 30, 2024. The core of the dispute revolves around the validity of these notices and the assessment proceedings initiated under faceless assessment provisions, specifically Section 144B of the Act. The High Court was considering multiple writ petitions, including CWP-32203-2024, which were to be decided in light of earlier judgments by coordinate benches.

What were the issues?

1. Whether notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent faceless assessment proceedings under Section 144B of the Act are valid when they allegedly contravene statutory provisions and are issued without jurisdiction. Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the notices and proceedings were contrary to the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and were issued without jurisdiction. The petitioner relied on the decisions of coordinate benches in CWP No. 215509 of 2023 (Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others) and CWP No. 157745 of 2024 (Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others), which held that instructions or circulars cannot override statutory provisions. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue contended that the notices and proceedings were in accordance with the law. The revenue's counsel argued that the circulars and instructions issued by the Board were meant to supplement statutory provisions and for their implementation. The revenue sought to distinguish the present case from the precedents relied upon by the petitioner.

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-32203-202 113 IN TH LOVEMEET UNION OF IN

CORAM: H

H Present: M

SANJEEV P

1.

All the petition No.215 decided No.157 and oth held as b i o 24 (O&M) Page 1 of 3 HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA CHANDIGAR

KAUR Vs.

NDIA AND OTHERS **** HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAN HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAN **** Mr. Anurag Sharma, Advocate fo Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Sr. Standing Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Sr. Standin for the respondents/Revenue. **** RAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) e 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: “16. We are in agreemen by the Coordinate Bench and hol nstructions by the Board could n override statutory provisions or t AB AND HARYANA AT RH CWP-32203-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 17.12.2024 . . . . Petitioner . . . . Respondents NJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA NJAY VASHISTH or the petitioner. g Counsel and ng Counsel ) 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) nt with the view taken ld that such circular or not have been issued to to make them otiose or

) 4 r s t P , P a ) MOHIT GOYAL 2024.12.18 11:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-32203-202 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 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 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.

MOHIT GOYAL 2024.12.18 11:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-32203-202 i w 2. Keepin terms. mutand issued Jurisdic proceed 3. All pen

December 17, Mohit goyal 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 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 ns are allowed. The urt shall stand merged s Writ Petition in the aforesaid assed above shall apply mutatis dingly, notice dated 30.03.2024 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 2024.12.18 11:44 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 →