SUBHASH CHAND vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/32213/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01166684202417 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 instructions and circulars issued by the Board under Sections 119 and 120 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, cannot override statutory provisions or render them otiose. The Court agreed with the view taken by a coordinate bench that legislative enactments must be followed strictly, and powers under Sections 119, 120, and 144B (7 & 8) cannot be exercised to usurp legal provisions for the convenience of authorities, causing hardship and confusion to assessees. Consequently, notices dated 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 30.03.2023, 20.03.2024, and 30.03.2023, issued under Section 148 of the Act, and the consequential proceedings, were found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act and 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. The Court also noted that all pending applications stood disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Subhash Chand, filed a writ petition challenging notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings. The petitioner argued that these actions were taken without proper jurisdiction and were contrary to the provisions of the Act. The revenue, represented by the Union of India and others, contended that the notices and proceedings were valid. The High Court was presented with two similar writ petitions, CWP-32213-2024 and CWP-215 of 2023, which had been decided by a coordinate bench on July 29, 2024, and CWP-157 of 2024 decided on July 19, 2024. The present petition was filed on December 17, 2024.

What were the issues?

1. Whether notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings, including faceless assessment under Section 144B, were valid and issued with proper jurisdiction, considering the instructions and circulars issued by the Board. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the notices and proceedings were contrary to the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and lacked jurisdiction. The petitioner relied on the coordinate bench's decision in Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others (CWP-215 of 2023) and Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India (CWP-157 of 2024). Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through its learned counsel, argued that the notices and proceedings were in accordance with the law. The revenue's specific arguments are not detailed in the judgment, but it appears to have suggested distinguishing the present case from the precedents relied upon by the petitioner.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 119,Section 120,Section 144B,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-32213-202 115 IN TH SUBHASH C UNION OF IN

CORAM: H

H Present: M

SANJEEV P

1.

Both th 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

CHAND Vs.

NDIA AND OTHERS **** HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAN HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAN **** Mr. Avneet Singh, Advocate for Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal, Sr. Stand for the respondents/Revenue. **** RAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) 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: “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-32213-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 17.12.2024 . . . . Petitioner . . . . Respondents NJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA NJAY VASHISTH the petitioner. ding Counsel (through VC) ) 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-32213-202 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-32213-202 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 28.03.2024 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 119

All 707 judgments and leading authorities on Section 119 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →