DEEPAK MANGLA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/32235/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01166830202417 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, including faceless assessments under Section 144B, were contrary to the provisions of the Act and were issued without jurisdiction. The Court agreed with the view taken by a Coordinate Bench in previous cases (Jasjit Singh and Jatinder Singh Bhangu) that circulars or instructions from the Board cannot override statutory provisions. The Court emphasized that legislative enactments must be followed strictly and that authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their convenience. Consequently, the notices dated August 30, 2024, and other notices dated February 28, 2023, March 16, 2023, March 30, 2023, and March 20, 2024, along with consequential assessment orders, 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. All pending applications were also disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioners, Deepak Mangla and others, challenged notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings. The High Court noted that the issue had been finally examined and concluded in two previous writ petitions: CWP No. 215 of 2023 (Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India) decided on July 29, 2024, and CWP No. 157 of 2024 (Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India) decided on July 19, 2024. The Court referred to the findings in these prior judgments, which dealt with the validity of faceless assessment proceedings and the authority of the Assessing Officer. The specific notices under challenge were dated August 30, 2024, and March 16, 2023, March 30, 2023, and March 20, 2024, along with consequential assessment orders.

What were the issues?

1. Whether notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent faceless assessment proceedings conducted without proper jurisdiction and in contravention of statutory provisions and the Act, are liable to be set aside. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the notices issued under Section 148 and the subsequent faceless assessment proceedings were contrary to the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and lacked jurisdiction. They relied on previous judgments of the High Court that had set aside similar notices and proceedings. Revenue's Contention: The revenue contended that instructions by the Board could not override statutory provisions or make them otiose. They argued that legislative enactments must be followed strictly and that powers under Sections 119 and 120 of the Act, as well as Section 144B (7 & 8), could not be exercised to usurp legal provisions for the convenience of assessees, causing hardship and confusion. The revenue also referred to the Coordinate Bench's decision in Jasjit Singh (supra) and Jatinder Singh Bhangu (supra).

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-32235-202 122 IN TH DEEPAK MA ASSISTANT

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

ANGLA Vs.

COMMISSIONER OF INCOM **** HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAN HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAN **** Mr. Nikhil Goyal, Advocate for t Mr. Yogesh Putney, Sr. Standing Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Standing Co 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-32235-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 17.12.2024 . . . . Petitioner ME TAX AND OTHERS . . . . Respondents NJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA NJAY VASHISTH the petitioner. g Counsel with ounsel ) 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-32235-202 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-32235-202 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 30.08.2024 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 →