JAGJIT KAUR vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/32696/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01167402202404 December 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 of its Coordinate Bench in Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others and Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others, held that notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and all consequential proceedings initiated thereafter, including those under faceless assessment as envisaged by Section 144B (7 & 8) of the Act, 1961, were found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act. The Court reiterated that circulars or instructions by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or make them obsolete. Legislative enactments having financial implications must be followed strictly and mandatorily. The Court found that the exercise of powers under Sections 119 and 120 of the Act, 1961, did not permit authorities to usurp legal provisions to their own satisfaction or convenience, causing hardship and confusion to assessees. Consequently, the notice dated 13.04.2023 and subsequent proceedings were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure as 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, Smt. Jagjit Kaur, challenged a notice dated 13.04.2023 issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent consequential proceedings. The revenue, represented by the Income Tax Department, accepted notice. The High Court noted that the issue was identical to previous cases decided by a Coordinate Bench in Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others (decided on 19.07.2024) and Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others (decided on 19.07.2024). The Court was informed that both counsel were in agreement regarding the final adjudication of the present petition based on these prior decisions.

What were the issues?

1. Whether notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings initiated under faceless assessment as envisaged by Section 144B (7 & 8) of the Act, 1961, are valid when they are found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act and its circulars, and potentially usurp statutory provisions for the convenience of authorities, causing hardship and confusion to assessees? Assessee's Contention: The assessee, by implication through the reliance on prior judgments, argued that notices issued under Section 148 and subsequent faceless assessment proceedings under Section 144B were invalid. The prior judgments, which the present case followed, held that instructions by the Board (circulars) cannot override statutory provisions or make them otiose. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed mandatorily. The Court's powers under Sections 119 and 120 of the Act, 1961, do not allow authorities to usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship and confusion. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through its counsel, accepted notice and was ad idem with the petitioner that the issue had been concluded by this Court in prior judgments. This implies the revenue did not contest the findings of the Coordinate Bench in the cited 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

107 IN TH SMT. JAGJIT

UNION OF IN

CORAM: H

Present: M M M M M f

* SANJEEV PR

1.

N 2. M on behalf of th 3. B present petitio No.21509 of decided on 29 2024 titled a decided on 19

C i o o i HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA CHANDIGAR

CWP-3 Date of T KAUR

V NDIA AND OTHERS

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJ

Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advocate Mr. Rakesh Cajla, Advocate for t Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Senior Stan Ms. Pridhi Sandhu, Junior Standi Ms. Muskaan Gupta, Advocate for the respondent-Income Tax D ***** RAKASH SHARMA, J. (Oral) Notice of motion. Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Senior St he respondents/Income Tax Dep Both the counsel are ad idem on stands finally examined and c f 2023 titled as Jasjit Singh vs 9.07.2024, and by the Coordina as Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. 9.07.2024. This Court in Jasjit Si “16. We are in agreement with Coordinate Bench and hold t instructions by the Board could n override statutory provisions or t obsolete. Legislative enactmen implications are required to be AB AND HARYANA AT RH 32696-2024 (O&M) f Decision:04.12.2024

..…...Petitioner(s) V/s. …......Respondent(s) NJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA NJAY VASHISTH e for the petitioner. nding Counsel, with ing Counsel and Department. tanding Counsel, accepts notice partment. that the issue involved in the concluded by this Court in CWP s. Union of India and others, ate Bench in CWP No.15745 of . Union of India and others, Singh (supra) held as under: the view taken by the that such circular or not have been issued to to make them otiose or nts having financial e followed strictly and

e e P , f , Suresh Kumar 2024.12.09 10:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-32696-202

m S S a s a t a s i 1 o s w 1 C u p f o p d 3 f 1 l A 2 o p

4.

K aforesaid term mutandis to 024 (O&M) Page 2 of 3

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 implementation. 17. In view of the aforesaid d occasion to distinguish or take suggested by the learned counse what has already been held by th 18. Keeping in view the law Coordinate Bench (supra), notic under Section 148 of the proceedings initiated thereafter w faceless assessment as envisage of the Act, 1961, have been foun 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-revenue w liberty to follow the procedure a Act, 1961 and proceed according 20. All the writ petitions are order passed by the Court shall present order.” Keeping in view above, we a ms. The observations and order p the present case. According 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 discussion, there is no e a different view as el for the revenue from he Coordinate Bench. w laid down by the ces issued by the JAO Act, 1961 and the without conducting the ed under Section 144B d to be contrary to the nd accordingly notices 23, 20.03.2024 and 03.2023, are set aside would be, however, at as laid down under the gly, if so advised. allowed. The interim stand merged with the allow this Writ Petition in the passed above shall apply mutatis gly, notice dated 13.04.2023 e s 3 Suresh Kumar 2024.12.09 10:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-32696-202

(Annexure P- Income Tax aside. 5. A

December 4, Ess Kay

Whether speak Whether Repor 024 (O&M) Page 3 of 3

-1) issued by the Jurisdictional A Act, 1961 and all consequenti All pending applications also stan [SANJEEV 2024

[SAN

king / reasoned :

Y rtable

Y Assessing Officer u/s 148 of the ial proceedings thereof are set nd disposed of accordingly.

V PRAKASH SHARMA] JUDGE

NJAY VASHISTH] JUDGE Yes / No Yes / No e t Suresh Kumar 2024.12.09 10:31 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 →