VINOD KUMAR vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/32714/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01167854202404 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 initiated without conducting the faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act, were found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act. The Court agreed with the view taken by a Coordinate Bench, which held that circulars or instructions issued by the Board could not override statutory provisions or be issued to make them otiose. The Court emphasized that legislative enactments having financial implications are to be followed strictly. The powers contained in Sections 119 and 120 of the Act, as well as Section 144B (7 & 8), do not allow authorities to usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship and confusion to assessees. Instructions and circulars can only supplement statutory provisions. Consequently, the notices dated 28.02.2023, 20.03.2023, 16.03.2023, 30.03.2023, and 30.03.2023 were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the notice dated 06.04.2023 (Annexure P-7) and all consequential proceedings. The respondents were granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act if so advised. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Ess Kay Enterprises, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated 06.04.2023 issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and all consequential proceedings. The petitioner argued that the notice and subsequent actions were without jurisdiction. The respondents are the Union of India and others. The case was heard by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The Court noted that similar issues had been decided in previous writ petitions, specifically CWP No. 21509 of 2023 (Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others) and CWP No. 15745 of 2024 (Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others), both decided on 19.07.2024. The Court also referred to an order dated 29.07.2024 in Jasjit Singh's case.

What were the issues?

1. Whether notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings initiated without conducting a faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act, are valid and have jurisdiction, considering the provisions of Sections 119, 120, and 144B of the Act? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the notice under Section 148 and subsequent proceedings were without jurisdiction. They relied on the principle that legislative enactments must be followed strictly and that instructions or circulars cannot override statutory provisions or make them otiose. The assessee also highlighted that the faceless assessment procedure under Section 144B was not followed, leading to confusion and hardship. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through Senior Standing Counsel Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal and Mr. Yogesh Putney, accepted notice. The judgment does not explicitly record separate arguments from the revenue beyond accepting notice and acknowledging the coordinate bench's decisions. However, the context implies they were respondents to the challenge against the notices issued by the Assessing Officer.

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

111 IN TH VINOD KUM

UNION OF IN

CORAM: H

Present: M M M f M M

* SANJEEV PR

1.

N 2. M on behalf of Standing Cou 3. A petition stand No.21509 of decided on 29 2024 titled a decided on 19

C i o HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA CHANDIGAR

CWP-3 Date of MAR

V NDIA AND OTHERS

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

Mr. Sandeep Goyal, Advocate an Mr. Sameesh Bassi, Advocate fo Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal, Senior S for the respondents No.1 to 4 Mr. Yogesh Putney, Senior Stand Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Standing Co ***** RAKASH SHARMA, J. (Oral) Notice of motion. Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal, Senior S f the respondents No.1 to 4 an unsel accepts notice on behalf of All the counsel are ad idem that t ds finally examined and conc 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 AB AND HARYANA AT RH 32714-2024 (O&M) f Decision:04.12.2024

..…...Petitioner(s) V/s. …......Respondent(s) NJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA NJAY VASHISTH nd r the petitioner. Standing Counsel ding Counsel, ounsel, for respondent No.5. Standing Counsel, accepts notice nd Mr. Yogesh Putney, Senior respondent No.5. the issue involved in the present cluded 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

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

CWP-32714-202

o i 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

024 (O&M) Page 2 of 3

obsolete. Legislative enactmen implications 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 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.” nts having financial e 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 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 Suresh Kumar 2024.12.09 10:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-32714-202

4.

K aforesaid term mutandis to (Annexure P- Income Tax aside. 5. A

December 4, Ess Kay

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

Keeping in view above, we a ms. The observations and order p the present case. According -7) issued by the Jurisdictional A Act, 1961 and all consequenti All pending applications also stan [SANJEEV 2024

[SAN

king / reasoned :

Y rtable

Y allow this Writ Petition in the passed above shall apply mutatis gly, notice dated 06.04.2023 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 s 3 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 →