ROZY BANSAL vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/33217/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01171986202410 December 2024Bench: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the writ petition, following its own prior decisions in Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India. The Court reiterated its view that circulars or instructions issued by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or render them obsolete. The Court held that authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship. Consequently, the notices dated 27.03.2024 (under Section 148A(b)), the order dated 09.04.2024 (under Section 148A(d)), and the notice dated 09.04.2024 (under Section 148) issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, along with consequential proceedings, were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act if so advised. The ratio is that faceless assessment procedures mandated by statute must be followed, and administrative instructions cannot override legislative intent.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Rozy Bansal, filed a writ petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court challenging certain notices and orders issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. The revenue accepted notice. Both parties agreed that the issue was concluded by prior judgments of the High Court in Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India (CWP No. 21509 of 2023, decided on 29.07.2024) and Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India (CWP No. 15745 of 2024, decided on 19.07.2024). The High Court in Jasjit Singh had examined the validity of faceless assessments under Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the power of the CBDT to issue circulars overriding statutory provisions.

What were the issues?

1. Whether notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer 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 contrary to the provisions of the Act, 1961. Assessee's Contention: The assessee, by relying on the judgments in Jasjit Singh and Jatinder Singh Bhangu, argued that the notices and proceedings were invalid because they bypassed the mandatory faceless assessment procedure prescribed under Section 144B. They contended that circulars or instructions from the Board cannot override statutory provisions, leading to hardship and confusion for taxpayers. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through its counsel, accepted notice and did not present any distinct arguments, agreeing that the issue was concluded by prior judgments of the High Court.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-33217-2024 (O&M) Page 1 of 3 147 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-33217-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 10.12.2024 ROZY BANSAL . . . . Petitioner Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS . . . . Respondents **** CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH **** Present: Mr. Sanjay Bansal, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Gurdeep Singh, for the petitioner. **** SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) 1. Notice of motion. 2. accept notice on behalf of respondents/Revenue. 3. Both the counsel are ad idem that the issue involved in the present petition stands finally examined and concluded by this Court in CWP No.21509 of 2023 titled as Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others, decided on 29.07.2024, and by the Coordinate Bench in CWP No.15745 of 2024 titled as Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India LAVISHA 2024.12.11 11:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh

CWP-33217-2024 (O&M) Page 2 of 3 and others, decided on 19.07.2024. This Court in Jasjit Singh (supra) held as under: “16. We are in agreement with the view taken by the Coordinate Bench and hold that such circular or instructions by the Board could not have been issued to override statutory provisions or to make them otiose or obsolete. Legislative enactments having financial implications are required to be followed strictly and mandatorily. By exercising the powers contained in Sections 119 and 120 of the Act, 1961 as well as Section 144B (7 & 8), the authorities cannot be allowed to usurp the legal provisions to their own satisfaction and convenience causing hardship to the assessees. It also leaves confusion in the minds of the taxpayers. In the opinion of this Court, instructions and circulars can be issued only for the purpose of supplementing the statutory provisions and for their implementation. 17. In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no occasion to distinguish or take a different view as suggested by the learned counsel for the revenue from what has already been held by the Coordinate Bench. 18. Keeping in view the law laid down by the Coordinate Bench (supra), notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and the proceedings initiated thereafter without conducting the faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act, 1961, have been found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act, 1961 and accordingly notices dated 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2024 and LAVISHA 2024.12.11 11:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh

CWP-33217-2024 (O&M) Page 3 of 3 30.03.2023 and order dated 30.03.2023, are set aside for want of jurisdiction. 19. The respondents-revenue would be, however, at liberty to follow the procedure as laid down under the Act, 1961 and proceed accordingly, if so advised. 20. All the writ petitions are allowed. The interim order passed by the Court shall stand merged with the present order.” 4. Keeping in view above, we allow this Writ Petition in the aforesaid terms. The observations and order passed above shall apply mutatis mutandis to the present case. Accordingly, notice dated 27.03.2024 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act, order dated 09.04.2024 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act and notice dated 09.04.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer as well as the consequential proceedings are set aside. 5. All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly.

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE December 10, 2024 Lavisha 1. Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No 2. Whether reportable? Yes/No LAVISHA 2024.12.11 11:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh

More judgments on Section 119

All 707 judgments and leading authorities on Section 119 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →