DINESH KUMAR BANSAL vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/33230/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01171343202410 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 circulars or instructions issued by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or render them obsolete. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be strictly followed. The authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship to assessees and confusion. Instructions and circulars can only supplement statutory provisions for their implementation. Consequently, notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 and subsequent proceedings, when initiated without conducting faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B, are contrary to the provisions of the Act and lack jurisdiction. The High Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the notice dated 26.02.2024 issued under Section 148 and the consequential proceedings. The Revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act if advised. The principle established is that faceless assessment procedures under Section 144B are mandatory and cannot be bypassed by the Revenue, even through notices under Section 148.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Dinesh Kumar Bansal, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The petition challenged a notice dated 26.02.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, and the consequential proceedings. The respondents are the Union of India and others (Revenue). Both parties agreed that the issue was concluded by previous judgments of the High Court in CWP No. 21509 of 2023 (Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others) decided on 29.07.2024, and CWP No. 15745 of 2024 (Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others) decided on 19.07.2024. The High Court had previously held that certain circulars or instructions by the Board could not override statutory provisions and that faceless assessment procedures under Section 144B were mandatory.

What were the issues?

1. Whether notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings are valid if conducted without adhering to the faceless assessment procedure as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act? (Question of law and mixed fact and law, concerning Section 148 and Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contention: The assessee, through counsel, argued that the issue stands concluded by previous judgments of the High Court in similar writ petitions. The High Court in those cases had held that circulars/instructions cannot override statutory provisions and that faceless assessment under Section 144B is mandatory. Therefore, notices and proceedings initiated without following this procedure are contrary to the Act. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue, through counsel, accepted notice. They did not present any distinct arguments but agreed that the issue was concluded by the cited High Court judgments. The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue to distinguish the present case from the precedents.

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-33230-2024 (O&M) Page 1 of 3 151 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-33230-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 10.12.2024 DINESH KUMAR 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, Advocate, 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-33230-2024 (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-33230-2024 (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 26.02.2024 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 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →