HARINDER SINGH vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/33607/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01174854202413 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 must be followed strictly. The court agreed with the view taken by the coordinate benches that instructions and circulars can only supplement statutory provisions and aid in their implementation, not usurp legal provisions for the convenience of authorities or cause hardship to assessees. Consequently, the notices issued by the Joint Assessing Officer (JAO) under Section 148 of the Act, and the proceedings initiated without conducting faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B, were found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act. The notices dated 28.02.2023, 20.03.2023, and 30.03.2023, along with the order dated 30.03.2023, were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act if so advised. All writ petitions were allowed, and interim orders stood merged with the final order.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Harinder Singh, filed a writ petition challenging notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings. The petitioner argued that these notices were issued without adhering to the mandatory procedures for faceless assessment as stipulated under Section 144B of the Act. The revenue, represented by the Income Tax Department, accepted notice. The High Court noted that similar issues had been decided by coordinate benches in previous writ petitions, specifically CWP No. 21509 of 2023 (Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India) and CWP No. 15745 of 2024 (Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India). The court was informed that the present writ petition was to be finally examined in light of these prior judgments.

What were the issues?

1. Whether notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings for reassessment, are invalid if they do not comply with the mandatory procedures for faceless assessment as prescribed under Section 144B of the Act? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the notices and proceedings were contrary to the statutory provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, particularly Section 144B, which mandates a specific procedure for faceless assessments. The assessee relied on the decisions of coordinate benches in Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through its Senior Standing Counsel, accepted notice. No specific arguments or reliance on authorities were recorded for the revenue in the provided text.

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

104 IN THE H

Harinder Singh

Union of India a

CORAM: HON

HON

Present: Mr

Mr Dep

SANJEEV PRA

Not 2.

Mr behalf of the res 3.

Bot petition stands f of 2023 titled 29.07.2024, and Jatinder Singh This Court in Ja “1 Coo inst HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AN AT CHANDIGARH

CWP-33607-202 Date of Decision

Versus and others

N’BLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEE N’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJA . Umang Goyal, Advocate for th . Yogesh Putney, Sr. Standi partment. ***

AKASH SHARMA, J. (ORAL) tice of motion. . Yogesh Putney, Senior Stand spondents/Income Tax Departme th the counsel are ad idem that t finally examined and concluded b as Jasjit Singh vs. Union of d by the Coordinate Bench in C Bhangu vs. Union of India and asjit Singh (supra) held as under 6. We are in agreement with t ordinate Bench and hold th tructions by the Board could not ND HARYANA 24 n : 13.12.2024

…Petitioner ….Respondents EV PRAKASH SHARMA AY VASHISTH he petitioner. ing counsel for Income Tax ) ding Counsel, accepts notice on ent. the issue involved in the present by this Court in CWP No.21509 India and others, decided on CWP No.15745 of 2024 titled as d others, decided on 19.07.2024. : the view taken by the hat such circular or t have been issued to

x n t 9 n s . RAJESH KUMAR 2024.12.17 09:45 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-33607-202

ove obs imp man Sec 144 the con leav opi issu stat 17. occ sug wha 18. Ben 148 ther env bee 196 16. 30. 19. libe Act 20. pas ord

-2- erride statutory provisions or to solete. Legislative enactment plications are required to be f ndatorily. By exercising the p ctions 119 and 120 of the Act, 19 4B (7 & 8), the authorities canno legal provisions to their o nvenience causing hardship to ves confusion in the minds of inion of this Court, instructions ued only for the purpose of tutory provisions and for their im In view of the aforesaid dis casion to distinguish or take ggested by the learned counsel at has already been held by the C Keeping in view the law laid do nch (supra), notices issued by t 8 of the Act, 1961 and the reafter without conducting the f visaged under Section 144B of en found to be contrary to the 61 and accordingly notices 03.2023, 20.03.2024 and 30.03. 03.2023, are set aside for want o The respondents-revenue wo erty to follow the procedure as t, 1961 and proceed accordingly, All the writ petitions are allow ssed by the Court shall stand m der.”

o make them otiose or ts having financial followed strictly and powers contained in 961 as well as Section ot be allowed to usurp own satisfaction and the assessees. It also the taxpayers. In the s and circulars can be of supplementing the mplementation. scussion, there is no a different view as for the revenue from Coordinate Bench. own by the Coordinate the JAO under Section proceedings initiated faceless assessment as f the Act, 1961, have provisions of the Act, s dated 28.02.2023, .2023 and order dated of jurisdiction. ould be, however, at s laid down under the , if so advised. wed. The interim order erged with the present RAJESH KUMAR 2024.12.17 09:45 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-33607-202

Kee terms. The obse the present case by the Jurisdict and all conseque 5.

All

December 13, 2 ps 24

-3- eping in view above, we allow th rvations and order passed above e. Accordingly, notice dated 15. ional Assessing Officer u/s 148 ential proceedings thereof are set pending applications also stand

(SAN

2024

Whether speaking/ reasoned Whether reportable

his Writ Petition in the aforesaid e shall apply mutatis mutandis to .03.2024 (Annexure P-2) issued 8 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 t aside. disposed of accordingly. NJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No d o d

RAJESH KUMAR 2024.12.17 09:45 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →