JAGDEEP CHAUDHARY vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/34985/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01180985202420 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 instructions issued by the Board under Section 119 and 120 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, cannot override statutory provisions or be issued to make them obsolete. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed strictly. The Court agreed with its coordinate benches that notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Act and subsequent proceedings initiated without conducting the assessment as per the faceless assessment scheme envisaged under Section 144B, were contrary to the provisions of the Act. Consequently, the notices dated 21.03.2024, 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 23.03.2023, 30.03.2023 and 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 and proceed accordingly, if so advised. The operative direction was to allow the writ petition.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Jagdeep Chaudhary, challenged notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings, including those conducted under the faceless assessment scheme as envisaged by Section 144B. The petitioner argued that these notices and proceedings were contrary to the Act and the principles of natural justice. The Revenue, represented by the Income Tax Department, accepted notice. The High Court considered previous judgments by its coordinate benches in similar matters, specifically 'Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others' and 'Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others', which dealt with the validity of notices and proceedings under Section 148 and Section 144B of the Act.

What were the issues?

1. Whether notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings, including those under the faceless assessment scheme (Section 144B), are valid when found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act and established legal principles? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the notices and proceedings were contrary to the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the principles of natural justice. The judgment refers to the assessee's counsel being present and the matter being decided based on prior judgments, implying arguments were made, but the specific arguments are not detailed beyond the general assertion of being contrary to law. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue, through its counsel, accepted notice. The judgment notes that the counsel for the revenue was present and that the issue was concluded by prior judgments of the Court, suggesting that the Revenue did not present a contrary argument or rely on specific precedents to defend the notices and proceedings in this instance.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

162 IN TH JAGDEEP CH

UNION OF IN

CORAM: H

Present: 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 m HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA CHANDIGAR

CWP-3 Date of HAUDHARY

V NDIA AND OTHERS

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

Mr. Navdeep Monga, Advocate f 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 mandatorily. By exercising the AB AND HARYANA AT RH 34985-2024 (O&M) f Decision:20.12.2024

..…...Petitioner(s) V/s. …......Respondent(s) NJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA NJAY VASHISTH 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 powers contained in

e e P , f , Suresh Kumar 2025.01.08 13:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-34985-202

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

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 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 21.03.2024 e s 4 Suresh Kumar 2025.01.08 13:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-34985-202

(Annexure P- Income Tax aside. 5. A

December 20 Ess Kay

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

-2) issued by the Jurisdictional A Act, 1961 and all consequenti All pending applications also stan [SANJEEV 0, 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 2025.01.08 13:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

More judgments on Section 119

All 707 judgments and leading authorities on Section 119 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →