Loading High Court cases…
598 orders · Page 2 of 12
The High Court held that circulars or instructions issued by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or render them otiose. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed strictly and mandatorily. The court found that by exercising powers contained in Sections 119 and 120 of the Act, as well as Section 144B (7 & 8), the authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their own satisfaction or convenience, causing hardship and confusion to assessees. Instructions and circulars can only supplement statutory provisions for implementation. Therefore, notices issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings, including faceless assessments under Section 144B, found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act, 1961, were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The court followed the law laid down by the Coordinate Bench. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if advised. All pending applications were also disposed of.
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 followed strictly and mandatorily. The Court found that the notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the subsequent proceedings conducted under Section 144B (7 & 8) of the Act were contrary to the provisions of the Act. The Court reasoned that authorities cannot usurp legal provisions to their own satisfaction or convenience, causing hardship and confusion to assessees. Instructions and circulars can only supplement statutory provisions for implementation. Consequently, the notices dated 19.03.2024, 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2024, 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 and proceed accordingly. All pending applications were also disposed of.
The Tribunal held that circulars or instructions issued by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or render them obsolete. Legislative enactments must be followed strictly and mandatorily. The Court agreed with the Coordinate Bench's view that by exercising powers under Sections 119 and 120 of the Act, as well as Section 144B (7 & 8), authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship and confusion to assessees. Instructions and circulars can only supplement statutory provisions for implementation. Consequently, notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, and subsequent faceless assessment proceedings under Section 144B, found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act, were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The Court allowed the writ petition, merging any interim orders with the present order. The Revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act and proceed accordingly if advised. All pending applications were also disposed of.
The High Court held that the language of Section 148 of the IT Act does not restrict the Assessing Officer from issuing a notice afresh after the filing of earlier proceedings, provided it is within the limitation period. The Court reasoned that the Settlement Commission's conclusion of non-disclosure and lack of full and true disclosure provided a new cause of action for the Assessing Officer to initiate proceedings under Section 148. The Court also noted that the Assessing Officer had provided reasonings for reopening the assessment with the subsequent notice, specifically regarding the non-disclosure of income found to be by way of accommodation entries amounting to Rs. 15,75,000/-. Therefore, the objections raised by the assessee regarding the fresh re-assessment were found to be without basis. The Court recalled its interim order and directed the respondents to continue and pass a final assessment order expeditiously. The writ petition was dismissed.
The High Court held that circulars or instructions issued by the Board under Section 119 and 120 of the Act cannot override statutory provisions or render them obsolete. Legislative enactments must be followed strictly, and powers under Sections 119 and 120, as well as Section 144B (7 & 8), cannot be exercised to usurp legal provisions for the convenience of authorities, causing hardship to assessees and confusion. Instructions and circulars can only supplement statutory provisions for their implementation. Following the precedent set in Jasjit Singh (supra) and Jatinder Singh Bhangu (supra), the Court found that notices issued under Section 148 and proceedings initiated under Section 144B without conducting the faceless assessment as envisaged were contrary to the Act. Consequently, the notices dated 18.03.2024, 20.03.2024, 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, and 30.03.2023 were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The Revenue was at liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act if so advised. All pending applications were also disposed of.
The High Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the notice issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated March 1, 2023, the order issued under Section 148A(d) of the Act, dated April 6, 2023, and the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act, dated April 6, 2023, along with consequential proceedings. The Court reiterated its finding in Jasjit Singh (supra) that circulars or instructions issued by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or render them obsolete. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed strictly. The Court held that authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship to assessees, and that instructions and circulars can only supplement statutory provisions. The ratio decidendi is that faceless assessment, as envisaged under Section 144B, is mandatory, and proceedings initiated without adhering to it are without jurisdiction. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, if advised.
The High Court allowed the withdrawal of the appeal. The court noted that the case did not fall within any exceptions to the revised monetary limits stipulated in the Circular.
The High Court, following its previous decisions in Jasjit Singh and Jatinder Singh Bhangu, held that circulars or instructions issued by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or render them obsolete. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed strictly. The Court found that by exercising powers under Sections 119 and 120, as well as Section 144B (7 & 8), authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship and confusion to assessees. Instructions and circulars can only supplement statutory provisions. Consequently, notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 and subsequent proceedings, initiated without conducting faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B, were found to be contrary to the Act. The Court set aside the notice dated 24.03.2024 and consequential proceedings for want of jurisdiction. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the prescribed procedure if advised. All pending applications were disposed of.
The Tribunal, following the precedent set by a Coordinate Bench in Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India, held that instructions by the Board cannot override statutory provisions, nor can they be issued to make them obsolete. Legislative enactments with financial implications are mandatory. The Court found that notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings initiated without conducting faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act, were contrary to the provisions of the Act and therefore lacked jurisdiction. Consequently, the notices dated 21.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2024, and 30.03.2023, along with all consequential proceedings, were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act. The operative direction was to allow the writ petition and set aside the impugned notice and proceedings.
The High Court held that the objections raised by the petitioner, including those concerning the statements recorded from other persons and their relation to the petitioner, deserve to be taken into consideration with reference to the provisions of the Income Tax Act by the concerned authority. The Court found it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and examine the objections raised by the petitioner. The respondents are to pass a speaking order expeditiously, preferably within a period of eight weeks. The ratio decidendi is that statutory authorities must consider all objections raised by an assessee before proceeding further, especially when such objections pertain to the relevance of evidence or the initiation of proceedings. The operative direction is to the respondents to pass a speaking order on the petitioner's objections.
The High Court disposed of the writ petition by issuing a direction to the respondents (revenue) to consider and examine the objections raised by the petitioner. The respondents were directed to pass a speaking order expeditiously, preferably within a period of eight weeks. The Court took into consideration the stand taken by the revenue, which agreed to a direction for timely disposal of objections. The specific issue of limitation regarding the notice under Section 148A(b) was not decided on merits, but the process of examining the objections was expedited. The operative direction was to consider and decide the objections within a stipulated timeframe.
The High Court held that notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the subsequent proceedings initiated under Section 144B, without conducting faceless assessment as envisaged by the Act, were contrary to the provisions of the Act. The court relied on its previous decisions in Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India. These judgments established that instructions by the Board could not override statutory provisions, and legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed mandatorily. The court reiterated that circulars and instructions can only supplement statutory provisions and aid in their implementation, not usurp legal provisions or cause hardship. Consequently, the notices dated 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2024, and 30.03.2023, along with all consequential proceedings, were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure as laid down under the Act if so advised.
The High Court allowed the writ petition, holding that the notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the consequential proceedings, including those conducted under Section 144B, were contrary to the provisions of the Act. The Court relied on its previous decisions in CWP No. 21509 of 2023 (Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India) and CWP No. 15745 of 2024 (Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India), which held that circulars or instructions from the Board cannot override statutory provisions and that authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their convenience. The Court found that the notices and proceedings were issued without jurisdiction and were therefore set aside. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, if so advised. Any interim orders passed by the Court were to stand merged with the present order.
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 and mandatorily followed. Authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship to assessees, and such instructions can only supplement statutory provisions. Consequently, notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, and proceedings initiated thereafter without conducting faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act, 1961, were found to be contrary to the Act and set aside for want of jurisdiction. The specific notices dated 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2024, and 30.03.2023, and the order dated 30.03.2023, in the Jasjit Singh case, were set aside. In the present case, the notice dated 19.03.2024 issued under Section 148 and consequential proceedings were set aside. The Revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act if advised. The operative direction was to set aside the impugned notice and consequential proceedings.
The High Court held that circulars or instructions issued by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or render them otiose. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be strictly followed. The Court found that by exercising powers under Sections 119 and 120, as well as Section 144B (7 & 8) of the Act, authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship and confusion to assessees. Instructions and circulars can only supplement statutory provisions and aid in their implementation. Consequently, notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 and proceedings initiated thereafter without conducting faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B were found to be contrary to the Act. The Court set aside the notice dated 24.03.2024 issued under Section 148 and the consequential proceedings for want of jurisdiction. The Revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act if advised. The writ petition was allowed in these terms.
The High Court, following its own prior decisions in Jasjit Singh (supra) and Jatinder Singh Bhangu (supra), held that circulars or instructions issued by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or render them otiose. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be strictly followed. The Court found that by exercising powers under Sections 119 and 120, as well as Section 144B (7 & 8), authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship. Instructions and circulars can only supplement statutory provisions. Consequently, notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 and proceedings initiated without conducting faceless assessment under Section 144B were found to be contrary to the Act and set aside for want of jurisdiction. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the prescribed procedure if advised. The writ petition was allowed in terms of the earlier judgments, setting aside the notice dated 31.08.2024 and consequential proceedings.
The High Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the notice dated 31.08.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the consequential proceedings. The Court relied on its previous decision in Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others, which held that circulars or instructions by the Board cannot override statutory provisions. The Court found that issuing notices and initiating proceedings without conducting faceless assessment, as mandated by Section 144B of the Act, is contrary to the provisions of the Act. The ratio decidendi is that statutory provisions, especially those with financial implications, must be strictly followed, and administrative instructions cannot be used to circumvent or override them, nor can they be used to cause hardship to assessees. The Revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act if so advised. The interim order merged with the final order.
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. Authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship to assessees. Instructions and circulars can only supplement statutory provisions and aid in their implementation. Consequently, notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 and subsequent proceedings initiated without conducting faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B were found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act, 1961. The notices dated 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2024, 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, 1961, if advised. The writ petition was allowed in terms of the prior judgments.
The High Court held that circulars or instructions issued by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or render them obsolete. Legislative enactments, especially those with financial implications, must be strictly followed. The Court found that authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship to assessees and confusion. Instructions and circulars are meant to supplement statutory provisions and aid their implementation. Consequently, notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 and subsequent proceedings initiated without conducting faceless assessment as per Section 144B were found to be contrary to the Act. The Court set aside the notices dated 24.03.2024 and consequential proceedings for want of jurisdiction. The Revenue was granted liberty to follow the prescribed procedure under the Act if advised. The writ petition was allowed in terms of the aforementioned judgments.
The High Court allowed the writ petition, following its own decision in Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others (supra) and a Coordinate Bench decision in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others (supra). The 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. Authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship to assessees. Instructions and circulars can only supplement statutory provisions for their implementation. Consequently, notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 and proceedings initiated without conducting faceless assessment under Section 144B were found to be contrary to the Act. The notice dated 30.03.2024 issued under Section 148 and consequential proceedings were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act if advised. The operative direction was to set aside the notice and consequential proceedings.
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed the writ petition in default. The Court noted that this was the second consecutive occasion where no one appeared for the petitioner. Despite the petitioner being informed about the listing of the matter following a remand by the Supreme Court, and the pendency of a potential amendment application to challenge the vires of Section 147A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the absence of the petitioner led to the dismissal. The Court did not decide on the merits of the case or the challenge to Section 147A. The operative direction was to dismiss the petition.
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. Authorities cannot use powers under Sections 119 and 120, as well as Section 144B (7 & 8), to usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship to assessees and confusion. Instructions and circulars can only supplement statutory provisions and aid in their implementation. Consequently, notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 and subsequent proceedings, when initiated without conducting faceless assessment as per Section 144B, were found to be contrary to the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court set aside the impugned notice dated 31.08.2024 and consequential proceedings for want of jurisdiction. The respondents were granted liberty to follow the prescribed procedure if advised. The ratio is that faceless assessment procedures, when statutorily mandated, must be followed, and deviations without jurisdiction render subsequent actions void.
The High Court allowed the writ petition. The Court held that instructions issued by the CBDT cannot override statutory provisions, nor can they be used to make legislative enactments otiose or obsolete. Legislative enactments must be followed mandatorily. The Court agreed with the coordinate bench that by exercising powers contained in Sections 119 and 120 of the Act, as well as Section 144B (7 & 8), the assessing authorities cannot usurp legal provisions to their own satisfaction and convenience, causing hardship and confusion to assessees. Instructions and circulars can only supplement statutory provisions and aid in their implementation. Consequently, notices issued under Section 148 of the Act, and proceedings initiated thereafter 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, 16.03.2023, and 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. The interim order stood merged with the final order.
The High Court held that notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the subsequent proceedings initiated under Section 144B, without conducting a faceless assessment as envisaged by the Act, were found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act. The Court relied on its previous decisions in Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India, which held that instructions by the Board cannot override statutory provisions and that legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed strictly. The Court reasoned that exercising powers under Sections 119 and 120, and specifically Section 144B (7 & 8), should not allow authorities to usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship and confusion. Therefore, the notices dated 23.03.2024, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2024, and 30.03.2023, along with all consequential proceedings, 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 and set aside the impugned notices and proceedings.
The High Court held that notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings initiated under Section 144B, without conducting the assessment in a faceless manner as envisaged by the Act, were found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act. The Court agreed with the view taken by a Coordinate Bench that circulars or instructions cannot override statutory provisions or make them otiose. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed strictly. The Court found that the notices and proceedings were liable to be set aside for want of jurisdiction. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act and proceed accordingly, if advised. All pending applications were also disposed of.
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana allowed the appeal. The operative part of the judgment states, "The appeal is allowed. For order see detailed reasons recorded in a separate order of even date passed in ITA No. 408 of 2019 – Punjab Infrastructure Development Board, Chandigarh versus Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Chandigarh." This indicates that the detailed reasoning and the specific findings on the issues are contained within the order for ITA No. 408 of 2019. The judgment itself does not elaborate on the specific grounds for allowing the appeal or the ratio decidendi. Therefore, the specific findings on the issues, the reasoning, and the ratio are not available in this excerpt. No specific relief granted or issue left undecided is mentioned here.
The Tribunal, comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Vashisth, allowed the appeal filed by Punjab Infrastructure Development Board. The operative part of the judgment states that the appeal is allowed for the order of even date passed in ITA No. 408 of 2019. No specific findings on any issues or reasoning are provided in the excerpt. The judgment does not mention any specific relief granted beyond allowing the appeal, nor does it leave any issues undecided. The ratio decidendi cannot be determined from the provided text.
The High Court allowed the appeals. On the first issue, the Court found that the appellant, PIDB, was justified in acting as a nodal agency and that the agreements executed between the Government of Punjab and the Concessionaire could not be ignored. The Court held that the Tribunal had erroneously concluded that PIDB itself was liable for collecting the toll fee and concession fee. The Court reasoned that the actual activity performed by the Board, irrespective of the wording of the agreement, indicated it was acting as a grantor. Therefore, the findings of the Tribunal regarding the levy of penalties under Section 271CA were found to be without basis. On the second issue, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Eli Lilly and Company (India) Pvt. Ltd., the Court held that Section 271C (and by extension, 271CA) is not mandatory and no penalty shall be imposed if the assessee proves a reasonable cause for the failure. The Court found that in the present case, the deduction of tax at source was not on account of bonafide reasons, and therefore, the imposition of penalty was wholly uncalled for. Accordingly, the penalties imposed under Section 271CA for the financial years 2007-08 to 2010-11 were quashed and set aside.
The High Court allowed the writ petition. It held that circulars or instructions issued by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or render them otiose. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed mandatorily. The Court reiterated its view from previous judgments, specifically citing "Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others," that instructions issued under Sections 119 and 120 of the Act, and provisions like Section 144B (7 & 8), cannot be used to usurp legal provisions or cause hardship and confusion to assessees. The Court found that notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Act, and subsequent proceedings initiated without conducting faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B, were contrary to the provisions of the Act. Consequently, the notice dated 29.03.2024 and all 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. All pending applications were also disposed of.
The High Court allowed the writ petition. It held that instructions issued by the Board under Section 119 of the Act cannot override statutory provisions or render them obsolete. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed mandatorily. The Court reiterated the view of coordinate benches that administrative instructions cannot usurp legal provisions for the convenience of authorities, causing hardship and confusion to assessees. Therefore, notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and all consequential proceedings initiated without conducting a faceless assessment as envisaged by Section 144B, were found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act. Consequently, the notice dated 23.03.2024 and all subsequent proceedings 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 advised.
The Tribunal allowed the applications filed for disposal of the appeal in terms of Circular No. 09/2024 dated 17.09.2024 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. Consequently, the appeal, ITA-19-2023, was dismissed as withdrawn. The reasoning for this decision is based on the assessee's request and the revenue's acquiescence to withdraw the appeal in line with the CBDT circular. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn and vacate all interim orders. No specific issues regarding the merits of the assessment were decided, as the appeal was disposed of on procedural grounds. The principle here is that appeals can be withdrawn based on administrative instructions from the CBDT, provided both parties agree or one party requests and the other does not object.
The High Court held that notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the consequential proceedings initiated under faceless assessment as envisaged by Section 144B were found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act. The Court relied on its previous decisions in Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others and Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others. The reasoning was that instructions by the Board cannot override statutory provisions, and legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed strictly. The Court found that the JAO's notices and subsequent faceless assessment proceedings usurped legal provisions and caused confusion. Therefore, the notices dated 07.04.2023, 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2024, and 30.03.2023, along with all consequential proceedings, were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act and proceed accordingly. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana allowed the appeal filed by Punjab Infrastructure Development Board, Chandigarh. The operative part of the judgment states, 'The appeal is allowed. For order see detailed reasons recorded in a separate order of even date passed in ITA No. 408 of 2019 – Punjab Infrastructure Development Board, Chandigarh versus Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Chandigarh.' Therefore, the specific reasoning and the ratio decidendi for allowing this appeal are contained within the separate order mentioned, which is not provided. No issues were expressly left undecided.
The High Court held that notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the consequential assessment proceedings initiated thereafter, specifically those conducted without proper jurisdiction and in contravention of the Act's provisions, are liable to be set aside. The Court relied on its previous decisions in Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India, which established that instructions by the Board cannot override statutory provisions and that faceless assessment procedures under Section 144B, if improperly implemented or leading to jurisdictional defects, render the proceedings invalid. The Court found the notice dated 27.03.2024, and all consequential proceedings, to be without jurisdiction. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, if so advised. The writ petition was allowed, and interim orders were merged with the final order.
The High Court allowed the prayer for withdrawal of the appeal. The Court noted that the revised monetary limits for filing appeals came into effect from 17.09.2024, as per Circular No. 9/2024. The Court further observed that the case did not fall within the exception clause of Circular No. 5/2024, which would have necessitated a decision on merits irrespective of the tax effect. Consequently, the Court permitted the withdrawal of the appeal as prayed for by the Revenue. All pending applications were also disposed of accordingly. The ratio decidendi is that appeals filed by the Revenue can be withdrawn if they no longer meet the enhanced monetary limits prescribed by subsequent circulars, provided they do not fall under any exceptions requiring a decision on merits.
The High Court allowed the prayer for withdrawal of the appeal. The court noted that Circular No. 09/2024 dated 17.09.2024, issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Direct Taxes, had revised the monetary limits for filing appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, High Court, and Supreme Court. The revised limit for appeals before the High Court was Rs. 2 crore. The court observed that the present case did not fall within the exception clauses of Circular No. 5/2024. Consequently, the court permitted the withdrawal of the appeal, dismissing it as withdrawn. All pending applications were also disposed of accordingly. The principle derived is that appeals can be withdrawn if they no longer meet the revised monetary limits set by the CBDT, provided they do not fall under any specified exceptions.
The tribunal allowed the prayer for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn in light of the revised monetary limits and the circular's provisions.
The Tribunal allowed the prayer for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn in light of the revised monetary limits and the fact that the case did not fall within any exception clauses of the circular.
The High Court held that the ITAT erred in its interpretation of Section 263. The Court found that the order passed by the Commissioner under Section 263 was justified. The Court reasoned that audit objections, pointing to a lack of verification by the AO regarding the assessee's investments in mutual funds and the source of funds, constituted a valid basis for the Commissioner's intervention. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. P.V.S. Beedies Pvt. Ltd., which held that reopening under Section 147(b) based on factual errors or omissions pointed out by an internal audit party is permissible. Therefore, the ITAT's view, relying on the Guwahati High Court's judgment in B & A Plantation and Industries Ltd., was considered an incorrect interpretation of Section 263. The question of law was decided in favour of the revenue. Consequently, a subsequent ITAT order dated 15.12.2015, which was based on the impugned order, was also set aside, and the related appeals were restored to the ITAT for fresh adjudication.
The High Court held that instructions issued by the Board (Central Board of Direct Taxes) cannot override statutory provisions or make them obsolete. Legislative enactments must be followed mandatorily. The Court affirmed that by exercising powers under Sections 119 and 120 of the Act, as well as Section 144B (7 & 8), the authorities cannot usurp legal provisions to their own satisfaction and convenience, causing hardship and confusion to assessees. The Court found that notices issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings initiated without conducting the faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B, were contrary to the provisions of the Act. Consequently, the notices dated 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2023, 30.03.2023, and 30.03.2024 were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure as laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if so advised. The writ petition was allowed, and the interim order stood merged with the final order.
The High Court held that instructions issued by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or make them otiose. Legislative enactments and their implications must be followed strictly. The Court agreed with the Coordinate Bench's view that circulars and instructions can only supplement statutory provisions for their implementation and cannot be used to usurp legal provisions for the convenience of authorities or cause hardship to assessees. Consequently, notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings initiated without conducting faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B, were found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act. Therefore, the notices dated 26.08.2024, and all 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 Court allowed the writ petition.
The High Court held that instructions issued by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or make them obsolete. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed strictly. The Court agreed with the view taken by a Coordinate Bench that administrative authorities cannot usurp legal provisions to their own satisfaction or convenience, causing hardship and confusion to assessees. Instructions and circulars can only supplement statutory provisions for their implementation. Consequently, notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, and the subsequent proceedings initiated without conducting faceless assessment, were found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act and 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 advised. The Court explicitly stated that there was no occasion to distinguish or take a different view from the Coordinate Bench's decision.
The High Court allowed the writ petition. It held that instructions issued by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or make them otiose. Legislative enactments and their implications must be followed mandatorily. The Court found that the authorities cannot usurp legal provisions to their own satisfaction or convenience, causing hardship and confusion to assessees. Instructions can only supplement statutory provisions for implementation. In view of the law laid down by coordinate benches, notices issued under Section 148 of the Act and subsequent proceedings initiated without conducting faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B were found to be contrary to the Act and accordingly 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 interim order stood merged with the final order.
The Tribunal allowed the prayer of the appellant-Income Tax Department to withdraw the present appeal. The reasoning was based on the fact that the appeal did not fall within the exceptions provided in Circular No. 5/2024, and the revised monetary limits stipulated in Circular No. 09/2024 were applicable. The Tribunal noted that the modifications introduced by the circulars came into effect from their respective dates of issuance and were applicable to appeals pending before the Supreme Court, High Court, and Tribunal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The ratio decidendi is that appeals filed by the Revenue can be withdrawn if they no longer meet the revised monetary limits prescribed by the CBDT circulars, provided they do not fall under any specific exceptions.
The High Court held that circulars or instructions issued by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or render them otiose. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed strictly and mandatorily. The Court found that by exercising powers contained in Sections 119 and 120 of the Act, as well as Section 144B (7 & 8), the authorities cannot usurp legal provisions to their own satisfaction and convenience, causing hardship and confusion to assessees. The Court agreed with the view taken by a Coordinate Bench in previous similar cases. Consequently, notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, and the consequential proceedings initiated thereafter without conducting faceless assessment under Section 144B, were found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act, 1961. Accordingly, the notices dated 31.08.2024 (Annexure P-3), 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2024, and 30.03.2023, and the consequential proceedings were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The Revenue was at liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, if so advised. All pending applications were also disposed of.
The High Court held that circulars or instructions issued by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or render them otiose. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be strictly followed. The Court found that authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship to assessees and confusion. Instructions and circulars can only supplement statutory provisions and aid in their implementation. Applying the law laid down in previous judgments (Jasjit Singh and Jatinder Singh Bhangu), the Court ruled that notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 and proceedings initiated thereafter without conducting faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B are contrary to the provisions of the Act. Consequently, the notices dated 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2024, and 30.03.2023, along with the order dated 30.03.2023, were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The respondents were granted liberty to follow the prescribed procedure if advised. The specific notice challenged in this petition, dated 28.03.2024, and all consequential proceedings were also set aside. The Court explicitly stated that the observations and order would apply mutatis mutandis to the present case.
The High Court, following its own previous decisions in Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others and Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others, 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 Court found that authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship to assessees, and that instructions and circulars can only supplement statutory provisions. Consequently, notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Act and proceedings initiated thereafter without conducting faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act were found to be contrary to the Act. The Court set aside the notices and consequential proceedings for want of jurisdiction. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the prescribed procedure if advised. The Court allowed the writ petition in terms of its previous orders.
The High Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the Order issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated March 12, 2024, and the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act, dated March 12, 2024, along with consequential proceedings. The Court reiterated its finding from Jasjit Singh (supra) that circulars or instructions by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or make them otiose. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed strictly. The Court held that by exercising powers under Sections 119, 120, and 144B(7 & 8) of the Act, authorities cannot usurp legal provisions to their satisfaction and convenience, causing hardship. Instructions and circulars can only supplement statutory provisions. Consequently, notices issued under Section 148 and proceedings initiated without conducting faceless assessment under Section 144B were found to be contrary to the Act and set aside for want of jurisdiction. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act if so advised. The operative direction was to set aside the impugned order and notice.
The High Court held that circulars or instructions issued by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or render them otiose. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed strictly. Authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship to assessees and confusion. Instructions and circulars can only supplement statutory provisions and aid in their implementation. Consequently, notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer 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, were found to be contrary to the Act. The specific notices dated 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2024, and 30.03.2023, and 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. The operative direction was to set aside the impugned notices and proceedings. The issue of whether the revenue could follow the procedure if advised was left open for future action.
The High Court held that circulars or instructions issued by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or render them otiose. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be strictly followed. The Court found that by exercising powers under Sections 119 and 120 of the Act, 1961, as well as Section 144B (7 & 8), authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship and confusion to taxpayers. Instructions and circulars can only supplement statutory provisions and aid in their implementation. Therefore, notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 and subsequent proceedings initiated without conducting faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B were found to be contrary to the Act. The Court set aside the notices dated 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2024, and 30.03.2023, and the order dated 30.03.2023, for want of jurisdiction. The respondents were granted liberty to follow the prescribed procedure. The specific notice dated 28.03.2024 issued by the JAO under Section 148 was also set aside.