Loading High Court cases…
601 orders · Page 4 of 13
The High Court held that the writ petition was infructuous. The Court noted that the refund of Rs. 83,16,370/- along with interest of Rs. 82,403/- under Section 244A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, had already been issued to the assessee on 06.08.2021 and credited on 27.08.2021. Furthermore, in response to the assessee's rectification application for short grant of interest, an order dated 14.02.2024 was passed granting additional interest of Rs. 15,23,232/- under Section 244A. Given these actions by the Revenue, the Court found no further adjudication was required in the present petition. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed as having been rendered infructuous, and all pending applications were disposed of accordingly.
The High Court allowed the writ petition, holding that notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings, including the consequential orders dated 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2024, and 30.03.2023, were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The Court agreed with the view taken by a coordinate bench in Jasjit Singh (supra) and held that instructions by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or make them otiose. The Court emphasized that legislative enactments having financial implications must be followed strictly and mandatorily. 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. The ratio decidendi is that faceless assessment procedures mandated by Section 144B are statutory and must be followed, and any proceedings initiated without adhering to these provisions are without jurisdiction. The Revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act and proceed accordingly, if so advised. All pending applications were also disposed of.
The Tribunal noted that the respondent-Income Tax Department had stated that the relief had been granted to the petitioner and the Writ Petition had become infructuous. The learned counsel for the petitioner did not object to this statement. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid, the Tribunal held that the Writ Petition had become infructuous and accordingly dismissed it. All pending applications were also disposed of as a consequence. No specific issues regarding the merits of the case were decided as the petition was disposed of on procedural grounds.
The High Court held 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, 1961, were contrary to the provisions of the Act, 1961. The Court found that instructions by the Board could not override statutory provisions or make them obsolete, and that legislative enactments must be followed mandatorily. The Court reasoned that allowing authorities to usurp legal provisions based on their own satisfaction and convenience would cause hardship and confusion. Therefore, the notices dated 13.04.2023, 28.02.2023, 20.03.2024, 16.03.2023, and 30.03.2023, 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 and proceed accordingly. The Court allowed the writ petition in terms, merging interim orders with the final order.
The High Court, following its own previous decisions in Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India, held that instructions issued by the Board under Section 119 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, cannot override statutory provisions or render them obsolete. Legislative enactments must be followed strictly. The Court found that exercising powers under Sections 119 and 120, as well as Section 144B (7 & 8), should not allow authorities to 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 of the Act, and proceedings initiated thereafter without conducting the 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 if so advised. All writ petitions were allowed.
The Tribunal allowed the prayer for withdrawal of the appeal. The reasoning was based on the submission made by the Revenue's counsel regarding CBDT Circular No. 9/2024 dated 17.09.2024. This circular revised the monetary limits for filing appeals by the department. The revised limit for appeals before the High Court was set at Rs. 2 crore. The Revenue contended that the present appeal did not fall within the exception clause of Circular No. 5/2024, which pertains to cases not falling within the revised monetary limits. Consequently, the Revenue prayed for the withdrawal of the appeal. The Tribunal accepted this prayer. The operative direction was to allow the withdrawal of the appeal and dismiss it as withdrawn. All pending applications were also disposed of accordingly. No specific issue regarding the merits of the case was decided.
The High Court allowed the Revenue's prayer for withdrawal of the appeal. The Court noted that the appeal was filed after the effective date of Circular No. 9/2024, which revised the monetary limits for filing appeals. The Court found that the case did not fall within the exception clause of Circular No. 5/2024, which mandates that appeals be decided on merits irrespective of the tax effect. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. All pending applications were also disposed of accordingly. The judgment does not discuss the merits of the original dispute or any specific IT Act provisions beyond the context of the circulars governing appeal filing.
The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal. The court noted that the appeal did not fall within any exceptions to the revised monetary limits specified in the circular.
The High Court held that notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the proceedings initiated thereafter, without conducting the faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act, are contrary to the provisions of the Act. The Court agreed with the view taken by the Coordinate Bench that circulars or instructions by the Board could not override statutory provisions or make them otiose. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed strictly. The Court found 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. Instructions and circulars can only supplement statutory provisions. Consequently, the notices dated 16.02.2024 and all consequential proceedings were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The respondents were granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act if so advised. The writ petition was allowed in these terms.
The High Court, in light of the consensus between the parties and following the decision in Jyoti Sareen's case (supra), allowed the petition. The Court quashed the impugned notice issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and any consequential proceedings. The reasoning was based on the agreement of both the petitioner and the respondents (Income Tax Department) to grant the same relief as previously awarded in a similar case. The operative direction was the quashing of the notice and proceedings.
The High Court accepted the status report filed by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Amritsar. The Court granted liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order passed by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Amritsar, dated 08.08.2024, independently of the present proceedings. The Court explicitly stated that the order passed by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Amritsar, is not amenable to challenge on the ground of competency. Consequently, the present writ petition was rendered infructuous. The Court also noted that the order was speaking/reasoned and reportable. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were also disposed of.
The Tribunal held that notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the subsequent faceless assessment proceedings initiated under Section 144B of the Act, were contrary to the provisions of the Act. The Court agreed with the view taken by a Coordinate Bench in similar cases, holding that circulars or instructions from the Board cannot override statutory provisions or render them obsolete. The Court emphasized that legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed strictly. It found that the authorities, by exercising powers under Sections 119 and 120 of the Act, as well as Section 144B (7 & 8), had usurped legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship and confusion to assessees. Therefore, the notices dated February 28, 2023, March 16, 2023, March 20, 2023, March 30, 2023, and the order dated March 30, 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 writ petitions were allowed, and interim orders merged with the present order.
The High Court held that the present proceedings in WTC-57-1988 had become otiose and redundant. This conclusion was reached because the issue concerning the ITAT's order dated 09.03.1988 for Assessment Year 1977-78 had been rendered moot by subsequent events. Specifically, the Supreme Court's directions in a batch of appeals concerning other assessment years led to the ITAT passing a fresh, detailed order for Assessment Years 1977-78 to 1980-81. This subsequent ITAT order had become the subject matter of further challenges in other cases. Therefore, the High Court found no necessity to proceed with the present WTC. The dismissal of the present WTC was explicitly stated not to affect any further proceedings that might be pending or decided subsequent to the ITAT's decision dated 20.08.2009. No specific finding was made on the merits of the original ITAT order dated 09.03.1988.
The High Court, in light of the consensus between the parties and following the precedent set in Jyoti Sareen's case (CWP-15791-2024), allowed the petition. The court quashed the impugned notice dated 29.03.2024 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with any consequential proceedings. The reasoning was based on the agreement of the parties to extend the relief granted in the cited case to the present petitioner. The ratio decidendi is that where parties agree to follow a previous judgment of the same court on similar facts and issues, the court should grant the same relief. No issues were expressly left undecided.
The High Court allowed the writ petition. It held that notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings initiated without conducting faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B (7 & 8) of 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. The reasoning was that circulars or instructions issued by authorities cannot override statutory provisions or make them otiose, and legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed strictly. The Court found that the notices dated 28.03.2024, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2023, and 30.03.2023, along with consequential proceedings, were issued for want of jurisdiction. The operative direction was to set aside the notice and all consequential proceedings. The Revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act and proceed accordingly, if advised.
The High Court held that instructions issued by the Board, including circulars, cannot override statutory provisions or render them obsolete. The Court affirmed the view of a coordinate bench that authorities cannot usurp legal provisions to their own satisfaction or convenience, causing hardship and confusion to assessees. Instructions and circulars are meant for supplementing statutory provisions and for their implementation. The Court found that 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 (7 & 8) of the Act, 1961, were contrary to the provisions of the Act. Consequently, the notice dated 19.03.2024 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, 1961, and proceed accordingly, if so advised. The writ petitions were allowed.
The High Court allowed the writ petition. The Court held that notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the consequential proceedings initiated thereafter, without conducting the faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act, were found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act. The Court reiterated its previous decisions in Jasjit Singh and Jatinder Singh Bhangu, holding that instructions by the Board cannot override statutory provisions and that legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed strictly. The Court reasoned that authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship and confusion. Therefore, the notice dated 12.03.2024 and 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 and proceed accordingly, if so advised. The interim order was merged with the present order.
The High Court allowed the writ petition, applying the ratio decidendi from its previous judgments in Jasjit Singh and Jatinder Singh Bhangu. The 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 such instructions can only supplement statutory provisions. Consequently, notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, and the proceedings initiated thereafter without conducting faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act, 1961, were found to be contrary to the Act. The notice dated 06.04.2023 and consequential proceedings were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The respondents-revenue were granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, if so advised. All pending applications were disposed of.
The tribunal held that cash incentive accrues to the assessee on the date the claim is made to the competent authority, not on the date of export or receipt. The High Court confirmed this view, aligning with previous judgments.
The High Court allowed the writ petition, following its own prior decisions in Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others and Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others. 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, and such instructions can only supplement statutory provisions. Consequently, notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 and subsequent 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 specific notice dated March 24, 2024, and consequential proceedings were set aside.
The High Court held that notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and all consequential proceedings initiated thereafter, including those under the faceless assessment scheme as envisaged by Section 144B, were liable to be set aside for want of jurisdiction. The Court reiterated its previous findings in Jasjit Singh and Jatinder Singh Bhangu, emphasizing that circulars or instructions issued by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or make them obsolete. The Court reasoned that authorities cannot usurp legal provisions to their own satisfaction or convenience, causing hardship and confusion to assessees. Instructions from the Board are meant for supplementing statutory provisions and for their implementation. Therefore, the notices dated 23.03.2024, 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2024, and 30.03.2023 were set aside. 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 stood merged with the final order.
The High Court allowed the appeal of the assessee, setting aside the order of the ITAT and the CIT(A). Regarding the first issue, the Court held that while Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, restricts the production of additional evidence, the ITAT should have considered the documents filed by the assessee, especially given the nature of the case involving a Will and family settlement. The Court referenced various High Court judgments, including Delhi High Court in Himani Walia vs Hemant Walia, emphasizing that family settlements are not always compulsorily registrable and can be considered even if initially oral. For the second issue, the Court held that the cost of acquisition should be considered with reference to 01.04.1981, treating the acquisition of the property by the assessee's father, Permanand Mehra, on 06.06.1963, as the basis for indexation. The Court found that a family settlement is not required to be registered and that the cost inflation index should be calculated with reference to 01.04.1981. The Court agreed with the assessee that the existence of the Will and the family settlement meant the assessee became the holder of the property on the basis of a family arrangement, and the cost of acquisition should be with reference to 01.04.1981. The calculation was to be done accordingly. The Court answered question No. (ii) in favour of the assessee.
The High Court, following its previous 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 obsolete. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed mandatorily. The Court found that the notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the proceedings initiated thereafter without conducting a proper assessment as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act, were 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 consequential 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. All pending applications were also disposed of.
The High Court held that administrative instructions or circulars issued by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or make them otiose. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed strictly and mandatorily. The 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. Therefore, notices issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings, including faceless assessments under Section 144B, were found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act, 1961. Consequently, the notices dated 30.08.2024, and other consequential orders dated 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2024, 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, 1961, if advised. All pending applications were also disposed of.
The High Court, following its own precedents in Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others and the Coordinate Bench's decision in 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 followed strictly. 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, 1961, and subsequent proceedings initiated without conducting faceless assessments 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 revenue was granted liberty to follow the prescribed procedure if advised. The specific notices dated 24.03.2024 and consequential proceedings in the present case were set aside. The ratio decidendi is that faceless assessment procedures mandated by Section 144B are statutory and cannot be bypassed by issuing notices under Section 148 without adhering to this procedure.
The High Court held that the notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the proceedings initiated thereafter, without conducting the faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act, 1961, were contrary to the provisions of the Act. The Court agreed with the view taken by the Coordinate Bench that circulars or instructions by the Board could not override statutory provisions or make them otiose. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed strictly. The Court found that by exercising powers under Sections 119 and 120, and Section 144B (7 & 8), authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship and confusion. Instructions and circulars can only supplement statutory provisions. Consequently, the 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 respondents-revenue were granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act if so advised. The writ petition was allowed in terms of the aforesaid observations and order.
The High Court allowed the writ petition, following its previous decisions in Jasjit Singh and Jatinder Singh Bhangu. 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 and aid in their implementation. Consequently, notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, and the proceedings initiated thereafter, without conducting faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act, 1961, were found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act. The notices and consequential proceedings were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, if so advised. The specific notice dated 24.03.2024 and consequential proceedings were set aside.
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, in terms of Circular No. 09/2024 dated 17.09.2024 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, allowed the application for disposal of the appeal as withdrawn. The Court noted that the present appeal, ITA-283-2022, was being disposed of in terms of the aforementioned circular. Consequently, application No. CM-18516-CII-2024 and CM-18517-CII-2024 were also allowed as prayed for. All interim orders stood vacated, and any pending applications were disposed of accordingly. The judgment does not record any specific findings on the merits of the appeal itself, as it was dismissed as withdrawn.
The High Court held that instructions by the Board could not override statutory provisions or be issued to make them obsolete. Legislative enactments having financial implications are required to be mandatorily followed. By exercising powers under Sections 119 and 120 of the Act, as well as Section 144B (7 & 8), authorities cannot be allowed to 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. In view of the law laid down by a coordinate bench in 'Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others' (supra), notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, and the proceedings initiated thereafter without conducting faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B, were found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act. Consequently, the notices dated 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2023, 30.03.2023, and the order dated 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 all pending applications stood disposed of.
The High Court, after considering the submissions and perusing the original file containing the satisfaction note for the issue of warrants of authorization, noted that two warrants of authorization under Section 132 of the Act were issued. One was for the partners Bansant Bansal, Roop Kumar Bansal, Smt. Anita Bansal, and Smt. Abha Bansal, and M/s M3M India Holdings (Firm) at C-13, Sushant Lok, Phase-1, Gurgaon. The other was issued on the same day for Bansant Bansal, Roop Kumar Bansal, Pankaj Bansal, Smt. Anita Bansal, and M/s M3M India Holdings (Firm) at 106-A, Tower-1, DLF Aralias, Golf Link, Gurugram. The Court observed that the name of the firm assessee is mentioned in the warrants of authorization for DLF Aralias, DLF Golflinks, Tower-1, DLF Aralias, DLF Golflinks, which is stated to be the registered office of the assessee. However, the other warrant, which does not mention the name of M/s M3M India Holdings Private Limited, but contains the name of the partners of the firm, was issued at the registered office of the assessee, i.e., C-13, Sushant Lok, Phase-1, Gurgaon. The Court found that the search operation was conducted at the premises of other private limited companies, and the name of the assessee was not mentioned in the Panchnama. The Court held that the search conducted could not be held to be valid as it was not conducted at the premises occupied by the assessee or the assessee's partner firm. Since the premises in which the search was conducted did not belong to the assessee, no incriminating material could be found from the premises of the assessee. The Court also noted that the ITAT had relied on the judgment in CIT vs Kabul Chawla (supra) and other judgments, which held that no addition can be made in respect of completed assessment in the absence of any incriminating material found during the search. The Court found that the entire proceedings initiated under Section 153A of the Act, including the notice issued on 05.01.2018, were liable to be quashed. The Court dismissed the appeal summarily.
The High Court held that notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the consequential proceedings initiated without conducting faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B, were contrary to the provisions of the Act. The Court relied on its previous decisions in Jasjit Singh and Jatinder Singh Bhangu, which held that circulars or instructions from the Board cannot override statutory provisions or render them obsolete. The Court emphasized that legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed mandatorily. The authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship and confusion. Instructions and circulars can only supplement statutory provisions for implementation. Therefore, the notice dated 06.04.2023 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 writ petition was allowed, and interim orders were merged with the present order.
The Tribunal 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, the date of issuance of Circular No. 9/2024. These limits apply to appeals to be filed before the Supreme Court, High Court, and Tribunal, and also to appeals pending before these authorities. Since the present case does not fall within the exception clause of Circular No. 5/2024, the Revenue's counsel sought withdrawal of the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, and all pending applications were disposed of.
The High Court allowed the prayer of the appellant (Income Tax Department) to withdraw the present appeal. The Court noted that the Income Tax Department had submitted that the case did not fall within the exceptions to Circular No. 9/2024, dated 17.09.2024. This circular, effective from its date of issuance, revised the monetary limits for filing appeals before the Supreme Court, High Courts, and the Income Tax Tribunal, and applied to appeals pending before these authorities. The Court reasoned that since the department sought withdrawal based on this circular and the case did not fall under any exceptions, the withdrawal was permissible. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. All pending applications were also disposed of accordingly.
The High Court, following its own prior decisions in Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India, allowed the writ petition. 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. 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 under Section 148 of the Act and subsequent proceedings initiated without conducting faceless assessments as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act were found to be contrary to the Act. The notices and orders 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 merged with the final order. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The High Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the notice issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, dated 28.03.2024, and all consequential proceedings. The Court relied on its previous decision in Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others, which 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 under Section 148 and proceedings initiated without conducting faceless assessment as envisaged 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, 1961, if advised. The operative direction was to set aside the impugned notice and proceedings.
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 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 JAO under Section 148 and subsequent 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 Court specifically set aside notices dated 24.03.2024 and all consequential proceedings. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the prescribed procedure if advised. The writ petition was allowed in these terms.
The High Court allowed the prayer for withdrawal of the present appeal. The Court noted that the appellant (Income Tax Department) submitted that the case did not fall within the exceptions of Circular No. 5/2024, as clarified by Circular No. 9/2024 dated 17.09.2024. The circular revised the monetary limits for filing appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, High Courts, and the Supreme Court, with the purpose of managing litigation. The revised limits were to be applicable to all cases, including those relating to TDS/TCS under the Income-tax Act, 1961, with exceptions as per paragraphs 3.1 and 3.2 of Circular No. 5/2024. The decision to appeal or file SLPs/appeals was to be taken on merits, without regard to the tax effect and the monetary limits. The Court found no reason to disallow the withdrawal and accordingly, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. All pending applications were also disposed of as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the appellant (Income Tax Department) submitted that in terms of Circular No. 9/2024 dated 17.09.2024, the monetary limits for filing appeals have been revised. The appellant further submitted that the present case does not fall within the exceptions provided in the circular. Consequently, the learned counsel for the appellant prayed for the withdrawal of the present appeal. The Tribunal allowed this prayer. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn. All pending applications were also disposed of as withdrawn.
The High Court, in light of the consensus between the parties and following the precedent set in Jyoti Sareen's case (supra), allowed the petition. The Court quashed the impugned notice issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with any consequential proceedings. The reasoning was based on the agreement of both the petitioner and the revenue to grant the same relief as was provided in the aforementioned cited case. The operative direction was to quash the notice and proceedings.
The High Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the notice issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, dated 29.03.2024, and all consequential proceedings. 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 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 to assessees and confusion. Instructions and circulars can only supplement statutory provisions. 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 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 interim order merged with the final order.
The High Court held that circulars or instructions issued by the Board under Section 119 and Section 120 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, cannot override statutory provisions or render them otiose. Legislative enactments must be followed strictly. The Court found that the authorities, by exercising powers contained in Sections 119 and 120, as well as Section 144B (7 & 8), were attempting to usurp statutory provisions for their convenience, causing hardship and confusion to assessees. Instructions can only supplement statutory provisions for their implementation. Consequently, notices issued under Section 148 of the Act and proceedings conducted under Section 144B, including faceless assessments, were found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act. The Court specifically set aside notices dated 28.02.2023, 20.03.2024, 16.03.2023, and 30.03.2023, and the consequential proceedings 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 Tribunal held that circulars or instructions issued by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or make them obsolete. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed strictly and mandatorily. 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 their implementation. In light of this, notices issued under Section 148 of the Act and proceedings initiated thereafter without conducting the faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act were found to be 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 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. The operative direction was to set aside the impugned notices and proceedings.
The Tribunal held that circulars or instructions issued by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or make them otiose. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed strictly and mandatorily. The 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. In light of the law laid down by the Coordinate Bench in Jasjit Singh and Jatinder Singh Bhangu, the Tribunal found that notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, and the subsequent proceedings initiated without conducting the faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act, 1961, were contrary to the provisions of the Act. Consequently, the notices dated 31.08.2024, and consequential proceedings were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The Revenue was granted 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 notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings initiated without conducting a faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act, are contrary to the provisions of the Act. The Court agreed with the view taken by the coordinate benches, stating that circulars or instructions from the Board cannot override statutory provisions or make them otiose. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed strictly. The Court found that the 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 and aid in their implementation. Therefore, the notices and 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 advised. The operative direction was to allow the writ petition and set aside the notice dated 22.03.2024 and all consequential proceedings.
The Tribunal held that circulars or instructions issued by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or make them otiose. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed strictly and mandatorily. 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. Therefore, notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings, including faceless assessments under Section 144B, were found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act, 1961. Consequently, notices dated 28.02.2023, 20.03.2023, 16.03.2023, 30.03.2023, and 30.03.2024 were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The revenue is at liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, if so advised. All pending applications were also disposed of.
The Tribunal held that circulars or instructions issued by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or make them obsolete. Legislative enactments must be followed strictly. The authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their own satisfaction or convenience, causing hardship and confusion to taxpayers. The Court agreed with the view taken by the Coordinate Bench. Consequently, notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, and the proceedings initiated thereafter without conducting the assessment as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act, were found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act. Therefore, the notices dated 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2024, 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 and proceed accordingly. 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 must be followed strictly. The Court found that by exercising powers under Sections 119 and 120 of the Act, as well as Section 144B (7 & 8), the authorities were attempting to usurp legal provisions for their 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 Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings conducted under Section 144B, were found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act. Accordingly, the notices dated 31.08.2024, 28.02.2023, 20.03.2023, 16.03.2023, and 30.03.2023, along with the consequential assessment 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. 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 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 their implementation. Therefore, the Court agreed with the view taken by the Coordinate Bench. The 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, were found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act. Accordingly, the notices dated 28.02.2023, 20.03.2023, 16.03.2023, 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, 1961, if so advised. All pending applications were also disposed of.
The High Court allowed the prayer for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn in light of the revised monetary limits specified in the CBDT Circular.
The High Court disagreed with the Revenue's contention that the amendment to Section 12AA by the Finance Act, 2010, was clarificatory and retrospective from October 1, 2004. The Court held that if the Revenue's argument were accepted, the very purpose of making the amendment effective from June 1, 2010, would be rendered purposeless. The Court emphasized that the scope of Section 12A and Section 12AA of the Act must be read and considered independently. Citing its own decision in ITA-21-2021 (The Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala vs. Young Scholar’s Educational Society, Barnala) and relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation (Gwalior) M.P. Limited vs Commissioner of Income-Tax, Gwalior (2018) 403 ITR 1 (SC), the Court reiterated that the factors considered for granting approval under Section 10(23C) are also relevant for cancellation of registration under Section 12AA. The Court found no reason to change its previously taken view. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.