Loading High Court cases…
601 orders · Page 7 of 13
The High Court allowed the withdrawal of the appeal. The court noted that the appeal did not fall within the exception clause of the circular and therefore the prayer for withdrawal was granted.
The High Court allowed the prayer for withdrawal of the appeal. The court noted that the monetary limits for filing appeals before the High Court were enhanced to Rs. 2 crore, effective from 17.09.2024, as per Circular No. 9/2024. The court observed that the present appeal was filed after this date and did not fall under any exception that would require it to be decided on merits irrespective of the monetary limit. Consequently, the court permitted the withdrawal of the appeal as prayed by the Revenue. All pending applications were also dismissed as withdrawn. The ratio decidendi is that appeals filed by the Revenue before the High Court, after the effective date of Circular No. 9/2024, are subject to the revised monetary limits, and if the tax effect is below the enhanced limit, withdrawal can be permitted.
The High Court decided to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn. The reasoning provided is that the appellant-revenue's counsel stated that the tax effect involved was less than the monetary limit prescribed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) vide Circular No. 3 of 2018, further amended by Circular No. 17 of 2019, read with a subsequent letter dated 20.08.2019. Consequently, the counsel had instructions to withdraw the appeal. The Court granted the liberty prayed for by the revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal in case something survives therein. Since the main case was dismissed, any pending C.M. Application also stood disposed of.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The revenue's counsel informed the Court that the tax effect was below the monetary limit stipulated by CBDT Circulars, and therefore, they had instructions to withdraw the appeal. The revenue further prayed for liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal if circumstances warranted it. The Court granted this liberty. The reasoning for the dismissal is solely based on the revenue's decision to withdraw the appeal due to the low tax effect as per the CBDT circulars. The merits of the original appeal were not considered. Any pending applications related to the main appeal were also disposed of.
The High Court found that the ITAT had examined the grounds and confirmed the order of the CIT(Appeals). The ITAT's factual findings were based on the assessment that there were more than five units and a single tenant could hire two distinct units from the same owner. The claim had been allowed for AY 2006-07 to 2009-10 and not disputed. For AY 2010-11 and 2012-13, the ITAT confirmed the CIT(Appeals)'s order. Given the concurrent factual findings of the CIT(Appeals) and the ITAT, the High Court found no substantial question of law requiring examination. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed. All pending applications were also disposed of.
The High Court held that the monetary limits for filing appeals, as revised by Circular No. 9/2024 dated 17.09.2024, are 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 court noted that the modifications came into effect from 17.09.2024 and apply to appeals to be filed before the ITAT, High Court, and Supreme Court, as well as appeals pending before these authorities. The court found that the present appeal, filed after the issuance of the circular, does not fall within the exception clause of Circular No. 5/2024. Consequently, the Revenue's prayer for withdrawal of the appeal was allowed. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.
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 for managing litigation.
The High Court allowed the Revenue's prayer for withdrawal of the appeal. The Court noted that Circular No. 9/2024, dated 17.09.2024, had revised the monetary limits for filing appeals before the ITAT, High Court, and Supreme Court. The revised limit for appeals before the High Court was Rs. 2 crore. The Court observed that the Revenue submitted that the present case did not fall within the exception clause of Circular No. 5/2024, which allows appeals to be decided on merits irrespective of the tax effect. Consequently, based on the revised monetary limits and the fact that the case did not fall under the exception, the Court permitted the withdrawal of the appeal. All pending applications were also dismissed as withdrawn.
The High Court allowed the prayer for withdrawal of the appeal. The Court noted that Circular No. 9/2024, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes on September 17, 2024, revised the monetary limits for filing appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, High Court, and Supreme Court. The revised limits are Rs. 60 lakh, Rs. 2 crore, and Rs. 5 crore, respectively. The Court observed that these revised limits are effective from the date of issuance and apply to appeals to be filed and those pending. Since the present appeal did not fall within the exception clauses of Circular No. 5/2024, the Revenue's counsel prayed for its withdrawal. The Court found merit in the submission and accordingly allowed the withdrawal. All pending applications were also dismissed as withdrawn.
The High Court allowed the prayer for withdrawal of the appeal. The Court noted that Circular No. 9/2024, effective from 17.09.2024, revised the monetary limits for filing appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Rs. 60 lakh), High Court (Rs. 2 crore), and Supreme Court (Rs. 5 crore). The Court observed that these revised limits apply to appeals to be filed after the issuance date. Since the Revenue contended that the tax effect in the present case did not meet the enhanced threshold and did not fall within the exception clauses of Circular No. 5/2024, the Court permitted the withdrawal. The operative direction was to allow the withdrawal of the appeal and dismiss it as withdrawn. All pending applications were also dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal allowed the Revenue's prayer to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn in light of the revised monetary limits for litigation management.
The High Court has allowed the applications filed for the 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 bearing number ITA-179-2023 has been dismissed as withdrawn. The Court has also vacated all interim orders and disposed of any pending miscellaneous applications accordingly. The reasoning is based on the acceptance of the applications for withdrawal as per the aforementioned circular. No specific findings on the merits of the original dispute are recorded, as the appeal was disposed of on a procedural basis. The ratio decidendi is that appeals can be dismissed as withdrawn when parties seek to do so in accordance with a CBDT circular.
The tribunal allowed the Revenue's prayer to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn based on the revised monetary limits stipulated in the CBDT Circular.
The Tribunal allowed the Revenue's prayer to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn in light of the revised monetary limits for filing appeals.
The High Court allowed the Revenue's prayer to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn in light of the revised monetary limits and the circular's provisions.
The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal as per the prayer made by the Revenue. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn in light of the revised monetary limits specified in the CBDT circular.
The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal. The court noted that the new circular, effective from 17.09.2024, enhanced the monetary limits for filing appeals before the ITAT, High Court, and Supreme Court.
The Tribunal allowed the Revenue's prayer to withdraw the appeal. The withdrawal was permitted as the tax effect of the case did not fall within the enhanced monetary limits prescribed by the new circular.
The High Court held that instructions issued by the Board under Sections 119 and 120 of the Act, as well as Section 144B(7 & 8), 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 and convenience, causing hardship and confusion to assessees. Instructions can only supplement statutory provisions for their implementation. Therefore, 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 provisions of the Act. Accordingly, notices dated 28.02.2023, 20.03.2024, 16.03.2023, and 30.03.2023, and the notice dated 28.02.2024 (P-1) under Section 148A(d) and notice dated 28.02.2024 (P-2) under Section 148, along with consequential proceedings, were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The revenue was at liberty to follow the procedure as laid down under the Act and proceed accordingly. All pending applications were disposed of.
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 make them otiose. The Court found that the authorities cannot usurp legal provisions to their own satisfaction and convenience, causing hardship and confusion to assessees. Instructions can only supplement statutory provisions for implementation. Consequently, the Court held that notices issued by the Joint Administrative Officer under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, and the subsequent faceless assessment proceedings conducted under Section 144B of the Act, 1961, were contrary to the provisions of the Act. Therefore, 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, 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 render 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 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 provisions of the Act. Consequently, notices dated 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, 1961, and proceed accordingly if so advised. The writ petition was allowed, and interim orders were merged with the final order.
The High Court held that notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the subsequent proceedings initiated under Section 144B of the Act, were contrary to the provisions of the Act and therefore set aside for want of jurisdiction. The Court agreed with the view taken by coordinate benches, stating that instructions or circulars by the Board cannot override statutory provisions. Legislative enactments must be followed mandatorily. 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 are meant for supplementing statutory provisions and for their implementation. Consequently, the notices dated February 28, 2023, March 16, 2023, March 20, 2024, March 30, 2023, and the order dated March 30, 2023, were set aside. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, if advised. The interim order passed by the Court was merged with the final order.
The High Court allowed the withdrawal of the appeal. The Court noted that Circular No. 9/2024, effective from September 17, 2024, revised the monetary limits for filing appeals before the ITAT, High Court, and Supreme Court. The Revenue submitted that the present case did not fall within the exception clause of Circular No. 5/2024 and therefore, the appeal should be withdrawn. The Court found merit in this submission and allowed the prayer for withdrawal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, and all pending applications were also disposed of as withdrawn. The principle established is that appeals can be withdrawn by the Revenue if they no longer meet the enhanced monetary limits prescribed by subsequent circulars, provided they do not fall under any specific exceptions.
The High Court allowed the prayer of the counsel for the appellant (Revenue) to withdraw the appeal. The reasoning was based on the amended monetary limits for filing appeals as per Circular No. 9/2024. The circular, effective from 17.09.2024, revises the monetary limits for appeals before the ITAT (Rs. 60 lakh), High Court (Rs. 2 crore), and Supreme Court (Rs. 5 crore). The court noted that the case did not fall within any exception clause of Circular No. 5/2024. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. All pending applications were also dismissed as withdrawn.
The High Court 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. 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 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. Consequently, notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, and the consequential proceedings initiated thereafter without conducting faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act, were found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act. 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 granted liberty to follow the procedure as laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly. The writ petition was allowed, and the interim order stood merged with the present order.
The Tribunal allowed the Revenue's prayer for withdrawal of the appeal. The reasoning was based on the applicability of Circular No. 9/2024, dated September 17, 2024, which revised the monetary limits for filing appeals by the department. The Tribunal noted that the enhanced monetary limits are effective from the date of issuance of the circular and apply to appeals to be filed as well as those pending before the ITAT, High Court, and Supreme Court. Since the present appeal did not fall within any exception clause of Circular No. 5/2024 (which was not detailed but implied to be superseded or modified by the later circular), the Revenue was permitted to withdraw the appeal. The Tribunal also dismissed all pending applications as withdrawn. No specific finding on the merits of the original appeal was made.
The High Court allowed the Revenue's prayer to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn in accordance with the revised monetary limits stipulated in the Circular.
The High Court allowed the Revenue's prayer for withdrawal of the appeal. The Court noted that Circular No. 9/2024, effective from 17.09.2024, revised the monetary limits for filing appeals before the ITAT, High Court, and Supreme Court. The revised limit for appeals before the High Court was Rs. 2 crore. The Revenue contended that the present appeal did not fall within the exception clauses of Circular No. 5/2024 and therefore, should be withdrawn. The Court found merit in the Revenue's submission and permitted the withdrawal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. All pending applications were also disposed of as withdrawn.
The Tribunal allowed the prayer for withdrawal of the appeal. The Court noted that Circular No. 9/2024, effective from September 17, 2024, revised the monetary limits for filing appeals by the department before the ITAT, High Court, and Supreme Court. The Court also referred to Circular No. 5/2024. The Revenue submitted that the present case does not fall within the exception clause of Circular No. 5/2024 and, in view of the revised monetary limits under Circular No. 9/2024, prayed for withdrawal of the appeal. The Tribunal accepted this submission and allowed the withdrawal of the appeal. All pending applications were also dismissed as withdrawn. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal allowed the Revenue's prayer to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn in light of the new circular and the case not falling within the exception clause.
The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal based on the revised monetary limits specified in the CBDT circular. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal allowed the Revenue's prayer to withdraw the appeal. The withdrawal was permitted in light of the revised monetary limits for filing appeals as per the new Circular, which rendered the current appeal outside the exception clause for withdrawal.
The High Court allowed the prayer of the appellant (Revenue) to withdraw the appeal. The reasoning was based on the amended monetary limits for filing appeals introduced by Circular No. 9/2024, which amended Circular No. 5/2024. The court noted that these revised limits, which set a threshold of Rs. 2 crore for appeals before the High Court, were applicable to all cases, including the present one, as it did not fall under any of the exceptions mentioned in the circular. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. All pending applications associated with the appeal were also dismissed as withdrawn. The judgment does not expressly leave any issue undecided.
The High Court allowed the petition in terms of its previous judgment in Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others. The Court quashed the impugned notice dated 27.02.2024 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and any consequential proceedings. The reasoning was based on the consensus reached between the parties, wherein the revenue agreed that the petitioner should receive the same relief as granted in the cited precedent. The ratio decidendi is that where parties agree to follow a previous binding precedent, the court will grant similar relief. The operative direction was the quashing of the notice and consequential proceedings. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The High Court allowed the writ petition. It 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. Authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship to assessees, nor create confusion for taxpayers. Instructions and circulars can only 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 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 notice dated 27.03.2024 and consequential proceedings in the present case were set aside. The ratio is that faceless assessment under Section 144B is mandatory, and deviations without statutory backing, especially when contrary to established judicial precedent, render proceedings void.
The High Court allowed the writ petition. It 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 actions can lead to confusion. Instructions and circulars can only supplement statutory provisions for 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, and 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 specific notice dated 27.03.2024 and consequential proceedings were set aside. The operative direction was to set aside the impugned notice and proceedings.
The High Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the notice issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148 dated August 30, 2024, and the order issued under Section 148A(d) dated August 30, 2024, along with consequential proceedings. The Court relied on its previous decisions in Jasjit Singh and Jatinder Singh Bhangu. The reasoning was 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. Therefore, notices issued 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 operative direction was to set aside the impugned notices and order.
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, allowed the writ petition. The Court reiterated its finding that circulars or instructions issued by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or render them obsolete. It held that legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed strictly. The Court found that authorities, by exercising powers under Sections 119 and 120, and Section 144B (7 & 8) of the Act, cannot usurp legal provisions for their satisfaction or convenience, causing hardship to assessees. Consequently, notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 and subsequent proceedings initiated 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 revenue was granted liberty to follow the prescribed procedure if advised. The ratio decidendi is that faceless assessment is a mandatory procedural requirement, and deviations therefrom without statutory basis render subsequent actions, including notices under Section 148, invalid.
The High Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the notice issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148 dated 09.03.2024, and the order issued under Section 148A(d) dated 08.03.2024, along with consequential proceedings. The Court relied on its previous decisions in Jasjit Singh and Jatinder Singh Bhangu. The reasoning was 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 through instructions and circulars, which can only supplement statutory provisions for implementation. Therefore, notices 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 if advised. The ratio is that faceless assessment procedures mandated by statute cannot be bypassed by administrative instructions or actions, and non-compliance vitiates the proceedings.
The High Court, following its own decision in Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others and a Coordinate Bench's decision in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others, 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 followed strictly. Authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship to assessees, and instructions/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 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 March 27, 2024, and consequential proceedings were set aside.
The High Court, in agreement with 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 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 as envisaged under Section 144B, were found to be contrary to the Act. The notices dated March 31, 2024, and the order dated March 31, 2024, along with consequential proceedings, were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the prescribed procedure if advised. 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 the prescribed process, and any deviation renders the proceedings void.
The High Court held that notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148 dated 31.08.2023, and all consequential proceedings, were liable to be set aside for want of jurisdiction. The Court agreed with the view taken by a Coordinate Bench that instructions by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or make them obsolete. Legislative enactments having financial implications must be followed strictly. The Court found that faceless assessment proceedings initiated under Section 144B, without conducting the assessment as envisaged, were contrary to the provisions of the Act. Therefore, notices dated 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2024, 30.03.2023, and 30.03.2023 were set aside. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act and proceed accordingly if advised. The writ petition was allowed, and the interim order stood merged with the present order.
The High Court allowed the writ petition, applying the principles laid down in the cited cases of 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 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 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 specific notices dated 24.03.2024 and consequential proceedings in the present case were set aside. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act if so advised. The Court expressly left no issue undecided.
The High Court held that notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the consequential proceedings, including those conducted under Section 144B, were liable to be set aside for want of jurisdiction. The Court agreed with the view taken by a Coordinate Bench in similar cases, stating that circulars or instructions by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or be issued to make them obsolete. The Court emphasized that legislative enactments with financial implications are mandatory. It was observed that authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship and confusion to assessees. The Court found the faceless assessment proceedings initiated under Section 144B to be contrary to the provisions of the Act, 1961. Consequently, the notices dated 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2023, 30.03.2023, and 30.03.2024 were set aside. The Revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if advised. The present writ petition was allowed, and all pending applications were disposed of.
The High Court allowed the withdrawal of the appeal. It noted that the new circular's provisions were applicable to pending appeals and that the case did not fall under any exceptions.
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, 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 no occasion to distinguish the present case from the previously decided ones. Consequently, the notices dated March 24, 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 terms of the previous judgments.
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 that instructions and circulars can only supplement statutory provisions. In light of the law laid down by the Coordinate Bench in Jasjit Singh and Jatinder Singh Bhangu, the Court concluded that notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 and proceedings initiated thereafter without conducting faceless assessments under Section 144B were contrary to the Act. 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 revenue was granted liberty to follow the prescribed procedure. The specific notice dated 14.03.2024 and consequential proceedings in the present case were also set aside. The Court allowed the writ petition 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 with financial implications must be followed strictly and mandatorily. Authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship to assessees, nor can they create confusion for taxpayers. Instructions and circulars can only supplement statutory provisions and aid in their implementation. Consequently, notices issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, and proceedings initiated thereafter 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. The specific notices dated 31.03.2024 and consequential proceedings in the present case were set aside.
The High Court held that notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the consequential proceedings initiated thereafter, including those under faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B (7 & 8) of the Act, were found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act, 1961, and therefore, were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The Court agreed with the view taken by its Coordinate Bench that instructions by the Board (circulars) cannot override statutory provisions and that legislative enactments having financial implications must be followed strictly. The Court reasoned that authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their own satisfaction or convenience, causing hardship and confusion to assessees. Circulars and instructions can only supplement statutory provisions and aid in their implementation. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure as laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if so advised. The operative direction was to allow the writ petition and set aside the impugned notices and consequential proceedings.
The High Court allowed the writ petition. It held that notices issued 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. Consequently, notices dated February 28, 2023, March 16, 2023, March 20, 2024, March 30, 2023, and an order dated March 30, 2023, were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The Court stated that the revenue would be at liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly, if so advised. The interim order passed by the Court was merged with the present order. The principle established is that faceless assessments must be conducted in accordance with Section 144B of the Act, and notices issued without adhering to this procedure are liable to be quashed.