SEEMA BISHNOI V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

CWP/21884/2023

AI Insights

The case revolves around the legality of certain notices and orders issued by the Income Tax Department under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner challenged these notices and orders, arguing that they were issued without following the proper procedural requirements, specifically the faceless assessment process mandated under Section 144B of the Act. The court referenced a previous decision in CWP No.21509 of 2023, Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India, which held that administrative circulars cannot override statutory provisions. The court's decision in this case followed the precedent set in the earlier case, leading to the setting aside of the disputed notices and orders.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 749609 (HC-MISC)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 07-08-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Applicant
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: VARUN ISSAR
• Keywords: Faceless assessment; Jurisdiction; Override statutory provisions; Financial legislative enactments; Usurp legal provisions
• Section: 148; 119; 144B; 148A(d); 120

Judgement Text

"CWP-21884- 249-2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE Present: Mr. for the SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) 1. Both the counsel are petition stands finally adjudicated in view of the judgment this Court in of India and others under: Coordinate instructions by the Board could not have override statutory provisions or to make them otiose or obsolete. Legislative enactments having financial followed strictly and mandatorily. By exercising the powers contained Section 144B (7 & 8), the usurp the legal provisions to their own convenience causing hardship to the assessees. It also leaves and -2023 Page 1 of 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Vs. **** HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH **** Mr. Varun Issar, Senior Standing Counsel, for the respondent – Income Tax Department **** SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) Both the counsel are ad idem that the issue involved in the present petition stands finally adjudicated in view of the judgment this Court in CWP No.21509 of 2023 titled as Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others, decided on 29.07.2024, wherein this Court held as “16. We are in agreement with the view taken by the Coordinate Bench and hold that such circular or instructions by the Board could not have override statutory provisions or to make them otiose or obsolete. Legislative enactments having financial followed strictly and mandatorily. By exercising the powers contained Sections 119 and 120 of the Act, 1961 as well as Section 144B (7 & 8), the authorities cannot be allowed to usurp the legal provisions to their own convenience causing hardship to the assessees. It also leaves confusion in the minds of the taxpayers and supplementing the statutory provisions and IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-21884-2023 Date of Decision: 07.08.2024 . . . . Petitioner . . . . Respondent HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA SANJAY VASHISTH Issar, Senior Standing Counsel, Income Tax Department. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) that the issue involved in the present writ petition stands finally adjudicated in view of the judgment passed by CWP No.21509 of 2023 titled as Jasjit Singh vs. Union , decided on 29.07.2024, wherein this Court held as 16. We are in agreement with the view taken by the Bench and hold that such circular or instructions by the Board could not have been issued to override statutory provisions or to make them otiose or obsolete. Legislative enactments having financial be followed strictly and mandatorily. By exercising the powers of the Act, 1961 as well as authorities cannot be allowed to usurp the legal provisions to their own satisfaction and convenience causing hardship to the assessees. It also confusion in the minds of the taxpayers instructions supplementing the statutory provisions and .2024 writ passed by CWP No.21509 of 2023 titled as Jasjit Singh vs. Union , decided on 29.07.2024, wherein this Court held as LAVISHA 2024.08.09 16:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-21884- occasion to suggested by the learned counsel for has already been held by the Coo Coordinate Bench under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and the proceedings initiated thereafter without conducting the faceless assessment as envisaged under Secti 1961, have been found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act, 1961 and accordingly notices dated 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2024 and 30.03.2023 and order dated 30.03.2023, are set aside for want of jurisdiction. liberty to follow the procedure as laid down under the Act, 1961 and proceed accordingly, if so advised. order passed by the Court shall stand merged with the present o 2. Keeping in view above, terms. The observations and order passed above shall apply mutandis 21.04.202 3. All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly. August 07, 2024 Lavisha 1. Whether speaking/reasoned? 2. Whether reportable? -2023 Page 2 of 2 17. In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no occasion to distinguish or take a different view as suggested by the learned counsel for has already been held by the Coordinate Bench. 18. Keeping in view the law laid down by the Coordinate Bench (supra), 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 Secti 1961, have been found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act, 1961 and accordingly notices dated 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2024 and 30.03.2023 and order dated 30.03.2023, are set aside for want of jurisdiction. 19. The respondents-revenue would be, however, at liberty to follow the procedure as laid down under the Act, 1961 and proceed accordingly, if so advised. 20. All the writ petitions are allowed. The interim order passed by the Court shall stand merged with the present order.” Keeping in view above, we allow this Writ Petition in the aforesaid terms. The observations and order passed above shall apply mutandis to the present case. Accordingly, order u/s .2023 and notice u/s 148 dated 21.04 All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly. (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA , 2024 1. Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No 2. Whether reportable? Yes/No 17. In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no distinguish or take a different view as suggested by the learned counsel for the revenue from what rdinate Bench. 18. Keeping in view the law laid down by the (supra), 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, have been found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act, 1961 and accordingly notices dated 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2024 and 30.03.2023 and order dated 30.03.2023, are set aside for want of jurisdiction. revenue would be, however, at liberty to follow the procedure as laid down under the Act, 1961 and proceed accordingly, if so advised. 20. All the writ petitions are allowed. The interim order passed by the Court shall stand merged with the this Writ Petition in the aforesaid terms. The observations and order passed above shall apply mutatis Accordingly, order u/s 148A(d) dated 21.04.2023 are set aside. All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No this Writ Petition in the aforesaid mutatis dated LAVISHA 2024.08.09 16:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh "