ASHU MOHAN PUNCHHI V. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

CWP/23391/2024

AI Insights

The case involves a challenge to the notices and orders issued by the Income Tax Department under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioners argued that these actions were not in accordance with the statutory provisions, particularly in the context of faceless assessments as envisaged under Section 144B. The court referenced previous decisions in similar cases, notably Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India, which held that such circulars cannot override statutory provisions. The court's decision reinforced the principle that legislative enactments, especially those with financial implications, must be adhered to strictly.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 749159 (HC-MISC)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 13-09-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others, Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: YOGESH PUTNEY; VAIBHAV GUPTA
• Assessee Lawyers: RADHIKA SURI; ABHINAV NARANG; PRANIKA SINGLA
• Keywords: Circulars; Faceless assessment; Income Tax; Jurisdiction; Statutory provisions
• Section: 148; 119; 144B; 120

Judgement Text

" 111 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT ASHU MOHAN PUNCHHI ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF AYKAR BHAWAN, CHANDIGARH CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present: M Mr. Ms. Pranika Singla, Advocate Mr. Yogesh Putney, Senior Standing Counsel, with Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Standing Counsel, for the respondent **** SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J. 1. Notice of motion. 2. Mr behalf of the respondent 3. Both the counsel are present petition stands finally examined and concluded by this Court in CWP No.21509 of 2023 decided on 29.07.2024, and by the Coordinate Bench in 2024 titled as Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others decided on 19.07.2024. This Court in “ Coordinate 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 h implications are required to be followed strictly and IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-23 Date of Decision: ASHU MOHAN PUNCHHI V/s. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DCIT/ACIT, CIR1(1), AYKAR BHAWAN, CHANDIGARH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH Ms. Radhika Suri, Senior Advocate, Mr. Abhinav Narang, Advocate and Ms. Pranika Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Yogesh Putney, Senior Standing Counsel, with Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Standing Counsel, for the respondent-Income Tax Department ***** SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J. (Oral) Notice of motion. Mr. Yogesh Putney, Senior Standing Counsel, the respondent-Income Tax Department Both the counsel are ad idem present petition stands finally examined and concluded by this Court in CWP No.21509 of 2023 titled as Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others decided on 29.07.2024, and by the Coordinate Bench in 2024 titled as Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others decided on 19.07.2024. This Court in Jasjit Singh “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 been issued to override statutory provisions or to make them otiose or obsolete. Legislative enactments h implications are required to be followed strictly and IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 23391-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision:13.09.2024 ..…...Petitioners (s) V/s. INCOME TAX, DCIT/ACIT, CIR1(1), ......Respondent(s) HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA SANJAY VASHISTH Advocate, assisted by and for the petitioner. Mr. Yogesh Putney, Senior Standing Counsel, with Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Standing Counsel, Income Tax Department , Senior Standing Counsel, accepts notice on Income Tax Department ad idem that the issue involved in the present petition stands finally examined and concluded by this Court in titled as Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others, decided on 29.07.2024, and by the Coordinate Bench in CWP No.15745 of 2024 titled as Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others, Jasjit Singh (supra) held as under: 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 been issued to override statutory provisions or to make them otiose or obsolete. Legislative enactments having financial implications are required to be followed strictly and INCOME TAX, DCIT/ACIT, CIR1(1), accepts notice on that the issue involved in the present petition stands finally examined and concluded by this Court in , CWP No.15745 of , Suresh Kumar 2024.09.13 16:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-23391-2024 (O&M) mandatorily. By exercising the powers contained in 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 satisfaction and convenience causing hardship to the assessees. It also leaves confusion in the minds of the taxpayers. In the opinion of this Court, instructions and circulars can be issued only for the purpose of supplementing the statutory implementation. 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 the revenue from what has already been held by the Coordinate Bench. 18. 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 Section 144B of the Act, 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 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.” 4. Keeping in vi aforesaid terms. The observations and order passed above shall apply mutandis to the present case. Accordingly, notice issued by the Jurisdictional 2024 (O&M) Page 2 of 3 mandatorily. By exercising the powers contained in 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 satisfaction and convenience causing hardship to the assessees. It also leaves confusion in the minds of the taxpayers. In the opinion of this Court, instructions and circulars can be issued only for the purpose of supplementing the statutory provisions and for their implementation. 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 the revenue from what 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 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. 19. The respondents-revenue would b 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 aforesaid terms. The observations and order passed above shall apply to the present case. Accordingly, notice issued by the Jurisdictional mandatorily. By exercising the powers contained in 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 satisfaction and convenience causing hardship to the assessees. It also leaves confusion in the minds of the taxpayers. In the opinion of this Court, instructions and circulars can be issued only for the purpose of provisions and for their 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 the revenue from what has already been held by the Coordinate Bench. 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 Section 144B 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 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 allow this Writ Petition in the aforesaid terms. The observations and order passed above shall apply mutatis to the present case. Accordingly, notice issued by the Jurisdictional this Writ Petition in the mutatis to the present case. Accordingly, notice issued by the Jurisdictional Suresh Kumar 2024.09.13 16:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-23391-2024 (O&M) Assessing Officer u/s 148 dated consequential proceedings are set aside. 5. All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly. September 13 Ess Kay Whether speaking / reasoned Whether Reportable 2024 (O&M) Page 3 of 3 Assessing Officer u/s 148 dated 30.08.2024 consequential proceedings are set aside. All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly. [SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA September 13, 2024 [SANJAY VASHISTH Whether speaking / reasoned : Yes Whether Reportable : Yes 30.08.2024 (Annexure P-1), and All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA] JUDGE SANJAY VASHISTH] JUDGE Yes / No Yes / No , and Suresh Kumar 2024.09.13 16:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document "