BALJIT SINGH V. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

CWP/21638/2024

AI Insights

The case involves a challenge to the notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Sections 148A(d) and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner contested the jurisdiction and the procedural validity of these notices. The court referenced previous decisions in similar cases, particularly Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India, which held that administrative circulars cannot override statutory laws. The court found that the notices and subsequent proceedings did not comply with the statutory requirements for faceless assessments as mandated under Section 144B of the Act.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 749427 (HC-MISC)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 31-08-2024
• 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: URVASHI DHUGGA
• Assessee Lawyers: ROHIT KAURA
• Keywords: Circulars; Faceless assessment; Income Tax; Jurisdiction; Notices; Statutory provisions
• Section: 148; 119; 144B; 148A(d); 120

Judgement Text

" CWP-21638-2024 (O&M) 111 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Baljit Singh Income Tax Officer CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH HON’BLE M Present Mr. Mr. Rohit Kaura, Advocate SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) 1. Notice of motion. 2. M behalf of the revenue. 3. Both the counsel are present petition stands finally examined and concluded by this Court in 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 “16. We are in agreement with the view taken by 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 [1] 2024 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP Date of Decision: 31 Vs. Officer and others HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE RITU TAGOR Mr. B.M. Monga, Advocate and Mr. Rohit Kaura, Advocate for the petitioner. *** SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) Notice of motion. Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Sr. Standing Counsel behalf of the revenue. Both the counsel are ad idem present petition stands finally examined and concluded by this Court in No.21509 of 2023 titled as Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others cided 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 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 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-21638-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 31.08.2024 …Petitioner …Respondents HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA RITU TAGORE for the petitioner. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) Sr. Standing Counsel accepts notice on ad idem that the issue involved in the 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, cided 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 accepts notice on that the issue involved in the CWP , CWP No.15745 of , 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 RAJESH KUMAR 2024.09.03 09:36 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. [2] CWP-21638-2024 (O&M) financial implications are required to be followed strictly and 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 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 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.” RAJESH KUMAR 2024.09.03 09:36 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. [3] CWP-21638-2024 (O&M) 4. Keeping in view above, we allow this Writ Petition in the aforesaid terms. The observations and order passed above shall apply mutatis mutandis to the present case. Accordingly, notice issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148A(d) dated 23.03.2024 and under Section 148 dated 23.03.2024 and consequential proceedings are set aside. 5. All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly. (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE (RITU TAGORE) JUDGE 31.08.2024 rajesh 1. Whether speaking/reasoned? : Yes/No 2. Whether reportable? : Yes/No RAJESH KUMAR 2024.09.03 09:36 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. "