JASBRINDER SINGH TEJA V. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

CWP/21243/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Jasbrinder Singh Teja, the petitioner, against the Income Tax Officer, Chandigarh, and others, respondents. The core issue was the legality of notices and orders issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without conducting a faceless assessment as required under Section 144B. The petitioner challenged these actions, arguing they were contrary to the statutory provisions. The High Court referenced a previous judgment in CWP No.21509 of 2023, which had set a precedent on similar issues, leading to the decision in favor of the petitioner.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 766317 (HC-MISC)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 29-08-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: YOGESH PUTNEY; VAIBHAV GUPTA
• Assessee Lawyers: NIKHIL GOYAL
• Keywords: Circular instructions; Faceless assessment; Jurisdiction; Statutory provisions; Usurpation of legal provisions
• Section: 148; 119; 144B; 120

Judgement Text

"CWP-21243 of 2024 135 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT Jasbrinder Singh Teja Income Tax Officer, Chandigarh CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE Present: Mr Mr. Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Standing Counsel for the SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) 1. Notice 2. Mr. Yogesh Putney, Sr. respondents/Revenue present petition stands covered by the judgment passed by 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 under: “ Coordinate instructions by the Board could not have override statutory provisions obsolete. Legislative enactments having followed strictly and mandatorily. By exercising the powers contained Section 144B (7 & 8), the usurp the legal provisions to their own convenie of 2024(O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Jasbrinder Singh Teja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Chandigarh and others **** HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH **** Mr. Nikhil Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Yogesh Putney, Sr. Standing Counsel Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Standing Counsel for the respondents/Revenue. **** SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) Notice of motion. Mr. Yogesh Putney, Sr. Standing Counsel respondents/Revenue and fairly states that the issue involved in the present petition stands covered by the judgment passed by this Court in CWP No.21509 of 2023 titled as Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and , decided on 29.07.2024, wherein this Court 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 override statutory provisions or to make them otiose or obsolete. Legislative enactments having 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 Page 1 of 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-21243-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 29.08.2024 . . . . Petitioner . . . . Respondents HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA SANJAY VASHISTH for the petitioner. Standing Counsel and Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Standing Counsel SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) Standing Counsel accepts notice on behalf of and fairly states that the issue involved in the present petition stands covered by the judgment passed by this Court in CWP No.21509 of 2023 titled as Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and , decided on 29.07.2024, wherein this Court held as under: 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 or to make them otiose or obsolete. Legislative enactments having financial be followed strictly and mandatorily. By exercising the powers Sections 119 and 120 of the Act, 1961 as well as authorities cannot be allowed to usurp the legal provisions to their own satisfaction and nce causing hardship to the assessees. It also (O&M) .2024 Petitioner accepts notice on behalf of and fairly states that the issue involved in the present petition stands covered by the judgment passed by this Court in CWP No.21509 of 2023 titled as Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and RASHMI 2024.08.29 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-21243 of 2024 leaves and 17 occasion to suggested by the learned counsel for has already been held by the Coordinate Bench. 18. Coordinate Bench under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and the 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 30.03.2023, are set aside for want of jurisdiction. 19 liberty to follow the procedure as laid down under the Act, 1961 and proceed accordingly, if so advised. 20 passed by the Court shall stand merged with the present order. 3. Keeping in view above, we terms. The observations and order passed above shall apply mutandis (Annexure P 4. All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly. August 29, 2024 Rashmi 1. Whether speaking/reasoned? 2. Whether reportable? of 2024(O&M) leaves confusion in the minds of the taxpayers and supplementing the statutory provisions and 17. In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no occasion to distinguish or take a different view 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 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.” 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, (Annexure P-2) and consequential proceedings All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly. (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA , 2024 1. Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No 2. Whether reportable? Yes/No Page 2 of 2 confusion in the minds of the taxpayers instructions supplementing the statutory provisions and 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 has already been held by the Coordinate Bench. 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, 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. rit petitions are allowed. The interim order passed by the Court shall stand merged with the present this Writ Petition in the aforesaid terms. The observations and order passed above shall apply mutatis Accordingly, notice dated 14.03.2024 consequential proceedings are hereby 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 14.03.2024 RASHMI 2024.08.29 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document "