JOGINDER SINGH V. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

CWP/31344/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Joginder Singh, the petitioner, against the Union of India and others, the respondents. The core issue was the legality of notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without conducting a faceless assessment as required under Section 144B of the Act. The petitioner challenged the notices and proceedings initiated by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. The court referenced and followed the precedents set in similar cases, particularly Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others, and Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others, which had conclusively addressed the issue. The court emphasized that instructions and circulars could only supplement statutory provisions and not override them.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 687627 (HC-CHANDIGARH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 21-11-2024
• 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: NAVDEEP MONGA
• Keywords: Circulars; Faceless assessment; Income Tax; Jurisdiction; Notices; Statutory provisions
• Section: 148; 119; 144B; 120

Judgement Text

" (O&M) 1 112 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-31344-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 21.11.2024 JOGINDER SINGH ....Petitioner Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ....Respondents **** CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH **** Present: Mr. Navdeep Monga, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Yogesh Putney, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Standing Counsel for the respondents/Revenue. **** SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) 1 Notice of motion. 2 Mr. Yogesh Putney, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Standing Counsel accepts notice on behalf of respondents/Revenue. 3. Both the counsel are 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, 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, decided on 19.07.2024. This Court in Jasjit Singh (supra) held as under: “16. We are in agreement with the view taken by the KUMUD VERMA 2024.11.22 15:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh (O&M) 2 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 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 KUMUD VERMA 2024.11.22 15:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh (O&M) 3 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 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 dated 28.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer as well as the consequential proceedings are set aside. 5. All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly. (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE 21.11.2024 kv 1. Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No 2. Whether reportable? Yes/No KUMUD VERMA 2024.11.22 15:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh "