MK PROTIENS LIMITED V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, AMBALA

CWP/13330/2024

AI Insights

The case involves M.K. Proteins Ltd. challenging the actions of the Income Tax Officer, Ambala, under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The primary legal issue was the validity of notices and an order issued under Section 148, which were contested for not adhering to the procedural requirements of faceless assessment as mandated by Section 144B. The petitioner argued that the statutory provisions were overridden by circular instructions, causing hardship and confusion. The court referenced a previous decision in Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India, which held that such circular instructions cannot override statutory provisions. The court's decision in this case aligned with the precedent, setting aside the impugned notices and order.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 763851 (HC-MISC)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 13-08-2024
• 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: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: PRIDHI SANDHU
• Assessee Lawyers: ABHINAV NARANG; PARNIKA SINGLA
• Keywords: Circular instructions; Faceless assessment; Income Tax; Jurisdiction; Statutory provisions
• Section: 148; 119; 144B; 120

Judgement Text

"CWP-13330 of 2024 246-30 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT M.K. Proteins Ltd. Income Tax Officer, CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE Present: Mr. Abhinav Narang, Advocate and Ms. Parnika Singla, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Pridhi Sandhu, Jr. Standing Counsel for the respondents/Income Tax Department. 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 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 of 2024(O&M) Page 1 of 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH M.K. Proteins Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ambala and others **** HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH **** Mr. Abhinav Narang, Advocate and Ms. Parnika Singla, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Pridhi Sandhu, Jr. Standing Counsel for the respondents/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 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-13330-2024(O&M) Date of Decision: 13.08.2024 . . . . Petitioner . . . . Respondents HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA SANJAY VASHISTH Mr. Abhinav Narang, Advocate and Ms. Parnika Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Pridhi Sandhu, Jr. Standing Counsel for the respondents/Income Tax Department. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) that the issue involved in the present 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 . 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 20 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(O&M) .2024 Petitioner . . . . Respondents that the issue involved in the present passed by CWP No.21509 of 2023 titled as Jasjit Singh vs. Union , decided on 29.07.2024, wherein this Court held as RASHMI 2024.08.14 15:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-13330 of 2024 occasion to suggested by the learned counsel for has already been held by the Coordinate Coordinate Bench under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and the 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 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 order. 2. Keeping in view above, we The observations and order passed above shall apply the present c 28.03.2024 3. All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly. August 13, 2024 Rashmi 1. Whether speaking/reasoned? 2. Whether reportable? of 2024(O&M) 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 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 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 the present case. Accordingly, notice under Section 148 28.03.2024(P-2) and all consequential proceedin All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly. (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA , 2024 1. Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No 2. Whether reportable? Yes/No . 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, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2024 and 30.03.2023 and order dated 30.03.2023, are set aside for want of jurisdiction. venue would be, however, at liberty to follow the procedure as laid down under the Act, 1961 and proceed accordingly, if so advised. . 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 mutandis to ase. Accordingly, notice under Section 148 dated 2) and all 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 terms. to dated RASHMI 2024.08.14 15:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document "