Manjit Singh V. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

CWP/34235/2024

AI Insights

The case involves a writ petition filed by Manjit Singh against the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, challenging the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer in issuing a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court referenced previous decisions in similar cases, particularly CWP No.21509 of 2023 and CWP No.15745 of 2024, which had established that such circulars or instructions cannot override statutory provisions. The court found that the procedures followed in the present case were contrary to the statutory requirements, leading to the setting aside of the notice and any subsequent proceedings.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 681610 (HC-MISC)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 18-12-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India, Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: SAURABH KAPOOR; PRIDHI SANDHU
• Assessee Lawyers: S K MUKHI
• Keywords: Circulars; Faceless assessment; Income Tax; Jurisdiction; Statutory provisions
• Section: 148; 119; 144B; 120

Judgement Text

"113 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Manjit Singh Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE M Present: Mr. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) 1. Notice of motion. 2. Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Pridhi Sandhu, Jr. Standing 3. Learned counsel for the parties are issue involved in the present petition stands finally examined and concluded by this Court in India and others CWP No.15745 of 2024 titled as Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others, decided on 19.07.2024. This Court in under: “16. We ar 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 imp IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP Date of Decision: Manjit Singh Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHIST Mr. S.K. Mukhi, Advocate for the petitioner. *** SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) Notice of motion. Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Sr. Standing Counsel Pridhi Sandhu, Jr. Standing Counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the revenue. Learned counsel for the parties are issue involved in the present petition stands finally examined and concluded by this Court in CWP No.21509 of 2023 titled as Jasjit Si 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 , decided on 19.07.2024. This Court in “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 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-34235-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 18.12.2024 …Petitioner …Respondent HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA SANJAY VASHISTH Advocate for the petitioner. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) Sr. Standing Counsel along with Ms. , accepts notice on behalf of the revenue. Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that the substantial issue involved in the present petition stands finally examined and concluded CWP No.21509 of 2023 titled as Jasjit Singh vs. Union of , 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 , decided on 19.07.2024. This Court in Jasjit Singh (supra) held as e 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 lications are required to be followed strictly and . that the substantial issue involved in the present petition stands finally examined and concluded ngh vs. Union of , 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 (supra) held as e 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 lications are required to be followed strictly and RAJESH KUMAR 2024.12.19 12:36 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. [2] CWP-34235-2024 (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 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 2024.12.19 12:36 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. [3] CWP-34235-2024 (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 148 of the Income Tax Act, dated 10.01.2024 and all consequential proceedings are set aside. 5. All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly. (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE 18.12.2024 rajesh 1. Whether speaking/reasoned? : Yes/No 2. Whether reportable? : Yes/No RAJESH KUMAR 2024.12.19 12:36 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. "