MUKESH JAIN V. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND OTHERS

CWP/28306/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Mukesh Jain, the petitioner, against the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and others, concerning the legality of notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The core issue was whether the circulars and instructions issued by the tax authorities could override statutory provisions related to tax assessments. The court referenced previous decisions in similar cases, notably Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India, which had established that such circulars could not make statutory provisions otiose or obsolete. The court's decision reinforced the principle that legislative enactments with financial implications must be adhered to strictly, and any deviation by the authorities could lead to confusion and hardship for the assessees.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 748607 (HC-CHANDIGARH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 19-10-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others, Jatinder Singh Bhangu 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: Circulars; Faceless assessment; Income Tax; Jurisdiction; Statutory provisions
• Section: 148; 119; 144B; 120

Judgement Text

"CWP-28306-2024 114 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT MUKESH JAIN ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE Present: Mr Mr. Yogesh Putney, Mr. for the respondents/Revenue. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) 1. Notice of motion. 2. Mr. Yogesh Putney respondents/Revenue 3. Both the counsel are petition stands finally No.21509 of 2023 titled as Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others decided on 29.07.2024, No.15745 of 2024 tit 2024 (O&M) Page 1 of 3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH MUKESH JAIN Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 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. Yogesh Putney, Sr. Standing Counsel respondents/Revenue. Both the counsel are ad idem that the issue involved in the 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 No.15745 of 2024 titled as Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-28306-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 19.10.2024 . . . . Petitioner INCOME TAX AND OTHERS . . . . Respondents HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA SANJAY VASHISTH , Advocate for the petitioner. Sr. Standing Counsel with Vaibhav Gupta, Standing Counsel SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) Sr. Standing Counsel accepts notice on behalf of that the issue involved in the present examined and concluded by this Court in CWP No.21509 of 2023 titled as Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others, and by the Coordinate Bench in CWP led as Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India (O&M) .2024 Petitioner . . . . Respondents notice on behalf of that the issue involved in the present CWP , CWP led as Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India MOHIT GOYAL 2024.10.22 09:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-28306-2024 and others held as under: by the Coordinate Bench and hold that such circular or instructions by the Bo 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 11 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. and circulars can be issued only for the purpose of supplementing the statutory provisions and for their implementation. no occasion to distinguish or take a diff suggested by the learned counsel for the revenue from what has already been held by the Coordinate Bench. 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 A provisions of the Act, 1961 and accordingly notices 2024 (O&M) Page 2 of 3 and others, decided on 19.07.2024. This Court in 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 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 diff 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 , decided on 19.07.2024. This Court in Jasjit Singh (supra) We are in agreement with the view taken by the Coordinate Bench and hold that such circular or ard 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 9 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 In the opinion of this Court, instructions and circulars can be issued only for the purpose of supplementing the statutory provisions and for their 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 ct, 1961, have been found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act, 1961 and accordingly notices (supra) MOHIT GOYAL 2024.10.22 09:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-28306-2024 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. at liberty to follow the procedure as laid down under the Act, 1961 and proceed accordingly, if so advised. interim order passed by the Court shall stand merged with the present order.” 4. Keeping terms. The observations and order passed above shall apply mutandis 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. October 19, 2024 Mohit goyal 1. Whether speaking/reasoned? 2. Whether reportable? 2024 (O&M) Page 3 of 3 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 wou 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, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer as well as the consequential proceedings are set aside. All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly. (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA , 2024 1. Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No 2. Whether reportable? Yes/No dated 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2024 and 30.03.2023 and order dated 30.03.2023, are set aside 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 this Writ Petition in the aforesaid terms. The observations and order passed above shall apply mutatis Accordingly, notice dated 31.08.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer as well as the consequential 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 .2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer as well as the consequential MOHIT GOYAL 2024.10.22 09:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document "