PRIYANKA BHATIA V. INCOME TAX OFFICER

CWP/26022/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Priyanka Bhatia, the petitioner, against the Income Tax Department, concerning the legality of notices and proceedings initiated under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court referenced previous decisions in similar cases (CWP No.21509 of 2023 and CWP No.15745 of 2024) where it was held that such notices and subsequent proceedings without conducting faceless assessments as required under Section 144B are contrary to the provisions of the Act. The court found that the circulars and instructions issued by the tax authorities could not override the statutory provisions, which are mandatory and must be adhered to strictly.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 748761 (HC-CHANDIGARH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 04-10-2024
• 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: GAURI RAMPAL
• Assessee Lawyers: VISHAV GUPTA; MAMTA GUPTA
• Keywords: Circulars and Instructions; Faceless assessment; Income Tax; Jurisdiction
• Section: 148; 119; 144B; 120

Judgement Text

"CWP-26022 144 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT Priyanka Bhatia Income Tax CORAM: Present: SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J. (Oral) 1. 2. notice on behalf of the respondents 3. 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 No.15745 of 2024 tit others, decided on 19.07.2024. This Court in under: -1- 26022-2024 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP Date of Decision:04.10.2024 Priyanka Bhatia Income Tax Officer and Ors. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK JAIN Mr. Vishav Bharti Gupta and Ms. Mamta Gupta, Advocates for the petitioner. Mr. Gauri Neo Rampal, Senior for the respondents-Income Tax Department. ***** SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J. (Oral) Notice of motion. Mr. Gauri Neo Rampal, Senior Standing Counsel ce on behalf of the respondents-Income Tax Department. Both the counsel are ad idem 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 , decided on 29.07.2024, and by the Coordinate Bench in No.15745 of 2024 titled as Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and , 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 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-26022-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision:04.10.2024 ..…...Petitioners (s) V/s. …......Respondent(s) HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK JAIN for the petitioner. Senior Standing Counsel Income Tax Department. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J. (Oral) Senior Standing Counsel, accepts Income Tax Department. 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 , decided on 29.07.2024, and by the Coordinate Bench in CWP led as Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and , decided on 19.07.2024. This Court in Jasjit Singh (supra) held as “16. We are in agreement with the view taken by the Coordinate Bench and hold that such circular or ..…...Petitioners (s) …......Respondent(s) , accepts 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 CWP led as Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and (supra) held as Manju 2024.10.15 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-26022 -2- 26022-2024 (O&M) 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 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. 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 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 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, 2024 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. Manju 2024.10.15 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-26022 4. aforesaid terms. The observations and order passed above shall apply mutatis mutandis Jurisdictional Assessing Officer u/s 148 and all consequential proceedings are set aside. 5. October 04, 2024. Manju Whether speaking / reasoned Whether Reportable -3- 26022-2024 (O&M) 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 aforesaid terms. The observations and order passed above shall apply mutatis mutandis to the present case. Accordingly, notice issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer u/s 148 dated and all consequential proceedings are set aside. All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly. [SANJEEV October 04, 2024. Whether speaking / reasoned : Whether Reportable : writ petitions are allowed. The interim order passed by the Court shall stand merged with allow this Writ Petition in the aforesaid terms. The observations and order passed above shall apply to the present case. Accordingly, notice issued by the dated 27.03.2024 (Annexure P-1) and all consequential proceedings are set aside. All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA] JUDGE [ALOK JAIN] JUDGE Yes / No Yes / No this Writ Petition in the aforesaid terms. The observations and order passed above shall apply to the present case. Accordingly, notice issued by the ) Manju 2024.10.15 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document "