RAMAN GUPTA AND SONS HUF THROUGH ITS KARTA SH RAMAN GUPTA V. INCOME TAX OFFICER

CWP/25734/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Raman Gupta and Sons HUF challenging the actions of the Income Tax Officer under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The core issue was the legality of notices and orders issued under Section 148 without conducting a faceless assessment as required under Section 144B. The petition was influenced by precedents set in similar cases, notably Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India, where it was held that such procedural lapses and the overriding of statutory provisions by circulars were not permissible. The court's decision reinforced the mandatory nature of legislative enactments with financial implications, rejecting any administrative convenience that undermines these laws.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 748813 (HC-MISC)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 03-10-2024
• 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: Applicant
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: SAURABH KAPOOR
• Assessee Lawyers: AMIT KAUSHIK
• Keywords: Assessment; Circulars; Income Tax; Instructions; Jurisdiction
• Section: 148; 119; 144B; 120

Judgement Text

"CWP-25734-2024 145 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT Raman Gupta and Sons HUF Income Tax Officer CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE Present: Mr Mr. for the respondents SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) 1. Notice of motion. 2. Mr. Saurabh Kapoor 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 titled as Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others held as under: 2024 Page 1 of 3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Raman Gupta and Sons HUF Vs. Income Tax Officer and another **** HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH **** Mr.Amit Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Saurabh Kapoor,Sr. Standing Counsel for the respondents/Revenue. **** SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) Notice of motion. Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, 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 and others, decided on 19.07.2024. This Court in held as under: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-25734-2024 Date of Decision:03.10.2024 . . . . Petitioner . . . . Respondents HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA SANJAY VASHISTH Advocate for the petitioner. 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 No.15745 of 2024 titled as Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India , decided on 19.07.2024. This Court in Jasjit Singh (supra) 2024 :03.10.2024 Petitioner . . . . Respondents accepts notice on behalf of that the issue involved in the present CWP , CWP No.15745 of 2024 titled as Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India (supra) RASHMI 2024.10.03 16:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-25734-2024 by the Coordinate Bench and hold that such circular or instructions by the Board could not have been issued to override statutory 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 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 circu supplementing the statutory provisions and for their implementation. no occasion to distinguish or take a different view as suggested by the learned counsel for th 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 conducti 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 s for want of jurisdiction. 2024 Page 2 of 3 “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 different view as suggested by the learned counsel for th 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 conducti 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 s for want of jurisdiction. 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 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 & 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 lars 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 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 RASHMI 2024.10.03 16:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-25734-2024 at liberty to follow the procedure as laid down under the Act, 1961 and proceed accordingly, if so advised. interim order passed with the present order.” 4. Keeping in view above, terms. The observations and order passed above shall apply mutandis Jurisdictional Assessing Officer 31.08.2024(P 5. All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly. October 03, 2024 rashmi 1. Whether speaking/reasoned? 2. Whether reportable? 2024 Page 3 of 3 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 mutandis to the present case. Accordingly, urisdictional Assessing Officer 31.08.2024(P-1) as well as the consequential proceedings All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly. (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA , 2024 1. Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No 2. Whether reportable? Yes/No 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 by the Court shall stand merged this Writ Petition in the aforesaid terms. The observations and order passed above shall apply mutatis Accordingly, notices issued by under Section 148 dated consequential proceedings are 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 mutatis issued by 148 dated RASHMI 2024.10.03 16:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document "