RUMIT KAUR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER

CWP/30443/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Rumit Kumar, the petitioner, against the Income Tax Officer and others, concerning the legality of notices and orders 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 of the Act. The court referenced two previous decisions, Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India, which had addressed similar issues. The court concluded that the instructions and circulars could only supplement statutory provisions and not override them, leading to the setting aside of the notices and orders in question.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 761781 (HC-MISC)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 12-11-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others, Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: RANVIJAYSINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: VISHAV GUPTA
• Keywords: Circulars; Faceless assessment; Income Tax; Jurisdiction; Statutory provisions
• Section: 148; 119; 144B; 120

Judgement Text

"CWP-30443-2024 115 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT Rumit Kumar Income Tax Officer and others CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE Present: Mr. Vishav Bharti Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. for the respondents SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) 1. Notice of motion. 2. Mr. Ranvijay Singh 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 Rumit Kumar Vs. Income Tax Officer and others **** HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH **** Mr. Vishav Bharti Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ranvijay Singh,Sr. Standing Counsel for the respondents/Revenue. **** SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) Notice of motion. Mr. Ranvijay Singh, 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-30443-2024 Date of Decision: 12.11.2024 . . . . Petitioner . . . . Respondents HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA SANJAY VASHISTH Mr. Vishav Bharti Gupta, 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 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 9.07.2024. This Court in Jasjit Singh (supra) 2024 12.11.2024 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 2024.11.13 17:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-30443-2024 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 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 author 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 issue supplementing the statutory provisions and for their implementation. no occasion to distinguish or take a different view as suggested by the learned counsel for the revenue from wh Coordinate Bench (supra), notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and the proceedings initiated thereafter without conducting the faceless a 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 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 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 author 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. 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 d 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 at 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 ssessment 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 2024.11.13 17:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-30443-2024 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 sha with the present order.” 4. Keeping in view above, terms. The observations and order passed above shall apply mutandis (Annexure P Section proceedings 5. All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly. November 12, 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 sha 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, (Annexure P-1) issued by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and proceedings thereof are set aside. All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly. (SANJEEV November 12, 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 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 24.03.2024 Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and 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 dated 24.03.2024 under consequential RASHMI 2024.11.13 17:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document "