SANDEEP SHARMA V. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

CWP/31485/2024

AI Insights

The case involves multiple writ petitions challenging the notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which were found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act as they were not preceded by the faceless assessment required under Section 144B. The petitioners argued that the circulars and instructions issued by the Board were being used to override statutory provisions, which is not permissible. The court referenced previous decisions in similar cases, notably Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India, where it was held that such circulars could not make statutory provisions obsolete. The court's decision reinforced the principle that legislative enactments with financial implications must be adhered to strictly.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 688244 (HC-MISC)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 22-11-2024
• 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
• Assessee Lawyers: MANPREET KANDA; DEEPINDER SINGH
• Keywords: Circulars and Instructions; Faceless assessment; Financial Implications; Jurisdiction; Statutory provisions
• Section: 148; 119; 144B; 120

Judgement Text

"CWP-31485-2024 111 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT SANDEEP SHARMA UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE Present: Mr Mr. for the petitioner. M for the SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) 1. Notice of motion. 2. Mr. Saurabh Kapoor respondent/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 2024 (O&M) Page 1 of 3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH SANDEEP SHARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS **** HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH **** Mr. Manpreet Singh Kanda, Advocate Mr. Deepinder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Sr. Standing for the respondents/Revenue. **** SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) Notice of motion. r. Saurabh Kapoor, Sr. Standing Counsel respondent/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-31485-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 22.11.2024 . . . . Petitioner . . . . Respondents HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA SANJAY VASHISTH Advocate Sr. 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 (O&M) .2024 Petitioner s 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 MOHIT GOYAL 2024.11.22 11:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-31485-2024 and others held as under: by the Coordinate Bench and hold that such circular o 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 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 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. no occasion to di 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 1 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. 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 o 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 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 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 , 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 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 17. In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is stinguish 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 48 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 2023, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2024 and (supra) MOHIT GOYAL 2024.11.22 11:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-31485-2024 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 interim order passed by the Court shall stand merged with the present order.” 4. Keeping in view above, terms. The observations and order passed above shall apply mutandis issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by Jurisdictional Assessing Offi proceedings are set aside. 5. All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly. November 22, 2024 Mohit goyal 1. Whether speaking/reasoned? 2. Whether reportable? 2024 (O&M) Page 3 of 3 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 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 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 27.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by cer 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 cer as well as the consequential MOHIT GOYAL 2024.11.22 11:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document "