TAJINDER SINGH ALIAS TEJINDER SINGH V. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

CWP/21827/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Tajinder Singh @ Tejinder Singhh, the petitioner, challenging certain notices and proceedings initiated by the Income Tax Officer Ward 6(1) and others, the respondents. The primary legal contention revolves around the procedural adherence to the Income Tax Act, specifically concerning the issuance of notices under Section 148 without the requisite faceless assessment as mandated by Section 144B. The petitioner did not press other grounds in the petition, focusing instead on the procedural compliance highlighted in a related case, CWP-15745-2024, which set a precedent for the court's decision. The court's ruling aligns with the principles established in previous judgments, emphasizing the mandatory nature of legislative enactments with financial implications and the limited role of instructions and circulars in overriding statutory provisions.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 762066 (HC-CHANDIGARH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 02-09-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others, Jasjit Singh 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: NIKHIL GOYAL
• Keywords: Faceless assessment; Income Tax; Jurisdiction; Statutory provisions; Vires challenge
• Section: 148; 119; 144B; 120

Judgement Text

"CWP-21827-2024 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 122 CWP-21827-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 02.09.2024 Tajinder Singh @ Tejinder Singhh . . . . Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 6(1) and others . . . . Respondents **** CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH **** Present: Mr. Nikhil Goyal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Sr. Standing Counsel for the respondents/Revenue. **** SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) 1. Notice of motion. 2. Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Senior Standing Counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits so far as challenge to vires to explanation 2 (iv) to Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the same may be left open and the case of the petitioner can be disposed of in terms of judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench in CWP-15745- DINESH 2024.09.03 05:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-21827-2024 (O&M) -2- 2024, titled as Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others, decided on 19.07.2024. 4. Learned counsel submits that he does not press the other grounds in the present petition. 5. In CWP-21509-2023, titled as Jasjit Singh Vs. Union of India and Others and other bunch of petitions, decided by us on 29.07.2024, we have also concurred with the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench in CWP-15745-2024 (Supra) and 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 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 DINESH 2024.09.03 05:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-21827-2024 (O&M) -3- 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. 20. All the writ petitions are allowed. The interim order passed by the Court shall stand merged with the present order.” 6. In view thereof, the Writ Petition is allowed and proceedings/notice dated 24.03.2024 is set aside. The observations and order passed above shall apply mutatis mutandis to the present case. However, the respondents-revenue would be, however, at liberty to follow the procedure as laid down under the Income Tax Act, 1961 and proceed accordingly, if so advised. It is made clear that challenge to vires to explanation 2(iv) to Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is left open for proper adjudication. 7. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly. (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE September 02, 2024 dinesh 1. Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No 2. Whether reportable? Yes/No DINESH 2024.09.03 05:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document "