YOGESH SAGAR V. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

CWP/26114/2024

AI Insights

The case involves a challenge to the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. The petitioner, Yogesh Sagar, contested the validity of the notice and the subsequent proceedings, arguing that they were not in accordance with the statutory provisions. The court referenced previous decisions in similar cases, particularly CWP No.21509 of 2023 and CWP No.15745 of 2024, which had established that such circulars or instructions could not override statutory provisions. The court's decision reinforced the principle that legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed strictly and mandatorily, and any deviation by the authorities in issuing notices or conducting assessments must be justified within the framework of the law.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 748753 (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: SAURABH KAPOOR; PRIDHI SANDHU
• Assessee Lawyers: EKAKSHRA MAHAJAN
• Keywords: Circulars; Faceless assessment; Income Tax; Jurisdiction; Statutory provisions
• Section: 148; 119; 144B; 120

Judgement Text

"175 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Yogesh Sagar Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH HON’BLE MR. JUSTIC Present Mr. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) 1. Notice of motion. 2. Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Pridhi Sandhu, Jr. Standing Counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the revenue. 3. Learned counsel for the parties are issue involved in the present petition stands finally examined and concluded by this Court India and others CWP No.15745 of 2024 titled as Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others, decided on 19.07.2024. This Court in 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 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP Date of Decision: Yogesh Sagar Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK JAIN Mr. Ekakshra Mahajan, Advocate for the *** SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) Notice of motion. Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Sr. Standing Counsel Pridhi Sandhu, Jr. Standing Counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the revenue. Learned counsel for the parties are 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 others, decided on 29.07.2024, 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 “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 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-26114-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 04.10.2024 …Petitioner …Respondent HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA ALOK JAIN , Advocate for the petitioner. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) Sr. Standing Counsel along with Ms. Pridhi Sandhu, Jr. Standing Counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the revenue. Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that the substantial issue involved in the present petition stands finally examined and concluded CWP No.21509 of 2023 titled as Jasjit Singh vs. Union of , decided on 29.07.2024, 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) held as “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 along with Ms. that the substantial issue involved in the present petition stands finally examined and concluded CWP No.21509 of 2023 titled as Jasjit Singh vs. Union of , decided on 29.07.2024, and by the Coordinate Bench in CWP No.15745 of 2024 titled as Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India (supra) held as “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 RAJESH KUMAR 2024.10.14 11:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. [2] CWP-26114-2024 (O&M) 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 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. RAJESH KUMAR 2024.10.14 11:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. [3] CWP-26114-2024 (O&M) 20. All the writ petitions are allowed. The interim order passed by the Court shall stand merged with the present order.” 4. Keeping in view above, we allow this Writ Petition in the aforesaid terms. The observations and order passed above shall apply mutatis mutandis to the present case. Accordingly, notice issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, dated 22.03.2024 and all consequential proceedings are set aside. 5. All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly. (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE (ALOK JAIN) JUDGE 04.10.2024 rajesh 1. Whether speaking/reasoned? : Yes/No 2. Whether reportable? : Yes/No RAJESH KUMAR 2024.10.14 11:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. "