MANDEEP SHARMA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

CWP/749/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01005009202515 January 2025Author: MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

Facts

The petitioner, Mandeep Sharma, challenged a notice dated 29.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and an order dated 29.03.2024 issued under Section 148A(d) of the Act, for Assessment Year 2020-2021. The petitioner argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which stipulated that the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) has exclusive power to issue such notices. The respondent-Union of India did not dispute this contention.

Held

The High Court allowed the writ petition, disposing of it in terms of previous judgments by a Co-ordinate Bench in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others (CWP No. 15745-2024, decided on 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others (CWP No. 21509-2023, decided on 29.07.2024). In those cases, the writ petitions were allowed on the same issue, granting liberty to the revenue to follow the prescribed procedure under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if advised. The reasoning was based on the established precedent that the NFAC has exclusive jurisdiction for issuing such notices as per the relevant circular. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition in line with the cited judgments, implying the quashing of the impugned notice and order, with liberty to the revenue to re-initiate proceedings correctly.

Key Issues

1. Whether the notice dated 29.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the order dated 29.03.2024 issued under Section 148A(d) of the Act, for AY 2020-2021, are invalid on the ground that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction in view of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which vests exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices in the NFAC? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 148 and 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's contention: The issuing authority had no jurisdiction to issue the notice and order as per the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which grants exclusive power to the NFAC. Revenue's contention: The revenue did not dispute the assessee's contention.

Sections Cited

Section 148, Section 148A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-749-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 119 CWP-749-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-15.01.2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. B.M. Monga, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Sr. Standing counsel with Ms. Pridhi Sandhu, Jr. Standing counsel and Ms. Muskan Gupta, Advocate for the respondent-Union of India. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J.

1.

Challenge in the instant writ petition is to notice dated 29.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”) and order dated 29.03.2024 issued under Section 148A(d) of the Act, 1961, for AY 2020-2021. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the issue involved in the present writ petition is covered by the judgment passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the cases of Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others, passed in CWP No. 15745-2024 and connected others (CWP No. 21509-2023 and other connected matters), de

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →