SATISH KUMAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/1106/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01006895202517 January 2025Bench: MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the writ petition, disposing of it in terms of the judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case and Jasjit Singh's case. In those cited cases, a Co-ordinate Bench of the Court had allowed similar writ petitions on the same issue. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's contention that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022, which designated the NFAC with exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices. The operative direction in the cited cases, and thus in this case, was to grant liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure as laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly, if so advised. No specific issue was left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Satish Kumar, challenged a notice dated 30.03.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2016-2017. The notice was issued by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-I, Jind. The petitioner argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022, which purportedly vested exclusive power to issue such notices in the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC). The respondents, including the Union of India, did not dispute the petitioner's contention regarding the applicability of previous judgments.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 30.03.2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2016-2017, is invalid due to lack of jurisdiction of the issuing authority, in light of the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the Income Tax Officer, Ward-I, Jind, had no jurisdiction to issue the Section 148 notice because the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022 specifically grants exclusive power to the NFAC for issuing such notices. The petitioner relied on the judgments of this Court in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others (CWP No. 15745-2024) and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others (CWP No. 21509-2023). Revenue's Contention: The learned counsel appearing for the Union of India did not dispute the petitioner's contention.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-1106-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 116 CWP-1106-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-17.01.2025 Satish Kumar ....Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-I, Jind & ors.

...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Vishav Bharti Gupta and Mr. Ubhai Bharti Gupta, Advocates for the petitioner Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal, Sr. Standing counsel with Mr. V. Vedika Rao, Advocate (Through VC) for the respondent-Union of India. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the instant writ petition is to notice dated 30.03.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”), for AY 2016-2017. 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 matter, decided on 19.07.2024 and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others (CWP No. 21509-2023 and other connected matters), decided on 29.07.2024 . 3. Learned counsel appearing for Union of India has also not disputed the same. Gaurav Arora 2025.01.21 14:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-1106-2025 2 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole records of the case. 5. The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 30.03.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, for AY 2016-2017 issued by respondent No. 1, on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to issue the same, in view of the circular/notification dated 29.03.2022 of the CBDT, wherein, it has been specifically enumerated that the NFAC has exclusive power to issue the notice under Section 148 of the Act, 1961. 6. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Jatinder Singh Bhangu’s case (supra) and Jasjit Singh’s case (supra), allowed the writ petitions on the same issue, as raised in the present writ petition, by granting liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure as laid down under the Act, 1961 and proceed accordingly, if so advised. 7. In view of the above, the present writ petition is disposed of, in terms of Jatinder Singh Bhangu’s case (supra), decided on 19.07.2024 and Jasjit Singh’s case (supra), decided on 29.07.2024 8. All the pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (ARUN PALLI) (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE JUDGE 17.01.2025

Gaurav Arora

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.01.21 14:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →