MAHINDER JUNEJA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD NO 1 PANIPAT AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/113/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01001012202509 January 2025Bench: MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh held that the present writ petition was covered by the judgments of a Co-ordinate Bench in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case and Jasjit Singh's case. In those cases, the writ petitions were allowed on the same issue raised in the present petition. The Court granted liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly, if so advised. Consequently, the present writ petition was disposed of in terms of these prior judgments. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition in terms of the cited precedents, implying the quashing of the notices and allowing the revenue to re-initiate proceedings if they chose to follow the correct procedure. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Mahinder Juneja, challenged notices dated 20.04.2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2019-2020. The challenge was directed against the Income Tax Officer, Ward-I, Panipat, and other respondents. The petitioner argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022, which purportedly granted exclusive power to the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) to issue such notices. The revenue, through its counsel, did not dispute this contention. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh heard the parties and perused the records.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Income Tax Officer, Ward-I, Panipat, had the jurisdiction to issue notices under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2019-2020, in light of the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022, which allegedly vests exclusive power in the NFAC to issue such notices? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 148 of the Act, 1961). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the issuing officer lacked jurisdiction due to the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022, which specifically enumerated that the NFAC has exclusive power to issue notices under Section 148 of the Act, 1961. The petitioner relied on the judgments of a Co-ordinate Bench of the same 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-113-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 122 CWP-113-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-09.01.2025 Mahinder Juneja ....Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-I, Panipat and ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Ms. Divya Arora, Ms. Ritu Jain and Mr. Amit Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioners. 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 notices dated 20.04.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”) for AY 2019-2020. 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 2025.01.15 12:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-113-2025 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 20.04.2023 under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 for AY 2019-20, 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 09.01.2025

Gaurav Arora

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.01.15 12:43 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 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →