JASBIR BHALLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/1218/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01007225202517 January 2025Bench: MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

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 vs. Union of India and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India. These prior judgments had allowed similar writ petitions 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 precedent set by the co-ordinate benches in the cited cases, which addressed the jurisdictional issue concerning the issuance of Section 148 notices in light of the relevant CBDT circular. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition in line with these precedents, implying that the impugned notice was likely vitiated by lack of jurisdiction as argued by the petitioner.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Jasbir Bhalla, challenged an order dated 22.03.2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2020-2021. The petitioner argued that the issuing authority, the Income Tax Officer Ward 7(1), Ludhiana, lacked jurisdiction. This contention was based on a CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022, which allegedly vests exclusive power to issue such notices with the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC). The revenue, represented by the Union of India, did not dispute the petitioner's submission regarding the applicability of previous judgments.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the order dated 22.03.2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2020-2021, is without jurisdiction, in light of the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022, which purportedly grants exclusive power to the NFAC to issue such notices? Assessee's contention: The petitioner argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which designates the NFAC as having exclusive power to issue notices under Section 148. The petitioner relied on judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India. Revenue's contention: The learned counsel for the Union of India did not dispute the petitioner's submissions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-1218-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 135 CWP-1218-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-17.01.2025 Jasbir Bhalla ....Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 7 (1), Ludhiana & ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Mukul Pampher and Ms. Kajal Garg, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Varun Issar, Sr. Standing counsel for the respondent-Union of India. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the instant writ petition is to order dated 22.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘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 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. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the Gaurav Arora 2025.01.21 14:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-1218-2025 2 whole records of the case. 5. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 22.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 issued by respondent No. 1, for AY 2020-2021, 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 →