MOHAN SINGH vs. CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/1247/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01007535202518 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 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case (decided on 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh's case (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 procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if so advised. The reasoning was based on the lack of jurisdiction of the issuing authority to issue the notice under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, in view of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which designated the NFAC with exclusive power. The ratio decidendi is that notices issued under Section 148 by authorities other than the NFAC, post the CBDT circular, are without jurisdiction. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition in terms of the aforementioned judgments, with liberty to the revenue to proceed as advised after following the correct procedure.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Mohan Singh, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated 05.04.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings for Assessment Year 2016-2017. The petitioner argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which vested exclusive power to issue such notices in the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC). The respondents, including the CBDT and Union of India, were represented. The counsel for the respondents did not dispute the petitioner's contention.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 05.04.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings for AY 2016-2017 are liable to be quashed on the ground that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction, in view of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022 vesting exclusive power in the NFAC. Assessee's contention: The issuing authority had no jurisdiction to issue the notice under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, as per the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which specifically states that the NFAC has exclusive power for issuing such notices. The petitioner relies on the judgments 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-1247-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 108 CWP-1247-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-18.01.2025 Mohan Singh ....Petitioner Vs. C.B.D.T, New Delhi & ors.

...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr.Divya Suri, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Sr. Standing counsel with Ms. Muskan Gupta, Advocate for the respondent-Union of India. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the instant writ petition is to notice dated 05.04.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”) and conseuqential proceedings, 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 2025.01.23 11:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-1247-2025 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 05.04.2023 issued under Section 148 of theAct, 1961 and conseuqential proceedings, for AY 2016-2017, on the ground that the Issuing Authority 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 18.01.2025

Gaurav Arora

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.01.23 11:53 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 →