HARPAL SINGH vs. CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/1386/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01008367202520 January 2025Bench: MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the issue raised in 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 similar grounds, with liberty granted to the revenue to follow the prescribed procedure under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if advised. Consequently, the present writ petition was disposed of in terms of these prior judgments. The operative direction was to dispose of the writ petition in terms of the cited precedents, implying the quashing of the impugned notice and granting the petitioner liberty to seek appropriate remedies if the revenue chose to re-initiate proceedings following the correct procedure. No specific issue was left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Harpal Singh, challenged a notice dated 05.04.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2016-2017. The challenge was based on the ground that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction, citing 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 revenue, represented by the Union of India, did not dispute the petitioner's contention regarding the applicability of prior judgments.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 05.04.2023, 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. (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and CBDT Circular/Notification dated 29.03.2022). Assessee's contention: The issuing authority had no jurisdiction to issue the notice under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, as 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 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 revenue 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-1386-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 131 CWP-1386-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-20.01.2025 Harpal 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”) 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. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the Gaurav Arora 2025.01.24 14:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-1386-2025 2 whole records of the case. 5. The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 05.04.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 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 20.01.2025

Gaurav Arora

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.01.24 14:18 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 →