RAJESH SHARMA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD NO 1 PANIPAT AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/1392/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01008324202520 January 2025Bench: MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

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 (decided on 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh's case (decided on 29.07.2024). These earlier judgments had allowed writ petitions on similar issues, granting liberty to the revenue to follow the prescribed procedure under the Income Tax Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if advised. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's argument regarding the exclusive jurisdiction of the NFAC to issue Section 148 notices as per the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which the revenue did not contest. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition in line with the precedents, implying the quashing of the impugned notice and consequential proceedings, with liberty to the revenue to re-initiate if they chose to follow the correct procedure.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Rajesh Sharma, challenged a notice dated 19.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings for Assessment Year 2020-2021. The challenge was based on the contention that the issuing authority, Income Tax Officer, Ward-I, Panipat, lacked jurisdiction. The petitioner argued that a CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022 vested exclusive power to issue such notices with the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC). The revenue, represented by the Union of India, did not dispute this contention.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 19.03.2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2020-2021, is invalid due to lack of jurisdiction of the issuing authority, in light of the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022, which allegedly grants exclusive power to the NFAC to issue such notices? Assessee's contention: The petitioner argued that the notice was issued without jurisdiction by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-I, Panipat, as per the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022, which stipulates that the NFAC has exclusive power to issue notices under Section 148 of the Act. The petitioner relied on the judgments of a Co-ordinate Bench 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 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-1392-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 133 CWP-1392-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-20.01.2025 Rajesh Sharma ....Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-I, Panipat & ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Ms.Divya Arora and Mr. Amit Kaushik, 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 19.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”) and conseuqential proceedings, 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 2025.01.23 12:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-1392-2025 2 whole records of the case. 5. The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 19.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and conseuqential proceedings, for AY 2020-2021 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 20.01.2025

Gaurav Arora

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.01.23 12:05 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 →