VIJAY KUMAR vs. PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISIIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANR

PDF · subscribers
CWP/1618/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01009525202522 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's case (decided on 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh's case (decided on 29.07.2024). In those referred cases, the Co-ordinate Bench had allowed similar writ petitions on the same issue. The reasoning was that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the impugned notice and order under Section 148 and Section 148A(d) respectively, in view of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which stipulated that the NFAC has exclusive power in this regard. The judgments in the referred cases granted liberty to the revenue to follow the prescribed procedure under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if so advised. The operative direction was to dispose of the writ petition in terms of these precedents, implying that the impugned notice and order were quashed, with the possibility for the revenue to re-initiate proceedings correctly.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Vijay Kumar, challenged an order dated 06.04.2023 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and a notice dated 06.04.2023 under Section 148A(d) of the Act, for Assessment Year 2016-2017. The challenge was based on the assertion that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which purportedly vested exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices with the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC). The respondents, including the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax and the Union of India, were represented. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh heard the matter.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the issuing authority had the jurisdiction to issue the order dated 06.04.2023 under Section 148 and the notice dated 06.04.2023 under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2016-2017, in light of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022. (Question of law). Assessee's contention: The petitioner argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction because the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022 specifically states that the NFAC has exclusive power to issue notices under Section 148 of the Act, 1961. The petitioner relied on judgments from 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 for the Union of India did not dispute the petitioner's contention.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 148A(d)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-1618-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 124 CWP-1618-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-22.01.2025 Vijay Kumar

....Petitioner Vs. Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Sec 17E, Chd and anr.

...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Alok Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Sr. Standing counsel for the respondent-Union of India. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the instant writ petition is to order dated 06.04.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”) and notice dated 06.04.2023 issued under Section 148 A (d) of the 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. Gaurav Arora 2025.01.24 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-1618-2025 2 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole records of the case. 5. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 06.04.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and notice dated 06.04.2023 issued under Section 148 A (d) 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 13.01.2025

Gaurav Arora

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.01.24 10:51 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 →