MAHESH KUMAR, JAGROAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/1634/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01009168202522 January 2025Bench: MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the issue raised by the petitioner was covered by previous judgments of a co-ordinate bench in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case and Jasjit Singh's case. In those cases, writ petitions were allowed on similar grounds, granting liberty to the revenue to follow the prescribed procedure under the Income Tax Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if advised. Consequently, the present writ petition was disposed of in terms of these prior decisions. The court did not decide on the merits of the reassessment proceedings themselves but rather on the procedural challenge concerning jurisdiction. All pending applications were also disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Mahesh Kumar, challenged an order dated 14.02.2024 under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, a notice dated 14.02.2024 under Section 148 of the Act, and an order dated 02.01.2025, all pertaining to Assessment Year 2017-2018. The petitioner argued 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 Income Tax Officer and Union of India, were represented. The High Court considered the submissions of both parties.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the issuing authority had the jurisdiction to issue the order dated 14.02.2024 under Section 148A(d) and the notice dated 14.02.2024 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2017-2018, in light of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022. (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022 specifically grants the NFAC exclusive power to issue notices under Section 148, and therefore, the issuing authority in this case lacked jurisdiction. The petitioner relied on the judgments of a co-ordinate bench in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others. Revenue's Contention: The learned counsel for the Union of India did not dispute the petitioner's contention regarding the applicability of the cited judgments.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-1634-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 125 CWP-1634-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-22.01.2025 Mahesh Kumar, Jagron ....Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 Jagraon and ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Rajiv Sharma, 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 14.02.2024 issued under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”); notice dated 14.02.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and order dated 02.01.2025, for AY 2017-2018. 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-1634-2025 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 14.02.2024 issued under Section 148A(d) of the Act, 1961; notice dated 14.02.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and order dated 02.01.2025, for AY 2017-2018, 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 22.01.2025

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 148A

All 3,543 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →