PARAMJIT SINGH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CWP/2476/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01015273202530 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 and Jasjit Singh’s case. These prior judgments had allowed similar writ petitions on the same issue, finding that the notices issued under Section 148 were invalid due to lack of jurisdiction by the issuing authority, contrary to the CBDT circular. The Court granted 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 established precedent from co-ordinate benches of the same High Court, which the revenue did not contest. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition in line with these precedents, implying the quashing of the impugned notices and proceedings, with a possibility for the revenue to initiate fresh proceedings following the correct procedure.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Paramjit Singh, challenged notices dated 29.03.2023 and 12.01.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with consequential proceedings for Assessment Year 2019-2020. The challenge was based on the contention that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which stipulated that the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) has exclusive power to issue such notices. The respondent was the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Officer, Central Circle-I, Ludhiana. The matter was heard by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notices dated 29.03.2023 and 12.01.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2019-2020 are invalid on the grounds that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction? The petitioner argued that the notices were invalid because the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022 vests the exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices with the NFAC, and the issuing officer in this case was not the NFAC. The petitioner relied on judgments from a co-ordinate bench of the High Court in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India. The revenue, represented by learned counsel, did not dispute the petitioner's contentions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-2476-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 125 CWP-2476-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-30.01.2025 Paramjit Singh ....Petitioner Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Officer, ...Respondent Central Circle-I, Ludhiana CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. S.K. Mukhi, Advocate with Mr. Iqbal Roshan, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Varun Issar, Sr. Standing counsel and Ms. Pridhi Sandhu, Jr. Standing counsel for the respondent-Union of India. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the instant writ petition is to notices dated 29.03.2023 and 12.01.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”) and conseuqential proceedings, for AY 2019-2020. 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 Gaurav Arora 2025.02.05 14:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-2476-2025 2 disputed the same. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole records of the case. 5. The petitioner has challenged the notices dated 29.03.2023 and 12.01.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and conseuqential proceedings, for AY 2019-2020, 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 30.01.2025

Gaurav Arora

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.02.05 14:00 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 →