SARDAR JEWELLERS vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DCIT/ACIT

PDF · subscribers
CWP/2717/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01015844202531 January 2025Bench: MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

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 vs. Union of India and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India. In those cited cases, a Co-ordinate Bench had allowed similar writ petitions on the same issue. The reasoning was that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the Section 148 notices in view of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which stipulated that the NFAC has exclusive power. The Court granted liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly, if so advised. No specific amount in dispute was recorded. The operative direction was to grant liberty to the revenue to re-initiate proceedings if they chose to do so following the correct procedure.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Sardar Jewellers, filed a writ petition challenging notices dated 12.01.2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2020-2021. The petitioner argued that the notices were issued without jurisdiction by the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-I, Ludhiana. The basis for this challenge was a CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022, which allegedly vested exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices with the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC). The respondent, Union of India, represented by the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, did not dispute the petitioner's contention regarding the applicability of previous judgments.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notices dated 12.01.2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2020-2021, are without jurisdiction, considering the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022 which allegedly grants exclusive power to the NFAC to issue such notices? Assessee's contention: The petitioner argued that the notices were issued by an authority lacking jurisdiction, relying on the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which purportedly states that the NFAC has exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices. The petitioner cited the judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India as covering the present issue. 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 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-2717-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 123 CWP-2717-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-31.01.2025 Sardar Jewellers ....Petitioner Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-I, Ludhiana ...Respondent 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 with 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 12.01.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”) and consequential 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. Gaurav Arora 2025.02.05 16:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-2717-2025 2 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole records of the case. 5. The petitioner has challenged the notices dated 12.01.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and consequential proceedings, for AY 2020-2021, 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 31.01.2025

Gaurav Arora

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.02.05 16:17 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 →