HARJINDER SINGH SIDHU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2 LUDHIANA

PDF · subscribers
CWP/31636/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01163129202413 February 2025Bench: MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the present writ petition is disposed of in terms of the judgments passed by a Co-ordinate Bench in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case (decided on July 19, 2024) and Jasjit Singh's case (decided on July 29, 2024). In those cases, the writ petitions were allowed on the same issue, with liberty granted to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if so advised. The reasoning is based on the precedent set by the Co-ordinate Bench on the identical issue concerning the jurisdiction for issuing Section 148 notices. The operative direction is to dispose of the writ petition in terms of the aforementioned judgments, implying the quashing of the impugned notice and proceedings, subject to the revenue's right to re-initiate if the proper procedure is followed.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Harjinder Singh Sidhu, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated March 27, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings for Assessment Year 2015-2016. The petitioner contended that the authority issuing the notice lacked jurisdiction, citing a CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022, which allegedly grants exclusive power to the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) to issue such notices. The respondent, Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Officer, Central Circle-2, Ludhiana, did not dispute the petitioner's contention regarding the applicability of previous judgments.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated March 27, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2015-2016 is invalid due to lack of jurisdiction by the issuing authority, in light of the CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022, which purportedly vests exclusive power in the NFAC to issue such notices? (Question of law) Assessee's contention: The issuing authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the notice under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, as per the CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022, which designates the NFAC with exclusive power. The assessee relies on the judgments 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 revenue's counsel 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-31636-2024 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 106 CWP-31636-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision:-13.02.2025 Harjinder Singh Sidhu ....Petitioner Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Officer, ...Respondent Central Circle-2, 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. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the instant writ petition is to notice dated 27.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”) and conseuqential proceedings, for AY 2015-2016. 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 2025.02.18 15:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-31636-2024 2 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole records of the case. 5. The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 27.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and consequential proceedings, for AY 2015-2016, 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 13.02.2025

Gaurav Arora

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.02.18 15:43 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 →