M/S SKYAMA INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, LUDHIANA

PDF · subscribers
CWP/32195/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01166535202413 February 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 its previous judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case and Jasjit Singh's case, both decided on July 19, 2024, and July 29, 2024, respectively. In those cases, the Court had allowed similar writ petitions on the same issue, granting 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 of co-ordinate benches dealing with the jurisdictional issue arising from the CBDT circular concerning the NFAC's exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition in terms of the cited judgments, implying the quashing of the impugned notice and consequential proceedings, with a liberty to the revenue to re-initiate the process correctly.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s Skyama Infra Pvt. Ltd., 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 2018-2019. The petitioner argued that the authority issuing the notice lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022, which purportedly grants exclusive power to the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) to issue such notices. The respondent-department did not dispute this contention. The High Court considered its previous judgments on similar issues.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated March 27, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings for AY 2018-2019 are liable to be quashed on the ground that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction in view of the CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022, which allegedly vests exclusive power with the NFAC to issue such notices? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and CBDT Circular dated 29.03.2022). Assessee's Contention: The issuing authority had no jurisdiction to issue the notice under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, as per the CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022, which states that the NFAC has exclusive power to issue such notices. The petitioner relied 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 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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-32195-2024 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 106 CWP-32195-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision:-13.02.2025 M/s Skyama Infra Pvt. Ltd. ....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 (Through VC) for the petitioner Mr. Varun Issar, Sr. Standing counsel and Ms. Pridhi Sandhu, Jr. Standing counsel for the respondent-department. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. C.M. No. 2300-2025 Application is allowed as prayed for. Accordingly, reply filed on behalf of the respondent, is taken on record. CWP No. 32195-2024 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 2018-2019. 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 Gaurav Arora 2025.02.18 15:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-32195-2024 2 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. 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 2018-2019, 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 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →