BALJIT SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1) AMRITSAR

PDF · subscribers
CWP/35181/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01181940202429 January 2025Bench: MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that a Co-ordinate Bench had previously allowed writ petitions on the same issue in the cases of Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India. In those cases, liberty was granted to the revenue to follow the prescribed procedure if so advised. Given that the petitioner's appeal was pending before the Appellate Authority, the High Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the Appellate Authority to decide the petitioner's appeal in terms of the aforementioned judgments. The court did not decide the merits of the jurisdictional challenge itself but directed the appellate authority to consider it in light of prior precedents.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Baljit Singh, challenged a notice dated March 31, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and a consequential order dated March 18, 2024, passed under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Act for Assessment Year 2016-2017. The challenge was based on the assertion that the Section 148 notice was issued without jurisdiction by the 'JAO' instead of the 'NFAC', as mandated by a CBDT circular/notification dated March 29, 2022. The petitioner also stated that an appeal against the order was pending before the Appellate Authority.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated March 31, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2016-2017, is without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed, considering it was issued by the 'JAO' instead of the 'NFAC' as per the CBDT notification dated March 29, 2022? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 148 of the Act, 1961). Assessee's contention: The notice under Section 148 was issued without jurisdiction by the 'JAO' and should have been issued by the 'NFAC' as per the CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022. The petitioner has preferred an appeal which is pending. Revenue's contention: The revenue did not dispute the petitioner's contention regarding the applicability of previous judgments.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 147,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-35181-2024 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 116

CWP-35181-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision:-29.01.2025 Baljit Singh

....Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Amritsar ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. S.K. Mukhi, Advocates for the petitioner. Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Sr. Standing counsel with Ms. Muskan Gupta, Advocate for the respondent-Union of India. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the present petition is to notice dated 31.03.2023 (P-2) issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”) and all consequential actions, as order dated 18.03.2024 issued under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Act, 1961, for A.Y 2016-2017, since the notice dated 31.03.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 was without jurisdiction and issued by ‘JAO’ instead of ‘NFAC’ . 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the issue involved in the above 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 Gaurav Arora 2025.02.05 13:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-35181-2024 2 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. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner has preferred an appeal and the same is pending before the Appellate Authority. 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 31.03.2023 (P-2) issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and consequential actions, as order dated 18.03.2024 issued under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Act, 1961, for A.Y 2016-2017, since the notice dated 31.03.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 was without jurisdiction and should be issued by ‘NFAC’ instead of ‘JAO’, 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. Since in the present case, the appeal is pending before the Appellate Authority, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Gaurav Arora 2025.02.05 13:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-35181-2024 3 Appellate Authority to decide the appeal of the petitioner, in terms of the judgments mentioned above. 8. All the pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (ARUN PALLI) (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE JUDGE 29.01.2025

Gaurav Arora Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.02.05 13:56 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 →