UJJAL SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/3656/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01019276202513 February 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 writ petitions on similar issues, 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 petitioner's argument that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which was not disputed by the revenue. The ratio decidendi is that if a Section 148 notice is issued by an authority without the requisite jurisdiction as per prevailing circulars, such a notice can be quashed, with liberty to the revenue to issue a fresh notice following the correct procedure. The operative direction was to dispose of the writ petition in terms of the cited precedents.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Ujjal Singh, challenged a notice dated 29.08.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2018-2019. The notice was issued by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), Ludhiana. The petitioner argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which allegedly vested exclusive power to issue such notices in the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC). The revenue, represented by the Union of India, did not dispute the petitioner's contention regarding the applicability of prior judgments.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 29.08.2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2018-2019, is without jurisdiction, considering the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022 which purportedly grants exclusive power to the NFAC to issue such notices? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 148 of the Act). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the Income Tax Officer lacked jurisdiction to issue the Section 148 notice, relying on the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which allegedly states that the NFAC has exclusive power. The petitioner cited 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) as covering the present issue. Revenue's Contention: The revenue 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-3656-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 122 CWP-3656-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-13.02.2025 Ujjal Singh ....Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), Ludhiana & ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Vishav Bharti Gupta, Advocates for the petitioner Mr. Varun Issar, Standing counsel for Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Sr. Standing counsel for the respondent-Union of India. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the instant writ petition is to notice dated 29.08.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “Act 1961”) 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 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-3656-2025 2 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole records of the case. 5. The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 29.08.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 for AY 2018-2019 issued by respondent No. 1, on the ground that he 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 →