UJJAL SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/3660/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01019317202518 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 previous judgments by a Co-ordinate Bench in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others (CWP No. 15745-2024, decided on 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others (CWP No. 21509-2023, decided on 29.07.2024). In those cases, the writ petitions were allowed on similar grounds, with liberty granted to the revenue to follow the prescribed procedure under the Act if advised. The reasoning implicitly accepts the petitioner's argument regarding the lack of jurisdiction of the issuing officer based on the CBDT circular. The operative direction is to dispose of the petition in line with the cited precedents, which involved quashing the notices and allowing the revenue to proceed afresh if they choose to do so following the correct procedure.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Ujjal Singh, challenged a notice dated 31.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2017-2018. 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/notification dated 29.03.2022, which purportedly grants exclusive power to the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) to issue such notices. The revenue, represented by the Union of India, did not dispute this contention. The High Court perused the records and heard the parties.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), Ludhiana, had the jurisdiction to issue a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2017-2018, in light of the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022. Assessee's contention: The petitioner argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction as the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022 vests the exclusive power to issue notices under Section 148 with the NFAC. Revenue's contention: The revenue 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-3660-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-3660-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-18.02.2025 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, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Sr. Standing counsel for Ms.Muskan Gupta, Advocate for the respondent. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the instant writ petition is to notice dated 31.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “Act 1961”) for AY 2017-2018. 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. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the Gaurav Arora 2025.02.25 14:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-3660-2025 2 whole records of the case. 5. The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 31.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 for AY 2017-2018 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 18.02.2025

Gaurav Arora

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.02.25 14:32 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 →