BAR COUNCIL OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/391/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01003240202513 January 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 vs. Union of India (decided on 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India (decided on 29.07.2024). These prior judgments had allowed similar writ petitions on the same issue, granting liberty to the revenue to follow the prescribed procedure under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if advised. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's contention that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which was not disputed by the revenue. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition in line with the cited precedents, implying the quashing of the impugned notice and order, with liberty to the revenue to re-initiate proceedings correctly. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated 21.02.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and an order dated 21.02.2024 issued under Section 148A(d) of the Act, for Assessment Year 2020-2021. The petitioner argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which purportedly grants exclusive power to the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) to issue such notices. The respondents, including the Income Tax Officer and Union of India, were represented by counsel. The High Court considered the arguments presented by both parties.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 21.02.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the order dated 21.02.2024 issued under Section 148A(d) of the Act, for AY 2020-2021, are invalid on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction by the issuing authority, in light of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022. (Question of law) Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the issuing authority had no jurisdiction to issue the notice and order under challenge. This contention was based on the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which allegedly stipulates that the NFAC has exclusive power to issue notices under Section 148 of the Act. The petitioner relied on judgments from a co-ordinate bench of the High Court in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India. Revenue's Contentions: The learned counsel appearing for the Union of India did not dispute the petitioner's contentions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 148A(d)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-391-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 116 CWP-391-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-13.01.2025 Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana ....Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer, Sector 17, Chd & ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. B.M. Monga, Mr. Rohit Kaura and Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocates for the petitioner Mr. Varun Issar, Sr. Standing counsel for the respondent-Union of India. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the instant writ petition is to notice dated 21.02.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”) and order dated 21.02.2024 issued under Section 148 A (d) of the Act, 1961, for AY 2020-2021. 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 2025.01.22 12:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-391-2025 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 21.02.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and order dated 21.02.2024 issued under Section 148 A (d) of the Act, 1961, for AY 2020-2021, 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 13.01.2025

Gaurav Arora

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.01.22 12:15 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 →