MOHAN LAL SHARMA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/456/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01000216202513 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's case (decided on 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh's case (decided on 29.07.2024). The reasoning was that a Co-ordinate Bench of the same Court had previously allowed writ petitions on the identical issue raised by the petitioner. In those prior cases, liberty was granted to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if so advised. The operative direction was to dispose of the present writ petition in line with these precedents. The Court noted that the revenue did not dispute the petitioner's submissions.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Mohan Lal Sharma, challenged a notice dated 23.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and an order dated 23.03.2024 issued under Section 148A(d) of the Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2020-2021. The challenge was based on the ground that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction. The petitioner argued that a CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022 stipulated that the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) has exclusive power to issue such notices. The respondents, including the Income Tax Officer and Union of India, were represented. The High Court considered the arguments and the case records.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 23.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the order dated 23.03.2024 issued under Section 148A(d) of the Act, 1961, for AY 2020-2021 are invalid due to lack of jurisdiction of the issuing authority, in light of the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022 vests exclusive power to issue notices under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, with the NFAC, and therefore, the issuing authority in this case lacked jurisdiction. The petitioner relied on the judgments of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court 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 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-456-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 129 CWP-456-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-13.01.2025 Mohan Lal Sharma ....Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4 Ambala & 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. Saurabh Kapoor, Sr. Standing counsel with Ms. Pridhi Sandhu, Jr. Standing counsel Ms. Muskan Gupta, Advocate for the respondent-Union of India. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the instant writ petition is to notice dated 23.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”) and order dated 23.03.2024 issued under Section 148A(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 Gaurav Arora 2025.01.22 12:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-456-2025 2 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 23.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and order dated 23.03.2024 issued under Section 148A(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 12:16 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 →