HARJIT SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/814/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01005035202515 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 and Jasjit Singh's case. The reasoning was based on the established precedent set by a Co-ordinate Bench of the same High Court, which had allowed similar writ petitions on the same issue. The Court followed the principle that if a CBDT circular specifies that the NFAC has exclusive power to issue notices under Section 148, then any notice issued by an authority other than the NFAC would be without jurisdiction. The operative direction was to grant liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure as laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly, if so advised. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Harjit Singh, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated 22.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, 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 revenue, represented by the Union of India, did not dispute the petitioner's contention regarding the applicability of previous judgments.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 22.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2020-2021 is without jurisdiction, in light of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022. (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the notice was issued without jurisdiction as the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022 vests the exclusive power to issue notices under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, with the NFAC. The petitioner relied on the judgments of a Co-ordinate Bench 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 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-814-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 125 CWP-814-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-15.01.2025 Harjit Singh ....Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. B.M. Monga, Advocate and Mr. Rohit Kaura, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Sr. Standing counsel with Ms. Pridhi Sandhu, Jr. Standing counsel and Ms. Muskan Gupta, Advocate for the respondent-Union of India. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the instant writ petition is to notice dated 22.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘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 2025.01.21 14:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-814-2025 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 22.03.2024 under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 for AY 2020-21, 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 15.01.2025

Gaurav Arora

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.01.21 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 →