EMM EMM ASSOCIATES vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/5326/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01031020202525 February 2025Author: 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 the judgments 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). 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 is based on the precedent set by the co-ordinate benches. The operative direction is to dispose of the writ petition in terms of the aforementioned judgments, which implies quashing the impugned notice and order, with liberty to the revenue to re-initiate proceedings if permissible under law. Any pending applications were also disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Emm Emm Associate, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated 17.04.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and an order dated 17.04.2024 issued under Section 148A(d) of the Act, for Assessment Year 2017-2018. 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, represented by the Income Tax Officer and others, did not dispute the petitioner's contention regarding the applicability of prior judgments.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 17.04.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the order dated 17.04.2024 issued under Section 148A(d) of the Act, for AY 2017-2018, are without jurisdiction, in light of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022. (Question of law) Assessee's contention: The issuing authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the notice and order under challenge because 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 relies on 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). Revenue's contention: The revenue's counsel did not dispute the petitioner's submissions and the applicability of the cited precedents.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 148A(d)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-5326-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 154 CWP-5326-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-25.02.2025 Emm Emm Associate ....Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Chd. & ors.

...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Mukul Pampher and Ms. Kajal Garg, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Jr. Standing counsel for the respondent. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J.

1.

Challenge in the instant writ petition is to notice dated 17.04.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “Act 1961”) and order dated 17.04.2024 issued under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and all consequential proceedings, 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 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 2025.02.28 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-5326-2025 2

4.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole records of the case.

5.

The petitioner has challenged the otice dated 17.04.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and order dated 17.04.2024 issued under Section 148A(d) of the Act, 1961 and all consequential proceedings, for AY 2017-2018, 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 25.02.2025

Gaurav Arora

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.02.28 17:28 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 →