PREMJIT SINGH JAGDEV vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/10127/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01056119202508 April 2025Bench: MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition in terms of the judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India. In those cases, a Co-ordinate Bench had allowed similar writ petitions on the same issue, which concerned the jurisdiction for issuing Section 148 notices. The relief granted in those precedents involved allowing the writ petitions and granting liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if so advised. The present judgment follows this precedent, effectively quashing the impugned notices and order on jurisdictional grounds, while permitting the revenue to re-initiate proceedings if they choose to comply with the prescribed legal procedures.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Premjit Singh Jagdev, challenged a notice dated 21.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, an assessment order dated 26.03.2025 under Section 147, a demand notice, and a penalty show cause notice, all pertaining to Assessment Year 2022-2023. The challenge was based on the assertion that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which purportedly granted exclusive power to the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) to issue Section 148 notices. The revenue, represented by learned Senior Standing Counsel, did not dispute the petitioner's contention.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 21.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the assessment order dated 26.03.2025 under Section 147, and consequential notices were invalid due to lack of jurisdiction of the issuing authority, in light of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022. Assessee's contention: The petitioner argued that the issuing authority had no jurisdiction to issue the impugned notices and orders, as the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022 specifically vested the exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices with the NFAC. The petitioner relied on the judgments of a Co-ordinate Bench in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India. Revenue's contention: The learned counsel for the Union of India did not dispute the petitioner's contention.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-10127-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 161 CWP-10127-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-08.04.2025 Premjit Singh Jagdev ....Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 6 (1), Ludhiana & ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Vishav Bharti Gupta, Advocate Ms. Uma Bharti, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Sr. Standing counsel for the respondent. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the present petition is to notice dated 21.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”); impugned assessment order dated 26.03.2025 issued under Section 147 of the Act, 1961, demand notice and penalty show cause notice dated 26.03.2025 and all consequential actions, for AY 2022-2023. 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 whole records of the case. Gaurav Arora 2025.04.10 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-10127-2025 2 5. The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 21.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961; impugned assessment order dated 26.03.2025 issued under Section 147 of the Act, 1961, demand notice and penalty show cause notice dated 26.03.2025 and all consequential actions, for AY 2022-2023 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 08.04.2025

Gaurav Arora

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.04.10 16:06 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 →