SURESH KUMAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/10164/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01056304202508 April 2025Bench: MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the present writ petition is disposed of in terms of the judgments passed by a Co-ordinate Bench 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. In those cases, the writ petitions were allowed on similar issues, with liberty granted to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if so advised. The reasoning implicitly accepts the assessee's contention regarding the lack of jurisdiction of the issuing authority based on the cited precedents. The operative direction is to dispose of the writ petition in terms of the aforementioned judgments, which implies quashing the impugned notices and orders, subject to the revenue's right to re-initiate proceedings correctly. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Suresh Kumar, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated 29.03.2024 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, an assessment order dated 04.03.2025 under Section 147, a demand notice dated 04.03.2025 under Section 156, and a penalty show cause notice dated 04.03.2025 under Section 271 AAC (1), all pertaining to Assessment Year 2022-2023. The petitioner's primary contention was that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022, which allegedly vested exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices with the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC). The respondents, represented by the Income Tax Officer and others, did not dispute the petitioner's submissions.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 29.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the assessment order dated 04.03.2025 under Section 147, the demand notice dated 04.03.2025 under Section 156, and the penalty show cause notice dated 04.03.2025 under Section 271 AAC (1) for AY 2022-2023 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 and fact, concerning Section 148, Section 147, Section 156, Section 271 AAC (1), and CBDT Circular/Notification dated 29.03.2022). Assessee's Contention: The issuing authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the impugned notices and orders because the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022 specifically grants exclusive power to the NFAC to issue notices under Section 148 of the Act, 1961. 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 learned counsel for the Union of India did not dispute the petitioner's submissions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 147,Section 156,Section 271 AAC (1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-10164-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 169 CWP-10164-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-08.04.2025 Suresh Kumar

....Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3, Pkl. & 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. Muskan Gupta, Advocate for the respondent. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the instant writ petition is to notice dated 29.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “Act 1961”); impugned assessment order dated 04.03.2025 issued under Section 147 of the Act, 1961; notice of demand dated 04.03.2025 issued under Section 156 of the Act, 1961; penalty show cause notice 04.03.2025 issued under Section 271 AAC (1) of the Act, 1961 and 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. Gaurav Arora 2025.04.10 16:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-10164-2025 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 29.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961; impugned assessment order dated 04.03.2025 issued under Section 147 of the Act, 1961; notice of demand dated 04.03.2025 issued under Section 156 of the Act, 1961; penalty show cause notice 04.03.2025 issued under Section 271 AAC (1) of the Act, 1961 and 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 16:07 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 →