NIMRATDEEP SINGH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/10397/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01057116202509 April 2025Bench: MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the writ petition, disposing of it in terms of the judgments passed by a Co-ordinate Bench in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case (decided on 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh's case (decided on 29.07.2024). In those cited cases, the writ petitions were allowed on similar issues, with liberty granted to the revenue to follow the prescribed procedure under the Income Tax Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if advised. The reasoning implicitly accepted the petitioner's argument regarding the lack of jurisdiction of the issuing authority based on the CBDT circular. The ratio decidendi is that if notices under Section 148 are issued by an authority without the requisite jurisdiction as per prevailing circulars, such notices and consequential proceedings are liable to be quashed, with liberty to the revenue to initiate fresh proceedings following the correct procedure. All pending applications were also disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Nimratdeep Singh, challenged notices and orders issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1 (1), Chandigarh, for Assessment Year 2020-2021. These included a notice under Section 148, an order under Section 147, a demand notice under Section 156, and penalty notices under Sections 271 AAC (1) and 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The core of the challenge was that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which allegedly vested exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices with the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC). The revenue did not dispute the petitioner's contention.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 27.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings for AY 2020-2021 are invalid on the grounds that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction, as per the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which purportedly grants exclusive power to the NFAC to issue such notices? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 148 and the interpretation of the CBDT circular). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the notices and orders, relying on the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which allegedly states that the NFAC has exclusive power to issue notices under Section 148. The petitioner cited 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) as covering the present issue. Revenue's Contention: The 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,Section 156,Section 271 AAC (1),Section 270 A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-10397-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 171

CWP-10397-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-09.04.2025 NIMRATDEEP SINGH ....Petitioner Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, Circle 1 (1), Chd AND ORS

...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Gurminder Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Nikhil Goyal and Mr. Nitish Bansal, Advocates, for the petitioner. Mrs.Urvashi Dhugga, Standing counsel for the respondent. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the present petition is to notice dated 27.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”); order dated 23.03.2025 issued under Section 147 of the Act, 1961; demand notice dated 23.03.2025 issued under Section 156 of the Act, 1961; penalty notice dated 23.03.2025 issued under Section 271 AAC (1) of the Act, 1961; penalty notice dated 23.03.2025 issued under Section 270 A of the Act, 1961 and all consequential actions, 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 Gaurav Arora 2025.04.10 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-10397-2025 2 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 27.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961; order dated 23.03.2025 issued under Section 147 of the Act, 1961; demand notice dated 23.03.2025 issued under Section 156 of the Act, 1961; penalty notice dated 23.03.2025 issued under Section 271 AAC (1) of the Act, 1961; penalty notice dated 23.03.2025 issued under Section 270 A of the Act, 1961 and all consequential actions, 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 09.04.2025

Gaurav Arora Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.04.10 16:08 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 →