SURINDER SINGH HAYER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/10552/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01057489202509 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 and Jasjit Singh's case. In those cited cases, the writ petitions were allowed on similar issues, granting liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if so advised. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's argument regarding the lack of jurisdiction of the issuing authority due to the CBDT circular, which the revenue did not contest. The ratio decidendi is that notices issued under Section 148 by authorities other than the NFAC, when the CBDT circular vests exclusive power in the NFAC, are without jurisdiction. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition in terms of the aforementioned precedents, implying the quashing of the impugned notices and order, with liberty to the revenue to re-initiate proceedings correctly.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Surinder Singh Hayer, challenged several notices and an order issued by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3), Abohar, and other respondents for Assessment Year 2020-2021. These included a notice under Section 148, an order under Section 147, a demand notice under Section 156, and notices under Sections 271AAC(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 purportedly granted exclusive power to the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) to issue Section 148 notices. The revenue did not dispute the petitioner's contention.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 29.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential actions for AY 2020-2021 are invalid due to lack of jurisdiction by the issuing authority, in light of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022. (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the impugned notices and order, as the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022 specifically enumerated that the NFAC has exclusive power to issue notices under Section 148 of the Act, 1961. The petitioner relied on 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 contention.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 147,Section 156,Section 271AAC(1),Section 270A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-10552-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 193

CWP-10552-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-09.04.2025 Surinder Singh Hayer ....Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2 (3), Abohar & ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Nikhil Goyal and Mr. Yash Gilhotra, Advocates, for the petitioner. Mrs. Urvashi Dhugga, Sr. Standing counsel for the respondent. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the present petition is to notice dated 29.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”); order dated 29.03.2025 issued under Section 147 of the Act, 1961; demand notice dated 29.03.2025 issued under Section 156 of the Act, 1961; notice dated 30.03.2025 issued under Section 271 AAC (1) of the Act, 1961; notice dated 29.03.2025 issued under Section 270A 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 Gaurav Arora 2025.04.10 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-10552-2025 2 disputed 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 29.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961; order dated 29.03.2025 issued under Section 147 of the Act, 1961; demand notice dated 29.03.2025 issued under Section 156 of the Act, 1961; notice dated 30.03.2025 issued under Section 271 AAC (1) of the Act, 1961; notice dated 29.03.2025 issued under Section 270A 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 →