SIDHARTH KUMAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 PATHANKOT AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/10865/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01060249202522 April 2025Bench: MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, following the decisions of its Co-ordinate Benches in Jatinder Singh Bhangu’s case and Jasjit Singh’s case, allowed the writ petition. The Court found that the issue raised by the petitioner regarding the jurisdiction to issue the Section 148 notice, in view of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, was covered by the precedents. The ratio decidendi is that if a notice under Section 148 is issued by an authority other than the NFAC, contrary to the CBDT circular, it lacks jurisdiction. Consequently, the notice dated 28.03.2025 was quashed. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly, if so advised. No other issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Sidharth Kumar, challenged a notice dated 28.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2021-2022. The challenge was based on the contention 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 revenue, represented by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Pathankot & ors., did not dispute the petitioner's submissions.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 28.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2021-2022 is without jurisdiction, in light of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which allegedly vests exclusive power to issue such notices with the NFAC? (Question of law and fact) Assessee's contention: The petitioner argued that the notice was issued without jurisdiction, relying on the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which specifies that the NFAC has exclusive power to issue notices under Section 148 of the Act, 1961. 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 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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-10865-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 155 CWP-10865-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-22.04.2025 Sidharth Kumar ....Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Pathankot & ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Kartik Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Sr. Standing counsel for the respondent. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the instant writ petition is to notice dated 28.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “Act 1961”) for AY 2021-2022. 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 Gaurav Arora 2025.04.25 16:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-10865-2025 2 whole records of the case. 5. The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 28.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 for AY 2021-2022, on the ground that he 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. (LISA GILL) (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE JUDGE 22.04.2025

Gaurav Arora

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.04.25 16:25 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 →