SATISH KUMAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/1102/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01006729202517 January 2025Bench: MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh disposed of the writ petition in terms of its previous judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India. In those cases, the Court had allowed writ petitions 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 contention that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which was not disputed by the revenue. The operative direction was to dispose of the writ petition in line with the precedents, allowing the revenue to re-initiate proceedings if they chose to do so after following the correct procedure.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Satish Kumar, challenged a notice dated 09.03.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2019-2020. The challenge was directed against the Income Tax Officer, Ward-I, Jind. The petitioner argued 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 respondent-Union of India did not dispute this contention. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh considered the matter.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 09.03.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2019-2020 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? Assessee's contention: The petitioner argued that the Income Tax Officer lacked jurisdiction to issue the notice under Section 148, relying on the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which purportedly states that the NFAC has exclusive power. The petitioner cited the judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India as covering the present issue. 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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-1102-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 114 CWP-1102-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-17.01.2025 Satish Kumar ....Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-I, Jind & ors.

...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Vishav Bharti Gupta and Mr. Ubhai Bharti Gupta, Advocates for the petitioner Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal, Sr. Standing counsel with Mr. V. Vedika Rao, Advocate (Through VC) for the respondent-Union of India. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the instant writ petition is to notice dated 09.03.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”), for AY 2019-2020. 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 2025.01.21 14:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-1102-2025 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 09.03.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”), for AY 2019-2020 issued by respondent No. 1, 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. (ARUN PALLI) (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE JUDGE 16.01.2025

Gaurav Arora

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.01.21 14:32 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 →