GURNAM SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/11259/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01062431202525 April 2025Bench: MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition 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 cases, the writ petitions were allowed on similar issues. The Co-ordinate Bench had granted liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly, if so advised. Therefore, the present writ petition was disposed of in a similar manner, acknowledging the precedent set by the earlier judgments. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition in terms of the cited judgments, implying that the revenue would have to re-initiate proceedings correctly if they chose to do so. No specific issue was left undecided; the court followed established precedent.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Gurnam Singh, challenged several orders and notices issued by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 2 (2), Ropar, and others for Assessment Year 2019-2020. These included a notice dated 26.03.2023 under Section 148, an assessment order dated 04.03.2024 under Section 147 read with Section 144B, a demand notice dated 04.03.2024 under Section 156, and penalty orders dated 17.09.2024 and 19.09.2024 under Sections 270A and 272A(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner also challenged all consequential actions. 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.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 26.03.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent assessment, demand, and penalty orders for AY 2019-2020 are invalid on the grounds that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction, in light of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022 granting exclusive power to the NFAC to issue such notices? (Question of law and fact, turning on Section 148 and CBDT Circular dated 29.03.2022). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the issuing authority had no jurisdiction to issue the impugned notices and orders, citing the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022 which stipulated that the NFAC has exclusive power to issue notices under Section 148. The petitioner relied on the judgments of a Co-ordinate Bench 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 contentions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 147,Section 144B,Section 156,Section 270A,Section 272A(1)(d)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-11259-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 129

CWP-11259-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-25.04.2025 Gurnam Singh ....Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2 (2), Ropar and ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL 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 respondents. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the instant writ petition is to notice dated 26.03.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “Act 1961”) ; assessment order dated 04.03.2024 issued under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Act, 1961; demand notice dated 04.03.2024 issued under Section 156 of the Act, 1961 and penalty orders dated 17.09.2024 and 19.09.2024 issued under Section 270 A and 272 A (1) (d) of the Act, 1961 and all consequential actions, 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 Gaurav Arora 2025.05.01 15:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-11259-2025 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 26.03.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 ; assessment order dated 04.03.2024 issued under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Act, 1961; demand notice dated 04.03.2024 issued under Section 156 of the Act, 1961 and penalty orders dated 17.09.2024 and 19.09.2024 issued under Section 270 A and 272 A (1) (d) of the Act, 1961 and all consequential actions, for AY 2019-2020, 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. (LISA GILL) (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE JUDGE 25.04.2025

Gaurav Arora Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.05.01 15:03 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 →