BALJEET SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/11261/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01062468202525 April 2025Bench: MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the writ petition. The Court noted that the issue raised by the petitioner was identical to the issues decided in the cases of Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh, decided by a Co-ordinate Bench of the same High Court on July 19, 2024, and July 29, 2024, respectively. In those cases, the writ petitions were allowed, and liberty was granted to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if advised. Following these precedents, the present writ petition was disposed of in terms of the aforementioned judgments. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition in terms of the cited judgments, implying the quashing of the impugned notices and orders with liberty to the revenue to re-initiate proceedings if permissible under law. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Baljeet Singh, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated March 29, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Also challenged were the assessment order dated January 16, 2024, issued under Section 147 read with Section 144, a demand notice dated January 16, 2024, and penalty orders dated July 3, 2024, under Section 271 AAC (1) and 272 A (1)(d) of the Act. These actions pertained to Assessment Year 2019-2020. The core of the challenge was that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022, which purportedly vested exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices with the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC). The respondents are the Income Tax Officer, Ward 5, Patiala, and others.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated March 29, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the consequential assessment, demand, and penalty orders for AY 2019-2020 are invalid on the grounds that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction, in view of the CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022, which allegedly grants exclusive power to the NFAC to issue such notices? (Question of law). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the issuing authority had no jurisdiction to issue the impugned notice and subsequent orders because the CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022, specifically states that the NFAC has exclusive power to issue notices under Section 148 of the Act, 1961. The petitioner relied on the judgments of a Co-ordinate Bench of the High Court 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 appearing 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 144,Section 271 AAC (1),Section 272 A (1) (d)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-11261-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 130

CWP-11261-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-25.04.2025 Baljeet Singh ....Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5, Patiala 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 29.03.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “Act 1961”) ; assessment order dated 16.01.2024 issued under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Act, 1961; demand notice dated 16.01.2024 and penalty orders dated 03.07.2024 issued under Section 271 AAC (1) 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-11261-2025 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 29.03.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961; assessment order dated 16.01.2024 issued under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Act, 1961; demand notice dated 16.01.2024 and penalty orders dated 03.07.2024 issued under Section 271 AAC (1) 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 →