RAVINDER SINGH SIDHU HUF vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/11317/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01063774202525 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, disposing of it in terms of the judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India. These prior judgments had allowed similar writ petitions on the same issue, which concerned the jurisdiction to issue notices under Section 148. The High Court granted 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 concession made by the revenue and the binding precedent of the Co-ordinate Bench. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition in terms of the earlier judgments, allowing the revenue to restart the process if they chose to do so.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Ravinder Singh Sidhu HUF, challenged a notice dated 28.03.2024 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, an assessment order dated 28.03.2025 under Section 147, a demand notice, and a penalty show cause notice, all pertaining to Assessment Year 2017-2018. The challenge was based on the assertion 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, represented by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 3, Khanna, and others, did not dispute the petitioner's contention.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the issuing authority had the jurisdiction to issue the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2017-2018, in light of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which allegedly vests exclusive power in the NFAC for such notices. Assessee's contention: The petitioner argued that the notice and subsequent orders were invalid as the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction, citing the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022. They relied on judgments from a Co-ordinate Bench of the High Court in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India. Revenue's contention: The revenue, through its counsel, did not dispute the petitioner's contentions and implicitly conceded that the issue was covered by the cited precedents.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-11317-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 149 CWP-11317-2025(O&M) Date of Decision:-25.04.2025 Ravinder Singh Sidhu HUF ....Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3, Khanna & ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Vishav Bharti Gupta, Advocate Ms. Mamta Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Sr. Standing counsel for the respondents. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the present petition is to notice dated 28.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”) ; assessment order dated 28.03.2025 issued under Section 147 of the Act, 1961; demand notice and penalty show cause notice dated 28.03.2025 and all consequential actions, for AY 2017-2018. 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 whole records of the case. Gaurav Arora 2025.05.01 14:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-11317-2025 2 5. The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 28.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961; assessment order dated 28.03.2025 issued under Section 147 of the Act, 1961; demand notice and penalty show cause notice dated 28.03.2025 and all consequential actions, for AY 2017- 2018 , 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 14:49 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 →