TILAK RAI vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/1241/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01007531202518 January 2025Bench: MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the writ petition, disposing of it in terms of previous judgments by a co-ordinate bench in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others (CWP No. 15745-2024, decided on 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others (CWP No. 21509-2023, decided on 29.07.2024). In those cases, the writ petitions were allowed on similar grounds concerning the jurisdiction for issuing Section 148 notices, with liberty granted to the revenue to follow the prescribed procedure under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if advised. The reasoning is based on the established precedent that the issuing authority lacked the requisite jurisdiction as per the relevant circulars.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Tilak Rai, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated 13.02.2024 under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, an order dated 09.03.2024 under Section 148A(d), and a notice dated 11.03.2024 under Section 148 of the Act, all pertaining to Assessment Year 2020-2021. The petitioner's primary contention was that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction, citing a CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022 which allegedly vested exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices with the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC). The respondent-Union of India did not dispute this contention.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 13.02.2024 issued under Section 148A(b), the order dated 09.03.2024 under Section 148A(d), and the notice dated 11.03.2024 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2020-2021, are invalid on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction by the issuing authority, in light of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022. (Question of law) Assessee's contention: The issuing authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the impugned notices and order because the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022 specifically grants exclusive power to the NFAC to issue notices under Section 148 of the Act, 1961. Revenue's contention: The revenue did not dispute the assessee's contention.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A(b),Section 148A(d),Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-1241-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 104 CWP-1241-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-18.01.2025 Tilak Rai

....Petitioner Vs. Union of India & ors.

...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. M.R. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal, Sr. Standing counsel with Mr. V. Vedika Rao, Advocate for the respondent-Union of India. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the instant writ petition is to notice dated 13.02.2024 issued under Section 148 A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”) and order dated 09.03.2024 issued under Section 148 A (d) of the Act, 1961 and notice dated 11.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 , for AY 2020-2021. 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 2025.01.23 11:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-1241-2025 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 13.02.2024 issued under Section 148 A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”) and order dated 09.03.2024 issued under Section 148 A (d) of the Act, 1961 and notice dated 11.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 , for AY 2020-2021, 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. (ARUN PALLI) (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE JUDGE 18.01.2025

Gaurav Arora

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.01.23 11:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

More judgments on Section 148A(b)

All 524 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148A(b) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →