SHYAM NARAIN THROUGH LR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3), FARIDABAD AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/12583/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01070777202505 May 2025Bench: MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that the issue raised in the present writ petition was covered by previous judgments of a Co-ordinate Bench in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case and Jasjit Singh's case. In those cases, the writ petitions were allowed, granting liberty to the revenue to follow the prescribed procedure under the Act, 1961, if so advised. Since the present case also involved a pending appeal before the Appellate Authority, the High Court disposed of the writ petition with a specific direction to the Appellate Authority to decide the petitioner's appeal in line with the aforementioned judgments. The operative direction was to decide the pending appeal based on the precedent. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Shyam Narain, through his legal representative Deepak Singhal, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated March 30, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and all consequential actions for Assessment Year 2019-2020. The petitioner argued that the notice was invalid based on a CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022, which stipulated that the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) has exclusive power to issue such notices. The petitioner also stated that an appeal was pending before the Appellate Authority. The respondents, Income Tax Officer, Ward 2 (3), Faridabad & ors., did not dispute the petitioner's contentions.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated March 30, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2019-2020, is valid, considering the CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022, which vests exclusive power to issue such notices with the NFAC? (Question of law). Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the notice is invalid as it was not issued by the NFAC, contrary to the CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022. The petitioner relied on the judgments 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), which dealt with similar issues. The petitioner also noted that an appeal was pending before the Appellate Authority. Revenue's Contentions: 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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-12583-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 168 CWP-12583-2025(O&M) Date of Decision:-05.05.2025 Shyam Narain through legal representative Deepak Singhal ....Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2 (3), Faridabad & ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Kartik Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Varun Issar, Sr. Standing counsel for the respondents. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the present petition is to notice dated 30.03.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘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.Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner has preferred an appeal and the same is pending before the Appellate Authority. 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 Gaurav Arora 2025.05.07 14:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-12583-2025 2 whole records of the case. 5. The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 30.03.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and all consequential actions, for AY 2019-2020, 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. Since in the present case, the appeal is pending before the Appellate Authority, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal of the petitioner, in terms of the judgments mentioned above. 8. All the pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (LISA GILL)

(SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE JUDGE 05.05.2025

Gaurav Arora Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.05.07 14:39 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 →