MADHUR SINGAL HUF vs. THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANOTHER

PDF · subscribers
CWP/12637/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01070848202505 May 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 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 issues, granting liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if so advised. The reasoning is based on the petitioner's contention that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which was not disputed by the revenue. The ratio decidendi is that if a Section 148 notice is issued without jurisdiction as per the prevailing circulars and judicial pronouncements, it can be quashed, with liberty to the revenue to re-initiate proceedings following the correct procedure. The operative direction is to dispose of the petition in terms of the aforementioned judgments.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Madhur Singal HUF, has filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated 31.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and all consequential actions for Assessment Year 2021-2022. The challenge is based on the contention that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which purportedly grants exclusive power to the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) to issue such notices. The respondents, Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Ludhiana, and another, are represented by the Senior Standing Counsel. The procedural history involves the issuance of the impugned notice and the subsequent filing of the writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 31.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2021-2022 is without jurisdiction, in light of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which allegedly vests exclusive power to issue such notices with the NFAC? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argues that the issuing authority had no jurisdiction to issue the Section 148 notice, relying on the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which specifies that the NFAC has exclusive power. The petitioner cites 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) as covering the present issue. Revenue's Contention: The learned counsel appearing for the Union of India did not dispute the petitioner's contention regarding the applicability of the cited judgments.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-12637-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 175

CWP-12637-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-05.05.2025 Madhur Singal HUF

....Petitioner Vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Ludhiana & anr. ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Rishabh Kapoor, Ms. Stuti SinglaAdvocates, for the petitioner. Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Sr. Standing counsel for the respondents. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the instant writ petition is to notice dated 31.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “Act 1961”) and all consequential actions, for AY 2021-2022. 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. 5. The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 31.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and all consequential actions, for AY Gaurav Arora 2025.05.07 14:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-12637-2025 2 2021-2022, 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 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 →