SHIV RAJ SINGH ALIAS SHIVRAJ SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/12639/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01069981202505 May 2025Bench: MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that a Co-ordinate Bench had previously allowed writ petitions on similar issues in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case and Jasjit Singh's case, granting liberty to the revenue to follow the prescribed procedure. In the present case, since an appeal was pending before the Appellate Authority, the High Court disposed of the writ petition. The Court directed the Appellate Authority to decide the petitioner's appeal in terms of the aforementioned judgments. The operative direction was to decide the pending appeal in light of the precedents. No specific issue was left undecided, as the matter was remitted to the Appellate Authority for decision on merits.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Shiv Raj Singh, challenged a notice dated 28.03.2024 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, an assessment order dated 28.01.2025 under Section 147, and a demand notice dated 28.01.2025 under Section 156, all pertaining to Assessment Year 2020-2021. The challenge was based on a CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which allegedly grants exclusive power to the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) to issue Section 148 notices. The petitioner also stated that an appeal was pending before the Appellate Authority. The respondents, including the Union of India, were represented.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 28.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is invalid, considering the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022 which purportedly vests exclusive power to issue such notices with the NFAC? (Question of law) Assessee's contention: The petitioner argued that the issue is covered by previous judgments of a Co-ordinate Bench of the High Court in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India. The petitioner also noted that an appeal was pending before the Appellate Authority. Revenue's contention: The learned counsel for the Union of India did not dispute the petitioner's submissions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 147,Section 156

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-12639-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 176

CWP-12639-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-05.05.2025 Shiv Raj Singh

....Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5, Yamuna Nagar & 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 Ms. Muskan Gupta, Advocate for the respondent-Union of India. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the instant writ 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 28.01.2025 issued under Section 147 of the Act, 1961; demand notice dated 28.01.2025 issued under Section 156 of the Act, 1961 and all consequential actions, 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. 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 Gaurav Arora 2025.05.07 14:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-12639-2025 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 28.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961; assessment order dated 28.01.2025 issued under Section 147 of the Act, 1961; demand notice dated 28.01.2025 issued under Section 156 of the Act, 1961 and all consequential actions, for AY 2020-2021, 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 →