KULWANT SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/12778/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01069748202506 May 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 passed in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case and Jasjit Singh's case. In those cited cases, co-ordinate benches of the High Court had allowed similar writ petitions on the same issue. The reasoning was that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the notice under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, in view of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which stipulated that the NFAC has exclusive power. The operative direction in the cited cases was to grant liberty to the revenue to follow the prescribed procedure under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if so advised. Consequently, the impugned notice, assessment order, and demand notice were set aside, with liberty to the revenue to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with law.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Kulwant Singh, challenged a notice dated 09.02.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, an assessment order dated 28.02.2025 under Section 147, and a demand notice dated 28.02.2025, all pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2020-2021. The petitioner argued 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 Section 148 notices. The respondents, represented by the Income Tax Officer, Ward Sirhind, Punjab, and others, did not dispute the petitioner's contention.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 09.02.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the assessment order dated 28.02.2025 under Section 147, and the demand notice dated 28.02.2025 for AY 2020-2021 are invalid due to lack of jurisdiction of the issuing authority, in light of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022. Assessee's contention: The petitioner argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the impugned notices and orders because the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022 vests the exclusive power to issue notices under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, with the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC). The petitioner relied on judgments of a co-ordinate bench 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). Revenue's contention: The learned counsel for the Union of India did not dispute the petitioner's contention.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-12778-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 173 CWP-12778-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-06.05.2025 Kulwant Singh ....Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Sirhind, Punjab & ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Vishav Bharti Gupta & Ms. Mamta Gupta, Advocates for the petitioner. Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Sr. Standing counsel with Ms. Muskan Gupta, Advocate for the respondents. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the instant writ petition is to notice dated 09.02.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”); assessment order dated 28.02.2025 issued under Section 147 of the Act, 1961; demand notice dated 28.02.2025 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 . 3. Learned counsel appearing for Union of India has also not Gaurav Arora 2025.05.12 14:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-12778-2025 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 09.02.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961; assessment order dated 28.02.2025 issued under Section 147 of the Act, 1961; demand notice dated 28.02.2025 and all consequential actions, 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. (LISA GILL) (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE JUDGE 06.05.2025

Gaurav Arora

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.05.12 14:16 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 →