SUKHMAN SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/12867/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01071402202507 May 2025Bench: MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the present writ petition is disposed of in terms of the judgments passed by a Co-ordinate Bench in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case (supra) and Jasjit Singh's case (supra). In those cases, the writ petitions were allowed on similar issues, with liberty granted 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 precedent set by the Co-ordinate Bench, which found merit in the argument regarding the jurisdiction of the issuing authority concerning Section 148 notices, as per the CBDT circular. The operative direction is to dispose of the petition in line with the cited judgments, implying the quashing of the impugned notices and orders, with the possibility of the revenue re-initiating proceedings if they choose to follow the correct procedure. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Sukhman Singh, challenged a notice dated March 28, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, an assessment order dated March 29, 2025, under Section 147, a demand notice dated March 29, 2025, and a penalty show cause notice dated March 30, 2025, under Section 271AAC(1) of the Act, all pertaining to Assessment Year 2022-2023. The challenge was based on the assertion that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022, which allegedly vested exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices with the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC). The revenue did not dispute this contention.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated March 28, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the assessment order dated March 29, 2025, under Section 147, the demand notice dated March 29, 2025, and the penalty show cause notice dated March 30, 2025, under Section 271AAC(1) of the Act, for AY 2022-2023, are invalid on the ground that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction, in view of the CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022, which purportedly grants exclusive power to the NFAC to issue Section 148 notices? (Question of law and mixed fact and law, concerning Sections 148, 147, and 271AAC(1) of the Act, 1961, and 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 due to the CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022, which specifically enumerates that the NFAC has exclusive power to issue notices under Section 148 of the Act, 1961. The petitioner relied on 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). 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,Section 271AAC(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-12867-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 177 CWP-12867-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-07.05.2025 Sukhman Singh ....Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Faridkot & ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. B.M. Monga & Mr. Rohit Kaura, Advocates for the petitioner. Mrs. Urvashi Dhugga, Sr. Standing counsel for the respondents. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the present 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 29.03.2025 issued under Section 147 of the Act, 1961; demand notice dated 29.03.2025 and penalty show cause notice dated 30.03.2025 under Section 271 AAC (1) of the Act, 1961 and all consequential actions, for AY 2022-2023. 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. Gaurav Arora 2025.05.13 12:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-12867-2025 2 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 29.03.2025 issued under Section 147 of the Act, 1961; demand notice dated 29.03.2025 and penalty show cause notice dated 30.03.2025 under Section 271 AAC (1) of the Act, 1961 and all consequential actions, for AY 2022-2023 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 07.05.2025

Gaurav Arora Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.05.13 12:04 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 →