SHIVAM ARORA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD NO 1 PANIPAT AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/1390/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01008530202520 January 2025Bench: MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI,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 previous judgments 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, with liberty granted to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if advised. The reasoning was based on the established precedent of the Co-ordinate Bench addressing the same jurisdictional issue arising from the CBDT circular. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition in line with these precedents, effectively quashing the impugned notice and proceedings, subject to the revenue's right to re-initiate the process correctly.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Shivam Arora, challenged a notice dated March 19, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings for Assessment Year 2020-2021. The challenge was directed against the Income Tax Officer, Ward-I, Panipat, and other respondents. The petitioner argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022, which allegedly vested exclusive power to issue such notices in the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC). The revenue did not dispute this contention.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated March 19, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings for AY 2020-2021 are invalid on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction by the issuing authority, in light of the CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022, which allegedly grants exclusive power to the NFAC to issue such notices? (Question of law/mixed law and fact, turning on Section 148 of the Act and CBDT Circular dated 29.03.2022). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the Income Tax Officer lacked jurisdiction to issue the notice under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, citing the CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022, which purportedly grants exclusive power to the NFAC for issuing such notices. 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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-1390-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 132 CWP-1390-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-20.01.2025 Shivam Arora ....Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-I, Panipat & ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Ms.Divya Arora and Mr. Amit Kaushik, Advocates for the petitioner Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal, Sr. Standing counsel with Mr. V. Vedika Rao, Advocate (Through VC) for the respondent-Union of India. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the instant writ petition is to notice dated 19.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”) and conseuqential proceedings, 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 disputed the same. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the Gaurav Arora 2025.01.24 14:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-1390-2025 2 whole records of the case. 5. The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 19.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and conseuqential proceedings, for AY 2020-2021 issued by respondent No. 1, on the ground that he 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. (ARUN PALLI) (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE JUDGE 20.01.2025

Gaurav Arora

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.01.24 14:18 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 →