RAM NIWAS PHAUGAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/13993/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01073052202515 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 issue raised in the present writ petition was covered by previous 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). In those cases, the writ petitions were allowed on similar grounds, granting liberty to the revenue to follow the prescribed procedure under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if advised. Consequently, the present writ petition was disposed of in terms of these prior decisions. The operative direction was to dispose of the writ petition in terms of the cited judgments, implying that the impugned notice and order were set aside, with liberty to the revenue to initiate fresh proceedings following the correct procedure. No specific issue was left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Ram Niwas Phaugat, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated 31.08.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and an order dated 31.08.2024 issued under Section 148A(d) of the Act, for Assessment Year 2018-2019. The petitioner argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which vested exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices with the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC). The revenue, represented by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 3 (1), Gurgaon, and others, did not dispute this contention.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 31.08.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the order dated 31.08.2024 issued under Section 148A(d) of the Act, for AY 2018-2019, are invalid on the grounds that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction in light of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which purportedly grants exclusive power to the NFAC to issue such notices. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner contended that the issuing authority had no jurisdiction to issue the impugned notice and order, citing the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which specifies that the NFAC has exclusive power to issue notices under Section 148 of the Act, 1961. Revenue's Contention: The revenue did not dispute the petitioner's contention regarding the jurisdiction and the applicability of the cited judgments.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 148A(d)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-13993-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 161 CWP-13993-2025(O&M) Date of Decision:-15.05.2025 Ram Niwas Phaugat ....Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3 (1), Gurgaon & 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. Mr. Varun Issar, Sr. Standing counsel with Ms. Pridhi Sandhu, Jr. Standing counsel for the respondents. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the present petition is to notice dated 31.08.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”); order dated 31.08.2024 issued under Section 148 A (d) of the Act, 1961 and all consequential actions, for AY 2018-2019. 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. Gaurav Arora 2025.05.21 10:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-13993-2025 2 5. The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 31.08.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961; order dated 31.08.2024 issued under Section 148 A (d) of the Act, 1961 and all consequential actions, for AY 2018-2019, 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 15.05.2025

Gaurav Arora Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.05.21 10:36 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 →