CHARAN SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/14421/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01079798202519 May 2025Bench: MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA3 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 (CWP No. 15745-2024) and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India (CWP No. 21509-2023). In those cases, the writ petitions were allowed on similar issues, granting liberty to the revenue to follow the prescribed procedure under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if advised. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's contention regarding the lack of jurisdiction of the issuing authority due to the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which was not disputed by the revenue. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition in terms of the cited precedents, implying that the impugned notices and orders were quashed, with liberty to the revenue to re-initiate proceedings correctly.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Charan Singh, challenged several notices and orders issued by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-I, Phagwara, and other respondents for Assessment Year 2017-2018. These included a notice under Section 148, an assessment order under Section 147 read with Sections 144 and 144-B, a demand notice under Section 156, and penalty show cause notices under Sections 270A, 271AAC(1), and 272A(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The core of the challenge was that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which purportedly vested exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices with the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC). The revenue did not dispute the petitioner's contention.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 06.02.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent consequential orders, were without jurisdiction in light of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which allegedly grants exclusive power to the NFAC for issuing such notices? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 148 of the Act, 1961). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the impugned notices and orders, relying on the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which purportedly states that the NFAC has exclusive power to issue notices under Section 148 of the Act, 1961. 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 144,Section 144-B,Section 156,Section 270A,Section 271AAC(1),Section 272A(1)(d)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-14421-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 196 CWP-14421-2025(O&M) Date of Decision:-19.05.2025 Charan Singh ....Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer, ITO Ward-I, Phagwara & 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. Ranvijay Singh, Sr. Standing counsel for the respondents. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the present petition is to notice dated 06.02.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”); assessment order dated 16.03.2025 issued under Section 147 read with Section 144 and 144-B of the Act, 1961; demand notice dated 16.03.2025 issued under Section 156 of the Act, 1961; penalty show cause notice dated 16.03.2025 issued under Section 270A of the Act, 1961; penalty show cause notice dated 16.03.2025 issued under Section 271 AAC (1) of the Act, 1961; penalty show cause notice dated 11.03.2025 issued under Section 272 A (1) (d) of the Act, 1961 and all consequential actions, for AY 2017-2018. 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 Gaurav Arora 2025.05.22 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-14421-2025 2 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. 5. The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 06.02.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961; assessment order dated 16.03.2025 issued under Section 147 read with Section 144 and 144-B of the Act, 1961; demand notice dated 16.03.2025 issued under Section 156 of the Act, 1961; penalty show cause notice dated 16.03.2025 issued under Section 270A of the Act, 1961; penalty show cause notice dated 16.03.2025 issued under Section 271 AAC (1) of the Act, 1961; penalty show cause notice dated 11.03.2025 issued under Section 272 A (1) (d) of the Act, 1961 and all consequential actions, for AY 2017-2018, 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 Gaurav Arora 2025.05.22 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-14421-2025 3 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 19.05.2025

Gaurav Arora Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.05.22 17:17 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 →