RANDHIR SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/16630/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01090347202529 May 2025Bench: MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

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 (decided on 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh's case (decided on 29.07.2024). In those cases, a co-ordinate bench 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 specified that the NFAC has exclusive power. The judgments in the cited cases granted liberty to the revenue to follow the prescribed procedure under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if so advised. The operative direction was to dispose of the present writ petition in line with these precedents. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Randhir Singh, challenged a notice dated 09.02.2024 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, an assessment order dated 16.03.2025 under Section 147, and a demand notice dated 16.03.2025 under Section 156, all pertaining to Assessment Year 2017-2018. The challenge was based on the assertion that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which purportedly granted exclusive power to the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) to issue such notices. The respondents, Income Tax Officer, Ward Sirhind Punjab & 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 16.03.2025 under Section 147, and the demand notice dated 16.03.2025 under Section 156, for AY 2017-2018, are invalid due to lack of jurisdiction in the issuing authority, in light of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022. (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 148, 147, 156 of the Act, 1961 and CBDT Circular dated 29.03.2022). Assessee's contention: The issuing authority lacked jurisdiction as per the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which vests exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices with the NFAC. 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 revenue did not dispute the petitioner's contention.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 147,Section 156

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-16630-2025 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 186 CWP-16630-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-29.05.2025 Randhir Singh ....Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Sirhind Punjab & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Vishav Bharti Gupta, Advocate Ms Mamta Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Sr. Standing counsel with Ms. Muskan Gupta, Advocate for the respondents. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the present 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 16.03.2025 issued under Section 147 of the Act, 1961; demand notice dated 16.03.2025 issued under Section 156 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 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 2025.06.06 15:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-16630-2025 (O&M) 2 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 16.03.2025 issued under Section 147 of the Act, 1961; demand notice dated 16.03.2025 issued under Section 156 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 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 29.05.2025

Gaurav Arora Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.06.06 15:35 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 →