SATBIR SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/17789/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01098980202503 July 2025Bench: MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition in terms of the judgments passed by a Co-ordinate Bench in Jatinder Singh Bhangu’s case (decided on 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh’s case (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 so advised. The operative direction was to dispose of the present writ petition in terms of those precedents. No specific finding was recorded on the merits of the jurisdictional challenge beyond relying on the prior judgments. All pending applications were also disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Satbir Singh, challenged a notice dated 02.06.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and all consequential actions for Assessment Year 2019-2020. The challenge was based on the contention that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022, which allegedly vested exclusive power to issue such notices in the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC). The revenue, represented by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Kurukshetra, and others, did not dispute the petitioner's submissions.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 02.06.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2019-2020 is invalid on the grounds that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction, as per the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022, which purportedly grants exclusive power to the NFAC to issue such notices? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the notice was issued without jurisdiction by an authority other than the NFAC, relying on the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022. The petitioner cited the 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) as covering the issue. Revenue's Contention: The learned counsel for the Union of India did not dispute the petitioner's submissions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 138 CWP-17789-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-03.07.2025 Satbir Singh ....Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Kurukshetra & ors.

...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Umang Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal, Sr. Standing counsel for the respondents. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the present petition is to notice dated 02.06.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”) and all consequential actions, for AY 2019-2020. 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. 5. The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 02.06.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and all consequential actions, for AY Gaurav Arora 2025.07.14 16:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

2 2019-2020 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 03.07.2025

Gaurav Arora Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.07.14 16:28 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 →