SURAJ PRAKASH JAIN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/17874/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01094763202503 July 2025Bench: MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the present writ petition is disposed of 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, granting liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if so advised. The Court noted that the petitioner's challenge was based on the lack of jurisdiction of the issuing authority due to the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, and the revenue did not dispute the applicability of the cited precedents. Therefore, the present petition was disposed of on the same lines, implying the notice was likely vitiated due to jurisdictional error as per the precedents, but the revenue was given an opportunity to re-initiate proceedings correctly.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Suraj Prakash Jain, challenged a notice dated 10.04.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2021-2022, and all consequential actions. The challenge was based on the contention that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular 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, Hoshiarpur, and others, did not dispute the petitioner's submissions regarding the applicability of prior judgments.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 10.04.2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2021-2022, is invalid on the grounds that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction in light of CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which purportedly grants exclusive power to the NFAC to issue such notices (question of law)? Assessee's contention: The petitioner argued that the notice was issued without jurisdiction, citing the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which allegedly reserves the exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices for the NFAC. The petitioner relied on 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). 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

CWP-17874-2025 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 168

CWP-17874-2025 Date of decision: 03.07.2025 Suraj Prakash Jain ...Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Hoshiarpur and Ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Vishav Bharti Gupta and Ms. Mamta Gupta, 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 10.04.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”) and all consequential actions, for AY 2021-2022. 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 2025.07.14 16:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-17874-2025 [2] 5. The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 10.04.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and all consequential actions, for AY 2021-2022 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 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 →