VEERAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/18407/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01101341202507 July 2025Bench: MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

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 vs. Union of India and others (CWP No. 15745-2024), decided on 19.07.2024, and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others (CWP No. 21509-2023), 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 is that the writ petition is disposed of in terms of the aforementioned precedents. No specific issue was left undecided; the court followed established precedent.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Veeran, challenged a notice dated 18.06.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and an order dated 18.06.2025 issued under Section 148A(3) of the Act, for Assessment Year 2021-2022. The challenge was also extended to all consequential actions. The petitioner argued 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, represented by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 (1), Bhatinda, and others, did not dispute the petitioner's contention.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 18.06.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the order dated 18.06.2025 issued under Section 148A(3) of the Act, for AY 2021-2022, are without jurisdiction in view of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which allegedly grants exclusive power to the NFAC to issue such notices? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 148 and Section 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and CBDT Circular dated 29.03.2022). Assessee's Contention: The issuing authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the notice and order due to the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which specifically enumerates that the NFAC has exclusive power to issue notices under Section 148 of the Act. 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 revenue did not dispute the petitioner's contention.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 148A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-18407-2025 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 183 CWP-18407-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-07.07.2025 Veeran ....Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 (1), Bhatinda & ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. B.M. Monga, Mr. Rohit Kaura, Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocates for the petitioner. Mrs. Urvashi Dhugga, Sr. Standing counsel with Ms. Nisha, Advocate for the respondents. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the present petition is to notice dated 18.06.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961’); order dated 18.06.2025 issued under Section 148 A (3) of the 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 Gaurav Arora 2025.07.11 16:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-18407-2025 (O&M) 2 whole records of the case. 5. The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 18.06.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961; order dated 18.06.2025 issued under Section 148 A (3) 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 07.07.2025

Gaurav Arora Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.07.11 16:02 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 →