AMIT KUMAR vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/1855/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01011256202524 January 2025Bench: MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the issue raised in the present writ petition was covered by its previous judgments 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 grounds, with liberty granted to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if advised. Consequently, the present writ petition was disposed of in terms of these previous judgments. The operative direction was to dispose of the writ petition in terms of the cited precedents, implying that the impugned notices and proceedings were set aside, with liberty to the revenue to initiate fresh proceedings if permissible under the law. Any pending applications were also disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Amit Kumar, challenged a notice dated 29.03.2023 under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, an order dated 17.04.2023 under Section 148A(d), and a notice dated 17.04.2023 under Section 148 of the Act, along with consequential proceedings for Assessment Year 2016-2017. The petitioner argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which stipulated that the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) has exclusive power to issue notices under Section 148. The revenue did not dispute this contention. The High Court considered its own previous judgments on similar issues.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 29.03.2023 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the order dated 17.04.2023 issued under Section 148A(d), and the notice dated 17.04.2023 issued under Section 148, along with consequential proceedings for AY 2016-2017, are without jurisdiction in light of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022. (Question of law and mixed fact and law, concerning the jurisdiction of the issuing authority under Section 148A and Section 148 of the Act, 1961). Assessee's contention: The issuing authority had no jurisdiction to issue the impugned notices and order because the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022 vests exclusive power to issue notices under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, with the NFAC. Revenue's contention: The revenue did not dispute the assessee's contention.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-1855-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 107 CWP-1855-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-24.01.2025 Amit Kumar ....Petitioner Vs. Union of India & ors.

...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Satyam Aneja, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal, Sr. Standing counsel with Mr. V. Vedika Rao, Advocate for the respondent-Union of India. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the instant writ petition is to notice dated 29.03.2023 issued under Section 148 A(b)of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”); order dated 17.04.2023 issued under Section 148 A(d)of the Act, 1961 & notice dated 17.04.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and consequential proceedings, for AY 2016-2017. 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 Gaurav Arora 2025.01.27 11:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-1855-2025 2 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 29.03.2023 issued under Section 148 A(b)of the Act, 1961; order dated 17.04.2023 issued under Section 148 A(d)of the Act, 1961 & notice dated 17.04.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and consequential proceedings, for AY 2016-2017, 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. (ARUN PALLI) (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE JUDGE 24.01.2025

Gaurav Arora

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.01.27 11:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-1855-2025 3 Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.01.27 11:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

More judgments on Section 148A

All 3,543 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →