MANVIR SINGH vs. CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/18837/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01104137202510 July 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 in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case and Jasjit Singh's case. These prior judgments had allowed similar writ petitions on the same issue, which concerned the jurisdiction of the issuing authority for notices under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in light of the CBDT's circulars. The Court granted liberty to the revenue to follow the prescribed procedure under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if they were so advised. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition in line with the precedent, effectively quashing the impugned notices and order due to jurisdictional defect as argued by the petitioner and not contested by the revenue. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Manvir Singh, challenged notices dated 27.06.2025 (under Section 148) and 27.03.2025 (under Section 148A(1)), and an order dated 27.06.2025 (under Section 148A(3)) issued for Assessment Year 2021-2022. The challenge was based on the assertion that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which allegedly vested exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices with the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC). The revenue, represented by the CBDT and others, did not dispute the petitioner's contention regarding the applicability of previous judgments.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notices issued under Section 148 and Section 148A(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the consequential order under Section 148A(3) for AY 2021-2022 are invalid due to lack of jurisdiction by the issuing authority, in light of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which purportedly grants exclusive power to the NFAC to issue notices under Section 148. (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 148 and Section 148A of the Act, 1961). Assessee's contention: The issuing authority lacked jurisdiction as per the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which reserves the power to issue Section 148 notices exclusively for the NFAC. The petitioner relies 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, through its counsel, 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-18837-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 162 CWP-18837-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-10.07.2025 Manvir Singh ....Petitioner Vs. C.B.D.T,New Delhi & ors.

...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Yogesh Kumar Mittal & Mr. Anshul Garg, Advocates for the petitioner. Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Sr. Standing counsel with Ms. Nikita Garg, Jr. Standing counsel for the respondents. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the present petition is to notice dated 27.06.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961’); notice dated 27.03.2025 issued under Section 148 A (1) of the Act, 1961; order dated 27.06.2025 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 whole Gaurav Arora 2025.07.18 15:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-18837-2025 2 records of the case. 5. The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 27.06.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961; notice dated 27.03.2025 issued under Section 148 A (1) of the Act, 1961; order dated 27.06.2025 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 10.07.2025

Gaurav Arora Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.07.18 15:52 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 →