AVTAR SINGH SINCE DECEASED THROUGH LEGAL HEIR HARPREET SINGH GREWAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/18922/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01104887202510 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 vs. Union of India (decided on 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India (decided on 29.07.2024). These prior judgments had allowed similar writ petitions on the same issue, granting liberty to the revenue to follow the prescribed procedure under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if advised. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's contention regarding the lack of jurisdiction of the issuing authority for the Section 148 notice, as per the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, and the non-dispute raised by the revenue. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition in line with the precedent, effectively quashing the impugned notice and allowing the revenue to re-initiate proceedings if they chose to do so following the correct procedure. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Avtar Singh (since deceased) through his legal heir Harpreet Singh Grewal, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated 31.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and all consequential actions for Assessment Year 2020-2021. The petitioner argued that the authority issuing the notice lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which purportedly grants exclusive power to the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) to issue such notices. The respondents, Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), Ludhiana, and others, were represented by senior standing counsel. The matter was heard by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 31.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2020-2021 is invalid due to lack of jurisdiction of the issuing authority, in light of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022? Assessee's contention: The petitioner argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the Section 148 notice, citing the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which allegedly vests exclusive power in the NFAC for issuing such notices. The petitioner relied on judgments from co-ordinate benches of the High Court in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India. Revenue's contention: The learned counsel for the Union of India did not dispute the petitioner's contention regarding the applicability of the cited judgments.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-18922-2025 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 169 CWP-18922-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-10.07.2025 Avtar Singh (since deceased) through legal heir Harpreet Singh Grewal ....Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3 (1), Ludhiana & 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 with Ms. Nikita Garg, Jr. Standing counsel for the respondents. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the present petition is to notice dated 31.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”) and all consequential actions, for AY 2020-2021. 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 2025.07.18 15:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-18922-2025 (O&M) 2 5. The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 31.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and all consequential actions, for AY 2020-2021 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 →