UMANG CHHABRA vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/1988/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01012034202527 January 2025Bench: MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the writ petition, disposing of it in terms of the judgments passed by a Co-ordinate Bench in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India. 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 so advised. The reasoning was based on the precedent set by the Co-ordinate Bench, which had addressed the jurisdictional issue concerning the NFAC's exclusive power. The operative direction was to dispose of the writ petition in line with these precedents, implying that the notices and consequential proceedings were set aside, with the revenue having the option to reinitiate the process correctly. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Umang Chhabra, challenged several notices and an order issued under Sections 148A(a), 148A(b), 148A(d), and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2016-2017. The challenge was also extended to approvals issued under Section 151 for AY 2020-2021. The core of the petitioner's argument was that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which purportedly granted exclusive power to the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) to issue notices under Section 148. The revenue did not dispute the petitioner's contention regarding the applicability of prior judgments.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notices issued under Section 148A and Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the consequential proceedings for AY 2016-2017, are invalid due to lack of jurisdiction of the issuing authority, in light of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which allegedly vests exclusive power with the NFAC to issue Section 148 notices? (Question of law and mixed fact and law, turning on Section 148A and Section 148). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the notices and approvals under challenge, citing the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which purportedly grants exclusive power to the NFAC for issuing Section 148 notices. The petitioner relied on the judgments of a Co-ordinate Bench 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.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A,Section 148,Section 151

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-1988-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 127

CWP-1988-2025 (O&M)

Date of Decision:-27.01.2025 Umang Chhabra ....Petitioner Vs. Unio of India & ors.

...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. M.R. Sharma, Advocates for the petitioner Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Sr. Standing counsel for the respondent-Union of India. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the instant writ petition is to notices dated 28.02.2024 issued under Section 148A (a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”); notice dated 08.03.2024 under Section 148A (b) of the Act, 1961; order dated 22.03.2024 under Section 148A (d) of the Act, 1961 and notice dated 22.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act 1961, 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 . Gaurav Arora 2025.01.30 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-1988-2025 2 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. 5. The petitioner has challenged the notices dated 28.02.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”) as well as approvals dated 23.03.2024 issued under Section 151 of the Act 1961 and all consequential proceedings, 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. (ARUN PALLI) (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE JUDGE 27.01.2025

Gaurav Arora

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.01.30 10:42 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 →