AMANDEEP SINGLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD SUNAM

PDF · subscribers
CWP/20020/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01109876202518 July 2025Bench: MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL,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 in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case and Jasjit Singh's case. In those referred cases, the writ petitions were allowed on the same issue, with liberty granted to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if so advised. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's contention that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to the CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022, which purportedly grants exclusive power to the NFAC to issue notices under Section 148. The respondents did not dispute this. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition in terms of the aforementioned judgments, implying that the impugned notice was quashed, with the revenue having the option to re-issue it following the correct procedure.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Amandeep Singla, challenged a notice dated May 19, 2025, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2019-2020, along with all consequential actions. The petitioner argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022, which purportedly grants exclusive power to the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) to issue such notices. The respondents, represented by the Income Tax Officer, Ward Sunam, and others, did not dispute the petitioner's contention regarding the applicability of previous judgments. The High Court perused the records and heard the counsel for both parties.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated May 19, 2025, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2019-2020 is without jurisdiction, in light of the CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022, which allegedly vests exclusive power to issue such notices with the NFAC? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and CBDT Circular dated 29.03.2022). Assessee's Contention: The issuing authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the notice under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, as per the CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022, which states that the NFAC has exclusive power. 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 learned counsel for the respondents did not dispute the issue involved and its coverage by previous judgments.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 119 CWP-20020-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-18.07.2025 Amandeep Singla ...Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Sunam & ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Rochak Singla, Advocates for the petitioner. Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Sr. Standing counsel with Mr. Rana Gurtej Singh, Jr. Standing counsel with Ms. Muskan Gupta, Ms. Muskan Chauhan, Advocates for the respondents. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the present petition is to notice dated 19.05.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961’) and all consequential actions, for AY 2019-2020. 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 the respondents has also not disputed the same. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the Gaurav Arora 2025.07.23 10:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

2 whole records of the case. 5. The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 19.05.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and all consequential actions, for AY 2019- 2020, 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 18.07.2025

Gaurav Arora Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.07.23 10:58 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 →