PARVESH SABHARWAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND ANOTHER

PDF · subscribers
CWP/2706/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01011729202531 January 2025Bench: MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI,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 writ petitions on similar issues, granting liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if advised. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's argument that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to the exclusive power of the NFAC to issue notices under Section 148, as per the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022. The principle established is that notices issued by an unauthorized authority, contrary to specific CBDT directives regarding the exclusive jurisdiction of the NFAC, are liable to be quashed. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition in line with the cited precedents, implying the quashing of the impugned notice and consequential proceedings, with liberty to the revenue to re-initiate if they choose to follow the correct procedure.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Parvesh Sabharwal, has filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated 20.06.2024 issued under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings for Assessment Year 2023-2024. The petitioner's primary contention is that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction. The petitioner relies on previous judgments of a co-ordinate bench of the High Court in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India, which dealt with similar issues. The respondent-Union of India, represented by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Karnal, did not dispute the applicability of these precedents.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 20.06.2024 issued under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2023-2024 is without jurisdiction, in light of the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022? (Question of law and fact) Assessee's contention: The petitioner argues that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the notice under Section 143(2) because, as per the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022, the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) has exclusive power to issue notices under Section 148 of the Act, 1961. The petitioner relies on the judgments 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 contentions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(2),Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-2706-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 120 CWP-2706-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-31.01.2025 Parvesh Sabharwal

....Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1,Karnal & anr. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Nitin Kanwar, Advocates for the petitioner Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Sr. Standing counsel with Ms. Muskan Gupta, Advocate for the respondent-Union of India. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the instant writ petition is to notice dated 20.06.2024 issued under Section 143 (2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”) and consequential proceedings, for AY 2023-2024. 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 Gaurav Arora 2025.02.05 14:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-2706-2025 2 whole records of the case. 5. The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 20.06.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and consequential proceedings for A.Y 2023-24, 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 31.01.2025

Gaurav Arora

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.02.05 14:34 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 →