AMANPREET SINGH JAMMU vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/2836/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01016676202531 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 its previous 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). In those cases, the Court had allowed similar writ petitions on the same issue, granting liberty 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 precedent set by the co-ordinate benches. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition in terms of the cited judgments, implying that the impugned notice was quashed but the revenue could re-initiate proceedings following the correct procedure. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Amanpreet Singh Jammu, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated 26.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2020-2021. The petitioner argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the notice, citing a CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022 which purportedly grants exclusive power to the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) to issue such notices. The respondent, Union of India, represented by its counsel, did not dispute the petitioner's contention regarding the applicability of previous judgments.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 26.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2020-2021 is without jurisdiction, 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. This was based on the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which, according to the petitioner, vests exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices with the NFAC. Revenue's Contention: The learned counsel for the Union of India did not dispute the petitioner's contention. The judgment does not record any specific arguments or reliance on authorities by the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-2836-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 132 CWP-2836-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-31.01.2025 Amanpreet Singh Jammu ....Petitioner Vs. Union of India & ors.

...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Sandeep Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Varun Issar, Sr. Standing counsel for the respondent-Union of India. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the instant writ petition is to notice dated 26.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”) and conseuqential proceedings, 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 Gaurav Arora 2025.02.05 14:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-2836-2025 2 whole records of the case. 5. The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 26.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, for AY 2020-21, 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 →