MANAV SINGLA vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/3367/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01018402202506 February 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. It held that the issue was covered by its previous judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case and Jasjit Singh's case. In those cases, the writ petitions were allowed on similar grounds, granting liberty to the revenue to follow the prescribed procedure under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if advised. Therefore, the present writ petition was disposed of in terms of these prior decisions. The operative direction was to dispose of the writ petition in terms of the cited judgments, implying the quashing of the impugned notice and proceedings, with liberty to the revenue to re-initiate if legally permissible. All pending applications were also disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Manav Singla, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated 14.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings for Assessment Year 2017-2018. The petitioner argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which vested exclusive power to issue such notices in the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC). The respondent, Union of India, did not dispute this contention. The High Court had previously dealt with similar issues in connected cases.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 14.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings for AY 2017-2018 are without jurisdiction, in light of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which assigns exclusive power to the NFAC for issuing such notices? (Question of law) Assessee's contention: The issuing authority had no jurisdiction to issue the notice under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, as per the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which grants exclusive power to the NFAC. 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 revenue did not dispute the petitioner's contention.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-3367-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 122 CWP-3367-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-06.02.2025 Manav Singla

....Petitioner Vs. Union of India & ors.

...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Gurinder Singh Dhillon, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Standing counsel for the respondent-Union of India. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the instant writ petition is to notice dated 14.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”) and consequential proceedings for AY 2017-2018. 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. 5. The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 14.03.2024 Gaurav Arora 2025.02.13 11:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-3367-2025 2 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and consequential proceedings for AY 2017-2018, 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 06.02.2025

Gaurav Arora Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.02.13 11:04 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 →