RAJIV TANDON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/353/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01000188202513 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 prescribed procedure under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if so advised. The reasoning was based on the established precedent of co-ordinate benches addressing the jurisdictional issue arising from the CBDT circular. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition in line with these precedents, implying the quashing of the impugned notice and allowing the revenue to re-initiate proceedings if they chose to follow the correct procedure.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Rajiv Tandon, challenged a notice dated 12.04.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2019-2020. The notice was issued by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 3, Yamuna Nagar. The petitioner's primary contention was that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022, which allegedly vested exclusive power to issue such notices in the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC). The revenue, represented by the Union of India, did not dispute this contention.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Income Tax Officer, Ward 3, Yamuna Nagar, had the jurisdiction to issue a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2019-2020, in light of the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022, which purportedly grants exclusive power to the NFAC for issuing such notices? (Question of law and mixed fact and law, turning on Section 148 of the Act and the interpretation of the CBDT circular). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the issuing officer lacked jurisdiction based on the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which designated the NFAC with exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices. Revenue's Contention: The revenue did not dispute the petitioner's contention regarding the jurisdiction.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-353-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 109 CWP-353-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-13.01.2025 Rajiv Tandon

....Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3, Yamuna Nagar & ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. B.M. Monga, Mr. Rohit Kaura and Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocates for the petitioner Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Sr. Standing counsel with Ms. Pridhi Sandhu, Jr. Standing counsel Ms. Muskan Gupta, Advocate for the respondent-Union of India. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the instant writ petition is to notice dated 12.04.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”) 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 Union of India has also not disputed the same. Gaurav Arora 2025.01.22 12:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-353-2025 2 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 12.04.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 AY 2019-2020 issued by respondent No. 1, on the ground that he 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 13.01.2025

Gaurav Arora

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.01.22 12:15 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 →