RAJESH SETHI vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/3533/2023HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01022476202311 February 2025Bench: MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the issue involved in the writ petition was covered by previous judgments of a Co-ordinate Bench in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others (CWP No. 15745-2024, decided on 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others (CWP No. 21509-2023, decided on 29.07.2024). In those cases, the writ petitions were allowed on similar grounds, with liberty granted to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if advised. Consequently, the present writ petition was disposed of in terms of these prior judgments. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition in terms of the cited judgments, implying that the notices and proceedings were set aside, with liberty to the revenue to re-initiate if they chose to follow the correct procedure. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Rajesh Sethi, challenged notices dated 12.04.2021 and 27.08.2022 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with undated reasons issued under Sections 148 and 148A of the Act, and consequential proceedings for Assessment Year 2014-2015. The petitioner argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which stipulated that the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) has exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices. The respondents, Union of India and others, did not dispute this contention. The High Court considered the arguments and records.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notices dated 12.04.2021 and 27.08.2022 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with undated reasons issued under Sections 148 and 148A of the Act, and consequential proceedings for AY 2014-2015 are without jurisdiction, in view of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022. (Question of law and fact) Assessee's contention: The issuing authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the notices and consequential proceedings due to the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which vests exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices with the NFAC. Revenue's contention: The revenue did not dispute the assessee's contention.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 148A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-3533-2023 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 246 CWP-3533-2023 (O&M) Date of Decision:-11.02.2025 Rajesh Sethi

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

...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Gurdeep Singh, Advocates for the petitioner. Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal, Sr. Standing counsel with Mr. V.Vedika Rao, Advocate for the respondent-Union of India. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the instant writ petition is to notices dated 12.04.2021 and 27.08.2022 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”); undated reasons issued under Section 148 and 148 A of the Act, 1961 and consequential proceedings, for AY 2014- 2015. 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 Gaurav Arora 2025.02.19 13:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-3533-2023 2 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 notices dated 12.04.2021 and 27.08.2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961`; undated reasons issued under Section 148 and 148 A of the Act, 1961 and consequential proceedings, for AY 2014-2015, 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 11.02.2025

Gaurav Arora

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.02.19 13:33 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 →