PURUSHOTAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/3622/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01010002202517 February 2025Bench: MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that the issue raised by the petitioner was identical to those decided by a Co-ordinate Bench in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case and Jasjit Singh's case. In those cases, the writ petitions were allowed, granting liberty to the revenue to follow the prescribed procedure under the Act and proceed accordingly if advised. Given that an appeal was pending before the Appellate Authority in the present case, the High Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the Appellate Authority to decide the petitioner's appeal in line with the aforementioned judgments. The operative direction is for the Appellate Authority to decide the pending appeal based on the precedent set by the Co-ordinate Bench.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Purshotam, challenged several notices and orders concerning Assessment Year 2016-2017. These included notices under Section 148, 147, 156, 271(1)(b), and an order under Section 271(F) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The primary contention was that the Section 148 notice dated 29.03.2023 was issued without jurisdiction, having been issued by the 'JAO' instead of the 'NFAC', as mandated by a CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022. The petitioner also stated that an appeal was pending before the Appellate Authority.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 29.03.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is without jurisdiction and invalid because it was issued by the 'JAO' instead of the 'NFAC', as per the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022? Assessee's contention: The Section 148 notice is invalid as it was issued by an unauthorized authority ('JAO') contrary to the CBDT's notification mandating the 'NFAC' to issue such notices. The petitioner relies on judgments from a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court 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's counsel did not dispute the petitioner's submissions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 147,Section 156,Section 271(1)(b),Section 271(F)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-3622-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 127

CWP-3622-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-17.02.2025 Purshotam

....Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-I, Jind and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Nikhil Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal, Sr. Standing counsel (Through VC) with Mr. V. Vedika Rao, Advocate for the respondent-Union of India. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the present petition is to notice dated 29.03.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”); notice dated 05.12.2023 issued under Section 147 of the Act, 1961 ; demand notice dated 05.12.2023 issued under Section 156 of the Act, 1961; notice dated 04.06.2024 issued under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act, 1961; demand notice dated 04.06.2024 issued under Section 156 of the Act, 1961; order dated 04.06.2024 issued under Section 271(F) of the Act, 1961; demand notice dated 04.06.2024 under Section 156 of the Act, 1961 and all consequential actions, for AY 2016-2017, since the notice dated 29.03.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 was without jurisdiction and Gaurav Arora 2025.02.19 13:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-3622-2025 2 issued by ‘JAO’ instead of ‘NFAC’ . 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the issue involved in the above 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. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner has preferred an appeal and the same is pending before the Appellate Authority. 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 29.03.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”); notice dated 05.12.2023 issued under Section 147 of the Act, 1961 ; demand notice dated 05.12.2023 issued under Section 156 of the Act, 1961; notice dated 04.06.2024 issued under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act, 1961; demand notice dated 04.06.2024 issued under Section 156 of the Act, 1961; order dated 04.06.2024 issued under Section 271(F) of the Act, 1961; demand notice dated 04.06.2024 under Section 156 of the Act, 1961 and all consequential actions, for AY 2016-2017, since the notice dated 29.03.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 was without jurisdiction and issued by ‘JAO’ instead of ‘NFAC’ , in view of the circular/notification dated 29.03.2022 of Gaurav Arora 2025.02.19 13:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-3622-2025 3 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. Since in the present case, the appeal is pending before the Appellate Authority, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal of the petitioner, in terms of the judgments mentioned above. 8. All the pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (ARUN PALLI) (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE JUDGE 17.02.2025

Gaurav Arora Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.02.19 13:28 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 →