RAJESH SETHI vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/3660/2023HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01023128202311 February 2025Bench: MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana disposed of the writ petition in terms of its previous judgments 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, similar writ petitions were allowed 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 established principle that the issuing authority must possess the requisite jurisdiction, and in this instance, the cited CBDT notification was considered determinative of that jurisdiction. The operative direction was to dispose of the present petition in line with the aforementioned precedents.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Rajesh Sethi, challenged notices dated 07.04.2021 and 17.08.2022 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 2016-2017. The challenge was based on the assertion that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022, which allegedly vested exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices with the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC). The revenue did not dispute the petitioner's contention regarding the applicability of prior judgments.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notices dated 07.04.2021 and 17.08.2022 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the consequential proceedings for AY 2016-2017 are invalid due to lack of jurisdiction of the issuing authority, in light of the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022 which allegedly grants exclusive power to the NFAC to issue such notices? Assessee's contention: The issuing authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the notices under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, as per the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022, which specifically enumerates that the NFAC has exclusive power to issue such notices. Revenue's contention: The revenue did not dispute the petitioner's contention and implicitly accepted the applicability of the precedents cited by the petitioner.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 148A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-3660-2023 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 246-J

CWP-3660-2023 (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 07.04.2021 and 17.08.2022 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”); undated reasons (P-2) issued under Sections 148 and 148 A of the Act, 1961 and consequential proceedings, for AY 2016-2017. 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 2025.02.15 11:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-3660-2023 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 07.04.2021 and 17.08.2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961; undated reasons (P-2) issued under Sections 148 and 148 A of the Act, 1961 and consequential proceedings, for AY 2016-2017, 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 2025.02.15 11:30 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 →