TAJINDER SINGH ALIAS TEJINDER SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/3787/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01021502202511 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, disposing of it in terms of the judgments passed by a Co-ordinate Bench in Jatinder Singh Bhangu’s case (decided on 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh’s case (decided on 29.07.2024). These prior judgments had allowed writ petitions on similar issues, granting liberty to the revenue to follow the prescribed procedure under the Income Tax Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if advised. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's contention that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which assigned exclusive power to the NFAC for issuing Section 148 notices, a contention not disputed by the revenue. The operative direction was to dispose of the writ petition in line with the cited precedents, implying the quashing of the impugned notices with liberty to the revenue to re-initiate proceedings correctly.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Tajinder Singh @ Tejinder Singh, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated 24.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and a notice dated 03.02.2025 issued under Section 142(1) of the Act, both pertaining to Assessment Year 2022-2023. The petitioner contended that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which purportedly granted exclusive power to the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) to issue Section 148 notices. The revenue, represented by the Income Tax Officer Ward 6(1), Ludhiana, and others, did not dispute the petitioner's contention regarding the applicability of prior judgments.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 24.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the notice dated 03.02.2025 issued under Section 142(1) of the Act, for AY 2022-2023, are invalid on the grounds that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction, in light of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022 conferring exclusive power on the NFAC to issue Section 148 notices? (Question of law and fact, turning on Section 148 and CBDT Circular dated 29.03.2022). Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the issuing authority had no jurisdiction to issue the notices, relying on the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which stipulated that the NFAC has exclusive power to issue notices under Section 148 of the Act. The petitioner cited 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) as covering the present issue. Revenue's Contentions: The learned counsel for the Union of India did not dispute the petitioner's contentions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 142(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-3787-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 126 CWP-3787-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-11.02.2025 Tajinder Singh @ Tejinder Singh ....Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 6(1), Ludhiana & ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Nikhil Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Varun Issar, Sr. Standing counsel with Ms. Pridhi Sandhu, Jr. Standing counsel for the respondent-Union of India. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the instant writ petition is to notice dated 24.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”) and notice dated 03.02.2025 issued under Section 142 (1) of Act, 1961 , for AY 2022-2023. 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 2025.02.15 11:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-3787-2025 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 24.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and notice dated 03.02.2025 issued under Section 142 (1) of Act, 1961, for AY 2022-2023 , 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 →