BHUPINDER SINGH vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/3917/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01022208202513 February 2025Bench: MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition 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). In those cases, the writ petitions were allowed on similar issues, with liberty granted to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if so advised. The reasoning implicitly accepted the assessee's argument that the notice was issued without proper jurisdiction as per the prevailing circulars and judicial pronouncements. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition in line with the precedent, effectively quashing the impugned notice and proceedings while allowing the revenue to initiate fresh proceedings if they chose to follow the correct procedure.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Bhupinder Singh, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated 27.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, an approval dated 26.03.2024 under Section 151 of the Act, and consequential proceedings for Assessment Year 2020-2021. The petitioner argued 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 such notices. The revenue, represented by Union of India, did not dispute the petitioner's contention regarding the applicability of prior judgments.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 27.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the consequential proceedings for AY 2020-2021 are invalid on the ground that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction, in light of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022 which allegedly vests exclusive power in the NFAC to issue such notices? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the issuing authority had no jurisdiction to issue the notice under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, citing the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which purportedly states that the NFAC has exclusive power in this regard. The petitioner relied on the judgments of a Co-ordinate Bench of the High 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 learned counsel for Union of India did not dispute the petitioner's contention.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 151

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-3917-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 139-J

CWP-3917-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-13.02.2025 Bhupinder Singh

....Petitioner Vs. Union of India & ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Karan Nehra, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Varun Issar, Sr. Standing counsel for the respondent-Union of India. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the instant writ petition is to notice dated 27.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “Act 1961”); approval dated 26.03.2024 issued under Section 151 of the Act, 1961 and consequential proceedings for AY 2020-2021. 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. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the Gaurav Arora 2025.02.15 11:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-3917-2025 2 whole records of the case. 5. The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 27.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961; approval dated 26.03.2024 issued under Section 151 of the Act, 1961 and consequential proceedings for AY 2020-2021, 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 13.02.2025

Gaurav Arora

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.02.15 11:35 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 →