KOMPAL vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/4048/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01022997202514 February 2025Bench: MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the writ petition, disposing of it in terms of the judgments passed 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 coordinate bench had allowed similar writ petitions on the same issue. The reasoning was that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the notices under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, as per the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which vests exclusive power in the NFAC. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if advised. The operative direction was to dispose of the writ petition in terms of the aforementioned precedents.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Kompal, challenged a notice dated 29.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent notices dated 13.08.2024, 11.10.2024, 27.12.2024, and 03.02.2025 issued under Section 142(1) of the Act for Assessment Year 2018-2019. The challenge was based on the assertion that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which purportedly grants exclusive power to the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) to issue Section 148 notices. The revenue department did not dispute this contention.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 29.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent notices under Section 142(1) for AY 2018-2019 are invalid due to lack of jurisdiction by the issuing authority, in light of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022. (Question of law) Assessee's contention: The petitioner argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the impugned notices. This was based on the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which allegedly states that the NFAC has exclusive power to issue notices under Section 148 of the Act, 1961. The petitioner relied on 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). Revenue's contention: The respondent-department 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-4048-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 113 CWP-4048-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-14.02.2025 Kompal ....Petitioner Vs. Union of India & ors.

...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Avneet Singh, Mr. Pranav Jain & Mr. Navdeep Monga, Advocates, for the petitioner Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Sr. Standing counsel with Ms.Mehak Gupta, Advocate for the respondent-department. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the instant writ petition is to notice dated 29.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “Act 1961”); notices dated 13.08.2024, 11.10.2024, 27.12.2024 and 03.02.2025 issued under Section 142 (1) of the Act, 1961 for AY 2018- 2019. 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 2025.02.25 14:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-4048-2025 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 notice dated 29.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961; notices dated 13.08.2024, 11.10.2024, 27.12.2024 and 03.02.2025 issued under Section 142 (1) of the Act, 1961 for AY 2018-2019, 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 14.02.2025

Gaurav Arora

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.02.25 14:25 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 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →