AMARDEEP SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/4051/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01023530202514 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. The Court noted that the issue raised by the petitioner was identical to the issues decided in the cases of Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh, where coordinate benches had allowed similar writ petitions. In those cases, the petitions were allowed on the ground that the NFAC had exclusive jurisdiction to issue notices under Section 148, as per the relevant CBDT circular. The Court followed these precedents and disposed of the present writ petition in terms of those judgments. The operative direction was to grant liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly, if so advised. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Amardeep Singh, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated 27.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2020-2021. The petitioner argued that the issuing authority, Income Tax Officer, Ward 4 Patiala, lacked jurisdiction. This was based on a CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022, which allegedly vested the exclusive power to issue such notices in the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC). The revenue, represented by the Union of India, did not dispute the petitioner's contention regarding the jurisdiction.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 27.03.2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2020-2021, is invalid due to lack of jurisdiction of the issuing authority (Income Tax Officer, Ward 4 Patiala)? (Question of law) Assessee's contention: The petitioner argued that the notice was issued without jurisdiction, relying on the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022, which purportedly grants exclusive power to the NFAC to issue notices under Section 148. The petitioner cited the judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India as precedents. Revenue's contention: The revenue did not dispute the petitioner's contention regarding the jurisdiction.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-4051-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 114 CWP-4051-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-14.02.2025 Amardeep Singh ....Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4 Patiala & ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. B.M. Monga, Mr. Rohit Kaura and Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocates for the petitioner Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Sr. Standing counsel with Ms. Muskan Gupta, Advocate 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”) 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. Gaurav Arora 2025.02.19 13:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-4051-2025 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 27.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 for AY 2020-2021 issued by respondent No. 1, on the ground that he 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 2025.02.19 13:23 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 →