JAGDEEP SINGH GILL vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/4494/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01025304202518 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 its previous judgments 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. The reasoning was that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which mandated that the NFAC has exclusive power to issue notices under Section 148. The previous judgments granted liberty to the revenue to follow the prescribed procedure under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if advised. Therefore, the present writ petition was disposed of on the same basis, implying that the impugned notice and assessment order were vitiated by lack of jurisdiction. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition in terms of the prior judgments, which included liberty to the revenue to re-initiate proceedings correctly.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Vikram Singh Kahlon, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated 28.03.2024 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, an assessment order dated 30.12.2024 under Section 147 read with Section 144B, and a notice of demand dated 30.12 for Assessment Year 2020-2021. The petitioner argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which vests exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices in the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC). The revenue did not dispute this contention. The High Court considered its own previous judgments on similar issues.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 28.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the assessment order dated 30.12.2024 under Section 147 read with Section 144B, and the consequential proceedings for AY 2020-2021 are without jurisdiction, in light of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022. (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner contended that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the impugned notice and orders. This was based on the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which specifically states that the NFAC has exclusive power to issue notices under Section 148 of the Act, 1961. The petitioner relied on the judgments of a Co-ordinate Bench 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 the Union of India did not dispute the petitioner's contentions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 147,Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-4558-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 150 CWP-4558-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-18.02.2025 Vikram Singh Kahlon

....Petitioner Vs. Union of India & ors.

...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. J.K. Kamboj, 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 28.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”); assessment order dated 30.12.2024 issued under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Act, 1961; noice of demand dated 30.12 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 Gaurav Arora 2025.02.25 14:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-4558-2025 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 28.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961; assessment order dated 30.12.2024 issued under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Act, 1961; noice of demand dated 30.12 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 18.02.2025

Gaurav Arora

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.02.25 14:32 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 →