SUNIL DHIMAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/4785/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01026515202504 March 2025Bench: MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that the issue raised by the petitioner is covered by previous judgments of a coordinate bench in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India, where similar writ petitions were allowed. In those cases, the revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if advised. Since the petitioner has an appeal pending before the Appellate Authority, the High Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the Appellate Authority to decide the petitioner's appeal in terms of the aforementioned judgments. The Court did not decide the merits of the jurisdictional issue in this writ petition but directed the appellate authority to consider it in light of the precedents.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Sunil Dhiman, has filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated 29.07.2022 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, an assessment order dated 11.05.2023 under Section 147 read with Section 144, a demand notice dated 11.05.2023 under Section 156, and a penalty notice dated 11.05.2023 under Section 270A, all pertaining to Assessment Year 2013-2014. The petitioner argues that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which vests exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices with the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC). The petitioner has also preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority, which is pending.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 29.07.2022 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential orders are invalid due to lack of jurisdiction by the issuing authority, in light of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022 vesting exclusive power with the NFAC? (Question of law) The assessee (petitioner) contends that the notice and subsequent orders are bad in law as the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction, citing the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022 which mandates that only the NFAC has the exclusive power to issue notices under Section 148. The assessee relies on coordinate bench judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India. The revenue (respondents) has not disputed this contention.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 147,Section 144,Section 156,Section 270A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-4785-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 124 CWP-4785-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-04.03.2025 Sunil Dhiman ....Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2, Mandi Gobindgarh, HQ Sirhind & ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Rishabh Kapoor, Advocate (Through VC) for the petitioner Mr. Varun Issar, Sr. Standing counsel, for the respondent. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the instant writ petition is to notice dated 29.07.2022 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”); assessment order dated 11.05.2023 issued under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Act, 1961; demand notice dated 11.05.2023 issued under Section 156 of the Act, 1961 and conseuqential penalty notice dated 11.05.2023 issued under Section 270(A) of Act, 1961, for AY 2013- 2014. 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 Gaurav Arora 2025.03.07 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-4785-2025 2 others (CWP No. 21509-2023 and other connected matters), decided on 29.07.2024. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner has preferred an appeal and the same is pending before the Appellate Authority. 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 whole records of the case. 5. The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 29.07.2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961; assessment order dated 11.05.2023 issued under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Act, 1961; demand notice dated 11.05.2023 issued under Section 156 of the Act, 1961 and conseuqential penalty notice dated 11.05.2023 issued under Section 270(A) of Act, 1961, for AY 2013-2014, 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. Since in the present case, the appeal is pending before the Appellate Authority, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Gaurav Arora 2025.03.07 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-4785-2025 3 Appellate Authority to decide the appeal of the petitioner, in terms of the judgments mentioned above. 8. All the pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

(ARUN PALLI) (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE JUDGE 04.03.2025

Gaurav Arora

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.03.07 17:36 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 →