JAI BHAGWAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/507/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01003487202513 January 2025Bench: MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the issue raised by the petitioner was covered by previous 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). In those cases, the writ petitions were allowed on similar grounds, with liberty granted to the revenue to follow the prescribed procedure under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if advised. Consequently, the present writ petition was disposed of in terms of these prior judgments. The operative direction was to dispose of the writ petition in terms of the cited precedents, implying the quashing of the impugned notice and order, with liberty to the revenue to re-initiate proceedings if permissible under law. No specific amount in dispute was recorded.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Jai Bhagwan, challenged a notice dated March 26, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and an order dated August 29, 2024, issued under Section 148A(d) of the Act, for Assessment Year 2020-2021. The challenge was directed against the Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Yamuna Nagar, and others. The petitioner argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022, which allegedly vested exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices with the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC). The revenue did not dispute this contention.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated March 26, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2020-2021, is invalid on the grounds that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction in light of the CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022, which purportedly grants exclusive power to the NFAC to issue such notices? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 148 and CBDT Circular dated 29.03.2022). Assessee's contention: The Income Tax Officer lacked jurisdiction to issue the notice under Section 148 as per the CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022, which vests exclusive power with the NFAC. Revenue's contention: The revenue did not dispute the assessee's contention.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 148A(d)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-507-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 151 CWP-507-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-13.01.2025 Jai Bhagwan ....Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer,Ward-3, Yamuna Nagar & others ...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. Pridhi Sandhu, Jr. Standing counsel Ms. Muskan Gupta, Advocate for the respondent-Union of India. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the instant writ petition is to notice dated 26.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”) and order dated 29.08.2024 issued under Section 148A(d) of the 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 . Gaurav Arora 2025.01.21 14:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-507-2025 2 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 26.03.2024 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 13.01.2025

Gaurav Arora

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.01.21 14:34 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 →