PAWANPREET SINGH GREWAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/5237/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01030226202525 February 2025Bench: MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that the petitioner had challenged the notice dated March 29, 2023, under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential actions, on the grounds that it was issued without jurisdiction by a 'JAO' instead of the 'NFAC', citing the CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022. The Court observed that a Co-ordinate Bench had previously allowed writ petitions on the same issue in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case and Jasjit Singh's case, granting liberty to the revenue to follow the prescribed procedure. Since the judgment records that an appeal was pending before the Appellate Authority in the present case, 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. Any pending applications were also disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Pawanpreet Singh Grewal, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated March 29, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential actions including an order dated January 12, 2024, under Section 144 read with Section 147, a demand notice dated January 12, 2024, under Section 156, and a penalty order dated April 19, 2024, under Section 272A for Assessment Year 2019-2020. The primary contention was that the Section 148 notice was issued without jurisdiction by a 'JAO' instead of the 'NFAC'. The petitioner also stated that an appeal was pending before the Appellate Authority.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated March 29, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is without jurisdiction and invalid, having been issued by a 'JAO' instead of the 'NFAC', as per the CBDT circular/notification dated March 29, 2022? (Question of law and fact, turning on Section 148 and CBDT Circular dated 29.03.2022). Assessee's contentions: The notice under Section 148 was issued without jurisdiction by the 'JAO' instead of the 'NFAC', which has exclusive power to issue such notices. The petitioner relies on judgments from a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court 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 contentions: 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 144,Section 147,Section 156,Section 272A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-5237-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 130 CWP-5237-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-25.02.2025 Pawanpreet Singh Grewal ....Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 6 (1), Ludhiana & ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Rishabh Kapoor, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Sr. Standing counsel for the respondent. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the present petition is to notice dated 29.03.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”) and all consequential actions, as order dated 12.01.2024 issued under Section 144 read with Section 147 of the Act, 1961, for A.Y 2019-2020 along with notice of demand dated 12.01.2024 issued under Section 156 of the Act, 1961 and consequential penalty order dated 19.04.2024 issued under Section 272A of the Act, 1961, since the notice dated 29.03.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 was without jurisdiction and issued by ‘JAO’ instead of ‘NFAC’. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the issue involved in the above writ petition is covered by the judgment passed by a Gaurav Arora 2025.02.28 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-5237-2025 2 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. 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 notice dated 29.03.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and all consequential actions, as order dated 12.01.2024 issued under Section 144 read with Section 147 of the Act, 1961, for A.Y 2019-2020 along with notice of demand dated 12.01.2024 issued under Section 156 of the Act, 1961 and consequential penalty order dated 19.04.2024 issued under Section 272A of the Act, 1961, since the notice dated 29.03.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 was without jurisdiction and issued by ‘JAO’ instead of ‘NFAC’, 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 Gaurav Arora 2025.02.28 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-5237-2025 3 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 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 25.02.2025

Gaurav Arora

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.02.28 17:28 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 →