MANJOT SINGH MANN vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CWP/5334/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01030422202527 February 2025Bench: MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted 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. In the present case, an appeal was pending before the Appellate Authority. Therefore, 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 challenge but directed the appellate authority to consider it in light of the precedents. No specific amount in dispute was recorded. The operative direction was to the Appellate Authority to decide the pending appeal.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Manjot Singh Mann, challenged a notice dated March 29, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential order dated March 28, 2024, under Section 144 read with Section 147 for Assessment Year 2019-2020. The challenge was based on the assertion that the Section 148 notice was issued without jurisdiction by the 'JAO' instead of the 'NFAC', as stipulated by a CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022. The petitioner also stated that an appeal was pending before the Appellate Authority. The respondent-department did not dispute the petitioner's contentions.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated March 29, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2019-2020, is without jurisdiction and invalid, as it was issued by the 'JAO' instead of the 'NFAC' in contravention of the CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022). Assessee's Contention: The Section 148 notice is invalid because it was issued by the 'JAO' and not the 'NFAC', which has exclusive power to issue such notices as per the CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022. The petitioner relies on the judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others, and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others. Revenue's Contention: The revenue did not dispute the petitioner's contentions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 144,Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 134 CWP-5334-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-27.02.2025 Manjot Singh Mann ....Petitioner Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax , Central Circle 2, Ludiana

...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. S.K. Mukhi, Advocate (Through VC) for the petitioner Mr. Varun Issar, Sr. Standing counsel with Ms. Pridhi Sandhu, Jr. Standing counsel for the respondent-department. *** 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 28.03.2024 issued under Section 144 read with Section 147 of the Act, 1961, for A.Y 2019-2020, 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 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 Gaurav Arora 2025.03.04 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

2 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 28.03.2024 issued under Section 144 read with Section 147 of the Act, 1961, for A.Y 2019-2020, 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 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 Gaurav Arora 2025.03.04 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

3 judgments mentioned above. 8. All the pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (ARUN PALLI) (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE JUDGE 27.02.2025

Gaurav Arora

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.03.04 11:15 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 →