SHIV TRADERS vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/5406/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01030663202527 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 the judgments passed by a Co-ordinate Bench in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case (decided on 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh's case (decided on 29.07.2024). These previous judgments had allowed writ petitions on similar issues, granting liberty to the revenue to follow the prescribed procedure under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if advised. The reasoning is that the issue raised by the petitioner was covered by these prior decisions. The operative direction is to dispose of the petition in line with these precedents, implying the notice issued by the ITO was likely vitiated due to lack of jurisdiction as per the cited circular and case law. No specific amount in dispute was mentioned.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Shiv Traders, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated 26.02.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2020-2021. The petitioner argued that the Income Tax Officer (ITO) Ward 2(1) Ludhiana lacked jurisdiction to issue this notice, citing a CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022 which allegedly grants exclusive power to the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) for issuing such notices. The respondents, including the ITO and Union of India, did not dispute the petitioner's contention regarding the applicability of previous judgments.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 26.02.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2020-2021 is without jurisdiction, in light of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which allegedly vests exclusive power with the NFAC to issue such notices? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 148 of the Act). Assessee's contention: The ITO had no jurisdiction to issue the notice as per the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which grants exclusive power to the NFAC. The petitioner relies on the judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India. Revenue's contention: The revenue did not dispute the petitioner's contention regarding the applicability of the cited judgments.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-5406-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 144 CWP-5406-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-27.02.2025 Shiv Traders ....Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer, ITO Ward 2 (1) Ludhiana & ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Vishav Bharti Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Sr. Standing counsel for the respondent. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the instant writ petition is to notice dated 26.02.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “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 . 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 Gaurav Arora 2025.03.04 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-5406-2025 2 whole records of the case. 5. The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 26.02.2024 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 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 →