MOHAN SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/555/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01004111202514 January 2025Bench: MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the writ petition. The Court noted that a Co-ordinate Bench had previously decided similar issues in the cases of Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others, and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others. In those cases, the writ petitions were allowed, and liberty was granted to the revenue to follow the prescribed procedure under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if advised. Following these precedents, the present writ petition was disposed of in terms of those judgments. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition in terms of the aforementioned judgments, implying the quashing of the impugned notice and granting liberty to the revenue to re-initiate proceedings correctly.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Mohan Singh, challenged a notice dated 21.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2020-2021. The petitioner argued that the issuing authority, the Income Tax Officer, lacked jurisdiction. This was based on a CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022, which allegedly grants exclusive power to the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) to issue such notices. The respondents, including the 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 21.03.2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2020-2021, is invalid due to lack of jurisdiction by the issuing authority (Income Tax Officer). This issue turns on the interpretation of the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the notice is invalid because the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022 vests exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices in the NFAC, not the Income Tax Officer. Revenue's Contention: The revenue did not dispute the petitioner's contention and implicitly accepted the applicability of prior judgments on this issue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-555-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 114 CWP-555-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-14.01.2025 Mohan Singh ....Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. B.M. Monga, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal, Sr. Standing counsel for the respondent-Union of India. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the instant writ petition is to notice dated 21.03.2024 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 2025.01.16 11:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-555-2025 2 whole records of the case. 5. The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 21.03.2024 under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 for AY 2020-21, 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 14.01.2025

Gaurav Arora

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.01.16 11:20 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 →