SURJEET SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/5701/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01032506202501 March 2025Bench: MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the writ petition, disposing of it in terms of the judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case and Jasjit Singh's case. In those cited cases, a co-ordinate bench had allowed similar writ petitions on the same issue. The High Court granted liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly, if so advised. The operative direction was to dispose of the writ petition in line with the precedents, implying that the impugned notices and orders were set aside on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, but the revenue was given the opportunity to re-initiate the process correctly. Any pending applications were also disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Surjeet Singh, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated 29.03.2024 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, an order dated 20.01.2025 under Section 147 read with Section 144, a notice of demand dated 20.01.2025 under Section 156, and a penalty show cause notice dated 20.01.2025, all pertaining to Assessment Year 2020-2021. The petitioner's primary contention was that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which purportedly 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 29.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential orders and notices for AY 2020-2021 are invalid due to lack of jurisdiction by the issuing authority, in light of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022? (Question of law). Assessee's contention: The issuing authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the notice under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, as per the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which vests exclusive power with the NFAC. The assessee relied on the judgments 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 contention: The revenue did not dispute the assessee's contention.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 147,Section 144,Section 156

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-5701-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 112 CWP-5701-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-01.03.2025 Surjeet Singh ....Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), Ferozepur & ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. B.M, Monga, Advocates, for the petitioner. Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal, Sr. Standing counsel (Through VC) with Mr. V. Vedika Rao, Advocate for the respondent-Union of India. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the instant writ petition is to notice dated 29.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “Act 1961”); order dated 20.01.2025 issued under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Act, 1961 and notice of demand dated 20.01.2025 issued under Section 156 of the Act, 1961; penalty show cause notice dated 20.01.2025, 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 2025.03.05 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-5701-2025 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 29.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961; order dated 20.01.2025 issued under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Act, 1961 and notice of demand dated 20.01.2025 issued under Section 156 of the Act, 1961; penalty show cause notice dated 20.01.2025, for AY 2020-2021, on the ground that the Issuing Authority 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 01.03.2025

Gaurav Arora

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.03.05 17:20 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 →