SHUSHANT SETHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND ANTOHER

PDF · subscribers
CWP/5723/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01031088202501 March 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, disposing of it 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 prior judgments had allowed writ petitions on similar issues, granting liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if so advised. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's contention that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which purportedly vested exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices with the NFAC. The revenue did not contest this argument. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition in line with the cited precedents, implying the quashing of the impugned notices and orders, with liberty to the revenue to re-initiate proceedings if they chose to follow the correct procedure.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Sushant Sethi, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated 06.04.2023 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, an order dated 06.04.2023 under Section 148A(d), and a show cause notice dated 10.03.2023 under Section 148A(b) for Assessment Year 2019-2020. The petitioner argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which purportedly granted exclusive power to the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) to issue Section 148 notices. The respondents, represented by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-I, Panipat, and another, did not dispute the petitioner's contention.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the issuing authority had the jurisdiction to issue the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential orders, for AY 2019-2020, in light of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the impugned notices and orders. This was based on the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which allegedly stipulated that only the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) had the exclusive power to issue notices under Section 148 of the Act. The petitioner relied on the judgments of a Co-ordinate Bench of the High 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 Contention: The learned counsel for the Union of India did not dispute the petitioner's contention.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 148A(b),Section 148A(d)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 116 CWP-5723-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-01.03.2025 Sushant Sethi ....Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-I, Panipat & anr. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Nitin Kanwar and Ms. Nisha Rana, Advocates, for the petitioner Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal, Sr. Standing counsel (Through VC) with Mr. V. Vedia Rao, Advocate for the respondent. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the instant writ petition is to notice dated 06.04.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”); order dated 06.04.2023 issued under Section 148 A(d) of the Act, 1961; show cause notice dated 10.03.2023 issued under Section 148 A(b) of the Act, 1961 and conseuqential actions, for AY 2019-2020. 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 Gaurav Arora 2025.03.05 17:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

2 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 06.04.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961; order dated 06.04.2023 issued under Section 148 A(d) of the Act, 1961; show cause notice dated 10.03.2023 issued under Section 148 A(b) of the Act, 1961 and conseuqential actions, for AY 2019-2020, 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 17:21 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 →