AMANDEEP SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/5922/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01033996202504 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. The Court noted that the issue raised by the petitioner was covered by previous judgments of a Co-ordinate Bench in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case and Jasjit Singh's case. In those cases, the writ petitions were allowed on similar grounds, with liberty granted to the revenue to follow the prescribed procedure under the Income Tax Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if so advised. Therefore, the present writ petition was disposed of in terms of these prior judgments. The operative direction was to dispose of the writ petition in line with the precedent, implying the quashing of the impugned notice and allowing the revenue to initiate fresh proceedings if they chose to do so by adhering to the correct procedure.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Amandeep Singh, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated 11.04.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2019-2020. The petitioner argued that the issuing authority, the Income Tax Officer, Ward Udhampur, lacked jurisdiction. This was based on a CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022, which allegedly vested exclusive power to issue such notices with the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC). The revenue, represented by the Senior Standing Counsel, did not dispute this contention. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh considered the matter.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 11.04.2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2019-2020, is invalid due to lack of jurisdiction of the issuing authority, in light of the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022 which purportedly grants exclusive power to the NFAC to issue such notices? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the Income Tax Officer, Ward Udhampur, had no jurisdiction to issue the Section 148 notice, citing the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022, which allegedly states that the NFAC has exclusive power to issue such notices. 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 appearing for the Union of India did not dispute the petitioner's contention.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-5922-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 127 CWP-5922-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-04.03.2025 Amandeep Singh ....Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Udhampur, J&K & ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Vishav Bharti Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner Ms Urvashi Dhugga, Sr. Standing counsel (Through VC) for the respondent. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the instant writ petition is to notice dated 11.04.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “Act 1961”) 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 disputed the same. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the Gaurav Arora 2025.03.07 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-5922-2025 2 whole records of the case. 5. The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 11.04.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 for AY 2019-2020 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 04.03.2025

Gaurav Arora

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.03.07 17:36 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 →