DHEERAJ BAREJA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 PANIPAT AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/6100/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01034400202518 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 in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others. In those cited cases, a Coordinate Bench had allowed similar writ petitions on the same issue, 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 regarding the lack of jurisdiction of the issuing authority due to the CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022, which the revenue did not dispute. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition in terms of the aforementioned precedents, implying the quashing of the impugned notice and proceedings, with liberty to the revenue to re-initiate if they choose to follow the correct procedure.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Dheeraj Bareja, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated March 19, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings for Assessment Year 2020-2021. The petitioner argued that the authority issuing the notice lacked jurisdiction, citing a CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022, which purportedly grants exclusive power to the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) to issue such notices. The respondents, Union of India and others, were represented by counsel. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh considered the matter.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated March 19, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2020-2021, and consequential proceedings are invalid due to lack of jurisdiction of the issuing authority, in light of the CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022, which allegedly vests exclusive power in the NFAC to issue such notices? (Question of law). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner contended that the notice was issued without jurisdiction, relying on the CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022, which purportedly grants exclusive power to the NFAC. The petitioner cited the judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others as precedents. Revenue's Contention: The learned counsel for the Union of India did not dispute the petitioner's contentions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-6100-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 124 CWP-6100-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-18.03.2025 Dheeraj Bareja ....Petitioner Vs. Union of India and ors.

...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Ms. Divya Arora and Mr. Amit Kaushik, Advocates, for the petitioner Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal, Sr. Standing counsel (Through VC) with Mr. V. Vedika Rao, Advocate for the respondent. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the instant writ petition is to notice dated 19.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”) and conseuqential proceedings, 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 Gaurav Arora 2025.03.21 19:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-6100-2025 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 19.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and conseuqential proceedings, 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 18.03.2025

Gaurav Arora

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.03.21 19:15 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 →