DAINIK SAVERA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CWP/6134/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01032721202518 March 2025Bench: MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, in its decision dated 18.03.2025, disposed of the writ petition 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 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 argument regarding the lack of jurisdiction of the issuing authority due to the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which was not disputed by the revenue. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition in terms of the cited precedents.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s Dainik Savera Transmission Network, challenged a notice dated 14.02.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential actions for Assessment Year 2021-2022. The challenge was based on the assertion that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction, citing a CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022 which allegedly vested exclusive power to issue such notices in the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC). The respondent was the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1, Jalandhar. The matter was heard by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 14.02.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2021-2022 is without jurisdiction, 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 notice was issued without jurisdiction because the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022 stipulated that the NFAC has exclusive power to issue notices under Section 148 of the Act, 1961. They relied on judgments from a co-ordinate bench of the High Court in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India. 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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-6134-2025 1 N THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 126

CWP-6134-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-18.03.2025 M/s Dainik Savera Transmission Network ....Petitioner Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax , Central Circle 1, Jalandhar ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. S.K. Mukhi, Advocate with Mr. Iqbal Roshan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Varun Issar, Sr. Standing counsel with Ms. Pridhi J. Sandhu, Jr. Standing counsel for the respondent. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the present petition is to notice dated 14.02.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”); and consequential actions, for AY 2021-2022. 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 2025.03.24 14:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-6134-2025 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 14.02.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and consequential actions, for AY 2021-2022 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 18.03.2025

Gaurav Arora

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.03.24 14:44 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 →