DALIP SINGH vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/618/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01001147202514 January 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 previous judgments by a co-ordinate bench 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). In those cases, the writ petitions were allowed on similar grounds, granting liberty to the revenue to follow the prescribed procedure under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if advised. The reasoning was based on the assessee's argument that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which was not disputed by the revenue. The ratio decidendi is that notices issued by an authority without jurisdiction, particularly when a specific authority is designated for such actions by a circular, are liable to be quashed. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition in terms of the cited judgments, implying the quashing of the notices but allowing the revenue to re-initiate proceedings correctly.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Dalip Singh, filed a writ petition challenging notices issued under Section 148, Section 142, and Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2020-2021. The petitioner's primary contention was that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction, citing a CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022 which purportedly grants exclusive power to the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) to issue notices under Section 148. The respondent, Union of India, did not dispute this contention. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana considered the submissions and the case records.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notices dated 22.03.2024 under Section 148, 28.06.2024 and 09.08.2024 under Section 142, and 09.08.2024 under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2020-2021, are invalid due to lack of jurisdiction in 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 impugned notices because the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022 vests the exclusive power to issue notices under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 with the NFAC. Revenue's contention: The revenue did not dispute the assessee's contention.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 142,Section 143(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-618-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 124 CWP-618-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-14.01.2025 Dalip Singh ....Petitioner Vs. Union of India and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Ms. Ambika Jindal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Sr. Standing counsel with Ms. Pridhi Sandhu, Jr. Standing counsel and Ms. Muskan Gupta, Advocate for the respondent-Union of India. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the instant writ petition is to notices dated 22.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”); 28.06.2024, 09.08.2024 issued under Section 142 of the Act, 1961 & 9.08.2024 issued under Section 143 (2) of the Act, 1961, 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 2025.01.16 11:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-618-2025 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 notices dated 22.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”); 28.06.2024, 09.08.2024 issued under Section 142 of the Act, 1961 & 9.08.2024 issued under Section 143 (2) of the Act, 1961, for AY 2020-21, issued by the Issuing Authority, on the ground that the same 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 14.01.2025

Gaurav Arora

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.01.16 11:20 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 →