CHARAN PREET SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/6209/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01035462202505 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 in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case (decided on 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh's case (decided on 29.07.2024). These previous judgments had allowed similar writ petitions on the same issue, which concerned the jurisdiction of the issuing authority for notices under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in view of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022. The reasoning was that the issuing authority lacked the requisite jurisdiction. The operative direction in the cited cases, and thus in this case, was to grant liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure as laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly, if so advised. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Charan Preet Singh, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated 04.04.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and an order dated 04.04.2023 issued under Section 148A(d) of the Act, for Assessment Year 2016-2017. The petitioner argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which stipulated that the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) has exclusive power to issue such notices. The respondents, Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Chandigarh, and others, did not dispute this contention. The High Court considered previous judgments on identical issues.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 04.04.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the order dated 04.04.2023 issued under Section 148A(d) of the Act, for AY 2016-2017, are invalid due to lack of jurisdiction of the issuing authority, in light of CBDT Circular dated 29.03.2022, which vests exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices with the NFAC? Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner contended that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the impugned notice and order, relying on the CBDT Circular dated 29.03.2022, which mandates that the NFAC has exclusive power in this regard. The petitioner cited the judgments 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) as covering the present issue. Revenue's Contentions: 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,Section 148A(d)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-6209-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 151 CWP-6209-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-05.03.2025 Charan Preet Singh

....Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer,ITO Ward 2 (1), Chandigarh & ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. B.M. Monga, Mr. Rohit Kaura and Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocates for the petitioner. Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Jr. Standing counsel for the respondent. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the instant writ petition is to notice dated 04.04.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “Act 1961”) & order dated 04.04.2023 issued under Section 148 A(d) of the Act, 1961 and consequential actions for AY 2016-2017. 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. Gaurav Arora 2025.03.07 17:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-6209-2025 2 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 04.04.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 & order dated 04.04.2023 issued under Section 148 A(d) of the Act, 1961 and consequential actions for AY 2016-2017, 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 05.03.2025

Gaurav Arora

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.03.07 17:32 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 →