PANKAJ SINGLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/6346/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01035664202506 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, disposing of it in terms of two previous judgments by a Co-ordinate Bench: Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India (CWP No. 15745-2024, decided on 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India (CWP No. 21509-2023, decided on 29.07.2024). In those cases, the writ petitions were allowed on the same issue of jurisdiction, with liberty granted to the revenue to follow the prescribed procedure under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if so advised. The reasoning implicitly accepted the assessee's argument that the notices were issued without proper jurisdiction. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition in line with the precedents, which involved allowing the challenge to the notices and orders but permitting the revenue to re-initiate proceedings correctly.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Pankaj Singla, challenged a notice dated 07.04.2023 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, a show cause notice dated 28.02.2025 under Section 147, and an order dated 06.04.2023 under Section 148A(d), all pertaining to Assessment Year 2019-2020. The challenge was based on the assertion that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which purportedly granted exclusive power to the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) to issue Section 148 notices. The revenue, represented by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Hissar, and others, did not dispute the petitioner's contention.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 07.04.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the show cause notice dated 28.02.2025 under Section 147, and the order dated 06.04.2023 under Section 148A(d) for AY 2019-2020 are without jurisdiction, in light of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022. (Question of law and mixed fact/law, turning on Section 148 and CBDT Circular dated 29.03.2022). Assessee's Contention: The issuing authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the impugned notices and order due to the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which vests exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices with the NFAC. Revenue's Contention: The revenue did not dispute the petitioner's contention regarding the jurisdiction.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 147,Section 148A(d)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-6346-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 144

CWP-6346-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-06.03.2025 Pankaj Singla

....Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Hissar & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Nikhil Goyal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal, Sr. Standing counsel with Mr. V. Vedika Rao, Advocate for the respondent. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the present petition is to notice dated 07.04.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”); show cause notice dated 28.02.2025 issued under Section 147 of the Act, 1961; order dated 06.04.2023 issued under Section 148 A(d) of the Act, 1961 and all consequential actions, 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. Gaurav Arora 2025.03.12 17:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-6346-2025 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 07.04.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961; show cause notice dated 28.02.2025 issued under Section 147 of the Act, 1961; order dated 06.04.2023 issued under Section 148 A(d) of the Act, 1961 and all consequential actions, for AY 2019-2020 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 06.03.2025

Gaurav Arora

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.03.12 17:45 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 →