SARABJIT SINGH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/6601/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01037186202510 March 2025Bench: MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, after hearing the parties and perusing the records, 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 earlier judgments had allowed similar writ petitions on the same issue, which concerned the jurisdiction to issue Section 148 notices. The Co-ordinate Bench had granted liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if so advised. Consequently, the present writ petition was disposed of on the same lines, implying that the Section 148 notice was considered invalid due to the jurisdictional issue raised, and the revenue was permitted to re-initiate the process if it chose to do so, following the correct procedure. All pending applications were also disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Sarabjit Singh, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated 24.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2016-2017. The petitioner argued that the issuing authority, Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Ludhiana, lacked jurisdiction. This was based on 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 revenue, represented by learned counsel, did not dispute this contention. The High Court perused the records and heard the parties.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 24.03.2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2016-2017, is invalid due to lack of jurisdiction of the issuing authority, in light of the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022? Assessee's contention: The petitioner argued that the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Ludhiana, had no jurisdiction to issue the Section 148 notice. This was because, as per the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022, the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) has exclusive power to issue such notices. The petitioner relied on judgments from a Co-ordinate Bench of the High Court 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). 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-6601-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 167 CWP-6601-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-10.03.2025 Sarabjit Singh ....Petitioner Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Ludhiana & ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Vishav Bharti Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Varun Issar, Sr. Standing counsel with Ms. Pridhi Jaswinder Sandhu, Jr. Standing counsel for the respondent. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the instant writ petition is to notice dated 24.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “Act 1961”) 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 2025.03.12 19:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-6601-2025 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 24.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 for AY 2016-2017 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 10.03.2025

Gaurav Arora

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.03.12 19:08 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 →