NARINDER SINGH SHERGILL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/6614/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01036393202510 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. The Court noted that the issue was covered by its previous judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case and Jasjit Singh's case. In those cases, similar writ petitions challenging notices under Section 148 were allowed, with liberty granted to the revenue to follow the prescribed procedure under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if advised. The High Court disposed of the present writ petition in terms of these prior decisions. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition in line with the precedent, implying the quashing of the impugned notice with liberty to the revenue to re-initiate proceedings correctly. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Narinder Singh Shergill, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh challenging a notice dated 03.04.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2019-2020. The petitioner argued that the issuing authority, Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(5) Chandigarh, lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which purportedly grants exclusive power to the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) to issue such notices. The revenue did not dispute this contention. The High Court had previously dealt with similar issues in other writ petitions.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 03.04.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2019-2020 is without jurisdiction, in light of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which allegedly vests exclusive power to issue such notices with the NFAC? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022). Assessee's contention: The notice is invalid as the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction, citing the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022 which designates the NFAC with exclusive power. The petitioner relies on 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). Revenue's contention: The revenue 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-6614 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 171 CWP-6614-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-10.03.2025 Narinder Singh Shergill ....Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5 (5) Chandigarh & 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. Vaibhav Gupta, Jr. Standing counsel for the respondent. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the instant writ petition is to notice dated 03.04.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “Act 1961”) 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. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the Gaurav Arora 2025.03.12 19:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-6614 2 whole records of the case. 5. The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 03.04.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 for AY 2019-2020 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 19:07 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 →