SARABJIT SINGH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/6702/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01037889202511 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 its previous 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). In those cases, the Court had allowed similar writ petitions on the same issue concerning the jurisdiction to issue notices under Section 148. The Court granted liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if so advised. The principle established is that notices under Section 148 should be issued by the authority designated by the relevant CBDT circulars, and failure to adhere to this can render the notice invalid. All pending applications were also disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Sarabjit Singh, challenged a notice dated 24.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2013-2014. 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 grants exclusive power to the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) to issue such notices. The revenue, represented by Sr. Standing counsel and Jr. Standing counsel, did not dispute the petitioner's contention regarding the applicability of previous judgments.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 24.03.2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2013-2014, is invalid due to lack of jurisdiction of the issuing authority, in light of the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022. The petitioner contended that the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022 vests exclusive power to issue notices under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, with the NFAC, and therefore, the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax lacked the jurisdiction to issue the impugned notice. The revenue did not dispute this contention, implicitly agreeing that the issue is covered by prior judgments.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-6702-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 144 CWP-6702-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-11.03.2025 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 2013-2014. 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 2025.03.18 17:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-6702-2025 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 2013-2014 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 11.03.2025

Gaurav Arora

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.03.18 17:48 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 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →