BHUPINDER SINGH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/6999/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01039198202512 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 the judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case and Jasjit Singh's case. These previous judgments had allowed writ petitions on the same issue, finding that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction based on the CBDT circular/notification. The High Court granted liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if so advised. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition in line with the precedents, implying the quashing of the impugned notice and consequential actions, with the possibility for the revenue to re-initiate proceedings correctly. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Bhupinder Singh, challenged a notice dated 10.01.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential actions for Assessment Year 2021-2022. The challenge was based on the contention that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction. The petitioner argued that a CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022 stipulated that the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) has exclusive power to issue such notices. The revenue, represented by the Union of India, did not dispute this contention. The High Court considered previous judgments by its Co-ordinate Benches on similar issues.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 10.01.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2021-2022 is invalid on the grounds that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction, in light of the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022 which purportedly grants exclusive power to the NFAC to issue such notices? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 148 of the Act). Assessee's Contention: The issuing authority had no jurisdiction to issue the notice dated 10.01.2024 due to the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022, which vests exclusive power in the NFAC to issue notices under Section 148 of the Act. The assessee relied 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 assessee's contention.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-6999-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 154 CWP-6999-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-12.03.2025 Bhupinder Singh ....Petitioner Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Officer, 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. Ranvijay Singh, Sr. Standing counsel for the respondent-Union of India. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the present petition is to notice dated 10.01.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”) and conseuqential actions, for AY 2021-2022. 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 2025.03.19 17:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-6999-2025 2 whole records of the case. 5. The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 10.01.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and conseuqential actions, for AY 2021-2022, 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 12.03.2025

Gaurav Arora

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.03.19 17:30 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 →