AKSHAY AGHI vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/722/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01004550202514 January 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 in terms of the judgments passed in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case and Jasjit Singh's case. In those cited cases, a Co-ordinate Bench had allowed similar writ petitions on the same issue. The reasoning was that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which stipulated that the NFAC has exclusive power to issue notices under Section 148 of the Act. The High Court granted liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure as laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly, if so advised. The operative direction was to dispose of the writ petition in terms of the aforementioned precedents. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Akshay Aghi, filed a writ petition challenging notices dated 03.03.2024, 16.03.2024, and 28.03.2023, issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2019-20. The petitioner also challenged all consequential proceedings. The core of the challenge was that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which allegedly vested exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices with the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC). The revenue did not dispute this contention.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notices issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2019-20 are invalid due to lack of jurisdiction of the issuing authority, in light of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which purportedly grants exclusive power to the NFAC to issue notices under Section 148 of the Act? (Question of law). Assessee's contention: The petitioner argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the impugned notices under Section 148A(b) of the Act. This was based on the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which, according to the petitioner, specifically enumerated that the NFAC has exclusive power to issue notices under Section 148 of the Act. The petitioner relied on the judgments of 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 148A(b),Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-722-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 135 CWP-722-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-14.01.2025 Akshay Aghi ....Petitioner Vs. Union of India and ors. ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Sanjay Bansal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Gurdeep Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Sr. Standing counsel with Ms. Pridhi Sandhu, Jr. Standing counsel and Ms. Muskan Gupta, Advocate for the respondent-Union of India. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the instant writ petition is to notice dated 03.03.2024, 16.03.2024 issued under Section 148-A (b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”) & 28.03.2023 issued under Section 148 A(b) of the Act, 1961, including all consequential proceedings, for AY 2019-20. 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 Gaurav Arora 2025.01.17 12:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-722-2025 2 disputed the same. 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 03.03.2024, 16.03.2024 issued under Section 148-A (b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”) & 28.03.2023 issued under Section 148 A(b) of the Act, 1961, for AY 2019-20, 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 14.01.2025

Gaurav Arora

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.01.17 12:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

More judgments on Section 148A(b)

All 524 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148A(b) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →