BALVINDER SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/7601/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01042923202519 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 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 prior judgments had allowed writ petitions on similar issues, granting liberty to the revenue to follow the prescribed procedure under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if advised. The reasoning was based on the precedent set by the Co-ordinate Bench on the identical issue raised by the petitioner regarding the jurisdiction of the issuing authority in light of the CBDT circular. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition in terms of the cited judgments, implying that the notice under Section 148 was quashed, with liberty to the revenue to re-issue it following the correct procedure. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Balvinder Singh, challenged a notice dated 28.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2016-2017, and all consequential actions. The challenge was based on the assertion that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022, which purportedly grants exclusive power to the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) to issue such notices. The revenue, represented by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 6 (1), Ludhiana, and others, was the respondent. The matter was heard by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 28.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2016-2017 is without jurisdiction, in light of the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022, which allegedly vests exclusive power in the NFAC to issue such notices? (Question of law) Assessee's contention: The issuing authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the notice under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, as per the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022, which stipulates that the NFAC has exclusive power for such issuances. 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 learned counsel for the Union of India 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-7601-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 186 CWP-7601-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-19.03.2025 Balvinder Singh

....Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 6 (1), Ludhiana & ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Vishav Bharti Gupta, Mr. Ubhai Bharti Gupta, Advocates for the petitioner. Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Sr. Standing counsel for the respondent. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the instant writ petition is to notice dated 28.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”) 0nd all consequential actions, 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. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole records of the case. Gaurav Arora 2025.03.24 14:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-7601-2025 2 5. The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 28.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and all consequential actions, for AY 2016-2017 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 19.03.2025

Gaurav Arora

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.03.24 14:53 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 →