JATINDER SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/7875/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01044958202521 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 the judgments passed in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case (decided on 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh's case (decided on 29.07.2024). In those referred cases, co-ordinate benches had allowed similar writ petitions on the same issue, which was the lack of jurisdiction of the issuing authority due to the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022. The reasoning was that the NFAC had exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices. The operative direction in those cases, and therefore in this case, was to grant liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure as laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly, if so advised. No specific issue was left undecided; the entire challenge was decided based on the precedent.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Jatinder Singh, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated 27.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, an assessment order dated 08.03.2025 under Section 147 read with Sections 144 and 144-B, a demand notice dated 08.03.2025 under Section 156, and a penalty show cause notice dated 08.03.2025, all pertaining to Assessment Year 2017-2018. The petitioner's primary contention was that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which purportedly 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 notice dated 27.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the subsequent assessment and penalty proceedings for AY 2017-2018 are invalid on the ground that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction, in light of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022 vesting exclusive power with the NFAC? (Question of law). Assessee's contention: The petitioner argued that the issuing authority had no jurisdiction to issue the impugned notices and orders because the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022 specifically states that the NFAC has exclusive power to issue notices under Section 148 of the Act, 1961. The petitioner relied on judgments of a co-ordinate bench 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 contentions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 147,Section 144,Section 144-B,Section 156

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-7875-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 118 CWP-7875-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-21.03.2025 Jatinder Singh

....Petitioner Vs. Income Tax , ITO Ward Samana & ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. B.M. Monga, Mr. Rohit Kaura and Mr. Rajiv Sharma, 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 27.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “Act 1961”), assessment order dated 08.03.2025 issued under Section 147 read with Section 144 and 144-B of the Act, 1961; demand notice dated 08.03.2025 issued under Section 156 of the Act, 1961; consequential penalty show cause notice daed 08.03.2025 for AY 2017-2018. 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 . Gaurav Arora 2025.03.25 13:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-7875-2025 2 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. 5. The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 27.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, assessment order dated 08.03.2025 issued under Section 147 read with Section 144 and 144-B of the Act, 1961; demand notice dated 08.03.2025 issued under Section 156 of the Act, 1961; consequential penalty show cause notice daed 08.03.2025 for AY 2017-2018 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 21.03.2025

Gaurav Arora

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.03.25 13:03 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 →