SURINDER SINGH vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/80/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01000286202509 January 2025Bench: MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the issue raised by the petitioner was covered by the judgments of a Co-ordinate Bench in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case and Jasjit Singh's case. In those cases, the writ petitions were allowed on similar grounds, with liberty granted to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if so advised. Consequently, the present writ petition was disposed of in terms of the aforementioned judgments. The operative direction was to dispose of the writ petition in terms of the precedents, implying that the notices were quashed for want of jurisdiction, but the revenue was given the liberty to re-issue them following the correct procedure. No specific issue was left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Surinder Singh, challenged notices dated March 29, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and July 25, 2024, issued under Section 142(1) of the Act, for Assessment Year 2018-2019. The challenge also extended to all consequential proceedings. The petitioner argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular/notification dated March 29, 2022, which stipulated that the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) has exclusive power to issue notices under Section 148. The revenue did not dispute this contention. The High Court had previously dealt with similar issues in other writ petitions.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notices dated March 29, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and July 25, 2024, issued under Section 142(1) of the Act, for AY 2018-2019, are without jurisdiction, in view of the CBDT circular/notification dated March 29, 2022, which vests exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices with the NFAC? (Question of law). Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner contended that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the impugned notices, relying on the CBDT circular/notification dated March 29, 2022, which mandates that the NFAC has exclusive power to issue notices under Section 148 of the Act, 1961. The petitioner cited 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) as precedents. Revenue's Contentions: 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 142(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-80-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 116 CWP-80-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-09.01.2025 Surinder Singh ....Petitioner Vs. Union of India and others ...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 for the respondent-Union of India. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the instant writ petition is to notices dated 29.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”) and 25.07.2024 issued under Section 142 (1) of the Act, 1961 including all consequential proceedings, for AY 2018-2019. 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 2025.01.15 12:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-80-2025 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 notices dated 29.03.2024 and 25.07.2024 mentioned above for AY 2018-2019, 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 09.01.2025

Gaurav Arora

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.01.15 12:43 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 →