HARJIT SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/8029/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01044728202521 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 vs. Union of India and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India. These prior judgments had allowed similar writ petitions on the same issue of jurisdictional challenge to Section 148 notices. The reasoning was based on the precedent set by the co-ordinate benches. The operative direction was to dispose of the present writ petition in line with those decisions. The judgments in the cited cases had granted liberty to the revenue to follow the prescribed procedure under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if advised. No specific issue was left undecided; the court followed established precedent.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Harjit Singh, challenged a notice dated 13.04.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2016-2017. The challenge was also extended to all consequential actions. The petitioner argued that the authority issuing the notice lacked jurisdiction, citing a CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022 which purportedly vested exclusive power to issue such notices in the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC). The revenue, represented by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(1), Ludhiana, and others, did not dispute the petitioner's contention regarding the applicability of previous judgments.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 13.04.2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2016-2017, is invalid due to lack of jurisdiction in the issuing authority? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the Section 148 notice, relying on the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which allegedly grants exclusive power to the NFAC for issuing such notices. The petitioner cited the judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India as precedents. Revenue's Contention: The revenue did not dispute the petitioner's contentions and implicitly conceded to the applicability of the cited judgments.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-8029-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 140 CWP-8029-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-21.03.2025 Harjit 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 13.04.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”) and 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 Gaurav Arora 2025.03.25 13:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-8029-2025 2 whole records of the case. 5. The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 13.04.2023 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 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 →