GURMAIL SINGH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/8235/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01046591202524 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 previous judgments by 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). These prior judgments had allowed similar writ petitions on the same issue of jurisdictional challenge to Section 148 notices. The court granted liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Income Tax Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if so advised. The operative direction was to dispose of the writ petition in line with the cited precedents, implying the quashing of the impugned notices and order due to the jurisdictional defect raised.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Gurmail Singh, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated 29.03.2023 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, an assessment order dated 23.03.2024, and a demand notice dated 23.03.2024, all pertaining to Assessment Year 2019-2020. The petitioner argued that the authority issuing these notices lacked jurisdiction, citing a CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022 which purportedly grants exclusive power to the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) to issue Section 148 notices. The respondents, represented by the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax and others, did not dispute the petitioner's contention.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 29.03.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the assessment order dated 23.03.2024, and the demand notice dated 23.03.2024 for AY 2019-2020 are invalid due to lack of jurisdiction of the issuing authority, in light of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022. (Question of law). Assessee's contention: The issuing authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the impugned notices and order, as the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022 vests exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices with the NFAC. Revenue's contention: The revenue did not dispute the assessee's contention.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 156

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-8235-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 164 CWP-8235-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-24.03.2025 Gurmail Singh ....Petitioner Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2, Ludhiana & ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Vishav Bharti Gupta, Advocate 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 29.03.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “Act 1961”); impugned assessment order dated 23.03.2024; notice of demand dated 23.03.2024 issued under Section 156 of the Act, 1961 and consequential proceedings, for AY 2019-2020. 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 2025.03.28 11:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-8235-2025 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 29.03.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961; impugned assessment order dated 23.03.2024; notice of demand dated 23.03.2024 issued under Section 156 of the Act, 1961 and consequential proceedings, for AY 2019-2020, 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 24.03.2025

Gaurav Arora

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.03.28 11:33 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 →